Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:unfortunately... (Score 1) 318

Utilities have to recover their capital costs. They paid $X for a shiny new power plant. And just because you aren't using it doesn't mean that the utilities commission isn't going to let them earn their regulated ROI on it. They take their costs and spread them across fewer and fewer kWhs sold. Prices go up.

Comment Re:4 times the horsepower you need (Score 1) 481

how about getting cyclists OFF the road and onto dedicated paths

Seattle wants the cyclists on the roads with cars. They serve as traffic calming devices (human speed bumps).

Actual cyclists would love dedicated trails, lanes and signals. But the anti-car activists who show up at city council meetings wearing Lycra, helmets and funny shoes would rather have them wobbling around right in front of you.

Comment Re:Markets... (Score 5, Insightful) 320

the antibiotics given to animals are very weak

That's bad. Very bad. Because now you've created an environment which knocks off the weak strains of bacteria making room for more robust strains. If you can't administer something strong enough to kill them all, just don't bother.

How about giving farm animals a bit more living space? And more of that outdoors. So when a chicken gets sick, they don't pass it to half a million other chickens crammed in the same factory.

Comment Re:For you, Elsevier... (Score 1) 158

but free publications don't count for your publication record.

Where is that written?

So your university won't 'count' free publication in your record? What's their reasoning behind that? (Follow the money.) 'Open source' peer review shouldn't be that difficult to set up if, as you say, reviewers work for free and the opportunity to get a 'first peek'.

Comment Re:For you, Elsevier... (Score 1) 158

Elsevier are Copyright-vultures feeding off the free labor and hard work

Explain to me (and others not familiar with the industry) exactly how this works. I had always assumed that Elsevier and others paid authors (researchers, etc.) for the exclusive rights to their work. If it is actually "free labor", then exactly what motivates a researcher to sign over their rights to a publisher? Work for hire aside, I assume that accepting a grant comes with certain encumbrances on one's rights to that work product. But in this case, it's not "Fuck Elsevier" but fuck whichever institution that just hands their intellectual property over without remuneration. Or do they? Follow the money and find out how much your university gets from a publisher and how much of that ends up in some administrators' pockets.

Slashdot Top Deals

Where are the calculations that go with a calculated risk?