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

 



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

Comment You just now started worrying? (Score 1) 13

Only a koolaid drinking disingenuous douche-shill thought that the government was magically trustworthy with Obama but all of the sudden is magically not to be trusted anymore because there's a new president.

Especially because it's pseudo-intellectual bullshit since the cancerous unelected unaccountably bureaucracy that actually runs the government doesn't care about who is in charge.

The government is 100% as trustworthy today as it was the during your god and personal saviour Obama's reign. It is left as an exercise to those of us with more than two brain cells to determine what that trustworthiness level is.

Comment Re:Depends who pays (Score 1) 180

Some types of transportation are going to stay dependent on fossil fuels for the time being, because there's no good alternative. You're not going to power commercial or military aircraft with batteries or solar panels. Maybe someday ships can be powered by giant batteries, but I'm not so sure that's a great idea for marine vehicles, given their aquatic environment. And obviously, we're not going back to wind-power.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to start with the low-hanging fruit, which is converting to electric cars for our shorter-range commuter vehicles, and at the same time working towards more sustainable power generation for the electric grid. After that, we can start focusing on more efficient ways of creating synthetic hydrocarbon fuels in ways that are carbon neutral. After all, there's nothing wrong with using hydrocarbon fuels if those are synthesized in a carbon-neutral manner, such as creating it from biomass grown for that purpose.

Comment Re:Your fuel is ridiculously cheap (Score 1) 180

It's also an economic thing. Increased gas prices directly correlate with an increase in the price of food and other goods. Also, daily commutes are not exactly something most people can opt out of. And not everyone is fortunate enough to make six-figure-plus salaries that can largely ignore those "minor" cost-of-living increases.

Comment Re:If they have this kind of money (Score 2) 66

I'm not sure that cost is the only consideration in whether or not the U.S. should help defend S. Korea. This is even though I have heard that S. Korea pays the U.S. a couple(?) of billion a year in reimbursement; whether or not this is a fair amount I have no idea.

Much more important is the implied alliance between the two nations. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea, inevitably American soldiers will be killed which will bring a much stronger response from the U.S. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea with nukes then they will invite an immediate (and apocalyptic!) nuclear response.

Perhaps more importantly having a U.S. presence in S. Korea TELLS THE CHINESE that the U.S. is a power in their backyard and the U.S. could make life difficult for them in any really serious conflict. (Imagine if China had military bases in Canada). Having U.S. stealth bombers minutes away from Chinese territory must be something that keeps the Chinese strategic planners up at night. The expansion of the THAAD missile defense system to S. Korea allegedly "solely" for the defense of S. Korea and Japan must also make them worry. Could it, indeed, be used to intercept Chinese ICBMs headed for the U.S.? That would mean China would be emasculated in a strategic nuclear conflict (they used to have, like, only 200 warheads that could reach the U.S,; a first strike coupled with a good missile defense system could've rendered them completely useless. That's surely one reason why China is now building subs carrying nuclear weapons, unlike the ICBMS launched from China they can be launched from anywhere and would not have to fly directly over the S. Korean defenses on their way to their targets in the U.S.).

Consider the alternative: the U.S. says "you're on your own" to S. Korea (and Japan). Within a year, the extremely technologically capable S. Koreans and Japanese would likely have their own nuclear weapons (and delivery systems as evidenced by the latest Japanese solid rocket booster). Sounds good no? Except now the Chinese would have to worry about nuclear weapons being delivered onto their soil in minutes by intermediate range ICBMs. They'd have to invest in missile defense and/or more nuclear weapons to ride out an attack. Perhaps India would be spooked and would also follow their "rival" (the Indians like thinking the Chinese are their chief competitor, the Chinese couldn't care less). That could provoke Pakistan to add to their arsenal (at 100+ warheads the fastest growing in the world). Not good since the Pakistanis are probably the country most likely to give (or have stolen from) nuclear weapons for use by radical Islam. Of course with Trump saying the Saudis (who, remember comprised 19 of the 20 hijackers on 9/11) should be allowed to have nukes for use against Iran, maybe there is another pathway for nuclear terrorism.

Anyway, while some of these "dominos" falling is farfetched you can see how inter-country tensions are a lot more complex than a simple "let them pay for their own defense". That's why nuclear non-proliferation treaties (were) a critical part of world diplomacy (until the Bush administration let the Indians be recognized as a DECLARED nuclear power, the first since WWII, with no substantial penalties).

Comment Older gear. (Score 1) 181

Older gear (probably not going to get updated, either. Because we have a good viewing and listening experience already.) Discrete components; pre-pro, amps, speakers, etc. The pre-pro could be remoted, perhaps, but it's very early on the curve of network control, and I've found it's not even reliable to tell to turn on and off. Denon bought Marantz, and they have been pretty sad about proper updates to nominally update-capable components.

OTOH, if a proper STT interface ever hits the streets (and no, I don't count the Echo - the number of negative developer and privacy issues there are ridiculous) I might be motivated to undertake such a setup. Mainly change the pre-pro to one that's smart enough to reliably remote and dedicate a computer with lots of storage to the theater as an AV source. But I'm 60, and every year that passes, I'm more satisfied with what I already have, so... perhaps not.

Already pretty much ignoring the 4K thing. Aside from very low media availability at this point in time, 1080p looks great on a big screen (and your average movie director still thinks it's "artsy" to soft focus and/or use a lens with horrific DOF, either/both of which completely waste all that fine resolution goodness anyway.)

Comment Re:The problem is what you consider useful (Score 1) 181

It was -40 degrees here just a few days ago, and it's not very nice now. And it's icy. And windy. Outside = awful.

Also -- you know why it's really nice to talk to an exercise measuring device? Because you can do it while you're exercising.

So how about you take your presumptions and re-evaluate.

Comment lol (Score 2) 181

Found the 1%-er.

No, you most certainly didn't. You found the guy who doesn't spend even a tiny fraction of what others do on children, booze, drugs, bars, travel, going out to eat, long trips, interest, hotels, sports events, video games, software, "apps", new cars, parties, education, or junkfood — and hasn't for quite a few decades now.

Which left me way more than enough to build a very nice theater into my home, the entire interior of which I built and wired by hand, after buying the property. Even with a modest income. Also, I bought the property with the specific intent of putting a theater into it - it was an abandoned church, a classic tabula rasa. Just a huge, empty room. And I had mucho help - my SO is awesome, and very much like-minded.

We each have our priorities. Home entertainment and at-home convenience are some of mine, that's all. In fact, almost every optional expenditure I make is in pursuit of a concrete, lasting improvement to my physical circumstance. If you don't have enough left over to do what you dream of by the time you're my age (I started this particular undertaking when I was 50, I'm 60 now), then you're Doing It Wrong.

Up till now, anyway. I don't know what's going to happen to the younger people going forward. Looking a good deal more bleak than it did for me.

Comment Not quite (Score 1) 89

There's no voice, only text and data. Reason voice is excluded has to do with archaic regulations as best as I can tell. Things are changing in that regard so it'll probalby change at some point. However right now you get talk to and from the US, Canada, and Mexico. Everywhere else voice is extra charge. Text and data are available in most countries and are included with no extra charge.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll

Working...