Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re: Wot? (Score 1) 75

ther material is cheap. THe labor is expensive. 20/hr or more for doing that work. In the same length of time that it takes to put the plywood down on the rafters, is about the same length of time for putting down the Tesla Roof. So, no tar paper or shingles, which is money and time. And we just had our roof re-done 3 weeks ago. I forget how many sections, but, iwe have a 2 story 3000 sq feet home, so above average roof. We had 8 guys work on it. Took 1.5 days. That is the second time that we have had this done due to hail. Next time, we will install a Tesla roof which will almost certainly be strong enough to deal with the golf ball size hail that we get.

Comment Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods (Score 1) 166

actually, I did not pull that from my ass. I have since 1967 been a recycler until 3 years ago. At that time, I spent some time looking into the industry (I was laid up with health issues). I found out that WM who said that they recycled local, does not. They send it all to China.
Likewise, I have had to get old parts to make some computers work, so I went to the local e-recycler. If it worked, they re-sold it and made money locally. If not, they broke it apart and sent the board with gold or silver to be shredded and then sent to china for smelting. It was shredded because it was less space (most cargo ships are volume constrained, not weight).

So, no, the ONLY one pulling out of their ass, is you.

Comment Re: But climate change is a myth!!! (Score 1) 204

good lord. idiots like you are the reason why we have this. China's gov and businesses make decisions such as remaining on 88% coal derived electricity. Why are they doing that? Because it is CHEAP. And why do they not run scrubbers on their coal plants? Because it raises the costs of their electricity. These are NOT CHOICES that the west made. These are choices that China made. Not its ppl, but the gov and businesses.
That is also why idiots like you that scream that it is up to individuals to make a difference has absolutely NO CLUE.

Comment Re:It's cute how Naive you are (Score 1) 166

well, the interesting thing is that for china to send their junk to the west, requires that these ships go back FULL. Right now, they are paid good money to take garbage and some is recycled while others is not. What is interesting is that waste accounts for more than 1/2 of what we send back to China.
If we keep the waste here, it will NOT be landfilled. Why? Because regs prevent it. IOW, burning for energy, combined with recycling, are the only options other than sending it overseas. And once export stops, it will mean that we will have low cost material here that will be use for manufacturing.

Comment Re:Need to stop exporting recycling goods (Score 1) 166

Oh, e-waste, along with paper, glass, and metal will QUICKLY accumulate. Will some of it be thrown into a pit? Oh yeah.
BUT, I think that capitalism will find quick uses for these. For example, plastic and paper can and should be burned for energy. It will produce CO2, but, this is going to other nations and then being used in the same way.
Glass and Metals will be recycled again and new uses will be found.
e-waste can be disassembled via robotics and then parted.

Comment Re:Don't blame 'capitalism' (Score 1) 166

The reason for saying that we need to prevent the export of our garbage, is that it will quickly cause various ppl and businesses to look for opportunities. Capitalism IS to blame for sending it out. But, If we keep it in our nation and it builds up slightly, then capitalism will quickly solve this issue.

Comment Need to stop exporting recycling goods (Score 5, Interesting) 166

Seriously, the ONLY way to solve this, is for us to stop allowing ANY garbage to be exported. Then capitalism will find solutions rather quickly. Most importantly, it will help bring back manufacturing since we will then have resources that need to be used, and can not be exported.

Comment Re:Needs nuclear to go beyond mars (Score 1) 287

Odd, over and over, nukes come out WAY ahead of any chem esp. hydrolox.
You mention the mass of a nuke pile, yet, for something like NERVA, it is fairly lightweight, esp. relative to LOX and its tank.
Although the Kiwi/Phoebus/NERVA designs were the only ones to be tested in any substantial program, a number of other solid-core engines were also studied to some degree. The Small Nuclear Rocket Engine, or SNRE, was designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for upper stage use, both on unmanned launchers as well as the Space Shuttle. It featured a split-nozzle that could be rotated to the side, allowing it to take up less room in the Shuttle cargo bay. The design provided 73 kN of thrust and operated at a specific impulse of 875 seconds (8.58 kNs/kg), and it was planned to increase this to 975 with fairly basic upgrades. This allowed it to achieve a mass fraction of about 0.74, comparing with 0.86 for the SSME, one of the best conventional engines.

And apparently, there was major room for improvement:
Between 1987 and 1991 an advanced engine design was studied under Project Timberwind, under the aegis of the Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars"), which was later expanded into a larger design in the Space Thermal Nuclear Propulsion (STNP) program. Advances in high-temperature metals, computer modelling and nuclear engineering in general resulted in dramatically improved performance. While the NERVA engine was projected to weigh about 6,803 kg, the final STNP offered just over 1/3 the thrust from an engine of only 1,650 kg by improving the Isp to between 930 and 1000 seconds.[citation needed]

So, it appears that Musk, Bigelow, and Bezo knows a great deal more about this than you do.

Comment Re:But climate change is a myth!!! YODA GREASE (Score 1) 204

Actually, tesla's Model S, X, and shortly 3, MAKE actual sense. They replace competitors that costs as much or more, get around 20 MPG, is much quicker, has decent range, and has a growing super charger infrastructure that allows for quick recharges.
In addition, the M3 will do the same again. It will replace competitors, such as the BMW 3 series, that costs as much or more, they get under 30 MPH, and the M3 will be quicker, cheaper to own, has a decent range, and use of a massive super charger network, etc.

Now, the leaf, the bolt, the ZOE, etc are all EVs that do NOT make sense. They are replacing ICE based cars that costs in the low $20,000, are rigged to be slower (yes, these EVs are very capable of being quicker, but are electritronically governed), take forever to charge, and with the exception of the bolt, have no decent range.

Slashdot Top Deals

I never cheated an honest man, only rascals. They wanted something for nothing. I gave them nothing for something. -- Joseph "Yellow Kid" Weil