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:Economics? (Score 2) 217

Most of the older plants have had their license extended to 60 years. Some are requesting an extension to 80 years because everything is working just fine.

That's not safe, though, because you can't perform a complete metallurgical inspection of the interior of the reactor, and it tends to be damaged over time. Also, many of our older reactors are based on unsafe designs; that they haven't had an incident is laudable, but that they won't have a serious one in the future is still not assurable. And a number of them are proven insecure designs, literally based on the same design as used at Fukushima Daiichi and also storing spent fuel on site.

I am not wholly against nuclear power, but I am wholly against extending the lifespan of old reactors which frankly weren't safe when they were built. That human ingenuity has kept them going is not a counterargument. It is pucker-inducing.

Comment Re: Budget and Timelines (Score 1) 217

Fukushima would have actually been fairly safe if the all the safety features would have been implemented instead of being scaled down because of cost....

I don't think you can call a reactor design safe if it depends on external maintenance. Only a reactor which is self-scrambling in a runaway can possibly be called "safe". Then, perhaps even quite reasonably so, until we have to talk about decommissioning. I still think we should just shove the whole reactor into a subduction zone ;)

Comment Re:Good! (Score 0) 217

when coal (especially) is the main alternative for providing the huge baseload requirements of a solid electrical infrastructure, it's a no-brainer to have nuclear be a portion of the multi-legged stool we need.

Having no brain is suggesting that this overly industrialized and extractive society is worth preserving in its current form. Waste for the sake of production, indeed production for the sake of production, cannot continue endlessly unless we achieve zero emissions and 100% recycling.

Comment can't have a golden age "soon" (Score 1) 71

We've got to bootstrap our way into space before we can have a golden age thereof. We can't feasibly have a golden age of space until we're building spacecraft in space out of stuff we mined in space.

We're going to have to have a boring age of mining before we can have a golden age of exploration.

Comment Re:Is that all (Score 1) 325

Having a bad gene is not someone's fault, the best that you can say is 'bad luck'. If it is severe and you know that you have it, then maybe you should think hard before you have children.

Yes, you almost have it concisely there: Having a bad gene is bad luck, and choosing to breed if you have it is someone's fault.

Some people with genetic problems do do that, or have the foetus tested and aborted if it has the problem.

I just don't think I've got great genes or a great situation for being a good parent, so even though I think I'd be better than the average dillhole I still don't think that raises the bar sufficiently to call myself a good parent. Thus, I'm not having any. I've had multiple opportunities, and my last girlfriend even left me for someone else over it. It was sad, but that's preferable to having her skipping pills trying to catch my child, so I'm not really complaining. Now, how can I make a statement similar to "I'm putting my money where my mouth is" without making it sound like I'm sucking my own dick? If I could do that, I've have been all over pornhub already.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 217

US or Russian naval officers would disagree with you.

See what I wrote above. You can make a reactor of any size. But you lose efficiency - both neutron efficiency and cost efficiency - the more you scale down. Nuclear sub reactors' scaledowns are aided by the use of highly enriched uranium as fuel, something you don't want to do with civilian nuclear plants. And note that even nuclear subs' reactors aren't "small". A Los Angeles class, for example, uses a 165MW reactor. And nuclear power plants, unlike subs, generally need to have multiple reactors so that they can be taken down for maintenance / fueling.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 2) 217

The GP is correct. Solar farms are a pretty dense energy source - comparable (when the reservoir is included) to all but the highest head dams, and an order of magnitude or two more than a typical dam. And some designs can get even more dense, such as linear fresnel reflectors (which cover a higher percentage of the ground because of less issues with self-shading as the sun moves). Plus, solar can be paired with wind. Wind is a low energy density source with respect to total acreage, but very high with respect to actual surface area required on the ground.

Beyond this, a few notes. Much solar doesn't have to take up any new land at all, as one notes from rooftop solar (ideally industrual/commercial), parking shelters/covered walkways, etc. And places where solar plants are made are most typically desert areas. And there's a curious reversal in the desert when it comes to life: while shading terrain hinders life in moist areas, it encourages life in desert areas. In the desert, places that provide shade (ironwood trees, saguaro cacti, large rocks, etc) tend to turn into oases of life - not simply by providing relief from the blazing sun, but slowing down the rate of water loss from the soil. Now, this doesn't usually happen with solar plants because at this stage, most are kept cleared. But that does not have to be the case.

Comment Re: Go to hell Elon (Score 1) 238

The more I hear about these Tesla cars the worse they sound. "We decide when, where, and how you use car and Autopilot, because the EULA says we can do whatever we want."

Yes. It's a serious problem. Literally all of the self-driving cars are going to have to phone home in order to operate. It's standalone GPS vs. your phone all over again.

Comment Re:Not a copyright violation, a Trademark violatio (Score 1) 198

No it's not legitimate if he merely mentioned either. Merely mentioning a trademark doesn't mean you're in violation of trademark law, otherwise you wouldn't be able to talk about most commercial products. The precise restrictions on trademarked word use are best described by a lawyer, but remember the intent of trademark law is to prevent people from passing an item off as something associated with the trademark owner, not to restrict people's ability to talk about products they've seen or owned.

For more information, visit Bing and google "trademarks".

Comment Re:About time. (Score 4, Interesting) 324

Medical professionals have a professional duty to state medical facts. If they refuse, they can and should be placed in a different career path.

An accountant or lawyer promoting a Sovereign Citizen view of the relationship between client and state would be struck off. A Bridge Engineer who rejects Newtonian (or better) mechanics would be struck off.

This isn't like banning a doctor from discussing gun safety because you lobbyists are worried it might lead to a decrease in household gun ownership. This is about nurses being required not to mislead people about medicine, abusing their positions as respected medical professionals to sow misinformation. It's not a freedom of speech issue, it's a professionalism issue, and critically it's a life and death issue.

Comment Re:Or... (Score 1) 103

Funny thing is after I lived with the flip phone for a year or so, about a year ago I bought the cheapest smartphone I could ($30, at Walmart!) and was stunned at how much better it was than the GN. OK, the screen was worse, as was the amount of storage -- though the fact it took SD cards mitigated that in part, but it really was faster, smoother, and the UI had less bugs. It resold me on Android.

I honestly don't think price has much to do with device "niceness" in the Android world. Sure, in the early days, you had a few "cheap" phones with sub-WVGA screens that were barely usable, and right until a couple of years ago even the slightly better ones seemed cobbled together, but right now I'm actually seeing low end hardware that's caught up with Android's needs, while critical features continue to get removed from phones as they get more expensive.

And some of those removed features do, actually, make the phone less frustrating. That cheap $30 Walmart special had dedicated navigation buttons for example - its replacement doesn't, meaning I have to swipe from the corners to get buttons that'll close a full screen app or just send that full screen app a "back" signal. How is that an improvement? It isn't. The buttons are removed because it interferes with the lines of the device and would make it fractionally bigger, aesthetic considerations that undermine usability and makes the device more annoying to use.

Comment Re:Assange running out of time (Score 1) 186

So you're perfectly happy to make up whatever context suits you. Why am I not surprised? Here, how does this sound for you?

Dear Mike,

As you know, I hate white people. Could you please make me some lists of candidates that don't involve any of them racist crackers? Thank you.

Allahu akhbar,

Slashdot Top Deals

The end of labor is to gain leisure.