Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:I'd mod the OP Flamebait (Score 1) 570

Between OS-X, IOS and Android, this discussion is more than a little comical.

Not really, the article is quite specifically talking about Unix. Linux and iOS and OSX are not Unix. Much in the same way that Volkswagen does not makes (horse-drawn) wagons.

Comment Re:What the hell are you talking about? (Score 1) 45

laying off all the non-Sales positions

That's not even close to the truth, there are still thousands of Americans doing development and support in the United States, the Littleton, Austin, Beaverton and Raleigh labs are still going strong. There are more around the world, but the population of the united states is less than 5% of the world.

Comment Re:But to really propel Russia Today to the fore.. (Score 0, Troll) 254

Big hair, pasty make-up, loud ties and announcer voices which grab your attention and slap you around a bit, no matter how banal the news item.

Perhaps growing up with the BBC and the CBC has biased me but that sounds like American journalism to me.

Comment Re:Do these take up areas that food crops grow? (Score 1) 242

Just that being able to make fuel out of crops wouldn't mean that petroleum would stop being used in fertilizer, so that may be a small concern.

In terms of efficiency, it's insane to turn petroleum into fertilizer to grow crops to great a biofuel, you might as well just burn the damn fuel in the first place.

Comment Re:Do these take up areas that food crops grow? (Score 1) 242

You don't have to worry about the CO2 emissions. One of the benefits of bio-fuel is that the carbon in the plants was taken out of the air. With bio-fuels you only add as much CO2 to the air as you take out.

Only if the means of production is also carbon neutral. Fertilizer, machinery, transportion etc.

Comment Re:Do these take up areas that food crops grow? (Score 3, Insightful) 242

The great thing about CO2 emissions for plant-derived biofuels is that they won't modify the chemical composition of the atmosphere. Think about it for a moment: what you're doing is extracting carbon from the atmosphere, turning it into complex hydrocarbons using energy from the sun, and then burning it to release that energy. Any CO2 released was *already in the atmosphere* to begin with, so biofuels net zero greenhouse emissions (to first order at least, maybe there's some weird combustion products or whatever). Hard to get much lower than that.

Well, yes and no. Biofuel will only be carbon neutral if all the production, transportation and fertilization was done with biofuels as well. A great goal, but I don't think it's been realized anywhere yet.

And of course, that still leaves the whole fuel vs. food issue open. Now if we could manage to come up a biofuel production process that includes the net fixation of atmospheric CO2 (net reduced or zero carbon footprint), with close to zero ecological impact that is not using precious agricultural land then I'd be all over it. But at the moment it's a bit of a pipe dream.

Comment Re:Done (Score 1) 545

Miriam Kramer writes at Space.com that in the new movie Elysium, Earth is beyond repair, and the rich and powerful have decided to leave it behind to live in a large, rotating space station stocked with mansions, grass, trees, water and gravity.

So, Wall-E?

Or one of dozens of SF stories from the 50s, 60s or 70s, Wall-E was great art, but hardly an original theme or plot.

Comment Re:150 years is a long time (Score 1) 545

Totally fascinating insight, we also don't know if the Hospitallers used M-16s in 1066 because we weren't alive back then. Or you know, we have this study called history that tells us things about the past without us having been personally present.

Exactly, any student of European weaponry will tell you that they would have naturally gravitated towards the FN FAL instead of the M16.

Slashdot Top Deals

Theory is gray, but the golden tree of life is green. -- Goethe

Working...