Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:With the Republicans in charge? Of course not. (Score 1) 278

Also please remember that during Obama's first two years he had a Democrat House and Senate, and used that to pass the Affordable Care Act. They could have passed any other legislation during those two years regardless of Republican objection. Apparently the Democrats didn't have a solution during that time, either.

Comment Re:I wonder who would have won under each scenario (Score 1) 610

The original intent of the my comment was to look at how the election would have worked out counting the ballots that were cast in the election under the poll choices given. I understand that campaigns would have been run differently under different scenarios, but I was looking at it as more of a mind exercise to see how things would work out counting the ballots that were already cast.

Comment Developers say it is safe? What about engineers? (Score 5, Interesting) 242

The building's developer, Millennium Partners, insists the building is safe for occupancy and could withstand an earthquake.

In this context, I would guess "developer" is used similarly to "business development" which means sales. Personally, I would prefer an engineer to make a safety assessment rather than a developer in the assumed context, but I could be wrong about context. I didn't see Millennium Partners engineering firms on the first page of a Google search, though.

Maybe they mean safe in a context similar to "perfectly safe" from Zaphod Plays It Safe.

Comment Re:You can't use current votes to judge other syst (Score 1) 610

The question was more about who would have won with the given vote for each situation with the current votes, not who would have won if each system were in place. I know strategy would have been different in each scenario. I just wonder who would win in each choice based on the already cast ballots.

Comment Re:Still not ready for cities (Score 1) 178

Probably will bankrupt every truck stop along major freeways costing another 200k jobs.

The trucks will still need to be fueled for the long trips, so fueling stops will still be needed, but the food, showers, and restaurants won't be needed as much.

Of course, depending upon technology level, a driver may be needed for the highway exit-fuel-onramp legs until the technology level is ready for the trucks to find fuel stops and refuel successfully.

Comment Different Fuel. (Score 1) 275

You are missing the point. It is more efficient to burn some types of coal than others. I acknowledge that the plants are relatively inefficient. The "clean coal" argument is that if you are going to burn coal, burn anthracite rather than other types, such as lignite. Personally, if coal is going to be used as a fuel, I hope it is anthracite.

Comment Re:"Likley grow" - Bullshit (Score 1) 275

the only practical way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal is to get more energy out of each pound of coal

...the efficiency of typical coal plants has peaked at about 33 percent,

That still doesn't address the lignite/anthracite (fuel) difference, it addresses the plant (engine) difference.

Slashdot Top Deals

There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it reluctantly. -- Publius Terentius Afer (Terence)