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 Re: DAB is useless nowadays, ever heard of streami (Score 4, Informative) 303

DAB here in the UK is a failure because we adopted it too early, and we are stuck with first generation DAB rather than DAB+. I hope Norway is a bit more advanced. Most of our stations including many music stations broadcast in 64kbps mono MP2 (no joke). So here, DAB sounds like shit, frankly, and because of the many DAB radios out there that don't support DAB+, it will be a long time before we can move on now. I have a good DAB radio in my car, but I primarily listen to internet streams and FM.

Comment Re:Wood burning is not clean (Score 1) 111

You can artificially tie together those two things and call it "carbon-neutral", sure. And you could also plant trees after burning coal (let's say on a small scale) or running your car and claim that coal and gasoline are carbon-neutral as well.

There's nothing artificial about it. If x tons of carbon is locked up in a managed forest, and you burn and plant wood from that forest at such a rate than x tons of carbon continues to be locked up in that forest, then that usage is, both by definition and absolute and incontrovertible weight of fact, carbon neutral. That's what the term means; no net change in the amount of carbon released.

And yes, you could do the same with coal and oil, as long as the trees you plant are new growth, are never cut down, and never counted against any other carbon usage; that is the whole concept of "offsetting". However that is much harder to keep track of, and in my opinion not a great idea.

This is missing the point. We're almost certainly not going to be able to grow enough trees or other plants fast enough to recapture all of the carbon we release through all of our hydrocarbon combustion.

Nobody argued otherwise. The fact that wood burning can't practically be carbon neutral on a massive scale doesn't stop it from being carbon neutral on a smaller scale.

What else would they have done with that wood? To get a proper accounting, you have to compare this to the counterfactual situation where there is no wood burning.

Again, neutral means neutral; no net change in the amount of carbon. Sure, you could potentially do even better than neutral, if the wood is used in such a way that its carbon never ends up being released into the atmosphere, but that doesn't stop neutral from being a good thing to aim at. Solar power and wind power are only carbon neutral; they aren't scrubbing any carbon out of the atmosphere, they just aren't adding any. So sustainable wood burning is on a par with solar and wind power in carbon terms, and I think it's a bit fatuous to complain that that's not good enough.

Comment Re:Wood burning is not clean (Score 2) 111

The only way this logic makes sense is if those trees were planted by humans for the primary purpose of burning.

Look up the Drax biomass generators;

The wood pellets used as biomass fuel at Drax are made from low-grade wood such as forest thinnings, tree tops and branches, as well as residue from sawmills and agricultural waste such as straw and seed husks.
[...]
If you burn wood pellets from the waste cuttings of the timber industry in a converted coal-fired power station, it should be possible to produce electricity that is largely carbon-neutral, provided the carbon of wood fuel is replaced by the carbon of growing trees – which Drax insists is the case.

What? Greenhouse gasses are fungible. It doesn't matter if the carbon was captured recently or (as with coal) in the distant past.

When the carbon was captured is not the issue, the issue is whether there is a net release of carbon. It does not matter whether the trees were planted specifically for power generation, what matters is that the wood is replaced at the same rate that it is used, as would be the case with wood from sustainably managed forests existing in many developed countries. This obviously wouldn't be practical on a huge scale, but there might be scope for a few projects like Drax, converting a coal plant to a renewable (or largely renewable) wood burning biomass plant.

Comment Re:I predict a lot of misunderstandings about BI (Score 4, Informative) 441

Considerable irony here, seeing as you're guilty of misunderstanding BI yourself. There are many different BI schemes proposed, of which what you describe is just one, so saying "that's not how it works" is clearly not very meaningful. The most practical BI schemes are the ones that are fiscally neutral, whereby existing welfare schemes are scrapped, and the budget used to fund a basic income instead. The Finland scheme is of that sort. It's not about modifying or increasing taxes to pay for it; the big change is the scrapping of the existing complex, bureaucratic, and expensive welfare systems in favour of a basic income payment. Tax is supposed to remain pretty much unchanged.

Comment Re:Hey let's keep going... (Score 2) 83

Apologies for assuming you were not a fellow Brit then. Sure, some of the racist groups took the Brexit vote as a boost for them, and got temporarily riled up, but I maintain that that isn't reflective of the population at large. Look around Europe; in France, you have a very high likelihood of Le Pen getting into the second round of the Presidential election (and given recent electoral surprises, I wouldn't rule out a win), you have the AFD making huge gains in Germany, Geert Wilders party doing great in the Netherlands despite him being convicted for hate speech, the fortunately overturned election in Austria, etc etc. These are all overtly xenohpobic, and to a significant extent racist parties with wide popular support and real political power. No party with similar views has any significant political power or support here. UKIP is nowhere near as far right as all those guys, and they only have one single MP by defection. The political map speaks for itself.

Comment Re:Hey let's keep going... (Score 2, Interesting) 83

It's easy to take cheap shots at the UK over Brexit, however in reality the referendum result was about anti-EU sentiment and sovereignty rather than xenophobia. Sure, a small core of the Leave campaign and their supporters are pretty xenophobic, but that is not reflected amongst the population at large. That side of things was given far too much weight by the media and the Remain side, to the detriment of rational debate in the run up to the vote.

The fact is that the UK is one of the least racist countries in Europe; we are far more multicultural and inclusive than the majority of EU states, and that's unlikely to change post-Brexit in my opinion. Regaining some degree of control over our borders removes the feeling that immigration is something being imposed on us by the EU, which is actually what people resent, not the immigration itself.

Comment Re:But will it run (Score 2) 128

Firstly, Android is Linux. But in the sense meant here, no. Quote from elsewhere; "Future Nokia smartphones will utilise Google's Android operating system, currently deployed on 86% of the world's smartphones."

Bringing another OS into play in a market that is sewn up by two major players is pretty much guaranteed to fail, and I really don't see what a Linux phone would do for the average consumer. Do really think Nokia/HMD Global should waste millions of Euros in R&D to develop a Linux phone distribution just to satisfy a handful of nerds? Not a compelling business case, if you ask me.

Comment Re:A pity, but not a surprise (Score 1) 95

They're capping each person to five reviews a week where they're not verified purchasers, not banning them. Why do you think the comedy reviews will disappear? I doubt it will affect those at all, since serious serial reviewers are probably not the people leaving those comedy reviews.

Comment Re:These customers are stupid for buying impulsive (Score 4, Insightful) 117

But you wouldn't expect to go into a physical Apple Store and have to inspect the merchandise to make sure it isn't fake, would you? It's up to the owner of a store to protect its reputation by ensuring the quality of the merchandise sold there. If Apple wants to give an experience equivalent to buying gear out of a cardboard box in an alley, that's up to them, but I'm not sure that's the smart move.

Comment Re:50 meter = 0 meter sigh (Score 2) 32

Nope. If you look at the website, it shows 150m lateral stand-off from "Crowds and built up areas", with no vertical limit, i.e. do not overfly crowds and built up areas at any height. The 50m exclusion is for small numbers of people/properties away from built up areas. So if you're flying out in the country, you can fly over some people or a property so long as you're above 50m.

Now what exactly is the definition of "built up area" I'm not sure, because those definitions could be taken to mean "don't fly in a city, full stop", which would be a bit of a pain. That doesn't seem to be clearly defined.

Slashdot Top Deals

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...