Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Definitions and Context (Score 1) 317

The title is correct, but then we have to define "renewables". It includes solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric.

With that in mind, know that wind and solar, the big newer, flashier energy sources in the media, are not the major sources of renewable energy. Hydroelectric (falling water) accounts for over 70% of renewable energy. Wind is at 15%. Solar is at 4%.

Percentage-wise, solar and wind have grown very quickly, but in the grand scheme of total energy production, wind and solar are still small potatoes.

Disclaimer: I'm not writing this post as a nay-sayer. I actually work in sustainability. I WANT more solar and wind power. I'm just trying to make sure that people don't accept hype-ish headlines as implying certain things. Within sustainability, we always have to manage the expectations of the hype. Everyone thinks we can "just put up some solar panels" and make free electricity for EV charging stations when FREE is never reality.

Comment Not My Experience (Score 1) 120

I get one email asking how packaging or service was. And I ignore it. I don't get repeat emails. What are these people buying?

FTFA: “I buy literally everything on Amazon, from hangers to batteries,” noted one disgruntled shopper.

Oh. So "Shoppers" don't "slam the spam". Some extreme Amazon shoppers slam the spam. Gotcha.

Comment Trump's a D-Bag, but... (Score 1, Insightful) 342

Trump's a D-Bag, but if there's literally no evidence that the DDOS came as a RESULT of the article (only that it came after the story), then why are we strongly insinuating causality?

There's no need for that. Trump's already shit stain and everyone knows it. There's no need to jump to conclusions and tie him to something that he may not be associated. Because if it turns out that he's NOT associated, this will just be conspiracy theorist and Trump pariah bait.

Comment Re:Entrepreneur Spreads Hype - News at 11 (Score 1) 282

1. First, they've had test vehicles. Test vehicles that aren't good enough to launch as fully "self-driving" yet or else they'd be knee-deep in the legal questions already. I can say that I'm developing a rocket booster in my backyard, but until I can approach its intended function to the point where I feel comfortable selling it, the product doesn't exist. It's all concept and research with no real deadline. So, as I said, without more tech and legal solutions, it's still speculation.

2. Yes, very expensive. Some panels are cheap, but panels cleanly sourced are expensive and it doesn't matter how efficient future panels cost if you sink the cost today. Moreover, most people that invest in rooftop solar end up doing it through a leasing process which means selling the home becomes more complicated. Batteries are still a **very** dirty storage method (dirty to make, dirty to recycle/dispose) that adds to the cost of the energy ecologically and financially. There's a reason there hasn't been a boom in full-sized solar and wind plants/farms -- they don't make fiscal sense. The power companies would be all over them if there was a method to make it work with current infrastructure.

3. It's all prediction based on precedence.

11. No, SpaceX has *said* they *plan* on sending a manned mission to Mars within a decade. There's no reason (at all) to believe the plan will come to fruition. Elon has said he'll build an EV for the masses, send people to Mars, send people at hundreds of MPH down a pressurized tube, make automated vehicles that would make obsolete transit, etc.

For the record, I know that I sound like an absolute humbug. It's not my goal to be a humbug, but I feel that it's necessary to nip some of the hyperbolic enthusiasm in the bud. Tech hype, in my experience, only serves to help people stuff their heads in the sand and ignore existing problems that could be eased or even solved today with existing technology. Instead, people like to ignore it all and say, "Technology will save us." So, I'll go down the list again and point out what we could do TODAY to achieve similar results...

1. Self-Driving Cars: The goal is to ease traffic and reduce traffic collisions. We can do this by better facilitating transit and increasing the minimum driving age to 21. We should require automatic braking (a today tech!) in every vehicle where airbags are required.

2. Clean Energy: The goal is to ease global climate change. To do that, we can use nuclear power with breeder reactors and keeping building rooftop solar and windfarms where they make sense.

3. Virtual and Augmented Reality: The goal is to have an immersive experience where one isn't. Embrace the porn/games market. Hopefully someone will make something more useful out of it, but don't shy from the true buyers-in.

4. Drones and Flying Cars: The purpose is to reduce delivery and surveillance expenses (drones) and travel more quickly on demand (flying cars). There's not much you can do to further reduce delivery expenses, honestly. That's commerce. I don't think any private person wants to be watched more. And quick, on-demand travel should be the alternative transportation to transit being the standard option.

5. Artificial Intelligence: The goal is to think less for ourselves because we're wrong about things. This is a bad goal. Drop this goal.

6. Pocket Supercomputers for Everyone: There is no goal here. It's just a pat on the back.

7. Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains: The goal here is to avoid surveillance and, if that's the case, then why support drones?

8. High-Quality Online Education: The goal here is to make education easier for the entity responsible for providing education. However, education is hard because people are complex and the job of an educator is more complex than people realize. We can improve everyone's quality of life if we focused more on educating the underperformers and less on those who perform well regardless. It's called improving from the roots up instead of the leaves down.

9. Better Food through Science: The goal here is to make more food in less space. We're already doing this.

10. Computerized Medicine: The goal here is to end medical pain and suffering. We can do that today in MANY WAYS if we actually valued people in other countries. Instead, the goal may actually be to reverse the effects of luxurious living (obesity, gout, colon cancer, etc.). The real solution is prevention.

11. A New Space Age: The goal here is righteous-- to learn more. But it will be a slow go for the next 50 years if we don't sort out other issues first.

Comment Re:Feedback (Score 2) 226

LOL. We are of a similar mind:

"The Eye" - This is creepy and much too reminiscent of Big Brother. And the color scheme screams of Norton AntiVirus.
"The Connector" - This looks like the very long history of very bad Olympics logos. Bad shapes, confusing, weird colors. It would not be immediately associated with a "web browser".
"Open Button" - This is better, but reminds me of the many audio/media players with last track, pause, and next track button. This would be a great logo if Firefox were WinAmp.
"Protocol" - This is cool, but confusing to the uninitiated. It's kind of like the inside joke of ""-- when someone would ask you the website address, you would say "H-T-T-P-Colon-Slash-Slash-Slashdot-Dot-Org".
"Wireframe World" - Nope. Too much empty space for too little communication.
"The Impossible M" - Maybe if the patterns weren't so late 90's computing retro and the M wasn't so wide. It has to be an icon, right?
"Flik Flak" - This looks like a marketing logo for an architecture firm using a default color scheme from the Microsoft Office suite.

Comment Entrepreneur Spreads Hype - News at 11 (Score 4, Insightful) 282

1. Self-Driving Cars: If the tech and legal issues ever get sorted, it can be great. But that's nowhere near happening, so the hype machine needs to continue to roll to continue bringing in new investors.

2. Clean Energy: Very expensive and requiring massive diversity of investment. Wind and solar (the big "new" players) are not for every environment. Moreover, there has only been minimal gains in the grid balancing act required to make use of these intermittent energy sources.

3. Virtual and Augmented Reality: Porn and games. For all other applications, it would just be too much of a distraction.

4. Drones and Flying Cars: Drones come with MASSIVE safety and privacy risks. Flying cars are and always will be BS.

5. Artificial Intelligence: Always just around the corner.

6. Pocket Supercomputers for Everyone: If we can designate smartphones supercomputers because they're as powerful as supercomputers once were, then I am the smartest man on Earth (by comparison to pre-Enlightenment Europe).

7. Cryptocurrencies and Blockchains: Until there's a means of securing cryptocurrencies in peoples' hands, they will never gain sufficient faith for widespread usage. Until then, they're just volatile niche currencies.

8. High-Quality Online Education: Online Education will be crap until you can figure out a way to use it to consistently educate the lower socio-economic ranks. Until then, we're going to continue to NEED to require them to physically show up to a classroom with humans adjusting to the needs of the students.

9. Better Food through Science: This is the past. We've been doing this for hundreds of years.

10. Computerized Medicine: Which will be useless unless our social policies surrounding the relationships between medical costs and medical profits aren't addressed.

11. A New Space Age: This is where the drones comes in. Today's governments are spending more money on keeping their populations healthier and prolonging lives. As they invest more, there will be less money for exploration (and 99% of exploration is funded by governments). It is, and will continue to be for a long time, to just send drones to do our exploration for us.

Comment Re:"free" * (Score 1) 990

But in this case, not only is the customer paying, but other people are as well. A single Level 2 charging station with two ports costs $5,000-$7,000. Add to that the cost installation (variable depending on the amount of trenching) and the cost of electricity and you get actual cost. That either comes from somewhere. And if the customer's not paying anything, then everyone is paying something.

Comment Your honor, consider all the people I didn't kill. (Score 2) 153

We'll probably see these stories highlighted non-stop until some sort of legal decision is made on the liability of the actions genuinely autonomous vehicles. Google, Tesla, and everyone else working on the tech will need constant need investor support and public reaction to happy stories otherwise they'll have to face the real question of liability.

The problem at hand: It doesn't matter how many people a car's autonomous driving doesn't kill, what matters is the number of people it fails to save. The same rule applies to humans: People cannot defend negligent or murderous actions by a listing of all the people that they didn't kill. What matters is harm committed, not harm evaded.

Moreover, can any company survive the of full liability of the loss of more than a few lives? Over 30,000 people per year are killed on American roads. Even if autonomous vehicles reduced that to 10,000 people per year (a 66% reduction!), their manufacturers/programmers would still be responsible for the death of 10,000 people! What industry could survive that liability? That many civil law suits?

Slashdot Top Deals

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus