Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


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

Comment Re:You would think science could help (Score 1) 275

Sorry your dog died :(

What he said perhaps wasn't exactly direct, but "less than a million years old" references using cellulose for fuel not coal. Yes coal of any kind isn't going to be carbon neutral as the time frame is too long.

Using actual plants, whether tree/sawdust, shrubs, switchgrass, etc is still orders of magnitude better for the environment since you're using carbon removed from the atmosphere extremely recently and from sources that we, conceivably, could renew.

The scale needed for that is significant and possibly not practical, but as the poster was saying, IF, we can get cheap cellulose to fuel it raises a significant option in the goal of carbon neutral energy sources.

Comment Re:You would think science could help (Score 4, Interesting) 275

"Survival is going to mean discarding a lot of our short term and fairly new concepts." everything you've ever known is included in this statement.

Climate does change...over very very long periods of time. right now it's changing over very very short periods do directly to our actions.

You're basically saying that brick buildings should be 'adaptable' to the motion of an earthquake. The current ecosystems are the buildings and our carbon emissions are the quake. They aren't going to 'adapt' at the rate required for the inputs because the simply aren't designed for it.

Comment Re: Makes more sense (Score 1) 222

Again, when things are congested nobody can rightly complain if speeds get throttled *during the congestion*. See dropped calls around a concert venue. It has nothing to do with their wider network ability but localized tower supplies.

But that's not what Verizon (and the rest do). They CUT you off entirely if you use more than 4GB....completely independent of any congestion

Now, Verizon will, for a additional fee, not cut you off entirely but throttle your entire connection to 256kbps for the remaineder of your billing period...again completely independent of any congestion.

It's almost as if congestion isn't actually a problem since it isn't what they use to set their pricing.

Your points are logically sound...they just aren't supported by the realities of the wireless networks current status.

Verizon has flatly stated "We don't compete on price". In what fucking mass market does a company say this and survive? It's a oligarchy among a few companies controlling duplicate massively inefficient networks that know they don't have competition to force them to be competitive.

Comment Re: Makes more sense (Score 1) 222

The cost of the data to Verizon is zero. They didn't spend a dime to put YouTubes videos online for me to stream over Verizon s network. Congestion on the network is a real issue but unrelated to a per GB charge. nothing stops them from simply slowing speeds on a congested tower. Which solves that problem, but doesn't make them money. There is so far no evidence of the significant limits claimed by Verizon. Not the theoretical, but actual on the network.

Comment Re: Makes more sense (Score 1) 222

Physical good analogies don't work here. Your gasoline or burger costs money to be created. Verizon isn't creative the data on the network so there is zero cost to Verizon for the data transiting their network. The cost of data transit is not a per data amount so charging that way is pure profit for Verizon

Comment Re:Give me local news and I'll cancel (Score 1) 92

the flaw in your argument is copyright. you can't just start up a service delivering content without paying for it.

Netflix bread and butter was DVDs...because they didn't have to pay for them each rental. Just buy a DVD and rent it 100-1000 times at pure profit.

Now, they are charged ridiculous streaming rates, per view. It's why Netflix keeps dropping movies...unless there's a significant viewership ongoing it's not profitable to keep it in stock. (and this is not a stock rotation costs them basically zero actual dollars to keep movies active on their service...only the copyright fees prevent it).

Slashdot Top Deals

If computers take over (which seems to be their natural tendency), it will serve us right. -- Alistair Cooke