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:Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 1) 240

Ah, let's put power generations on mountains and base it on weather. Great idea. I love getting stuck because the fuel is based on something that never restricted me.

The point is that independence is about reducing dependencies, not having different dependencies.

Norway is small. Tiny. Compact. Welcome to non-representative.

Do you have any idea just how many solar panels you would need in order to power the rockies? Think about it! So many peaks, so many mountains, so much weather to resist. These are hard installations, over very long distances from cities. With difficult machinery too. And very harsh climates. You want that bolted panel to stay? Great. What about the huge battery to hold the power? And what about all of the lines to move the power from the light side to the dark side of the mountain?

Or, you could have a big tank. A big heavy box. Installed once. Virtually zero maintenance. Underground, so weather doesn't matter. Then a truck brings fuel, and dumps it in.

See, you're missing the big point. My car can get there. That's the reason my car gets there. If my car can get there, then a truck can also get there. As long as "there" can fit a big fuel tank, and a small pump, then we're done.

Any other solution that you can possibly describe, will need more than my car needs. That makes it unreliable to my car. Plain and simple.

Comment Re:Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 1) 240

Plugging my car into my friend's house? Really? So I can't park on the street. And I can't part around the corner. And I can't meet him at a restaurant. And we can't hop into the car and head to the casino because it's not charged enough yet.

I'm not renting someone else's shitty car. I want my own dirt, thank you very much. I want my own finances too. My own car costs nothing to keep using. Renting feeds someone else's family instead of my own.

Comment Re:Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 1) 240

You suck at brain-work.
You've forgotten about all of the people who live on the east side of the mountain, but used to live on the west side of the mountain.

You've, instead, re-stated my point. The reason that the mountains aren't full of people is exactly because there was fuel to let them continue on to the other side.

Comment Re:Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 2) 240

That's actually the real point. Transmitting electricity is horribly inefficient, compared to transporting portable fuel. The energy required to send a car 500 kilometers is approximately 50 litres of gasolene. Transporting 50 litres of gasolene to a fuel station by truck costs no more than the truck expense, and the truck's fuel expense, and the road wear and tear. And the larger the truck, the less it costs per litre.

But for the electricity, not only is there transmission loss, but there's also repeaters, lines, equipment along the way, the maintenance of that equipment, accessing that equipment, oh it's horrible. Maintaining infrastructure is a horrible horrible game when you're outside of a major city's orbit.

Think of a mountain range, with 10'000 miles of road. No cities at all. You can build wires, and repeaters, and blast mountains, and fix ice storms, or you can just drive the fuel to the stations.

Electricity is only useful within city limits -- like just about all infrastructure systems.

Comment Ah, "modern" technology. (Score 1) 368

White tube socks are modern technology -- they are used by lots of people today, and they haven't been replaced. One of my clients manufactures tube socks in 2017, the same way they did in 1980. They don't need windows 10.

So, my question is very simply this: which businesses/industries need modern technology to operate? Oh, right, computer industries.

Well, computers for computer industries. Not a big surprise. For for everything else, for every business that existed 100 years ago, no need.

Comment Infrastructure vs Independence (Score 4, Interesting) 240

I don't understand people. I can't drive to the middle of a mountain range, and charge an electric car. There's no electric grid there. I can easily fill up on fuel wherever a fuel truck can drop some off -- which is basically the very same places that my car can go.

North America is very different than Europe. Paris and London are how many hours away? A European train can take you through ten countries in a single day. In North America, you'd be lucky to hit five major cities in 24 hours of driving.

There's a lot more middle-of-nowhere around here. It's not about electric vs gasolene. It's about portable fuel vs transmission-over-infrastructure. We don't have any infrastructure -- that's why we have roads to get between places.

Comment Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score 1) 121

If you've ever lived and died by contractual agreements, then you've heard the term: "teeth". You can write anything you want into a contract. You can write that "the driver will do jumping jacks every morning, and take ballet lessons at night, before watching jay leno". All parties can sign, and it can be completely legal.

But you've forgotten the teeth.

What happens when the driver doesn't watch jay leno one night? Your agreement doesn't have any cansequences. And hence, if the driver doesn't watch jay leno, you can say that he breached the agreement. And you can be right. Good job. But you'll get nothing for it -- because your contract says nothing about what happens next.

So, you wind up in front of a judge, who gives you a very simple option -- you can say that the agreement is now breached, and hence is over, or you can ignore the scenario. Presuming that the relationship is in your interest, as it always was, you don't want to end it. And then, you've created a nice little precedent whereby next time, the judge is going to say that you allowed it last time, and hence the driver had reason to believe that you'd allow it again.

Again, no one cares about "correct" "right" or "agreed". The only thing that matters is what happens as a result.

That's why the second thing you learn, when you live and die by contracts, is that if you aren't going to put in any teeth, you're actually way better off not putting in the policy either. You've no-doubt included termination clauses, so you can always terminate the agreement unilaterally.

Comment Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score 1) 121

It's not about "bearing" it's about accountability.

If corporate makes something clear to employees, and trains employees on it, and enforces it, and then an employee does it anyway, then corporate is only accountable to prove that the employee was trained appropriately, and then to fire the employee.

But with a contractor, corporate is accountable at all. It doesn't need to train contractors. It doesn't need to prove that contractors understood anything. It doesn't even need to fire the contractors. There is zero relationship. It's actually the client's fault more than corporate's fault.

It's no difference than if uber sells me the car, and I go hire some random driver. They want to be a recruiting agency between me and the driver. A broker. Brokers don't set policies, they simply decide whom to broker. Recruiting agencies don't set hiring requirements either.

Comment Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score 1) 121

Ah, poor lass: "how much control" is directly proportional to percentage of revenue. It always comes down to money.

Everything's a big long complicated thing. But there are instant outs. For example, your words have zero value, because you're not willing to put your name to them. Similarly, I'm not loading your random ppt file; nice try.

Put your own neck through the system, then comment on how it actually works. As anyone who's been through it can tell you, it makes absolutely no difference what "a legal expect" has to say. "Legal experts" don't decide anything. It takes three legal experts to make any legal decision. It's an adversarial system for a reason.

I can tell you exactly what happened to me, with my money, with my time, with my livelihood. That's not my advice, that's my experience, and my expertise. You're just guessing.

Comment Re:They are looking at it all wrong (Score 1) 121

"at any one time" -- taxation year. When it comes time to declare revenue, write-off expenses, and pay taxes, you'll need to have more than one client.

Obviously, everyone understands ramp-up periods, and slow-down periods. So generally, like any depression, you'll get a year of flux. And obviously, if you're small, no one's going to look close enough for a few years at least.

But you won't survive an audit with two contiguous years of only one client -- presuming that you're spending full-time on that one client, and they are paying you thusly.

As for your dumbass comment about no one to hire, just because I'm the first to invent red paint, doesn't mean that any painter I hire can't also paint with blue for others.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Well I don't see why I have to make one man miserable when I can make so many men happy." -- Ellyn Mustard, about marriage