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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re: who knew (Score 1) 227

A colleague of mine bikes 22 miles to work (44 round trip). Distance isn't a limiting factor, but time is. If you don't have the time in the day to bike that distance, then I'd agree that you can't do it.

Time is an issue for me, and I live about the same distance away as my friend. So what I do is drive part way, park the car then cycle the rest of the way. It takes the same amount of time as the bus, I don't have to pay for parking, AND I get a free 1.5 hour workout every day.

Comment Re:The Leaf is a niche vehicle (Score 1) 289

Except that because of the Leaf's poor thermal management strategy on the battery (air cooled), the battery degrades at a much faster rate than a Tesla's. This is increased depending on how hot your climate is.

Here's a resource to estimate your battery capacity for a Nissan Leaf.

Basically, a used Leaf from Phoenix, AZ that's only 2.5 years old would only have 70% its original capacity. But a used Leaf from Syracuse, NY would not get to 70% capacity until it's 8.3 years old.

A Tesla on the other hand has been shown to have more than 90% capacity after 200,000 miles (approx. 13.3 years of driving, for a 15,000 miles per year mileage). In fact, simulations have the battery still above 80% after 500,000 miles.

So, considering the Phoenix example. Let's say your lightly used Leaf requires a battery replacement straight away because it's already 2.5 years old, that's another $10,000 on your car purchase bringing the cost up to $20,000. And another $10,000 every 2.5 years thereafter. You'll have paid about $50,000 on battery replacements by the time you've made it to 13.3 years of driving, and $60,000 overall. So, by that metric, you can only afford 1.6 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.

Just for fun, in Syracuse, your money will go further. You'll only need one battery replacement in 13.3 years. So you can afford 5 lightly used Leafs for the price of a Tesla.

Comment Already Piloted with Retirees (Score 1) 300

Going into retirement and receiving CPP and OAS (and if you're lucky, a Pension) has the exact the same effect as those people having a UBI.

The interesting thing here is about 65% of those in retirement return to work within a decade (source). This is obviously for a variety of reasons. But for those that think that everyone would just live out their lives for free on a UBI, there's consistent evidence to the contrary.

Comment Re:This will be denied by all the idiots (Score 1) 373

Starting at a random place in the middle, then clicking until I got an actual article instead of one that's paywalled, I see this quote from the article:

Scientists of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration believe believe more air pollution could trigger another disastrous ice age, NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher said Tuesday. He said the conclusion was controversial and "not yet fully accepted in the scientific community".

I also notice that many of these are siting smog or pollution as a problem. The thinking is that it'll block the sunlight and cause the earth to cool.

I don't see how a theory on what effect smog and/or other pollutants has on our climate, that wasn't fully accepted in the scientific community, really compares to theories on the effects of CO2 and our climate. CO2 isn't a pollutant, nor is it what these articles were talking about as a driving force.

Comment Energy required to Simulate Universe (Score 1) 418

The thing that doesn't work for me with the simulation theory is that it would take a huge amount of computations to simulate the universe to the level of detail that we see. Computations take energy. Enough energy bends space-time. And if we had all of the required energy packed into a simulation machine, surely it'd be so much that it'd collapse in on itself into a black hole tearing apart the machine.

Now, I suppose we could spread the energy out by causing the simulation to run slower than real-time speed, but I imagine that to spread it out thinly enough so that you don't cause a black hole might surpass the half-lives of the materials that make the machine, thereby making it impossible to pull-off in practice in this manner too.

But then there's always the idea that the universe that houses the simulation has different laws of physics. For this, I say we create simulations of how a universe with different laws of physics would turn out :)

Comment Re: not alt-facts, just a reasonable statement. (Score 1) 279

So now nature is responsible for 100% of the change, even if it may now happen slower. The end result is the same, though, even with the human impact completely removed: the climate change will still happen.

What you don't get is that no one thinks that climate change in and of itself is bad. The problem is the rate at which the climate is changing, which you have admitted is accelerated thanks to humans.

As you are aware, a changing climate forces the organisms that live in that climate to either adapt or relocate. Having a rapidly changing climate removes evolution as a method of adaptation in all organisms except those that have short enough reproductive cycles (ex. bacteria).

So bacteria will most definitely be fine. Birds will probably be fine since they can relocate so easily. But will the birds' food sources be able to adapt? You get the idea.

Comment Re:Snow storm? (Score 1) 279

Science doesn't blindly share and discuss ideas. The ideas that have already been proven incorrect are pushed away as a waste of time. For example, any theory trying to make the case that the earth is flat is no longer constructively weighed against other theories.

I suspect we've reached a tipping point in the science of Anthropogenic Climate Change that dissenting views are similarly cast aside as a waste of time.

Comment Re:Losing argument. (Score 1) 392

Also, along with your point. The robots replace humans. And had the humans been there, they would be taxed. So, as a worst case scenario, the prices when robots are there would only be jacked up as high as they were when humans filled the role - or not at all. And assuming that robots are taxed less than an equivalent human as is most likely the scenario, the prices would be jacked up less than when humans filled the role.

Comment Re:Why I pirate? (Score 1) 244

For someone who seems to only want to watch shows in French, your English is quite good. In fact it's flawless as far as I can tell.

If you can speak/understand the original language of the show, why would you want to watch it in another language and risk aspects of the content getting lost through translation?

Comment Re:Err, guys? (Score 1) 644

Exploded is an overstatement for the industry. Here's an interview with a prominent board game maker taken just a few months before your source:

http://www.develop-online.net/interview/how-video-games-both-killed-and-improved-the-board-game/0209085

In it he states:

It seems that if you just want a bit of casual fun, apps are pretty hard to beat in terms of value, convenience to buy and play anywhere, and fresh new types of gameplay. Consequently, mainstream casual board games are still reeling from the competition and will probably never recover. There is now almost no market for new casual board games, and even the classics sell only a fraction of their annual sales just a few years ago.

Though he does point out that before the advent of apps "about six years ago" (prior to the interview in 2015), board game sales rose in line with population growth. So I stand corrected there. Up until 2009, instead of a decline, there was more of a 'maintaining status-quo'.

Comment Re:Err, guys? (Score 1) 644

Web designers/coders, for one.

Web designers are busy creating a resource that replaces a existing tool. The end result is a web-tool that requires fewer people hired to maintain it. There are a multitude of examples. Newspapers being replaced by online news sources. Personal Ads being replaced by craigslist. Encyclopaedias being replaced by Wikipedia or just the internet in general. You want information on a business? Before you'd look in the yellow pages or the phone book, now you don't need to because of web designers and coders.

How about the legions of people making money from online streaming of games?

So now we don't go out and buy games on disc. Fewer discs are being made and most who worked in the disc manufacturing business are being laid off.

Or online gamers themselves?...

Now you're getting more abstract, I would say that the online gamers are making money in the same way that professional athletes make money. Or perhaps how gamblers make money. So, that's dipping into the sports and gambling industry.

Anyone employed in the MMO industry?

Now, we're talking about selling games to people. Take a look at the board game industry or card game industry and see how well it's been doing since the advent of video games.

This isn't hard to do, just imagine what the consumers of the internet service would be doing if that internet service didn't exist. And I can pretty much guarantee you that the consumer would have been doing *something*. And I can also pretty much guarantee you that the internet version requires less man-power than what it's replacing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be cost effective to build the replacement.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...