Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


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

Comment Re:HBO needs to get its head back in the game (Score 1) 66

The HBO subscription is only worth it if you have a peer group that also has an HBO subscription and so it's important to watch things at the same time as them. I stopped buying DVDs about 10 years ago when renting became a lot cheaper than buying, but I've recently started again with boxed sets. Even if I only watch each episode once, it's cheaper than any of the streaming options, plus they're practically DRM free (as in, the DRM is so broken that it may as well not exist) and I can copy them to a mobile device for watching on long trips. Oh, and I get to wait until there are multiple years of something before I watch it.

I do wonder a bit what would happen to the economics of TV series production if most people did this. You'd expect a TV show to make a loss for the first few years, but then be profitable over a longer time, which is a very different model from the current mode of any profits after the first year are a nice bonus, but not factored into the accounting calculations.

Comment Re:EVEN TILLERSON says it's real. (Score 1) 234

That's always the problem with your "unless/except when it isn't" routine. It's a cynical statement, but that's all it is. It doesn't support the assertion, but it does't refute the assertion either. It also neither supports nor refutes alternative ideas and assertions to explore.

Exactly. You mostly get it. MightyMartian is not the only reader of Slashdot and thus, not the only person I'm writing for.

But this is not cynicism. This is purely a logical observation. I could equally assert that the Grays (a particular species of aliens that supposedly anal probe human test subjects) are behind global warming. Or God is angry at us for Facebook and turning up the thermostat. When unfounded, assertions are equally useless to us.

When evidence and reason are introduced, I then actually have to defend those assertions with something. I'm sure it'll be amusing to hear me explain how the Grays are hiding their giant coal burning mothership behind the Moon (obviously NASA is in on it!) or God's giant hand is just as completely undetectable to us as is the vast knob of his thermostat.

Then you can decide just how crazy I am.

And then you wonder why people are still so adamant on their side, despite all the work you've done arguing against them.

MightyMartian isn't going to be rationally talked out of a position he/she didn't get into rationally in the first place. But maybe next time, there will be more to that post (and who knows, maybe some persuasive evidence even!) than just a touchie feelie assertion.

Comment Re:The Issue is Settled? (Score 1) 234

is supposed to generate 1.2C

Sounds like it's more than 1.2 C which is why I used the higher numbers. And your math has sharply improved. Even with the lower number of 1.2 C per doubling, you will not get a 0.1 C increase in temperature from increasing CO2 from 400 ppm to 500 ppm. It'll be just under 0.4 C.

To add a third increase of 1.2C, we need to get the concentration up to 2240ppm. There's not enough oil in the world to get CO2 concentrations up this high.

Not in proven reserves, at least. There's also coal which does have enough. But at this point, we're speaking of using a lot of fossil fuels for a long time to get that level of direct radiative effects.

Comment Re:Only half true article (Score 1) 189

When the construction dust clears, we will see a nuclear China with about 20% renewables.

The peaks are a lot higher than base load.
You don't use nukes for peak capacity. If you have nukes you use them every second you can.
Based on those two bits of information that you should already have known but somehow failed to consider, how does that estimate look now?
There no point dumbing things down to a Star Trek view of energy since we do not have perfect batteries, the problem has to be considered in terms of matching supply to a demand curve. High school level thought instead of first grade level.

Comment Re:Only half true article (Score 1) 189

Selective omission. It creates a false impression that the only replacement power is renewables without mentioning additional nuclear capacity that presumably will also make up for the loss of this coal power.

It's not just hydro, some people put nukes under the banner of renewables as well. There may not be a lot of breeder reactors active today but they are a reasonable reason to put all nukes under that banner.
Don't blame me, I don't do it but I can see where they are coming from.

Comment Re:Frank Yu doesn't know what he's talking about. (Score 2) 189

Replacing their nucleair power with wind/solar is naïve and unrealistic at best

You have that backwards, for whether you like nukes or not the current economic reality there is that replacing the old nukes with new news is unrealistic due to the huge capital outlays and long lead times. Small stuff can be financed a bit of at a time (and comes online in less than a year to start paying it's way) even if it adds up to costing far more in the end.
It's only where someone can tell the accountants to shut up or go to the Gulag, instead of saying "yes boss" like we do in most of the west currently, where you can build things with huge capital costs such as nukes.
If you like nukes look to the east. Nobody has the stomach for them where short term profits trump everything else.

Comment Per area doesn't really matter with electricity (Score 1) 189

Line losses are very low these days so the number of people per area doesn't really matter as far as electricity generation goes. Try using Canada as an example and it should be easy to grasp. They have huge hydro plants in sparsely populated areas but that doesn't matter when there is a big city at the end of the wire.

France doesn't

Did you really forget the whole ridiculous "freedom fries thing" where Saddam was supposed to have been supplied with Uranium by the French out of their former colony of Niger?
Here is more with a specific mention of the Uranium issue:

Slashdot Top Deals

The other line moves faster.