Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Interesting conjunction (Score 1) 28

I wonder what the economics are really like though. Musk asked on Twitter if people would ditch their broadband if Starlink was available for $10/month. Heavy discounting, but of limited help because Starlink just doesn't have the bandwidth to serve all that many people.

It's possible that the economics of space based internet access just don't work. It's also possible that it becomes obsolete for broadband use as terrestrial bandwidth increases and it can't keep up.

I would ditch FIOS if Starlink was $10/month

Comment Re:She's here on a visa - and visas can get cancel (Score 1) 55

by magzteel (#65276963) Attached to: Substack Says It'll Legally Defend Writers 'Targeted By the Government'

There's due process for doing so, and that has not been followed. This is probably because in similar cases going back decades, when that process was followed, the courts (including the supreme court, including in cases of actual communist rabble rousers), has ruled that free speech is free speech and doesn't depend on one's visa status.

So, if this plays out as it has repeatedly in the past, her visa gets un-canceled. But, the point wasn't to get rid of one student who wrote an article. The point was to inflict fear in all the other students who might one day think about saying something out of line. The government using extra-legal fear as a weapon... that's the scary part for all of us.

This is really about the mess of protests and harassment that happened on college campuses last year where the college administrations did little in response. They are sending a message that guests in our country who misbehave can and will be sent home.

Comment Re:Chicken vs. Egg (Score 1, Insightful) 274

by magzteel (#65271927) Attached to: California Has 48% More EV Chargers Than Gas Nozzles

The goalposts are not absolute. Not everyone is doing long haul trips regularly.

If you're going a long way at once, fully recharging doesn't make sense. The time you'd spend on that last 20 percent charging at a lower speed you could spend driving on the remaining 80%.

For longer distances, we need DC fast charging (Level 3). We need better battery chemistry for this to really work well long term but getting to 80% in 20 minutes is perfectly fine.

For everyday commuting, you might never even need a public charger. The slowest home charger would take care of all of your needs at a very low cost of electricity.

Everything you just wrote is true but irrelevant to the comparison of the capability of the devices. People could buy 2 gallons of gas too but why would they when a full recharge takes a few minutes? I'm not knocking the EV tech, I'm saying the comparison the article makes using numbers of devices is just wrong. The point is capability, not number of units.

Comment Re:Chicken vs. Egg (Score 1) 274

by magzteel (#65271719) Attached to: California Has 48% More EV Chargers Than Gas Nozzles

And just when I thought there was nowhere else for you guys to move the goal posts...

Not moving the goal posts at all. The article is making an inaccurate comparison.

The purpose of a charger or gas pump is to refill a car with energy.
A single gas pump can fully recharge about 12 cars/hour.
A single level-2 charger can fully recharge one car in 8-10 hours.

Even where there are high-speed electric chargers the charging speed often drops when multiple cars are being charged concurrently. This is not the case with a gas station. Pointing out that these devices have different capabilities is not "moving the goalposts".

Comment Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score 0) 84

by magzteel (#65254711) Attached to: NASA Considers Eliminating Its Headquarters in Washington D.C.

Still didn't answer the question

Question is "If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?"

That's not the question. The question is, why is USDA spending $2m on climate change studies at all when this is the responsibility of a different department which probably has spent the same money doing similar studies already.

Comment Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score 1) 84

by magzteel (#65254245) Attached to: NASA Considers Eliminating Its Headquarters in Washington D.C.

Maybe, you can make that argument and you'd have to prove it but you didn't answer the question.

Yes I did. If this was the private sector and one department started treading on the responsibilities of another they would get smacked down hard. Obviously they have too many employees because they have enough free time to branch out. That's what's going on here. This combination of layoffs and realignment is way overdue.

Comment Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score 1) 84

by magzteel (#65254193) Attached to: NASA Considers Eliminating Its Headquarters in Washington D.C.

Are you opposed to these studies or just who is doing them?

If the climate change report is $2M in the USDA you oppose that but if they swapped that $2M to the EPA for the study you then support it?

The scope creep leads to duplicate efforts and costs. Great for the departments, bad for the taxpayers

Comment Re:We've seen this playbook. We know what will hap (Score 0, Offtopic) 84

by magzteel (#65253779) Attached to: NASA Considers Eliminating Its Headquarters in Washington D.C.

USDA Research Agencies 'Decimated' By Forced Move. Undoing The Damage Won't Be Easy
February 2, 2021

From your article: "During the Trump administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers published and funded objective analyses of issues such as climate change, the efficiency of food assistance programs, and tax cuts that mostly benefit the richest farmers. "

Scope creep is why these agencies all need to be pared back

Climate change reports should be handled by the EPA.
Food assistance programs should be handled by HHS.
Tax policy falls under Treasury

Slashdot Top Deals

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Close