Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Completely bogus (Score 2) 172

So many thing wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. Looks to me that it was more of an ego trip on the part of the author than a valid study.

First of all, cable is obviously a screw job. There is no way that I can pretend that cable has any merits. But still ...

NetFlix content is generally older than cable content. While Netflix is creating some new shows, it is unlikely that many people are signing up for NetFlix for their "look, we made a little show" content.

People who are watching NetFlix have to be paying for Internet too. And many pay for a faster speed than they otherwise would to watch NetFlix. So Internet prices should be considered. Once that is done, since NetFlix is watched less, it might even end up costing more per hour, but "per hour" is just stupid.

Computing the cost per hour is pointless. Both are unmetered. People turn cable on even though they might not be paying attention to it, it becomes just something that's there and might occasionally be interesting. The same isn't quite as true for NetFlix since you have to actively select what you want to see. But realistically NetFlix is likely watched less simply because there is less to watch. If NetFlix had live shows such as news feeds then it might get watched more in a month making its meaningless "hourly cost" less, but it does not.

All that you can really say is that cable is more expensive than NetFlix, as long as you are not getting screwed too bad on Internet access.

Comment Re:How Much? (Score 1) 79

Actually, you're a stupid AC so it is understandable that you would just spout such nonsense, but H2 certainly does use proportionally more O2 that hydrocarbons when burnt. But that wasn't even my point. Supposedly we are close to being out of hydrocarbons (or so the eko-kooks would have us believe), so I'm not too concerned that burning the little left could deplete our oxygen. On the other hand, if someone has found a "vast" reserve of hydrogen and can tap it as a fuel source, then we are likely to focus less on renewable sources and just use that. And as we do there will be less and less free oxygen, particularly since we seem to use energy at rates faster than the planet restores oxygen by photosynthesis (otherwise there would be no "greenhouse gas" problem).

Comment Re:How Much? (Score -1) 79

H2 doesn't use more oxygen than hyrdocarbons when burning,

I thought that much was obvious, but for those who have not been paying attention, we are close to using up our hydrocarbons. And we have scientists talking about ways to store the resulting CO2 rather than let it stay in the atmosphere for eventual photosynthesis. So now if we have found a fresh source of hydrogen, will we not exploit it to further extremes? How much breathable oxygen will that use up in a world that is said to already be past its tipping point?

Comment worse yet (Score 1) 136

Worse yet is that the tests are based on 100% gasoline. But meanwhile the congress is passing laws that effectively force (or at least subsidize) the fuel companies to sell up 90% gasoline contaminated with 10% alcohol. I'm sure someone with no real knowledge about this will want to post how there is "only" a 3% energy content difference, but in my experience that is complete bullshit. You can still buy 100% gasoline if you are willing to pay a premium for it (see but that premium is much greater than 10%, often 30% or higher. I've found that, for my 2013 vehicle, if I buy 100% gasoline that I get at least 15% better mileage, some times as much as 20% better than alcohol diluted gas. So I would be much better off if the oil companies simply sold me 9/10 of a gallon of gasoline for the price of a gallon rather than selling me 9/10 of a gallon poisoned with 1/10 of a gallon of alcohol. I would get better mileage, I wouldn't have to lug around the extra weight of the unwanted alcohol, and I could put more real gasoline in my tank, giving me a better range. But because of the political clout of some farmers in Iowa and Arthur Daniels Midland Corporation, I have to pay to have my gasoline watered down with alcohol.

And, of course, this doesn't even consider the insanity of driving up food prices and forcing us to waste grain for political reasons rather than using it for food. I'm not going to give you some bullshit about starving kids in Africa (there will always be starving kids in Africa), but I've seen prices for my own food and my dog's food (no matter if I feed him something that includes corn or not) driven up just by the extra demands for corn this stupid policy causes.

Comment Re:"The reason for the order was not known" (Score 3, Informative) 109

The reason for the order was not known due to legal secrecy in an ongoing case

That's strange, because I know what the article author claims not to know. Brazil wants information that they can't legally get. So they are (illegally) forcing a shut down of Whatsapp to put pressure on Facebook to try to get the information. If that works Watsapp will be turned on again. If it doesn't work and there isn't a lot of blow back from the population, then Facebook itself may be next, but in reality they expect that shutting down Facebook would draw too much attention to their tactics so it is unlikely to occur.

Comment Re:First and Fourth Amendment implications (Score 1) 406

Phooey on you. You are just Cowards, and Anonymous Cowards at that. You just serve as Patsies, as anyone who understand the truth of Building 9 understands that you couldn't even destroy the World Trade Center without Bush's help. And your pitiful shameful dog of a god is so weak that you can't even harm any of our beloved political leaders. Our leaders laugh at you and your little god, almost as much as they laugh at us.

Slashdot Top Deals

Never let someone who says it cannot be done interrupt the person who is doing it.