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:where is your brain? (Score 1) 132

Are you actually asserting that demand is level 24 hours a day?

It can come very close.

In California, for example, a very large part of the demand is pumping water through aquaducts. By placing reservoirs along the way and doing most of the pumping during times of low electrical demand, California electrical utilities used to be able to keep the power demand nearly constant - and can still keep it much more level than in many other places.

Also: Coal plants can provide baseload, while wind and solar together do a great job of shaving peaks: Higher wind corresponds to higher HVAC load as well as higher generation. Solar not only tracks the air conditioning requirements but also comes close to tracking the daily load peaking - and solar plus wind tracks it even better, since the lake effect makes an afternoon-through-evening hump in wind generation.

at a power output proportional to the CUBE of the windspeed.

is this relevant somehow?

Yes, very. The steeply up-bending curve means that wind generators that are able to make use of high winds - which only happen for a tiny fraction of the time - have a peak power rating far above the average power they are able to produce in normal winds. So the peak power vastly overstates their average contribution.

Comment Re:Let me know when ... (Score 4, Insightful) 132

The power can be stored,

The issue is not that the power can be stored.

The issue is that power capacity comparisons overstate the total amount of energy you get out of the renewable generation equipment over the long haul because coal generation can run near capacity all the time and renewables (excluding water power) only a small part of the time.

I'm quite supportive of renewable energy. (I'm a major participant on one of the renewable energy tech discussion boards, too.) But while it's very GOOD that renewable power has passed coal in power capacity, even with near-ideal load-levelling storage, it will take about another factor of three before it surpasses coal in providing usable energy to the loads.

Comment Let me know when ... (Score 1, Insightful) 132

... they overtake coal for amount generated per unit time.

Renewables may have higher total peak, but coal plants have level output and can run 24/7, while sun is only about a third of the day and wind varies with the weather - at a power output proportional to the CUBE of the windspeed.

Comment Re:Ummm... (Score 1) 73

Amazon Prime's video selection was quite horrible for the several years that I had it, at least an order of mangnitude worse than Netflix's current selection, and the streaming performance was pretty bad too. Has that gotten any better lately? That's the main reason I didn't bothering addressing Amazon until you brought it up.

The selection is now pretty good, while Netflix's has decreased to only being pretty good. And yes, the streaming performance is now better than Netflix, at least here it is. In the evenings I can barely use Netflix. And I have the bandwidth setting set to be inoffensive.

Comment Re:Ummm... (Score 1) 73

HBO and Disney in particular are both large enough to succeed with their own app.

Simply having a back library isn't enough. They have to have a war chest big enough to crank out a decent amount of quality new material, rivaling Netflix's, for many consecutive years for people to begin to take notice.

Sigh. It's almost like your reply isn't even to my comment.

Netflix has the branding (that people understand the meaning of. Yes, HBO and Disney have strong branding, but not as streaming platforms) and the cash stream.

Consumers may not be geniuses, but they can understand that Disney and HBO have video, and that it could be streamed to them. They already had to figure out that they could stream Disney's content from Netflix.

I think multiple giants combining forces (basically to create the original Netflix experience all over again, with a great back catalog and very low prices, but also publishing newer seasons of their popular shows fairly aggressively) is the only viable short-term threat,

The immediate threat to Netflix is that the distributors are not renewing their licenses to stream content through Netflix, whether because they're getting more money out of Amazon or because they're taking it to their own platform, or perhaps streaming is only cannibalizing their DVD sales. Whatever the reasons, Netflix already has to deal with the fact that their library is shrinking.

In addition, there's another clear way they can have their lunch eaten by competitors. Amazon is partway there already: when you watch video on an Amazon Fire TV device, and you have a Netflix subscription, you're offered the opportunity to watch content on Netflix. The next step is to unify the listings into one app, and I predict that Amazon will be the one to bring us that, too. That's going to require giving the user a little more control over search, but they'll still find ways to force recommendations on you — and no doubt, to autoplay them too, just like now, to inflate statistics.

Comment Re:Ummm... (Score 1) 73

more, the likes of Disney, Warner, HBO, and pals want it dead, and refuse to grant them content licenses. It isnt that they dont want to stream it to you, the media holders wont let them. Get it right.

Yes, and it's suicidal of them. There's no going back to pre-Netflix ways of distribution (unless maybe they make DVRs even more convenient and powerful, with remote sharing and stuff, which isn't something the advertisers particularly want to see happen) and nobody wants to maintain 10 different accounts to find stuff

Too bad, they're going to have to anyway. That's the model we're moving towards, and even if it fails, inertia will take us in that direction for some time. HBO and Disney in particular are both large enough to succeed with their own app.

Comment Re:But what is a lie? (Score 2) 179

When I tell stories I want to be detailed; but I have learned that people don't want the full story and prefer summaries. Summaries so short that I more or less have to reinvent the scenario in order to get my point or question out and paid attention to.

No. If you are having this problem, either autism is a lot more subtle than I thought, or you are just bad at summarizing. I have noticed that most people are very bad at this. I am not very good at it myself; I have a tendency to give a whole lot more detail than is absolutely necessary, which turns people off.

Since it's not the complete truth; it's a lie

That is not how it works. Here's how it actually works: let's say you didn't do something because of some other thing, which was foisted upon you by some other person. When someone asks you what happened with doing the thing, first you just say "I didn't do the thing." Then they ask why not and you say "Well, this other person interfered." And then when they ask how, then you get to tell them the next part of the story: They interfered with "action". Oh really? How did they "action"? Well, they did this and this and this thing (only give the names of the things the did.) Then if they ask for more detail on those things, you give the detail.

Remember playing Ultima back in the day? You'd talk to an NPC and they would give you a sentence or so with some keywords in it. Then you'd use one of those keywords to get more information. This is how people actually talk! Well, to be fair, a lot of people don't talk this way. They talk like they do in J-RPGs where you get a wall of text (press X for more...more...more...) and that shuts people down because it is not particpatory. If I want a wall of text, I'll pick up a brochure.

Lying isn't black and white

Yes, yes it is. What you say is either true or not. That's black or white, period the fucking end. There are many, many ways for a statement to not be true, and only one way for it to be an unbiased description of what happened — don't say things which aren't true.

You have to interpret how much and what information a person is looking for.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with telling lies. If a story changes because you're summarizing it, you're shit at summarizing.

Comment Re:progressive thinking (Score 1) 79

Well, yes, some of those peoples are still around, which matters to racists and fascists, who believe that races and peoples have rights and share collective guilt. None of those people are still around, which is what matters from the point of justice and liberty.

It was the peoples who owned the land. They were very much territorial. In some cases, land was owned by a smaller group like a tribe or tribelet. The land was taken from them collectively, so any redress must be to them collectively. You might not recognize the value of the collective, but they do.

The truth is that the land you currently possess was taken from the prior owners by force. It's quite possible that they or their descendants are still around, and if you actually believed that taking property by force is wrong, you'd give it back to them. You don't, but you sure to like to claim the moral high ground that you're not even vaguely close to approaching. There's no way you can in good conscience sit there and rant about property rights you clearly don't believe in, and also be taken seriously.

Comment Re:Hardware is so much better? (Score 1) 78

When I was a kid and turned on a BBC Micro, it was ready to use instantly.

And for its time, it was awesome. And today, a pocket calculator makes that BBC Micro its bitch. But the truth is that most of us never turn our computers all the way off, so it doesn't matter much what the power-on-to-usefulness time is unless we're experiencing a lot of crashes.

Slashdot Top Deals

... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks