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


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Yet another case of Moore's law abuse. (Score 1) 239

Do you want to lower CO2 emissions? The answer is simple.
1. Ban coal.
2. Replace coal with natural gas, nuclear, and wind.
3. Stop worrying about cars, trains, and planes. Power plants are the biggest producers of CO2 and are centralized.
4. Understand Solar is not the answer. The demand vs production curve does not work out. It is a good supplement in hot areas with a lot of sun in the summer but unless we go with orbital solar power stations it is not a good baseload solution. It just looks good and seems easy.

Why natural gas since it does produce CO2? Simple it produces about half the CO2 per BTU as coal does and is cheap. If you replaced every coal plant with natural gas you would have a massive savings in CO2 for a low cost. The next step would be to move large trucks, trains, and ships to natural gas. That would save about 20% on the CO2 they produce but since large trucks and trains have centralized fueling locations it would again be pretty simple to do.

You need to also think about the social cost of ending coal production You will be converting towns into ghost towns, Mining coal does pay pretty well and is pretty labor intensive. Sure you can retrain the miners for new jobs but those jobs will not be in the same location as the mine. You will not pay to relocate all the people in the town that depend on the mine. Think of the people that run the shops, restaurants, car lots, teach in the schools and so on. You can not get around the fact that you are going to cause a huge amount or problems and the idea of "job retraining " will not prevent it.

Comment Re:How stupid is this? (Score 0) 89

FedEx use that money and pay some developer to rewrite that crap.

I don't know many developers who would be willing to get paid in $5 off coupons for use of a program that is so bad they are being paid in coupons just to rewrite it from scratch.

That's sorta like paying someone a bag of garbage in exchange for taking out your trash.

I know I'm being trolled, but don't be a tard. Of course FedEx has budgeted a certain amount of money for this.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 1) 198

I guess everything is extremist relative to something. What's with all these hypocritical Anti-Murder-Extremists running around saying I can't kill people! SOME OF THOSE HYPOCRITES GIVE LETHAL WEAPONS TO SO CALLED COPS TO STOP PRIVATE CITIZENS FROM KILLING PEOPLE!

Extremism in my view is violence, not demanding a reduction in pollution.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 2) 198

Um, the point is, dare I say this, that there's very hard science and there's soft science. There's findings which are highly testable, repeatedly, and there's findings which are verging on the non-reproduceable.

No. "Soft sciences" refers to fields which arrogant scientists feel are less deserving due to subject matter, not reproducibility. Social sciences are described as soft science.

Your opinion on social science as a "real" science is up to you, but reproducibility is an issue no matter how "hard" the science is.

I used to believe global warming 100% and assume it was all correct, because I normally trust science, but then started to wonder why people were touting consensus and virtual certainty.

Because obviously scientific findings don't change society by themselves. At a bare minimum, you must publish your results or the scientific findings may as well have never been made. With even non-controversial findings, scientists need to do more, results simply don't speak for themselves, you need to write review articles placing the findings in context, issue press statements in journals, present it at a conference. And that's just to get it known within the scientific community in the absence of opposed nefarious interests.

With climate change specifically, you have powerful industries and motivated ideologues trying to cast FUD on the findings. There's an effort to convince the public that it's far from certain. This approach is having it's intended effects. Scientists and people who realize climate change is happening would be idiots to merely keep presenting dry papers when the public is convinced by scumbags in suits saying "Well, they don't REALLY know do they?"

Comment Re:Can't see the forest for all the trees (Score 1) 384

Batman vs Superman was an okay one time movie, not worth the popcorn and soda that a theater experience requires, but watchable one time movie, just to see WonderWoman and Aquaman.

Certain actors shouldn't fill certain roles. It would have been much better to find an unknown to play Batman than put Ben Affleck in that role. He doesn't have the ability to pull it off. Being behind the mask, requires greater acting ability than normal, because you have to convey more with movement. It doesn't work for Ben as Batman. Though He works in "The Accountant" because his acting ability is fairly wooden, like the character, it works.

Henry Cavill sort of works for Superman, mainly because he "looks" the part.

Comment Re:Similar (Score 2, Insightful) 198

Your knowledge of how science works comes from sci-fi movies and conservative propaganda.

Science especially doesn't involve data that have been "adjusted" to benefit certain political movements or to increase the likelihood of getting grant money.

You've never read any primary scientific literature or grant applications...

And science really doesn't involve extrapolating a couple hundred years' worth of "adjusted" data across thousands, millions, or even billions of years.

You've never read any books on evolution or geology....

There are too much politics involved.

You've never read anything about medical research...

We want to discuss real science, backed by hard facts, non-adjusted data, and untainted observation.

You've evidently never talked to any scientists of any kind either and may have never talked to any real human before. There is no such thing as "untainted observation." If you're observing it, you have your own spin on it. "Non-adjusted data" similarly is a myth. Look out your window at the world. What does the world look like? WRONG. Unless you're on a boat in the ocean, that's not what most of the world looks like. In order to get a real understanding of what the world looks like, you can't just pick the first thing that you see, you need to... adjust it.

You come off like a kid who is telling people how adult relationships should go based on his extensive watching of porno movies. You're arrogant to be dictating on things you don't know about, you look silly, and you're in for real disappointment unless you persist forever in your ignorance.

Comment Re:Rotten Tomatoes is getting self-important (Score 1) 384

There does need to be a modifier for action movies and probably some other genres of movies.

I mean, "Debbie does Dallas" has far worse acting and plot than anything in superman vs batman I'm sure, but I don't hear whining about DDD. Why do people accept you watch one entirely for the "action" and shitty quality otherwise is okay but not the other?

Comment Re:Wait a minute... (Score 1) 250

You use bandwidth without paying for it.

If you had google music or youtube red there wouldn't be ads.

I do agree that it's messed up. Even the dumbest Americans should be capable of realizing that running ads during a youtube video doesn't equal approving of the content. But we didn't have so many idiots, we wouldn't have the problems we do today.

Comment Re:One more time? (Score 1) 127

I assume someone last time pointed out that itunes music managed to make something of a profit despite music piracy being really really really easy.

Most consumers don't pirate. A lot of those of us who do tend to do it less when paying is an option. When I pirate, it's entirely because of extra hoops I have to jump through like having to sign up for cable to watch HBO to watch game of thrones, or "no you have to go to the movie theater to watch that movie you want to watch or wait a few months."

Some people will pirate even given other options. But paranoia about that tiny segment of the consumer population isn't justified and is a stupid reason not to do this.

Comment Re:Direct to video (Score 1) 127

Why are you so sure it would do that? Tiers of movies haven't had much to do with release method in a while. Studios will still be able to promote blockbusters just as much as they do now and ignore direct to video types just as well.

It's not like they show a trailer for some big movie and the voiceover proudly announces "This one is NOT going straight to video! That means it's good probably!"

Comment I can't get that idiot Siri to place a call (Score 1) 137

Me: Siri where is the nearest Cabelas?
Siri: I've found the nearest Cabelas. Would you like me to call it?
Me: Yes
Siri: ("Yes" APPEARS on the screen) I'm sorry, I didn't understand.
Me: Yes
Siri ("Yes" APPEARS on the screen) I'm sorry. I didn't understand.
Siri: Calling

Comment Re:Conversely... (Score 1) 242

If the situation is exactly the same up to the point of your two options, then there is a "Self digging shovel" available at some level in both situations. In situation #2, it isn't for sale, and unless you can conclusively promise shovel in one year, for only $5,000 then option 1 is still the only valid consideration. Further, if option 2 says there are no patents (assuming that is the change) then I can build a shelf digging shovel today for whatever price, and as long as the value I get out of it is better than before, I'll get my $20,000 shovel either way.

1) 20000 for shovel get 30000 use from shovel in year one. Year two is how much (no answer in option 1) is it free, or nearly free? Does it cost 20K / year forever (unlikely) or what. Incomplete information leads to bad decisions.

2) Can't buy Self Digging shovel (unknown reason). Promise that they will be available in a year for $5000 (if you believe vaporware promises)

all the unknown variables make your assumptions useless, which is why I chose (and still choose) option 1. Based on the INFORMATION I have, it is the only real choice.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The number of Unix installations has grown to 10, with more expected." -- The Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd Edition, June, 1972