Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


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

Comment Re:One non-disturbing theory (Score 0) 304

The other point is that humans eat LOTS of plastic every year already. Increasing this by a few % would make no difference to us. In addition since even with all that plastic eating, humans are living longer and healthier seems to suggest that perhaps plastic's inert qualities will not affect fish either.

Comment Re:Could elect not to sell any vehicles in Califor (Score -1) 462

Tesla gets a $50,000 subsidy on each car. Since they don't sell gas cars they don't have the whole mandated price problem.

Electric cars may work one day but the current Tesla is a horrible car. Most of the owners of the Tesla use it as a third car. They have an entire SUV parked in the garage for actual road trips. Tesla's range and recharging requirements are a joke. Tesla is almost done selling to all the rich types who consider them a status symbol. Who will they sell to next? Think any soccer mom is gonna wait an hour to gas up?

Tesla - no clearance. No winter performance. 1 hour to put the equivalent of 5 gallons of gas in. $1000 to run out of charge (perhaps less if you live in SF area). No repairs at all in most states.

Comment Re:Motivated rejection of science (Score -1) 661

Poor people, both in the USA and elsewhere in the world are already paying dearly for alarmism. In Germany hundreds of thousands have no electricity due to crazy pricing. More people die every winter when they have no power. In Africa, instead of reliable electricity, wells and hospitals, wind turbines are being installed.

As Richard Lindzen puts it
"Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest." Ref:

Comment Re:Big Oil loves Wind & Solar (Score 0) 769

You need to store enough electricity to run the USA for about 3 days - or more. That will cost trillions. In fact not doable, even in theory at any price. Or you could build 1000 GW of biomass which would need every tree in the US to keep it burning, and cause widespread pollution, not to mention there are certain environmental concerns with turning the entire USA into a monoculture. Look up Drax and North Carolina for the start of that wonderful invention of the Green Industrial Complex.

If the cost of panels drops to 0, the cost of grid solar only drops by 1/3 - panels today are not the main cost.

"Eventually we'll have enough surplus renewable to exact co2 from the environment, process it into CH4(methane) and pump it back into the ground, waiting for a cloudy/windless day.." if you can quote that out at less then $2/kWh then power to you. In reality its all pipe dreams at this point. There are no prices.

“The truth is that the Energy U-Turn (“Energiewende”, the German scheme aimed at pushing the “renewable” share of electricity production to 80 % by 2050) is about to fail” - Sigmar Gabriel, acting vice-chancellor of the German government, Secretary of Commerce with responsibility for the said Energiewende”.

Comment Big Oil loves Wind & Solar (Score 0) 769

I don't know why these Koch fellows are all up in arms. They are an energy company, like any other and so stand to make huge amounts of money as more super expensive renewable energy comes on line. Guess who owns all these renewable projects - GE, BP, Shell, Suncor, NextEra, etc. If it sounds like another company, it probably isn't.

The only reason that the Koch brothers are doing all of this is - wait for it - they have a conscious.

A wholesale turn to the Greenpeace vision of No Coal, No Gas, No Nukes, Wind + Solar + Biomass, would mean $2/kWh power, and laws to prevent people from unplugging from the grid (as a home depot generator running on $4 gasoline is well under a $1/kWh). It would also mean the end of things like schools and healthcare and road maintenance, as all of your money would be going to the green industrial revolution.

Comment Re:IF I understand this correctly (Score 1) 108

You can't fix a field of broken turbines 20m up in the air at -60C. The link I found shows the real way power is made - the most reliable method they have - which is a fuel station with multiple redundant generators in a shirtsleeve environment. The maintenance of a sea bound wind turbine is double or triple that of land ones. how much at lat -90?

Comment FSF - Get working on the 'FreePad' now! (Score 1) 1634

If all the linuxy types out there could stop arguing and build a machine that does WAY LESS but actually works we would all be better off. Google OS looks like an attempt at that. All people want to do is surf, email and text, etc. They don't want to backup/install/unitstall/decontaminate. The iPad is what they want. Suck it up and accept it.

The average person WANTS AND NEEDS a surfing machine that is 'Locked down'. Why the OSS movement can't figure out how to do that is beyond me. Just require all software to be signed in order to execute on a consumer 'surf only machine' by both the OSS (through a peer process) and the developer. Developer types and others can continue to use un signed software - they apparently 'just know' when to trust an installer.

It should actually be easier to do this than continue on the Ubuntu path. Drop entire systems (both hardware and software). Think Firefox vs Mozilla - which one had fewer features? Which one won?

Comment FCC is wrong. Its power that matters. Low power. (Score 1) 300

The FCC person is wrong. Flat wrong.
Without new bandwidth being opened up he is wrong. Essentially, the amount of data that can be transmitted over say a city is determined by two things:
1) The frequency bands available.
2) The power of the transmitting device. The lower the power the more bandwidth we have. By factors of millions.

So in the old days (like now), a single TV channel covered a city, and gave 6 Mbits (or whatever the rate is) for the whole city. ie close to zero. The transmitter is 100,000 watts.
Now, imagine two 0.01 watt transmitters on the same channel. You can have literally millions of these pairs using the same channel in the same city, since they only have a range of say 100 m. The result is millions of times the bandwidth, along with lower powered devices.

Chips that do exactly that are being developed now. Its sort of like the ethernet protocol, in ethernet, the channel just wait for blank air time on the wire, while with devices, they just look for clear frequencies. Combine that with advances that use reflections and ghosting to improve signal, and you have an era where wireless wins.
Wires will still be handy for backbone, etc. Perhaps even one to your house if its easy.

It really is the power thats the factor.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick to anger.