Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Stay the hell away from the F35 (Score 1) 484

Yes, the amount of engineers trained should dictate where the money is spent when it comes to defensse

What if the wrong amount of engineers has been trained? Don't you think it would be wiser to analyze how many engineers are needed to achieve the goals that you are describing and than find projects for them? (You know, this is the demand thing I was talking about) Instead of blindly assuming that the amount of engineers currently available is the right number due to some hidden magic?

Comment Re:Stay the hell away from the F35 (Score 1) 484

So you are saying, the number of engineers and teachers available shall define how much is spent on military engineering and schools?

I believe that demand shall define the amount. If there are not enough engineers to meet this demand efforts shall be made to get more (either through education or hiring abroad). If there are more engineers than needed for military engineering there are two options:
- don't give government money to them and leave it to them to find other useful work
- use government money to hire these engineers for non military projects that are needed

But dveloping airplanes just because you have the engineers is a stupid waste of tax money.

Comment Re:Stay the hell away from the F35 (Score 3, Insightful) 484

It also employs tens of thousands of our nation's best and brightest engineers..

Who are unavailable for other tasks due to this programm.

and almost all of it goes to labor (and a big chunk returns in taxes, if not all in economic activity)

As would almost any other type of spending. The difference is, you get planes instead of schools, highways, vaccines or what else could be done with the money.

Also, the money for this programm is coming from taxes so not spending the money at all creates purchasing power all accross the population which might be the best thing for welfare and economy.

Comment Installation Cost (Score 5, Informative) 644

According to a recent study by LBNL the soft cost associated with installing the panels are more than three times as high in the US compared to Germany.

http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/german-us-pv-price-ppt.pdf
Page 26: Costs that are not module costs. 4.46$/W in the US compared to 1.18$/W in Germany.

Higher cost results in lower volume.

Comment Re:Does it matter? (Score 4, Insightful) 226

You can't have 0 latency audio drivers. But the latency can vary from system to system due to design decisions.

The main source of latency in audio drivers is related on how many audio samples are generated for each call to the interrupt handler (buffer size).
Bigger buffer sizes help avoid gaps in audio due to interrupt jitter. They also reduce the CPU load and energy usage which are very important in mobile devices.
Driver infrastructer for very small buffer sizes need to be designed very carfully to work reliably. So there are many reasons why android developers decided not
to use very small buffer. BUT of course for any kind of interactive audio low latency is crucial.

Comment Re:It's theirs no matter what they did with it. (Score 1) 168

I don't find a reference now, but wasn't there a lawsuit about Popeye where the court decided that if the copyright is expired a trademark can't prevent copying of the work? Isn't this a similar situation?

I mean, if Internet Brands adds text containing the trademark "WikiTravel" to a CC work, they gave permission to use the trademark in the work under the CC license.
If they use their own trademark as the title of the work, I don't see how they can prevent people to refer to the work using the trademark

Comment Re:Cost (Score 1) 252

I agree that the maintenace required by a diesel plant is low, but it is still much higher than that of solar. You will spent more man hours refilling the fuel than the total maintenance for the solar plant.

The rest of the post tries to compare apples to oranges. Either we compare technology currently available on the market. In that case the comparison I made is accurate.

Or you compared anticipated technolgies. In this case you have on the nuclear side proposals for inexpensive fuel cycles with greatly reduced risk. All of these designs will use more concrete per Watt electrical output so the energy paypack time will be greater than for current designs. But still these advanced reactors would be great improvements compared to current designs.

On the solar side there are concepts for designs that use much less material and less exotic materials. Thin film and metal based cells are on the verge of beeing market ready and there might be a breakthrough in polymere cells any time (so it is not guaranteed). By the time generation 4 reactors will be market ready solar power might be almost free.

Essentially it comes down to a bet that most of the industry currently is not willing to make: Gen 3 and Gen 4 reactors are designed to operate 65 years after a 15 year design time. Currently solar has a 20% to 30% cost improvement every year for 10 years now. Anybody putting his money on nuclear is betting that this progress suddenly stops before solar passes all other technologies. This might very well happen, but it might be smart to wait a few more years before commiting to an 80 year project competing with solar.

Comment Re:pointless achievement (Score 1) 252

I read this a few year ago and current can't find it again.
It might be that this number ist the energy for producing the plant divided by the average electrical power. This would mean that the energy for running the plant and for producing the fuel is not considerd. Sorry I don't have a better source.
What I do find a lot are sources on the average amount of CO2 produced by nuclear power. It is a lot worse than wind and hydro but somewhat better than solar if the uranium does not come from south africa.

Comment Re:pointless achievement (Score 1) 252

> Also this BS argument I constantly see without facts to back it up that some how solar cells release so much CO2 in their manufacture that they can't possibly offset the CO2 over their lives.

You here the same for energy saving light bulbs, etc.
As a first ballpark estimate you can assume that even manufacturers have to pay for their energy. So if it is economical feasible the CO2 balance can't be that bad.

Actual there is data on that available. It is called energy pay back time. It is less than a year for solar thermal and wind energy. It is about 2 years for current nuclear plants. It is about 3 years for solar cells rapidly going down to 1 year anticipated for thin film technology.
Of course there are big variations (about a faktor of two in both directions) depending on many parameters.

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...