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 US cell phone market is stupid (Score 1) 477

First, let it be said that I am not an expert on these matters, nor did I RTFA. However, that being said, It definitely appears that the high cost of entry into this market is the source for most of the industry's issues. It leads to less competition and a sort of oligarchical group think by the participating bodies (usually corporations). To me, this seems obvious. If it costs an astronomical sum to enter into a market, it seems only natural that the only people (corporations) in the market would be the ones that can be relatively sure that they can extract large sums of money from the market. The inevitable consequence of this is business model entitled "How can I screw the customer the most and still get away with it?" Perhaps I'm not well informed enough, but it would seem to me that the real solutions for "high cost" markets is government ownership of infrastructure (like sewers and roads), or at least a mandate for non-reproduction of distribution (like power lines or water lines). It is true that government usually finds the least efficient method of doing anything, I will not dispute that. However, we can all agree that have three or four sets of sewers, roads, power lines, and/or water lines would be even more stupid than current government management of these items. The point is that the real cost of entry into this market is the creation of cell phone towers and other associated infrastructure. Granted, the big boys may have contracts that allow them to share resources, but I would bet dollars to donuts that they make a point of mutually excluding start ups from these contracts in order to prevent competition that doesn't agree with their business model (see above). In short, the government is full of idiots, and the free market is full of idiots, because we are a nation composed mostly of idiots. Lacking a Philosopher King capable of determining Merit (with a capital M), we should probably just bet on pitting the government idiots against the free market idiots and hope that they beat the stupid out of each other until something usable is made. Leaving one or the other to their own devices is the worst thing we could do.

Comment Re:Utter BS (Score 1) 621

Wait... you mean that a city who has laid its own communication lines, shouldn't be able to subsidize the price of providing said communication to the citizens that want it by absorbing those subsidies into other utilities? By that logic, shouldn't TWC also be prohibited from discrepant pricing structures in competitive markets, like the Utopia pricing mentioned in replies above? Isn't this a case of a (multi)national company taking advantage of the jurisdiction of laws to have its cake in one area and eating it in another? That doesn't offend your senses at all?

Comment I frickin hate thermodynamics (Score 1) 214

I have thought on this a little myself. The major question that I have been unable to answer is this. The peltier device must also provide some resistance to the transfer of heat while in the process of generating energy. Assuming that the radiator of the engine is engineered for the smallest possible weight (dubious I'm sure, but for the sake of argument...) then is the amount of added weight necessary to compensate for the peltier device and its additional cooling requirements made up by the energy harvested? There is an equation in there which I have never been smart enough to build appropriately. The equation simply asks the question is the energy required to move the extra required weight greater than or less than the energy harvested by the device? If it is greater than, then it is a worthwhile improvement, if it is less than, then it is not. Anyone with a more physics oriented mind care to drum up the variables? Anyone with some math background care to put those variables together?

Comment Re:We already have faster-than-light communication (Score 1) 627

The construction of your argument is sound, but the foundation is not. Obviously, communication protocol is something that requires a predetermined agreement between both parties. Just sending someone out into space with no agreement as to what axis to analyze is equivalent to sending someone out into space with no agreement on which radio frequency to listen on; only with a more ludicrous selection of possibilities. The real trouble is this, you have a limited amount of bits that can be transmitted that must be transported from the source to the destination... This is not a practical solution until we can remotely entangle (or at least re-entangle) these elements. My quantum physics, quite frankly, sucks, so I have no idea if this is even a remote possibility.

Comment Re:Where does the energy come from ? (Score 1) 241

assuming you are right, this would seem to work off the basic principles of electric motors. two perpendicular E fields will generate force in the direction perpendicular to them both. This would be the cross product of the fields for you math heads and the "right hand rule" for the amateur physicists. Thus, we treat the water as a very flat, malleable wire and we expose it to a (comparatively) uniform perpendicular E field. Then we run current through the wire, thus generating two perpendicular E fields. The mutual force between the two then cause the water to accelerate... in one direction... Interestingly, my little thought experiment does not allow for two different forces... Now, I will RTFA and see how close I was.

Comment Re:If you aren't doing anything wrong, (Score 1) 325

wow... it's almost like you refuse to even try and understand... amazing. Let me spell that out clearer for you: claiming that the need for FREE SPEECH is equivalent to the need for CRIME is a false equivalency. HOWEVER, if FREE SPEECH facilitates CRIME, then the need for FREE SPEECH over-rides the need to STOP CRIME. is that any clearer?

Comment Re:If you aren't doing anything wrong, (Score 1) 325

Well, I was going to lambast you for your vigorous defense and eagerness to spout invective, but then a much better idea came to me. Do you think that you are doing anything wrong by posting this message? I am going to hazard a guess and say no, and go even further out on a limb and say that you think you are firmly within your rights to voice your opinion. If I am wrong, feel free to hurl more invective at me until the sheer force of your words causes me to curl up in a ball and cry for the rest of the day. That being said, I am sure that you value the right you (currently) have to post these views *anonymously* on Slashdot. Therefore you don't have to *fear* my displeasure or wrath. This is the foundation of free speech, correct? Good. Now, I know that you are going to claim this as a false equivalency, and that's okay, because it is. It, however, serves at the foundation for the next step of our argument. We have to ask ourselves why the freedom of speech exists. This concept was drawn up by the very same men who planned the Boston Tea Party, evaded taxes, and fought a Revolutionary War. All of which was illegal at the time. I am sure that they grew fond of a communication system that appreciated the value of privacy over the value of justice because justice can change depending on what is being done with freedom of speech. Please, feel free to respond if I failed to make anything clear.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If the code and the comments disagree, then both are probably wrong." -- Norm Schryer