Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Fairly easy to defeat (Score 2) 44

Face dazzle paint in team colors, reversible pattern hoodie and scarf, fake nose and or eyebrows (team colors).

Hit ratio drops from 50 percent false positive to below threshold.

Basically, if it worked during WW II, it still works. That's how inaccurate facial recognition actually is. It's even worse for women than for men.

Comment Re:work till death (Score 1) 290

However, a mortgage on a $50k tiny house means you can get a mortgage deduction, and use the tax refund to invest in an IRA or 401(k) with a full or partial match. Which is way better than paying rent, other than land rent. The options range from house and land held free, house and land held mortgaged, house held free and land leased or rented, house mortgaged and land leased or rented, to the worst version house and land rented.

Comment Re:Troglodytes (Score 2) 101

All of them, and make no mistake Hillary would have been just as bad.

No, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have been. I think it's reasonable to assume she would have continued the same kind of policies as Obama. And it was Obama's FCC that started to take Network Neutrality seriously to begin with.

There is no justification for claiming a "Both sides" position here, just as there isn't with 90% of what Trump is doing.

Comment Bull (Score 1) 290

Oh please. This is just more insurance and investing firm Fear and Uncertainty.

Look, just save and invest - in stocks, forget bonds - 10 percent of your salary before taxes in the lowest cost retirement ETF or mutual fund. Low expense ratio like 0.07 percent S&P 500. Do that before any matches.

You'll be golden.

If you "can't save", just start with the amount for a full match or half match then increase by 1 percent total salary whenever you get a pay increase.

It's not hard.

They just want you to think you have to pay 1 percent in fees when you can spend 1/10th of that, for no better returns.

Comment Re: Total regulatory impact 2-3 percent (Score 1) 339

Look, I'm sorry you don't understand how energy firms work. The cold hard reality is that private enterprise is literally investing massive multiples in renewable energy of the amount they used to invest in coal plants.

No jawboning will change that basic fact.

The thing holding back renewables was never incentives (which totally helped when it was small) but the lack of invested capital. With more capital the cost per unit plummets. Costs for renewable KWhr has plummetted in relation to cost of coal KWhr. That's not going to get better. It will get far more extreme.

Game over.

Comment Re:Cheap Energy (Score 1) 339

Not the only one. Actually, you bring up a good point, we do have working fusion reactors, currently being developed, including demonstration projects in Vancouver BC and Seattle and SF and LA.

However, what you may not realize is they will mostly be used for military purposes, including ships and submarines and a few planes. Gotta power those lasers somehow.

Commercial use? Not really. Renewables are what is replacing coal use. Hong Kong is phasing out coal entirely with that. Look at US and Canadian markets for the shift.

Comment Re:Total regulatory impact 2-3 percent (Score 2) 339

LOL, what a n00b.

Unlike you, I work in a green building powered by 99.8 percent green power. My bus runs on green electricity. My house runs on green electricity. My new energy efficient appliances use 1/4th the energy my old house did and my lights are all LEDs. I own 6 solar panels. I even pay extra to ensure low income families in my city get green energy. And my utility bill is tiny.


The world has already downmodded fossil fuels. Your day is over. Renewables won.

Comment Re:Total regulatory impact 2-3 percent (Score 2) 339

You correctly arrived at one response, that nothing you do now will change the inevitable failure of coal.

You incorrectly think that market failures for growing new energy are unusual. The major thing that kept renewables down for so long was access to capital. When most nations and corporations started investing capital in renewables, costs dropped. It's how capitalism works.

As to your own rates, that's probably because you haven't taken control of your own energy production, and built your own renewables, like a true capitalist would. You probably depend on Big Government for your energy supply for the most part.

Comment Re: Total regulatory impact 2-3 percent (Score 1) 339

It's 2017, not 2000. They're cheaper now.

You keep thinking this is some debate you're going to win. But the market cares nothing for your failed ideology. It responds to signals.

And coal is too expensive. Renewables are cheaper.

Removing renewables will only increase your unit cost of energy. It won't create more US jobs. It won't even stop the coal firms from failing.

Fun Fact: I participated in the IPOs of many energy firms, including Peabody (coal). I'm just telling you the truth they don't want you to hear.

Comment Re:The problem is not the ratio but the total carb (Score 1) 43

Technically, the only reason China is beating the US and Canada on renewables is the inaction of Red states and provinces. If you actually look at the 13 states and 6 provinces investing in renewables, we're also investing just as much. But, being Communists, China can force everyone to actually do stuff, so they win.

And I do mean win. It cuts their costs dramatically. It's why Blue cities grow faster. The few Red cities that invest in renewables and transit are growing a lot (part of why Texas does so well, too).

Slashdot Top Deals

Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984