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


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

Comment Re:Tax (Score 1) 539

Most likely you would be given a court order to rectify the code violations by a given date along with a potential penalty for the violation in the first. Failure to do so would probably be met with a penalty. Continuing to ignore the court order could lead to criminal charges.

Condemning is supposed to be reserved for building that are unfit for occupation. Some code violations can justify condemning a home but generally it's fire hazards, unclean conditions, or structural integrity issues that lead to a home being condemned.

Comment Re:Pathetic Crybaby As#hole (Score 1) 412

Here's a list of ranges that I was able to find for defining millennials. Scanning the lot of them it would look like the starting year is roughly 1980-1981 while the ending year is roughly considered around 1995-2000. The number of years covered by the range goes from 14-22 years. Suffice it to say, your definition of '85-'05 appears to about out of alignment.

1980-???? (This one basically hasn't decided when to cut off and is adding all new 18 year olds to the generation)

Comment Re: The man is a traitor and should be shot (Score 2, Informative) 343

You initially wrote this.

Deaths due to second hand smoke this week: 9,100 or 1,300 deaths every day

You are attributing 1,300 deaths a day due to second hand smoke which is wrong. CDC only claims 42,000 deaths annually are caused by secondhand smoke which works out to 115 deaths a day due to second hand smoke. You either misunderstood what the CDC provided or are intentionally misrepresenting the CDC's data.

Comment Re:Law of unintended consequences, also frosty (Score 1) 470

That exact change has been looked into although I'm not up on the details of it other than it exists. The absence of mosquitos is more on the lines of what roles it serves as prey for predators. There's about 15 or so species of mosquitoes that draw human blood and the rest do not. If it's difficult to genetically modify the bad mosquito species to prevent them from carrying the viruses and parasites that cause us illness then I would say the other options would be to genetically modifying them so they don't seek out humans for blood or look at the potentially of killing them off and replacing them with another non-human blood sucking breed of mosquito.

Comment Re:An auspicious date (Score 1) 314

The Unix Epoch is 01/01/1970, this guy is recorded as being born 31/12/1870.

Perhaps someone was born 31/12/1969 and some function was trying to translate timestamps from one system to another.

What a potential theory I don't think it is at all credible. We know that he has had four generations follow him which would make it quite difficult for him to have been born in 1969. If his great-great-grandchildren were just born then using an aggressive 15 years to the generation would put him at being born in 1956. I would say it's more likely a typo with the real birth year being 1907 than him being born in 1969.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

I read the article and that's not what it said.

Roughly 90 percent of the personal vehicles on the road daily could be replaced by a low-cost electric vehicle available on the market today, even if the cars can only charge overnight

The team spent four years on the project, which included developing a way of integrating two huge datasets: one highly detailed set of second-by-second driving behavior based on GPS data, and another broader, more comprehensive set of national data based on travel surveys. Together, the two datasets encompass millions of trips made by drivers all around the country.

But the team found that the vast majority of cars on the road consume no more energy in a day than the battery energy capacity in affordable EVs available today. These numbers represent a scenario in which people would do most of their recharging overnight at home, or during the day at work, so for such trips the lack of infrastructure was not really a concern.

They determined the energy requirements for the trips that are made and looked at the energy available from a full battery on the EV. They found that 90% of trips are within the full range capacity of an EV that charges once a day at home or at work. They didn't look at charging infrastructure penetration. This study is a good thing because it shows that EVs have most of the capability that is needed. This information could motivate manufacturers to bring down the cost on EVs to increase market penetration of the vehicle type which in turn would help drive more locations to install better charging infrastructure. There is no way I can out there and take 90% of vehicles and replace them with EVs.

Comment Re:Driving yes, but charging? (Score 1) 990

I'm curious. What state do you live in? The pictures I hear people talking about electric vehicles does not seem to match what I see on a day to day basis around where I live. For example, the nearest supercharger station would require me to drive at least an hour to which means I'm burning 120+ miles of the charge just to charge it and expending practically 2.5hr to do so. I don't see charging stations at Walmarts or stores like that. They're certainly not available at most work places around here. As far as I can tell for where I live an electric vehicle is a luxury item for those who have the benefit of owning a garage, something I don't own. I don't know the percentage split between home and apartment dwellers but I'd assume that apartment dwellers don't account for just 10% of the population in this area.

Based on the numbers I've seen people tossing about in comments on this article it doesn't sound like an EV is a time savings to me. I get around 450 miles from my vehicle every time I fill up and that's about 5-7 minute total task. Comparatively, the Tesla Model S gets 265 miles and people are saying it takes 20 minutes at a supercharger station. Since I don't have the luxury of owning a garage where I can charge and my workplace doesn't feature charging stations it I don't get the benefit of plugging it in and walking away to do something else. So unless that charging station is somewhere where I can make a 20 minute errand it's just as much a waste of time as refueling gas. I get 64 miles for every minute I spend refueling my gas car. I get 13 minutes for every minute spent recharging a Model S at a supercharger station.

I would like to have an EV and it has enough miles to do what I would need for it but the infrastructure is simply not there in my area unless you're a home owner.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.