Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Comment Re:What selfish bastards (Score 1) 165

The 3 million immigrants that Merkel let in and subsequent massive rise in rape and other crime in Germany,
Germany has 80 million inhabitants.
If Merkel "had let in" 3 Millions that would be roughly 5% of the original population, in other words for 100 Germans there suddenly would be 5 "strangers"

You must be able to suck on your middle finger and make a smart face and figure by your self that this idea is ABSURD.

Where ever you got that number from, I suggest to burn that newspaper.

The islamic terrorist attacks (most usually by recent immigrants) in cities all over the EU, most notably Paris.
First of all: there where like 4 during the last 5 years. So: not really a threat.
Secondly: the attacks where not done by immigrants. But by citizens of foreign background.

There are no immigrants coming to Europe, waving with a $1000 note and calling: 'where can I buy a gun?', and then running around killing people. You are an idiot!

have stated their objectives are to stay separate and overrun/take-over their host countries through massive population growth.
Citation needed Ooops, did I really say that?

How do you think it is mathematically possible that a minority of 3% to 5% can grow quickly in a reasonable time that it out grows and over takes the rest of the 95% - 97% of the population? Considering that only half of those 3% - 5% are women and actually can bear children and considering that pregnancy takes a 9 months and considering that none of the women will have more than lets say max 5 children (from which again only half are women and they need min. 14 years to be pregnant themselves?) ?

Considering that the rest of those 95% more or less keep a constant total number, the total population has to double that the "enemy" is even on par. That takes roughly 300 years. Do you really think in 300 years islamic immigrants still are following Islam or that they rather sit in a space station around Mars and watch the Pleade storm? Or if they still follow Islam (like the stupid Christians follow the Pope): does that still mean they want to conquer the world?

Comment Funny ... (Score 1) 50

I heard about Slack just today. Installed it on my work Laptop as my customer is using it. I work at his site!

Now on my way home I see a /. article about Slack, oops ... about a competitor, rofl

As we are on it: there is another nice chat/messaging/voice that has great potential, Discord, from http://discordapp.com/

It is aiming at gamers but also at companies.

Comment Re:So many people who think they are experts... (Score 1) 240

That's only because movies used to show stuff as if cardboard boxes were falling over so the "intuition" of a lot of people was set by cheap special effects.
Yes, and the buildings collapsed in the exact same way as in a movie, go figure.

No they did not. Various nuts lied about demolition experts that do not exist while the ones that do exist sided with reality instead of Hollywood.
You live in a silly small country that hopefully soon will drift into insignificance ...
The rest of the world is _convinced_ that this 9/11 thing was a false flag operation. You know we have demolition experts, too. In puny Germany. And the first interview with demolition experts and building engineers explaining why such a catastrophe is impossible in Germany was .... uh ... perhaps 4h after the collapse?

In other words: you have no idea how many _true_ experts have given her opinion on that case.

Even when earthquakes provide a bit of lateral movement large buildings collapse into themselves without much tilting - they do not fall sideways intact like a cardboard box as "a layman" has been encouraged to think over the last few decades.
You are completely mixing it up. In hollywood movies buildings always collapse straight down from top to bottom. Because they are always controlled demolitions.

A building several 100m hight, cant do that without being either exploded - controlled - or under strange circumstances - which might happen.

As a physics experiment I give you two simple tasks: drop a tennis ball at a calm not so windy day once from the east side of a building, lets say top or window, about 100m above the ground. Then do the same on the west side. Now you know how a "naturally" collapsing building would look. Hint: one ball will collide with the wall of the building several times, the other one will drop dozens of meters away from the wall on the ground. The tiny bit of difference in earth rotation speed from top of a sky scraper to its base is _hughe_.

Comment Re:The cleanup (Score 1) 240

All correct, except that coal plants are dispatchable and modern nuclear plants to a huge degree as well. After all we have two kinds os coal plants: non dispatchable base load (in Germany manly brown coal/lime coal) and dispatchable load following plants, mostly hard coal (stone coal).

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 1) 240

natural power plants will never be able to run combined cycle with variable load like that,
France has a long long long coast.

If they only would put at ten percent of the coast some offshore wind plants, they would power whole of Europe.

The produced renewable energy is highly subsidized per kWh in Germany.
No it is not. Or you have absurd weird idea of the meaning of the word "high".

Germany has reduced the renewables subsidies several times because of the economic crisis.
Facepalm. Germany has no economic crisis ... the last so called global crisises, no one felt here. However as soon as the economic growth drops below 1% all shout: crisis! Panik!!

Most reductions in subsidies were actually planned 10 years before. You really have no idea bout how stuff works. We had goals: X GW installed solar power till year YY, then reduction in funding and a further increase of installed power to X2 till year YY2m then reduction in funding and a further increase of installed power to X3 till 2030 and then a more or less complete stop in subsidizing.

You are mixing up the WHAT and the WHY. The WHY is simple: we had a plan, and we more or less stick to it. And WHAT we do is because of that plan, and not what you think the reason might be ... crisis or lack of money it is most definitely not.

However, unfortunately the current government changed the plan in so far as it reduced the XX goals a bit and increased YY year time span a bit, very bad decision IMHO.

Comment Re: Black swan events (Score 1) 240

Well I have seen places with coal power plants, it's supposed to be cheap and baseload, and I don't see people doing that.
No idea what you want to say with that.
Half of the coal plants are usually base load, the other half is load following. Depending on country coal is cheaper than nuclear.

If the electricity wasn't cheap people wouldn't do it.
Sorry, you mix it up: "Because the electricity is cheap people do it." Every night storage, hot water storage in France is: payed by the government or subsidized by 50% - 80% to be able to sink the surplus nuclear power at night. For the power producers it is cheap, because it is already nightmare for France that it needs to by so much power from Germany. For the consumer it is cheap because house owner don't need to put in gas pipes, get subsidizing by the state instead and for the renters it is cheap because: well, they have the cheap power.
If a significant amount of plants would need to power down over night below ~50%, those would not come up in the morning again, and the lack of power would need to be imported.

And French nuclear reactors CAN do load following to a degree Oh, god what an idiot. Define "degree"???? So you want to tell me a nuclear plant can go from 100% down to 40% [1] over the course of 4 hours, stay there for 4hours and power up again over 4h from 40% [1] to 100%?
And you think: all plants in France can do that at the same time? Sorry, they can't ... can't be so hard to google that either.

especially for something so predictable as the day/night cycle, Of God, I need to repeat the I-word ...
Because it is so predictable and because it is impossible to power down all 40 or 50 power plants from 100% down to 40%, see [1] above, France has an artificial high base load of 60%. Go google ... can't be so hard. So, you make the impossible task of powering all plants down from 100% to 40% more easy by only powering them down to 60%, et voilia ...

France is shaping is load so that the nuclear plants can be driven in a way that suits the plants, the operators, and not in a way that would be "natural". That is actually what smart grids try to achieve as well. Load shaping instead of shaping of production (adapting production to load).

BTW: guess what is the biggest at night consumer of nuclear power .... the thing that makes France's power economy even possible? It is the reprocessing plant at La Hague. Over ten percent of the total power produced at night is consumed in that single "factory" ... go figure.

It's usually a bad idea to constantly spool up and down steam turbines though. Kills efficiency for any thermal power plant.
That is why the balancing power is done by pumped storage and gas turbines ... again: you could have known that. But I'm pretty sure you have a weird concept about what 'base load', 'load following' and 'balancing power' is :-/ (And I don't go into the depth of 'reserve power')

Why do I know all this so easy? Actually it is common knowledge. Most people know that: in Germany. I worked nearly 10 years (with gaps) for EnBW.com, Germanys biggest nuclear power producer, most of the time owned to 60% by EDF.fr ... the "state" power company of France.

Comment Re: Black swan events (Score 1) 240

Does not make sense to elaborate an answer as you have no clue, but well I address a few points.

Me: If they had not enough people buying excess power at night to heat up the water storages (for 1/3 of the price at daytime) they would need to shut down nuclear reactors.
You: Bullshit

Sorry, it is not bullshit. That is the way how France is running its plants. I suggest to google and learn about it.

Every single place which has introduced renewables has seen consumer electricity prices go up rather than down.
Yes, and no. In Germany and other countries power prices are sinking.
And: the consumers as in voters agreed to a slight increase of power prices. Because: that is how the subsidizings are financed. Get a damn clue.

So it often is sent to the neighboring countries at NEGATIVE cost
Not it is not. Negative cost deals are usually done inside of the country, extremely rarely they go over the border. And you seem to miss: it is a win win situation for both partners of the deal, otherwise they would not make it. If I have more costs in storing power or WASTING it than I have if I pay you a few cents to take it, then obviously I rather pay you. If you could not handle the power or did not want the payment, you would not accept the deal. A no brainer.

Comment Re:This is important. (Score 1) 36

Under european laws, and with that I mean the individual laws of the countries, not an EU law, it is illegal to snoop on conversations. Regardless if it is via a wire, via radio or via sealed letter.
Law enforcement needs an order from a judge to snoop on your phone. And here people think a mere company bully can simply do it?

So even if: It is not discussed enough, if people have faith in company A and are happy to away their information to that company, that is fine. and user agrees to such terms: it is still illegal by the company to do so!

Look it from this perspective: slavery is illegal, but I agree to be your slave till I die. They catch you having a slave ... the law comes over you.

Why companies believe they can fiddle with laws by making absurd "end user agreements" is beyond me.

"I agree that you shoot me, as long as my wife gets $XXX", it is still murder ... even if I agree. And even if you pay.

Slashdot Top Deals

Programming is an unnatural act.

Working...