Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Not Infinite but Still Useful (Score 1) 302

Not all renewable resources require large area. Solar Space Power Satellites, e.g., don't require a lot of area, and have a potential smooth path of development (via powering other vehicles in space, e.g. allowing ion rockets to go beyond Jupiter without using on board fission power).

OTOH, SPSS aren't all that flexible, and if you use tightly focusable E.M. to deliver the power they have the potential to be dangerous. (Delivery to Earth by microwave looks pretty good, but it would louse up a part of the radio spectrum that can easily get through rain. And power transmission via laser is going to either be very low power or very dangerous.)

IOW, every single form of energy generation/delivery has it's drawbacks. Solar and wind can't be started up whenever you need them, e.g., necessitating lots of network ballast and storage.

Comment Re:Should have a Deep Impact.... (Score 1) 302

That's an overbroad statement, but it's true that this is being well oversold as a "clean energy source". But if it can be made to work properly there are several environments where it would be the best choice. The questions are things like "How much maintenance would it require?", "How self-contained can it be made?", "How small/light/cheap can it be made?" Etc.

This should produce a lot less waste than a fission reactor (though there are interesting claims being made about the molten salt reactors) and after full development might be the superior choice of power in places like Antarctica, the moon, Mars, interstellar ships, etc. The problem is getting from this early development model to a final model.

Comment Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score 1) 479

You have 2 opposing sides. One side uses far more lying and deception to delude its base than the other side. The lying side makes greater gains,because its lies are more attractive than the truth, but its base is so deluded that it can't see that it's electing a leader who is completely incapable of leading the nation. Our present day situation is going to be used as a morality tale about the excessive use of propaganda.

Comment Re:Obama has no right to do this (Score 2) 479

When everyone thought Trump was going to lose Trump said the election was rigged. After he won the election but didn't win the popular vote Trump said the election was rigged. HRC never said the election was rigged, but the fake news people are saying she said the election was rigged. Who here has less faith in American democracy?

Comment Re:More likely medical practice, not evolution (Score 1) 276

There are reasons why that's a poor idea. E.g., wider hips pose mobility issues. The system really needs a thorough redesign so that birth doesn't need to fit through the pelvic girdle, but that's far beyond us. The current system was designed for creatures with horizontal body position and small head size. For that it works fine. As it is... it puts strong constraints on development.

Don't think that this is the only place where history impacts evolution, though. Spiders have to drink their dinner because their brain is in a circle around their esophagus (or whatever you call that part of a spider). This worked out fine originally, but spiders became successful, and started growing and getting smarter, so their brains got larger, and now they need a liquid diet. If they get any smarter they won't be able to eat at all.

And speaking of the esophagus, consider the human trachea. Ever have something "go down the wrong pipe"? That's because of a very old design decision that's now apparently impossible to evolve a solution for. The lungs share the plumbing with the gut in the neck and head. There are lots of other similar features calling for a re-factoring of the design, but evolution doesn't work that way. All the intermediates must we not only working, but competitive WRT the prior model. No intermediate regressions allowed. (Except, of course, at times like after a major extinction event, when the selection pressure temporarily becomes quite low.)

Comment Re:You know what? (Score 1) 575

You are correct that it is already too late to prevent global warming. It's been happening to some degree since we started farming rice. OTOH, a mild global warming has been advantageous. Without it we'd be entering an ice age. The ramped-up-on-steroids global warming that we've been pushing since the start of the industrial revolution, however, is something else again. We don't know just how bad it's going to get, but I do know that the actual projections have had the higher ends trimmed to avoid political repercussions. (Were the lower ends also trimmed? If so I haven't heard so.) Some of the model results that were excluded actually DO have Antarctica melting, and not just around the edges. Well, that's a lot worse than the mean projections, but the mean projection is that its going to be more than the 2 degrees Celsius that people talk about, probably closer to 4 degrees. That's nearly 8 degrees Fahrenheit. And that's going to mean LOTS of ice melting, and lots of deserts where there used to be farmland. It means that Canada will probably become good farmland...if it can get enough water. Oh, yes. It also means that the temperatures are going to get so high that we can't rely on any of the current models, because wind and ocean currents will shift too much. So we can't be sure where it's going to be wet, where it's going to be dry, or how wet or how dry.

My personal expectation (I'm no specialist, and a bit of a pessimist) is that we'll see over a meter sea level rise before the end of the century. Please note that this is not more extreme than some of the models predict, as some of them talk about 10's of meters, though I'm not sure of the timeline for that. I'm sort of expecting the Tethy's sea to form again for the first time since the Jurassic, but it would be a pretty shallow sea, I'm guessing less than a meter deep in most places...but how deep, of course, depends on the actual rise in sea levels. Maybe some genetic engineer will recreate the pleasiasaur to swim in it.

Comment Re:Here's an idea (Score 1) 217

This is absolutely nothing new.

Before he became a homicidal maniac, Phil Spector was a maniac responsible for the sound that many acts had. He was not ever considered part of the bands that he was ostensibly a Producer for, but he made lineup choices, made arrangements of the tunes brought by bands, and worked extensively in the editing booth after the tracks were laid-down.

If anything the only change is that modern technology lets the producer involve far fewer other people in crafting an act's sound, and makes it possible for the act to tour with what used to be only achievable as a studio sound.

It almost doesn't matter how an act is discovered, what the people in the group must be willing to let their act be subjected-to is what will define where the label is willing to market them and how much effort they're willing to spend.

Comment Re:Need a change of leadership (Score 4, Informative) 58

Jack Valenti, who shaped the modern era of the MPAA as its President for 38 years, was not Jewish. His parents were Italian immigrants, so it's fairly likely that he was Catholic.

On Valenti's stepping-down in 2004, Dan Glickman was made President of the MPAA. He admittedly was Jewish, but he doesn't appear to have changes Valenti's policies too dramatically.

Glickman left the MPAA in 2010 after only six years, to be replaced by Chuck Dodd, who is not Jewish.

So for the last fifty years, someone whose religion can be described as Jewish was the head of the MPAA only 12% of the time. This seems to rather invalidate your argument.

Slashdot Top Deals

Another megabytes the dust.