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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×

Comment Re:Good on him (Score 1) 131

There are many other (large) industries that rely heavily on batteries. They've been heavily researched for over 100 years.

Yes, but so have ICEs, and they still suck. Only minor improvements in efficiency have been realized in the last forty years. A forty year old turbo diesel still provides pretty good thermodynamic efficiency. It does it without producing much CO2 as a result, although it will tend to crank out quite a bit of NOx. Over that time, automotive ICE efficiency has improved by only in the low double digit percents, while electric motor efficiency has about doubled — and it's over three times as good as an ICE.

Cars are fun, I like engine noises as much as or even more than the next guy, but ICEs blow.

Comment Re:Good on him (Score 2) 131

There is already an awesome battery tech, holding about 10kWh of energy in a small package that already exist, it's good old gas. The only problem is that it takes 100 millions years to produce.

The other problem is that you can't just feed it into an electric motor. You have to either feed it into a fuel cell which is lame for many reasons which I should not need to enumerate here, or you have to feed it into an ICE which is lame for even more reasons which etc etc. Or an external combustion engine, but (stationary generation aside) that only really works for trains and it's not really convenient there, either. Electric motors are wonderful in every way compared to ICEs, and batteries are wonderful in most ways compared to fuel cells despite their many annoying failings. In fact, you can't efficiently build a fuel cell car without including battery in the motive power system.

Comment Re:Good on him (Score 2) 131

EVs would have been overtaken by ICE technology regardless of whatever conspiratal notions you are imagining.

ICEs still provide a superior driving experience per dollar, and most people who have an EV wouldn't have one if not for subsidies... to compete with the entrenched energy monopolies' subsidies.

Comment Good on him (Score 1) 131

Better battery tech is about the most important thing in energy today, because it will let us make more use of "alternative" energy sources (you know, ones which were in use to do work long before anyone was using electricity, or building ICEs or steam turbines or even steam engines) right now. The only thing that might be even more compelling in the short term would be a safe way to store apparently physics-defying quantities of hydrogen and release small or large amounts of it later as necessary without having to expend a lot of energy to do so, but even that has less applications than a better battery.

One (okay, I) wonder[s] where battery tech would be today if EVs had remained dominant and not been pushed out by subsidized oil and coal.

Comment Insufficiently Realistic (Score 4, Insightful) 288

Until the dolls literally spray genuine, authentic baby shit and vomit on you in the middle of the night, they are going to be inadequate to the task of dissuading girls from wanting to make babies.

If you can't actually fill them with a truly realistic substitute for unwanted infant fluids, they're worthless.

Comment Re:Even pros don't tinker with every possible menu (Score 1) 157

Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem.

How does this excuse having a terrible interface?

You only think it's terrible because you don't need what it does. If you did, then you would think it's a great interface, because it does what you need. This is how I can tell you don't need a DSLR. You need a simplified, Fisher-Price camera. Sometimes those are great, and I have one. When I am just taking snapshots, that's what I use, because it is simple and good and small and light. I don't use the DSLR at all unless I need something it's got that the super zoom doesn't, like RAW. It doesn't have any more lens.

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands.

So make the settings that need to be changed fast easy to change fast.

Yes, that's what they have done. You're just seeing settings you don't need to change and thinking about how inconvenient all those settings are for you, because you think the universe revolves around your balls.

There are a lot of features you could not possibly change faster than the time it takes to pull out a cell phone that given that they are buried in a menu somewhere.

You are completely incorrect. No camera has more than three or four levels of menus and I can navigate a menu structure like that much faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket. I may not have a spare hand at all, so the phone might not be an option at all. I can work my phone menus with one hand. I cannot work the phone and the camera at the same time with one hand.

Your solutions are dumb because they make the situation more complicated. All cameras will eventually have fancy-pants multitouch displays and then there will be absolutely no benefit whatsoever to phone interfaces. In the interim, that kind of functionality is of use only to a subset of users. If a brand did what you describe then the professionals would go elsewhere and the company would rapidly gain a reputation for making toys and then go away.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 670

Having no children is also sociopathic - because there would be no next generation of a society.

That would be true only if you couldn't count on other people having children. I'm not buying into eugenics arguments either; stupid people have smart kids and vice versa. It looks like intelligence is more environment than genetics. We need some people to breed. We should (as a species) stop being shit to women who don't breed, so that the ones who really want to (and preferably those who are good at it) can make babies. People doing a shit job of making babies and subsequently doing a shit job of raising them is why we can't have nice things.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 670

Yeah, we don't do things like dig huge holes under our homes,

With a backhoe. Ever used a backhoe? It makes digging a five foot trench trivial.

install piping that must be highly corrosion resistant,

You may have heard of this stuff called plastic.

and fight the continuous buildup of mold and other biological growths.

It's a non-issue due to constant air movement. But I guess you're smarter than the various people who are actually doing this already.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 670

Yikes! That's a wake up call right there. Always envisioned right-wing reactionary militants as the catalyzing agent for population reduction wars. Just goes to show that any authoritarian agents with power-centric ideologies they value above the sanctity of human life are dangerous as fuck.

You don't get it even slightly, do you? It's going to be the right-wingers who kill you for threatening the environment. Only complete fucking morons think that AGW is invented. The wealthy know that it's real. That's why, for example, Trump is concerned about climate change threatening his golf course. One of the final acts of the Bush administration was to formally acknowledge AGW. The left will keep trying to keep everyone alive, fed, and the like right up until the planet becomes unlivable. The wealthy, on the other hand, have no compunctions about throwing you into the log chipper as the first step on the way to becoming soylent green.

Comment Re:Checklist marketing (Score 5, Informative) 157

What kind of menu do you want? There is a lot of information and settings that have to be presented to the use

There really isn't. Not on the camera itself anyway. 95% of the menu setting never get touched or get set once and never touched again so why do they need to be in a crappy interface at all?

Professional photographers change their settings regularly. So do advanced hobbyists. Nobody else needs a DSLR, so this is a complete non-problem. If you find DSLR settings confusing, you would almost certainly do just fine with a super zoom compact.

You are going to interface the camera with a computer at some point so why not offload the menus for the rarely/never used settings to a PC or tablet?

Because I need to be able to change the setting quickly, and also while holding the camera with both hands. I might be on a moving vehicle. I might be in a constricted space where I can't let the camera go and let it hang on its strap. I might need to change the setting faster than I can get my phone out of my pocket.

Comment Re:Features you don't need (Score 2) 157

If it is used incredibly rarely then offload it to a tablet or a PC or (heaven forbid) a phone.

No. NO NO NO. Photographers already have to deal with their gear being fiddly. They don't want to have to have their phone out so that they can get the full interface to their camera. That would be beyond idiotic.

It's very easy to fix this kind of problem, make people drill down further for the more advanced features. There's no need to take anything out.

Comment Re:CAGW in a nutshell (Score 2) 670

The 'skeptics' point to the observed reality and show that the dire predictions made in the past don't come close to observed behavior,

The problem with this idea is that they're cherry-picking predictions. There are dire predictions which do come close to observed behavior, and these are the ones we've been using most often. The way in which they don't match observed behavior is that observed behavior is actually worse. For example, polar ice is melting substantially faster than predicted by any credible model. If you don't think this change in albedo is going to have additional effects, you're not thinking.

Comment Re: Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 1) 670

In contrast, keeping a house warmer than the outside is much cheaper. Humans with no technology are 100W heaters. All other machines that we put in a house generate heat as a waste product. With modern insulation, it's very easy to reduce the outflow of heat. Heating a house for a day can easily consume less energy than cooling it for a week.

It's very easy to keep a house cooler than the outside cheaply. You sink ducts into the ground where they get cooled to 50 degrees, and you use slow, low-power fans to move that air into your house. Sadly, we don't do this, nor do we install adequate insulation into most homes. They are overwhelmingly still insulated with fiberglass, which is practically ancient technology today.

Comment Re:Pierson's Puppeteers (Score 4, Interesting) 670

Around 90% of them would actually mean it (you'd have thought that sociopaths would be a lower percentage of the population of parents than the general population, but apparently not).

Why would you think that? Having children is a sociopathic act when we're overpopulated. At our current level of behavior, Earth is over its carrying capacity. People having children aren't thinking of society, they're thinking of themselves.

Of those, a very small percentage would honestly be able to say that they also want a safer world for everyone else's children. If your children are going to inherit a survivable part of the world, then why should they care that if a billion or two other people that they've never met will suffer and / or die?

That, in turn, is only because they are stupid and ignorant. It should be obvious that we are all living on the same planet.

Herd mammals did not evolve to have an emotional response to that (and, for the most part, that's a good thing - you couldn't function if you had an empathic response to all of the suffering in a world of over 6 billion people). That's why appeals to emotion in things like this are a waste of time.

Herd animals are easy to panic. That's why appeals to emotion work. If you tried them with predators, you'd just get your face bitten off.

Slashdot Top Deals

HOLY MACRO!

Working...