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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Razer (Score 1) 248

Not to mention Razer's "We hit the bottom of the barrel, so we got some explosives and blasted our way through to a whole new level!" LoQC (Lack of Quality Control). Look up "shit" in the dictionary and it says "At least it's not Razer!"

I mean, we have Apple to demonstrate that you can label (not polish, just label) an actual turd and some jackass will still spend exorbitant amounts of money to buy it. But how Razer's rectal-cancer level LoQC hasn't killed the fucking company in the last 15 years leaves me more stunned than Amy Schumer contemplating President Elect Trump...

Comment Re:That's not even all (Score 1) 299

Sure, cover the whole Sahara and wreck the ecology there. Turning it from a desert biome into a pure waste by covering it over with solar panels.

Then there's the problem of building the infrastructure to actually export all that power (oh, did we mention concerns like national borders, etc, etc, etc)?

Pretend it's a simple equation all you like. It isn't. And never will be.

Comment Re:mdsolar (Score 1) 299

Do you know how much energy is needed to produce "nuclear diamonds?"

No. Please provide exact numbers rather than vague statements like "more than was generated during the creation of the waste".

Because then you're talking about power production in the gigawatt-to-terawatt range, since the C14 is culled from the graphite control rods.
And most control rods have a usable lifespan between 8 and 20 years, with a median age of 12.

That's an absolute FUCKTON of power. And I seriously doubt that the vapor recovery and deposition of C14 takes THAT much power on a per-diamond or even a per-batch basis.

Comment Re:That's not even all (Score 1) 299

Power density.

The largest solar PV station in the world is in China, covers almost 18 square miles and puts out 850MW.
We can build single reactors that output 1GW
The largest nuclear power plant in the world rings in at just under 8GW and covers about 1.7 square miles.
The largest operational power plant in the world rings in just north of 6GW and covers 3.5 square miles.

Comment Re:Nope (Score 1) 299

Thorium reactors will be available >> breeders with sodium ? Yeah, no danger sir. We can wipe a continent if a bigger fire brakes out. We cannot put out this fire with water, or else booom :)

OMG! You're right! Because it's not like, in case of a fire the fuel can be dumped into a dump tank away from the reaction catalyst. Because fires really love to huff and puff and go after a double-walled dump tank inside a double walled containment vessel buried in concrete!

EUREKA! How could we have been so foolish!


Rather than simply spouting a bunch of gobbeldygook in an attempt to sound educated, do some real research.

Comment Re: solar/wind more of a risk (Score 1) 299

You mean like a wildfire at a massive solar farm. Sure, the fire may not kill anyone. But if the power that's being generated is being COUNTED on in the base load, you're going to run short, you're going to have situations where power-critical events are disrupted and people are going to die.

Also, you're still conveniently ignoring that nuclear power has still killed fewer people than ANY other form of power extant.

So, as soon as you can point out these "multitudes" you're citing, we can move forward.

Comment Re:mdsolar (Score 1) 299

"We already have safe, reliable nuclear power plants. We have them all over the world. "

Exactly, and we will have to store and guard their ashes from terrorists for 184000 years, which won't come cheap.

Which is why it's nice that there are newer reactor designs that produce less long-lived waste.
Plus, there are new techniques coming out that allow us to further use certain types of waste in ways not imagined earlier.

Google "nuclear diamonds".

Comment Typical idealogue thinking. (Score 1) 1424

Okay, Lessig is a smart, maybe even brilliant, man.

But he's still suffering from Idealogue syndrome.

Rather than take the system as it is, working within it (and the confines of law and reality), he's caught up in his vision of "The Ideal". So, breaking laws, betrayal of public trust, and forwarding of the privileged insider caste at the expense of all else (because THEY know what's best for the rest of us) in his mind. Because the means justifies the ends (oh, and incidentally, it'll give him the result he desires but never mind that self-serving little piece of useless data).

Sorry Larry, but if you happen to dislike the outcome, work harder to make sure the next time we come to a decision, it agrees with your personal, philosophical and political proclivities.

And, while you're at it, excise a mountain of presumption Your Way is The One And Only Right Way.

Comment Re:Ah. Sexism at its finest. (Score 1) 266

I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that what was being asked for by the universal suffrage movement was EQUALITY.

This isn't equality. This is special treatment because equal treatment hasn't resulted in equal outcome.

This is awarding of a position because of reproductive anatomy, rather than intellectual anatomy.

Comment Ah. Sexism at its finest. (Score 1) 266

In order to reduce its gender imbalance, the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) in Amsterdam will hold special election rounds, one in 2017 and one in 2018, for which only men can be nominated.

The plan "does not come at women's expense," argues the academy's president, Jose van Dijck, because all the regular election rounds for membership will also still continue as planned. Currently 13% of the academy's 556 members are men, a slightly higher percentage than the 10% at Germany's national science academy and the 6% in the U.K. The plan was proposed by two female board members and approved by a 73% majority, though ironically, the first male president of the U.S. National Academy of Science says "I don't think we would do that. Other people might feel that men elected this way somehow did not meet the same standards as their female counterparts, or even other men elected through the regular process."

If it had read as edited here, feminists would be shitting blocks of osmium.

Basically this has nothing to do with equality. This is all about "special" treatment because some selfish individuals simply can't understand that equal representation doesn't always happen, and even if it does, it takes TIME for it to percolate through every layer of society and profession.

This hurts EVERYONE. Because it's telling people that if you can claim to be in a suitably "oppressed" segment of society, that it's perfectly OK to lower standards just to let you get by...

In the end, it just becomes a race to the bottom, and the honors of such positions are rendered meaningless.

Slashdot Top Deals

"I never let my schooling get in the way of my education." -- Mark Twain