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


Forgot your password?
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:We need this (Score 1) 89

Seriously, we need people actively looking into making those new type of batteries instead of just researching them and never do anything with the research, like we've seen for the past 5 to 10 years.

That's right! That's why my cell phone which uses more power than my cell phone of 10 years ago with a battery less than a third the size lasts significantly longer - because everyone's been "never doing anything with the research", right?

Good research results make news. Their employment in commercial products generally doesn't.

Comment Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. (Score 1) 141

I don't "misunderstand" anything, that is exactly what the device did. It didn't precool anything, it didn't ramp anything down, it just randomly shut off when too many people had their AC on (aka, when it was hottest). And in Iowa in July, even if you did know when it was about to go off and tried to "precool" (which I assure you, does not work well), you'd be burning up long before the AC kicks back in.

Comment Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. (Score 2) 141

If you're willing to lose your AC during the hottest part of the day, then you might as well not have AC at all. So there's no reason to get such a device, you might as well just sell your AC.

"Pre-cooling" a house does not work. In the hottest part of the day it was enough of a challenge for the AC to just keep up.

Comment Re:They actually want to kick appliances off. (Score 2, Informative) 141

I once lived in Iowa when I lived in the US, and my then-spouse signed us up for one of those programs without consulting me first. I just came home one day and the AC was no longer operating when it was hottest. Utterly, utterly miserable, and I had to wait weeks to get the thing disconnected. Why would anyone willingly choose to have one of those things in their home?

Comment Re:Democrats too (Score 1) 74

Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later.

Challenge accepted.

You're misdirecting the reader away from the important point. It's #17 in the Rules of disinformation.

The real point is that corporate cash flowed to the politician in return for favours.

A lot of the analysis of HRC as SoS shows that these decisions benefited companies while at the same time made the country less safe (by enriching and/or strengthening a potential enemy), did not benefit the people of the US in any way, and gave Hillary more cash to work with.

The point was cash => politician => favors, not the details of any one deal.

Which was the actual point.

Comment Democrats too (Score 5, Informative) 74

[Republicans are] all owned by corporations and do their bidding.

Have you been avoiding the news recently?

Google Clinton and "pay for play", or Clinton and "foundation", or Clinton and "Wikileaks". (Or just wait a week or so for that last one.)

Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling Uranium to Russia.

Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology (private and military uses) to Russia.

Here's $17 million that disappeared from the Clinton Foundation.

We've complained for years that the political elite is owned by the corporations, and that there's no difference between having a D or R after a candidate's name.

Don't blame corruption on just the Republicans, it's not intellectually honest and distracts people from the true problems.

Comment Luddites, beware! (Score 2) 60

Sheesh. And here I thought it would take 5 years for self-driving vehicles to become common.

By my previous estimate, around 5 million jobs in the US alone could be replaced or severely curtailed by self-driving vehicles (about 3.5 million jobs are driving tractor-trailers). I now think that's a low estimate, considering delivery vehicles, taxis, US mail, school busses, and so on.

The first self-driving tractor trailer hit the road about 18 months ago. Yes, they probably won't work in snow. Yes, they probably won't work in some situations, such as finding and backing into the loading dock. You'll still need humans for those situations.

But for the vast majority of cases, they will work for the long-haul across the US. (If you've ever driven across the US at night, you know that the highways are a never-ending chain of tractor trailers in the right-hand lane.) They don't need down time, they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they can work 24/7. They can learn from each others' mistakes. They don't need salary or benefits.

This is demonstrably better from a safety and cost point of view, and it takes away a lot of tedious work from humans--giving them more free time--but it'll wreck our current economic system.

We currently have about 170 million workers, and sitting at about 10% unemployment. This one technological advance could push that up to 15%. Economically speaking, 10% unemployment is the beginning of the "this is bad, we should do something" level. We only recently dropped below that number from the great(-est) depression.

(How we deal with illegal immigrants is another big chunk of potential workers that could affect unemployment. Not to make this a partisan argument, but if we *do* have amnesty, it should be done in a layered, progressive fashion with an eye on unemployment so as not to tank the economy. Refugees are too few in number to affect unemployment.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.