Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Communism. Right. (Score 1) 433

Because communism has succeeded SO admirably thus far.

But no. Every idiot out there thinks they have the right recipe for successful communism.


Communism is a perfect form of government. For social insects.

With any hint of self interest (enlightened or otherwise), and the system eventually breaks down. And it usually fucks up the lives of a lot of people on the way down.

Comment This is why you bring your A-game to the table. (Score 1) 61

I've seen it before. Companies that would be willing to drop millions (or billions) turned away. Simply because they attempted to lowball their first bid.

Also, they fail to communicate that this is a preliminary offer, and that if it's not acceptable, there's lots of room for negotiation.

As such, valuable prizes walk away from them.

Comment John Chen, SHUT THE FUCK UP! (Score 1) 198

Seriously. It's already known that your company basically already sold its own encryption keys, and thus isn't a trustworthy platform anymore.

Stop trying to curry favor. Your company crashed. You're essentially obsolete. Your heyday ain't coming back.

So please, all you're doing is shaming yourself further, to make a buck.

What's next? Prostituting your own children for money?

Comment Re: This is why you can't use solar/wind for base (Score 1) 269

The same people who told us climate change wasn't real are now telling us we can't go 100% renewable.

Look at most of the solar and wind facilities being put in.
They're not "100% renewable".

They're hybrid solar/NG and wind/NG facilities. So that when solar or wind production tapers off, they "augment" by burning natural gas.

The Ivanpah solar plant in California generated 46,000 tons of CO2 emissions in its first year.

A single clean coal plant generates about 1 million tons of CO2 a year (compared to a standard coal plant which pukes out about 10x as much) and recaptures about 90% of it.

Not saying we should continue with coal.

And not saying we shouldn't pursue ever better forms of renewable power and power storage tech.

I'm saying that nuclear and renewables play a complimentary role in an overall plan that delivers power reliably without being subject to huge swings in price.

Comment Re:This is why you can't use solar/wind for base l (Score 0) 269

"We can get by without non-renewables but only if we replace them with something else."

No. Because what happens when you have a shortfall on your renewables output? It DOES happen. And no, simply building "bigger" doesn't alleviate it.

Or are we still supposed to use non-renewables like NG for all the shortfalls that happen? I thought one of the reasons to use renewables was to cut out the CO2?

"While nuclear is a good option, it's quite expensive"

Because of a hostile regulatory environment set in place by the anti-nuke crowd.
And because things like solar and wind have MASSIVE subsidies.

And no, massive solar and then more massive battery farms is NOT the answer. The amount of land use required would be astronomical.
Also, battery technology is nowhere NEAR ready for that sort of thing. Not even in 20-30 years.

Nuclear power can do what solar can, with a fraction of the land budget and is FAR more energy-dense.
The largest complete, producing solar farm on the planet currently stands at 550MW, putting out about 1.3 Terawatt/hours annually. It covers 9.5 square miles.
ONE nuclear reactor (based on 50 year old designs) has roughly DOUBLE that output.
The largest operating nuclear facility in the world (not the largest nuclear facility in the world) is in Canada, and comprises 8 reactors at a combined 6.3GW, putting out roughly 45 Terawatt/hours annually. It covers roughly 3.5 square miles.

There's also the environmental offsets of obtaining (see mining) all the constituent materials used in massive solar installations and the ecological damage they do. Moreover, there's the adjunct offsets and damage of producing all those batteries and the waste involved.

Sure, nuclear waste is unpleasant shit. But, again, it's hundreds of times more compact than the end-product waste you're talking about.

Again, renewables simply don't provide a stable power output. PERIOD. And the storage technologies that would be required to stabilize them simply aren't up to snuff yet (and if you think they are, you're delusional or you've got a racket going selling the stuff).

And why is producing methanol during a power surplus as a fuel a bad idea?

We're not going to see an all-electric passenger vehicle fleet in this country anytime in the foreseeable future.

Creating methanol binds CO2 out of the atmosphere, sequestering it while stored..
Sure, burning methanol releases it again, but it then becomes an essentially carbon-neutral propostion.

So what, exactly, is so "bad" about it?

Comment This is why you can't use solar/wind for base load (Score 0) 269

Ask any child of five. And they could have told you this was going to be a problem.

But hey, let's just shut down all non-renewables! Because we can get by without them!

Until we can't...

This is why we need something like modern nuclear for base load power. Build enough to cover base load with future demand in mind.
The cover shortfalls with renewables and storage.

And if there's any power in excess of demand, use it to convert carbon dioxide into methanol. Which can then be stored or burned for fuel.

Comment Que surprise. The government lied to us! (Score 1) 88

Is anyone really and truly surprised that the government has been lying to us for years?

Especially this Obama government? Say one thing, do another. Or, if possible, just never say anything at all...

This is typical of Chicago Machine politics. "Thou Shalt Not Get Caught" is the primary rule.

Comment Oh yes! TOUGH! (Score 4, Informative) 726

Because nobody can buy a basic gaming box for about $800.

Nope. Just never happens.


Hell, in most cases a pre-existing PC should be perfectly acceptable. Just make sure your PSU is 400W or more and has the necessary connectors.
Then drop $200 on a video card and you're gaming!

It isn't hard. It's just the bar is set higher than "vegetable-level idiocy".

Comment They should stop calling it "Autopilot". (Score 1) 265

I think that the term "autopilot" simply gives end-users the wrong mindset for the feature. It encourages them to simply disengage from the act of driving completely.
Which is fucking idiotic.

It's essentially a "driver assist" feature. It's not meant to simply be turned on and walked away from like the autopilot in a plane.

Even there, it's still monitored by someone in the cockpit. On top of that, jets normally don't have to worry about millions of other jets in their slice of the sky at any given time...

Slashdot Top Deals

!07/11 PDP a ni deppart m'I !pleH