Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Profit not revenue (Score 2) 188

At a U.S. average rate of 12 cents/kWh = $120/MWh = $0.12 million/GWh, that's $947 million worth of power generated per year.

The amount of revenue it generates is not the important consideration in determining if a project is economically worthwhile. It has to generate enough PROFIT to repay the investment. If the annual cost of generating your $947M worth of power is $947M then the project will never repay the cost of building the plant. The cost of generation plus the amortized cost of building and maintaining the plant has to be less than the amount of revenue brought in. Presumably the amount charged for a unit of electricity is high enough to pay for the plant during it's lifetime but you cannot just assume that to be true. In the case of a plant that cost $4.7B to build and is expected to last for 40 years you would need to bring in $117.5M in revenue each year in excess of the operating costs just to break even. And that is ignoring inflation, financing costs, etc. So by your example that electricity had better not cost more than $829.5M per year (actually less than that in the real world) or the plant will not break even.

Comment Re:Don't use Facebook (Score 1) 34

There are ways to publish such videos without such insane restrictions.

Of course, but that is hardly the issue here. They are trying to promote important health awareness information as widely as possible, and facebook is, regrettably, popular. It is a real shame that unenlightened prudishness shall stand in the way of such a noble purpose. And as the saying goes, all things are pure to the innocent; or in other words, the more prudish you are, the more you have to be ashamed of, clearly.

Comment Economic benefits (Score 1) 71

So now that the costs of research and experimentation have been paid for by the public, "entrepreneurs" are willing to step up and reap the profits?

Yes! That's one of the great things about publicly funded research. It turns into economic benefit to society via technology transfer. You seem to be implying (wrongly) that this is somehow a bad thing. Quite the contrary - this is a hugely awesome good thing. It means tons of jobs, new industries, and economic benefits all around. It grows the economy. Keeping the research in a lab where it will do nothing would be pretty much the worst thing you could do with it because then you spend the money and get no economic benefit either.

Comment Legally responsible entity (Score 1) 286

Substitute the word "use" for the word "drive".

Ok but it doesn't change the argument meaningfully.

I can see why Tesla would want to be able to impose that kind of condition. However, I think the First Sale Doctrine is going to say they can't. Especially, if they allow it to be used on their own driverless taxi network.

First sale doctrine doesn't apply if you sign a contract that stipulates explicitly that you will not use the car for that purpose. Now the interesting thing is that the second buyer of the car cannot be bound by the first buyer's agreements so you'd have to have a GPL style agreement whereby the first buyer would be forced to impose a similar restriction on future buyers. Not sure if that would work out in Tesla's favor under current laws.

BUT here is the real question. We need a legal determination for who is operating the vehicle when it is being driven autonomously. If the legally responsible entity that is considered to be the "driver" is Tesla then they have every legal right to refuse to use the vehicle for purposes they do not approve of. After all, it would be unreasonable for me to be able to incur liability for Tesla with them having no say in the matter. If the legally responsible entity is determined to be the vehicle owner then Tesla really shouldn't have any say in the matter. To date I don't think there is a clear determination legally for this key issue.

Comment Freedom of speech does not apply (Score 1) 269

Apparentley there is no more freedom in opinion in Australia, and also no more freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech does not apply here. Conscious misrepresentation of known and proven facts by medical practitioners who should know better is called malpractice. It's a crime with real consequences for good reason. They are literally harming patients by spreading provably false and dangerous information. People who do that should at minimum lose their license to practice medicine and if anyone is demonstrably harmed they should go to jail for their actions.

Comment Syndromes = we don't know much about it (Score 1) 269

Autism can and does run in families but I don't know if there is a gene or genes you can check for it.

We don't because autism isn't a single thing as far as we can tell and we don't even have a clear definition of what it is. Any time you hear the word "syndrome" what that really means is that we have a collection of symptoms that we have observed seem to run together but we don't know much about the cause or pathology of them. Autism is clearly a real thing but we don't understand it terribly well and we certainly don't know the cause(s). Genetics seems to play a role but the nature of that role is still being determined.

Comment Ignorance is not an opinion (Score 1) 269

Suppression of freedom of opinion and expression thereof is never 'very welcome'.

Conscious misrepresentation of known facts by individuals who should know better because of their professional training is not expressing an opinion. Ignorance (willful or otherwise) of a fact does not make an "opinion" about those facts valid when the expression of that "opinion" demonstrably results in illness and death of others.

Comment Words are the means to meaning (Score 1) 269

You are just stating your opinion, not more than that. What if we'd prosecute you for your opinion?

When the expression of your opinion directly results in people becoming ill and dying then you are effectively an accessory to manslaughter, particularly if your "opinion" is actually a misrepresentation of the known facts.

Comment Not a matter of opinion (Score 1) 269

"The worry is the confirmation bias that can occur, because people might say: 'There you go, this is proof that you can't even have an alternative opinion.' It might in fact just give people more fuel for their belief systems."

That's right. On this matter there is no room for an alternative opinion because it isn't a question of opinion. Vaccines work and they are safe and are critical to keeping the population healthy. That is a proven and indisputable fact. You have the right to elect to not get a vaccine but you should not be allowed under any circumstances to spread misinformation or discourage others from vaccination. If you want to decline to be vaccinated that is your prerogative but there should be some quarantine consequences to your actions. Nurses who should know better discouraging others from getting vaccinations is particularly odious and to my mind criminal. Such people have no business being in the field of medicine.

Comment Who is the driver? (Score 1) 286

Tesla is trying to say "you can't drive your own car in a manner that we don't like."

If software is driving the car then by definition you are not driving it. For all practical purposes Tesla is the driver. And if Tesla is driving the car it is actually kind of reasonable of them to want to do it on their terms if for no other reason than to protect themselves from liability.

Comment Liability protection? (Score 1) 286

I predict Tesla will be told in court that they can't enforce such a clause when they sell someone a car, even though there is an ongoing service component, specifically because they are competing and that would be anticompetitive.

Certainly a possibility. This is a legal grey area currently. Bundling of services like that definitely gets into areas covered by anti-trust law so it wouldn't shock me at all.

What I don't get is what the point of it would be for Tesla unless it is to protect against liability. They aren't going to compete with Uber and the whole value of a service like Uber is in the network effects. Tesla doesn't sell nearly enough cars for that to come into play so the only value in it to Tesla seems to be to cover their ass from liability.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 1) 71

Keep in mind, not just the US but a whole bunch of countries spending ludicrous amounts on the war black hole, all those investments either thrown away or blown up. Once the leading spender refocuses their excess war spending so the rest will follow, else get left behind, seriously left behind. Governments would suffer huge loss of prestige for failing to participate and effectively, permanently, limiting the future of their society.

Comment Re:Great! (Score 2) 71

Lets be honest, no one wants to increase government budgets, what most would consider reasonable is shifting some of the budget from the War Industrial Complex. Some of that War Industrial Complex spending should also be shifted to infrastructure spending and well, what is development of space but quite simply the building of off earth infrastructure to allow access for humanity, not only to the rest of the solar system but also the galaxy beyond that. It will also not be one nations goal but the majority of democratic nations working together to achieve a goal for the entirety of humanity on this planet.

The comparison of what that exploration provides, is the gap between cave persons and where we are today. So, why leave the cave, why climb past that mountain range, why cross oceans, well, if we hadn't there would still be a tiny number individuals squatting in caves, terrified of all the far more physically capable predators around us and continually under threat of immediate extinction.

It is not destiny, it is just another challenge, just another goal, just another step in working together to become more than what we were. We will either fail or succeed but we will most certainly fail ie extinction inevitable, if we do not try. Personally I see that step next step of becoming a galactic species to be the greatest ever possible achievement of humanity, every other fear pales against it (consider that trillions of species over billions of years did not manage to escape this planetary cocoon and we are now in a position to do so). Humanity on many worlds and scattered throughout the galaxy, writing their history across this galaxy, possibly hundreds of millions of year of it. How can you deny that, in all good conscience, to future generations. This versus turning in on ourselves, squabbling ever more violently over diminishing resources and tearing down this planet down around ourselves.

Slashdot Top Deals

Put not your trust in money, but put your money in trust.