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


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

Comment Then do your homework? (Score -1) 111

I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.

Trump has not banned alternative energy but welcomed it. He repeatedly stated that he wants to unleash all forms of domestic energy, not just Coal. This will break the energy dependency we have had for.. 50 years or so and reduce energy costs in the US. The propagandists won't repeat that part of his policy statements or speeches though, because that does not fit the agenda.

It really helps to study _all_ sides of the debate.

As to the "one time costs" it's not quite so simple. Storing nuclear waste is extremely expensive and horrible for the environment without considering failures like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island. I find Nuclear to be the best option, but it's a massive investment to bring a plant up and work out the logistics of waste disposal.

Wind and Solar require huge amounts of land resources for roads and cabling. The large amount of cabling needed for them means higher maintenance costs. Making Cable requires huge amounts of heat, and a whole lot more pollution. Geothermal requires killing off rare ecosystems to trap the heat. Tidal plants requires destroying and interrupting large areas of the coast. Each of those has it's own unique maintenance challenges, and are very expensive to maintain as well but for different reasons.

Yes, petroleum has nasty gasses that hit the atmosphere. Is it worse than any others? Yes, but the amount of difference is not as big of a margin as people want you to believe.

Everything has a cost and every aspect of energy can be argued against and for.

Comment Two comments (Score 1) 71

Two comments

Parallelism -- the problem with parallelism is that everyone assumes that all problems can be decomposed into problems which can be solved in parallel. This is the "I all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. There hasn't been a lot of progress on the P vs. NP front, nor does it look like there's likely to be one soon, short of true quantum computing. And no, D-Wave fans: quantum annealing is not the same thing as collapsing the composite wave for into the correct answer because you happen to own the computer in "the most sincere universe".

Productive programming -- It's amusing that a semiconductor vendor would complain about programming productivity. The main barrier to programming productivity is that the silicon doesn't think about problem solving the way you have to think about problem solving in order to get a stepwise improvement. In other words: the chip vendors are making the wrong chips. This is really easy to see if you've done VLSI design in Verilog or VHDL, or even if you've only had to deal with an FPGA. The primary difference is that the chip folks never have to deal with "can't happen" states -- so their silicon compilers simply ignore them, because you on'y ever correctly hook up a chip one way. Take a software engineer and have them code up a bit decoder in VHDL -- it's going to be 10 times larger than what a chip designer would produce because of collapsing "don't care" to something reasonable.

Other than that... interesting interview, even if it doesn't cover a lot of ground, overall.

Comment SF won't address the root of the problem (Score 4, Insightful) 375

If [San Francisco] allowed more new housing to be built, along with improving public transportation to accommodate greater demand, these problems would diminish.

I believe the problem can be summed up succinctly:

Many people in San Francisco don't want any new buildings; they say the existing buildings are part of the charm of SF and they worry about sprawl. Some of them even have the idea that building new stuff causes housing costs to go up due to "gentrification".

Many people in San Francisco don't want the cost of housing to go up; they decry the trends where only wealthy people (many of them young technical workers at hot companies like Google) can live in SF, and they complain that the city would be more interesting with more starving artists, poets, musicians, etc. (And many hate the private bus systems offered by companies like Google.)

Take both of the above together, and the people of San Francisco are never going to be happy. Not allowing more building capacity means prices will go up, prices going up means that artists and poets can't afford to live in the city. Protesting against the "Google Buses" does nothing to help any problems and just annoys people.

Comment Re:I did (Score 1) 314

There is no social pressure taking women out of STEM degrees, women are free to make their own degree choices and do so. Just like men. Fact: Assessment tests for promising areas of study are not gender specific. Countless men are given the same results as women for the same reasons and choose their degree choices by those tests. Numerous men do not pursue STEM degrees for the same reasons as women.

So unless you wish to claim that somehow a number 2 pencil and piece of paper can be bigoted, stop repeating propaganda which is easily dismissed as irrational nonsense. If you are not smart enough to figure out that you are repeating propaganda, or the irrationality of paper and pencil being biased, consider drinking heavy amounts of Thorazine.

Comment 3D is not what anyone was ever looking for... (Score 1) 397

3D is not a feature. It's an attempted implementation of a feature.

The feature that people want is 'lifelike' video or immersive video.

To get that at home, I do see two potential technologist that are making headway. 4K TVs (for the color gamut, not the screen resolution) and virtual reality glasses.

Comment I'm seeing more of this lately... (Score 2) 252

At the hospital I work at, I've noticed that a lot more people are watching pirated content. It's no where near the 32% mentioned in the summary, but certainly a much larger percentage than 5 years ago. I basically find out as we discuss various old movies and give each other suggestions on what to watch.

The interesting thing is how these people are getting the movies. It seems that they're getting 'hot boxes', which are apparently copies of Kodi with a set of streaming plugins to pirate sites. These guys (and girls) are not particularly tech-oriented. All they know is that the movies are streamed from pirate websites.

How these people don't get caught is beyond me. But none of them are concerned with the legality of it.

Comment Re:Wholly Delusion Batman! (Score 1) 278

Clinton's email server was perfectly legal.

False statement. It was not legal when she implemented it, and it was taken down and confiscated exactly because it was illegal. Her particular uses of it were similarly illegal. If you have doubts go work for the Government and send to your Gmail account some classified documents. The same can be said for her top aide Huma, who may soon be facing charges for sending copies of those emails to her personal Yahoo account. "It is easier to print" is not an excuse for breaking the law!

The FBI Director stated both of those facts (actions were criminal and illegal) but recommended not prosecuting. His reason for doing this was a claim that there was no proof of intent. Intent is not a defined statute of the Laws. Former Prosecutor and current Congressman Trey Gowdy refutes that position very well and you can read his Congressional statements (or listen to them on CSPAN tape or Youtube clips). Hillary may still face prosecution for both perjury and violation of federal law for the use of the email server. She has yet to be pardoned and has not been cleared of wrong doing. She has simply avoided facing criminal charges.

Facts, you should learn to use them.

Slashdot Top Deals

I put up my thumb... and it blotted out the planet Earth. -- Neil Armstrong