Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Harvard Grid Computing Project Discovers 20k Organic Photovoltaic Molecules

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the by-your-powers-combined dept.

Power 125

Lucas123 writes "In June, Harvard's Clean Energy Project plans to release to solar power developers a list of the top 20,000 organic compounds, any one of which could be used to make cheap, printable photovoltaic cells (PVCs). The CEP uses the computing resources of IBM's World Community Grid for the computational chemistry to find the best molecules for organic photovoltaics culled the list from about 7 million. About 6,000 computers are part of the project at any one time. If successful, the crowdsourcing-style project, which has been crunching data for the past two-plus years, could lead to PVCs that cost about as much as paint to cover a one-meter square wall." The big thing here is that they've discovered a lot of organic molecules that have the potential for 10% or better conversion; roughly equivalent to the current best PV material, and twice as efficient as other available organic PV materials.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Warning about impersonation and mod abuse... apk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43467859)

A corrupt slashdot luser has infiltrated the moderation system to downmod all my posts while impersonating me.

Nearly 180++ times that I know of @ this point for all of March 2013 so far, & others here have told you to stop - take the hint, lunatic (leave slashdot)...

Sorry folks - but whoever the nutjob is that's attempting to impersonate me, & upset the rest of you as well, has SERIOUS mental issues, no questions asked! I must've gotten the better of him + seriously "gotten his goat" in doing so in a technical debate & his "geek angst" @ losing to me has him doing the:


A.) $10,000 challenges, ala (where the imposter actually TRACKED + LISTED the # of times he's done this no less, & where I get the 180 or so times I noted above) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3585795&cid=43285307 [slashdot.org]


B.) Reposting OLD + possibly altered models - (this I haven't checked on as to altering the veracity of the info. being changed) of posts of mine from the past here


(Albeit massively repeatedly thru all threads on /. this March 2013 nearly in its entirety thusfar).

* Personally, I'm surprised the moderation staff here hasn't just "blocked out" his network range yet honestly!

(They know it's NOT the same as my own as well, especially after THIS post of mine, which they CAN see the IP range I am coming out of to compare with the ac spamming troll doing the above...).


P.S.=> Again/Stressing it: NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...

Plus, I only post where hosts file usage is on topic or appropriate for a solution & certainly NOT IN EVERY POST ON SLASHDOT (like the nutcase trying to "impersonate me" is doing for nearly all of March now, & 180++ times that I know of @ least)... apk

P.S.=> here is CORRECT host file information just to piss off the insane lunatic troll:


21++ ADVANTAGES OF CUSTOM HOSTS FILES (how/what/when/where/why):

Over AdBlock & DNS Servers ALONE 4 Security, Speed, Reliability, & Anonymity (to an extent vs. DNSBL's + DNS request logs).

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program). A truly "multi-platform" UNIVERSAL solution for added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. DNS request logs + DNSBL's you feel are unjust hosts get you past/around).

2.) Adblock blocks ads? Well, not anymore & certainly not as well by default, apparently, lol - see below:

Adblock Plus To Offer 'Acceptable Ads' Option

http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/12/12/2213233/adblock-plus-to-offer-acceptable-ads-option [slashdot.org] )

AND, in only browsers & their subprogram families (ala email like Thunderbird for FireFox/Mozilla products (use same gecko & xulrunner engines)), but not all, or, all independent email clients, like Outlook, Outlook Express, OR Window "LIVE" mail (for example(s)) - there's many more like EUDORA & others I've used over time that AdBlock just DOES NOT COVER... period.

Disclaimer: Opera now also has an AdBlock addon (now that Opera has addons above widgets), but I am not certain the same people make it as they do for FF or Chrome etc..

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF (non-mozilla/gecko engine based) family based wares, So AdBlock doesn't protect email programs like Outlook, Outlook Express, Windows "LIVE" mail & others like them (EUDORA etc./et al), Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 5-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, OR make you reach them faster since you resolve host-domain names LOCALLY w/ hosts out of cached memory, hosts do ALL of those things (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html [networkworld.com] for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions (in-addr.arpa) via NSLOOKUP, PINGS (ping -a in Windows), &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

* NOW - Some folks MAY think that putting an IP address alone into your browser's address bar will be enough, so why bother with HOSTS, right? WRONG - Putting IP address in your browser won't always work IS WHY. Some IP adresses host several domains & need the site name to give you the right page you're after is why. So for some sites only the HOSTS file option will work!

6.) Hosts files don't eat up CPU cycles (or ELECTRICITY) like AdBlock does while it parses a webpages' content, nor as much as a DNS server does while it runs. HOSTS file are merely a FILTER for the kernel mode/PnP TCP/IP subsystem, which runs FAR FASTER & MORE EFFICIENTLY than any ring 3/rpl3/usermode app can since hosts files run in MORE EFFICIENT & FASTER Ring 0/RPL 0/Kernelmode operations acting merely as a filter for the IP stack (via the "Plug-N-Play" designed IP stack in Windows) vs. SLOWER & LESS EFFICIENT Ring 3/RPL 3/Usermode operations (which webbrowsers run in + their addons like AdBlock slow down even MORESO due to their parsing operations).

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than remote DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server, typically 30-100's of ms, vs. 7-10ms HardDisk speed of access/seek + SSD seek in ns, & back to you - hosts resolutions of IP address for host-domain names is FAR faster...). Hosts are only a filter for an already fast & efficient IP stack, no more layered b.s. (remote OR local). Hosts eat less CPU, RAM, I/O in other forms, + electricity than a locally running DNS server easily, and less than a local DNS program on a single PC. Fact. Hosts are easier to setup & maintain too.

8.) AdBlock doesn't let you block out known bad sites or servers that are known to be maliciously scripted, hosts can and many reputable lists for this exist:


http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org]
  http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org]
  http://hostsfile.org/hosts.html [hostsfile.org]
  http://hostsfile.mine.nu/downloads/ [hostsfile.mine.nu]
  http://hosts-file.net/?s=Download [hosts-file.net]
  https://zeustracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php?filter=online [abuse.ch]
  https://spyeyetracker.abuse.ch/monitor.php [abuse.ch]
  http://ddanchev.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]
  http://www.malware.com.br/lists.shtml [malware.com.br]
  http://www.stopbadware.org/ [stopbadware.org]
Spybot "Search & Destroy" IMMUNIZE feature (fortifies HOSTS files with KNOWN bad servers blocked)

And yes: Even SLASHDOT &/or The Register help!

(Via articles on security (when the source articles they use are "detailed" that is, & list the servers/sites involved in attempting to bushwhack others online that is... not ALL do!)).

2 examples thereof in the past I have used, & noted it there, are/were:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1898692&cid=34473398 [slashdot.org]
  http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1896216&cid=34458500 [slashdot.org]

9.) AdBlock & DNS servers are programs, and subject to bugs programs can get. Hosts files are merely a filter and not a program, thus not subject to bugs of the nature just discussed.

10.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]

11.) HOSTS files are EASILY user controlled, obtained (for reliable ones -> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] ) & edited too, via texteditors like Windows notepad.exe or Linux nano (etc.)

12.) With Adblock you had better be able to code javascript to play with its code (to customize it better than the GUI front does @ least). With hosts you don't even need source to control it (edit, update, delete, insert of new entries via a text editor).

13.) Hosts files are easily secured via using MAC/ACL (even moreso "automagically" for Vista, 7/Server 2008 + beyond by UAC by default) &/or Read-Only attributes applied.

14.) Custom HOSTS files also speed you up, unlike anonymous proxy servers systems variations (like TOR, or other "highly anonymous" proxy server list servers typically do, in the severe speed hit they often have a cost in) either via "hardcoding" your fav. sites into your hosts file (avoids DNS servers, totally) OR blocking out adbanners - see this below for evidence of that:


US Military Blocks Websites To Free Up Bandwidth:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/03/16/0416238/US-Military-Blocks-Websites-To-Free-Up-Bandwidth [slashdot.org]

(Yes, even the US Military used this type of technique... because IT WORKS! Most of what they blocked? Ad banners ala doubleclick etc.)


Adbanners slow you down & consume your bandwidth YOU pay for:

ADBANNERS SLOW DOWN THE WEB: -> http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/11/30/166218 [slashdot.org]


And people do NOT LIKE ads on the web:

PEOPLE DISLIKE ADBANNERS: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]


As well as this:

Users Know Advertisers Watch Them, and Hate It:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/08/04/02/0058247.shtml [slashdot.org]


Even WORSE still, is this:

Advertising Network Caught History Stealing:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/07/22/156225/Advertising-Network-Caught-History-Stealing [slashdot.org]


15.) HOSTS files usage lets you avoid being charged on some ISP/BSP's (OR phone providers) "pay as you use" policy http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] , because you are using less bandwidth (& go faster doing so no less) by NOT hauling in adbanner content and processing it (which can lead to infestation by malware/malicious script, in & of itself -> http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com] ).

16.) If/when ISP/BSP's decide to go to -> FCC Approving Pay-As-You-Go Internet Plans: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/08/2012243/FCC-Approving-Pay-As-You-Go-Internet-Plans [slashdot.org] your internet bill will go DOWN if you use a HOSTS file for blocking adbanners as well as maliciously scripted hacker/cracker malware maker sites too (after all - it's your money & time online downloading adbanner content & processing it)

Plus, your adbanner content? Well, it may also be hijacked with malicious code too mind you:


Yahoo, Microsoft's Bing display toxic ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/16/bing_yahoo_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]


Malware torrent delivered over Google, Yahoo! ad services:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/24/malware_ads_google_yahoo/ [theregister.co.uk]


Google's DoubleClick spreads malicious ads (again):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/24/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]


Rogue ads infiltrate Expedia and Rhapsody:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/30/excite_and_rhapsody_rogue_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]


Google sponsored links caught punting malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/16/google_sponsored_links/ [theregister.co.uk]


DoubleClick caught supplying malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/11/13/doubleclick_distributes_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]


Yahoo feeds Trojan-laced ads to MySpace and PhotoBucket users:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/11/yahoo_serves_12million_malware_ads/ [theregister.co.uk]


Real Media attacks real people via RealPlayer:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/23/real_media_serves_malware/ [theregister.co.uk]


Ad networks owned by Google, Microsoft serve malware:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/13/doubleclick_msn_malware_attacks/ [theregister.co.uk]


Attacks Targeting Classified Ad Sites Surge:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/02/02/1433210/Attacks-Targeting-Classified-Ad-Sites-Surge [slashdot.org]


Hackers Respond To Help Wanted Ads With Malware:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/01/20/0228258/Hackers-Respond-To-Help-Wanted-Ads-With-Malware [slashdot.org]


Hackers Use Banner Ads on Major Sites to Hijack Your PC:

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2007/11/doubleclick [wired.com]


Ruskie gang hijacks Microsoft network to push penis pills:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/12/microsoft_ips_hijacked/ [theregister.co.uk]


Major ISPs Injecting Ads, Vulnerabilities Into Web:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]


Two Major Ad Networks Found Serving Malware:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/13/0128249/Two-Major-Ad-Networks-Found-Serving-Malware [slashdot.org]



http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/06/15/2056219/The-Next-Ad-You-Click-May-Be-a-Virus [slashdot.org]



http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/13/2346229 [slashdot.org]



http://apcmag.com/microsoft_apologises_for_serving_malware.htm [apcmag.com]


ISP's INJECTING ADS AND ERRORS INTO THE WEB: -> http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/04/19/2148215.shtml [slashdot.org]


ADOBE FLASH ADS INJECTING MALWARE INTO THE NET: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/20/0029220&from=rss [slashdot.org]


London Stock Exchange Web Site Serving Malware:

http://www.securityweek.com/london-stock-exchange-web-site-serving-malware [securityweek.com]


Spotify splattered with malware-tainted ads:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/25/spotify_malvertisement_attack/ [theregister.co.uk]


As my list "multiple evidences thereof" as to adbanners & viruses + the fact they slow you down & cost you more (from reputable & reliable sources no less)).

17.) Per point #16, a way to save some money: ANDROID phones can also use the HOSTS FILE TO KEEP DOWN BILLABLE TIME ONLINE, vs. adbanners or malware such as this:


Infected Androids Run Up Big Texting Bills:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/0041203/Infected-Androids-Run-Up-Big-Texting-Bills [slashdot.org]


AND, for protection vs. other "botnets" migrating from the PC world, to "smartphones" such as ZITMO (a ZEUS botnet variant):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=ZITMO&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]


It's easily done too, via the ADB dev. tool, & mounting ANDROID OS' system mountpoint for system/etc as READ + WRITE/ADMIN-ROOT PERMISSIONS, then copying your new custom HOSTS over the old one using ADB PULL/ADB PUSH to do so (otherwise ANDROID complains of "this file cannot be overwritten on production models of this Operating System", or something very along those lines - this way gets you around that annoyance along with you possibly having to clear some space there yourself if you packed it with things!).

18.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

HOSTS files are NOT THAT EASILY "webbug" BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked on AdBlock in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:



An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars [arstechnica.com]

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."


"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!


19.) Even WIKILEAKS "favors" blacklists (because they work, and HOSTS can be a blacklist vs. known BAD sites/servers/domain-host names):


PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT (from -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/16/wikileaks_mirror_malware_warning_row/ [theregister.co.uk] )

"we are in favour of 'Blacklists', be it for mail servers or websites, they have to be compiled with care... Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser)...


20.) AND, LASTLY? SINCE MALWARE GENERALLY HAS TO OPERATE ON WHAT YOU YOURSELF CAN DO (running as limited class/least privlege user, hopefully, OR even as ADMIN/ROOT/SUPERUSER)? HOSTS "LOCK IN" malware too, vs. communicating "back to mama" for orders (provided they have name servers + C&C botnet servers listed in them, blocked off in your HOSTS that is) - you might think they use a hardcoded IP, which IS possible, but generally they do not & RECYCLE domain/host names they own (such as has been seen with the RBN (Russian Business Network) lately though it was considered "dead", other malwares are using its domains/hostnames now, & this? This stops that cold, too - Bonus!)...

21.) Custom HOSTS files gain users back more "screen real estate" by blocking out banner ads... it's great on PC's for speed along with MORE of what I want to see/read (not ads), & efficiency too, but EVEN BETTER ON SMARTPHONES - by far. It matters MOST there imo @ least, in regards to extra screen real-estate.

Still - It's a GOOD idea to layer in the usage of BOTH browser addons for security like adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ), IE 9's new TPL's ( http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] ), &/or NoScript ( http://noscript.net/ [noscript.net] especially this one, as it covers what HOSTS files can't in javascript which is the main deliverer of MOST attacks online & SECUNIA.COM can verify this for anyone really by looking @ the past few years of attacks nowadays), for the concept of "layered security"....

It's just that HOSTS files offer you a LOT MORE gains than Adblock ( http://adblockplus.org/en/ [adblockplus.org] ) does alone (as hosts do things adblock just plain cannot & on more programs, for more speed, security, and "stealth" to a degree even), and it corrects problems in DNS (as shown above via hardcodes of your favorite sites into your HOSTS file, and more (such as avoiding DNS request logs)).

ALSO - Some more notes on DNS servers & their problems, very recent + ongoing ones:


DNS flaw reanimates slain evil sites as ghost domains:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/16/ghost_domains_dns_vuln/ [theregister.co.uk]


BIND vs. what the Chinese are doing to DNS lately? See here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders [slashdot.org]



http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/26/secunia_back_from_dns_hack/ [theregister.co.uk]

(Yes, even "security pros" are helpless vs. DNS problems in code bugs OR redirect DNS poisoning issues, & they can only try to "set the DNS record straight" & then, they still have to wait for corrected DNS info. to propogate across all subordinate DNS servers too - lagtime in which folks DO get "abused" in mind you!)


DNS vs. the "Kaminsky DNS flaw", here (and even MORE problems in DNS than just that):

http://www.scmagazineus.com/new-bind-9-dns-flaw-is-worse-than-kaminskys/article/140872/ [scmagazineus.com]

(Seems others are saying that some NEW "Bind9 flaw" is worse than the Kaminsky flaw ALONE, up there, mind you... probably corrected (hopefully), but it shows yet again, DNS hassles (DNS redirect/DNS poisoning) being exploited!)


Moxie Marlinspike's found others (0 hack) as well...

Nope... "layered security" truly IS the "way to go" - hacker/cracker types know it, & they do NOT want the rest of us knowing it too!...

(So until DNSSEC takes "widespread adoption"? HOSTS are your answer vs. such types of attack, because the 1st thing your system refers to, by default, IS your HOSTS file (over say, DNS server usage). There are decent DNS servers though, such as OpenDNS, ScrubIT, or even NORTON DNS (more on each specifically below), & because I cannot "cache the entire internet" in a HOSTS file? I opt to use those, because I have to (& OpenDNS has been noted to "fix immediately", per the Kaminsky flaw, in fact... just as a sort of reference to how WELL they are maintained really!)


DNS Hijacks Now Being Used to Serve Black Hole Exploit Kit:

https://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/dns-hijacks-now-being-used-serve-black-hole-exploit-kit-121211 [threatpost.com]


DNS experts admit some of the underlying foundations of the DNS protocol are inherently weak:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/12/08/1353203/opendns-releases-dns-encryption-tool [slashdot.org]


Potential 0-Day Vulnerability For BIND 9:

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/11/17/1429259/potential-0-day-vulnerability-for-bind-9 [slashdot.org]


Five DNS Threats You Should Protect Against:

http://www.securityweek.com/five-dns-threats-you-should-protect-against [securityweek.com]


DNS provider decked by DDoS dastards:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/16/ddos_on_dns_firm/ [theregister.co.uk]


Ten Percent of DNS Servers Still Vulnerable: (so much for "conscientious patching", eh? Many DNS providers weren't patching when they had to!)

http://it.slashdot.org/it/05/08/04/1525235.shtml?tid=172&tid=95&tid=218 [slashdot.org]



http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/02/06/2238225.shtml [slashdot.org]


TimeWarner DNS Hijacking:

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/23/2140208 [slashdot.org]


DNS Re-Binding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]


DNS Server Survey Reveals Mixed Security Picture:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/07/11/21/0315239.shtml [slashdot.org]


Halvar figured out super-secret DNS vulnerability:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/has-halvar-figured-out-super-secret-dns-vulnerability/1520 [zdnet.com]


BIND Still Susceptible To DNS Cache Poisoning:

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/08/09/123222.shtml [slashdot.org]


DNS Poisoning Hits One of China's Biggest ISPs:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/08/08/21/2343250.shtml [slashdot.org]


DDoS Attacks Via DNS Recursion:

http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/1658209.shtml [slashdot.org]


High Severity BIND DNS Vulnerability Advisory Issued:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/23/156212/High-Severity-BIND-Vulnerability-Advisory-Issued [slashdot.org]


Photobucketâ(TM)s DNS records hijacked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=1285 [zdnet.com]


Protecting Browsers from DNS Rebinding Attacks:

http://crypto.stanford.edu/dns/ [stanford.edu]


DNS Problem Linked To DDoS Attacks Gets Worse:

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/15/1238210/DNS-Problem-Linked-To-DDoS-Attacks-Gets-Worse [slashdot.org]


HOWEVER - Some DNS servers are "really good stuff" vs. phishing, known bad sites/servers/hosts-domains that serve up malware-in-general & malicious scripting, botnet C&C servers, & more, such as:

Norton DNS -> http://nortondns.com/ [nortondns.com]
  ScrubIT DNS -> http://www.scrubit.com/ [scrubit.com]
  OpenDNS -> http://www.opendns.com/ [opendns.com]

(Norton DNS in particular, is exclusively for blocking out malware, for those of you that are security-conscious. ScrubIT filters pr0n material too, but does the same, & OpenDNS does phishing protection. Each page lists how & why they work, & why they do so. Norton DNS can even show you its exceptions lists, plus user reviews & removal procedures requests, AND growth stats (every 1/2 hour or so) here -> http://safeweb.norton.com/buzz [norton.com] so, that ought to "take care of the naysayers" on removal requests, &/or methods used plus updates frequency etc./et al...)

HOWEVER - There's ONLY 1 WEAKNESS TO ANY network defense, including HOSTS files (vs. host-domain name based threats) & firewalls (hardware router type OR software type, vs. IP address based threats): Human beings, & they not being 'disciplined' about the indiscriminate usage of javascript (the main "harbinger of doom" out there today online), OR, what they download for example... & there is NOTHING I can do about that! (Per Dr. Manhattan of "The Watchmen", ala -> "I can change almost anything, but I can't change human nature")

HOWEVER AGAIN - That's where NORTON DNS, OpenDNS, &/or ScrubIT DNS help!

(Especially for noob/grandma level users who are unaware of how to secure themselves in fact, per a guide like mine noted above that uses "layered-security" principles!)

ScrubIT DNS, &/or OpenDNS are others alongside Norton DNS (adding on phishing protection too) as well!

( & it's possible to use ALL THREE in your hardware NAT routers, and, in your Local Area Connection DNS properties in Windows, for again, "Layered Security" too)...




"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

"I use a custom /etc/hosts to block ads... my file gets parsed basically instantly ... So basically, for any modern computer, it has zero visible impact. And even if it took, say, a second to parse, that would be more than offset by the MANY seconds saved by not downloading and rendering ads. I have noticed NO ill effects from running a custom /etc/hosts file for the last several years. And as a matter of fact I DO run http servers on my computers and I've never had an /etc/hosts-related problem... it FUCKING WORKS and makes my life better overall." - by sootman (158191) on Monday July 13 2009, @11:47AM (#28677363) Homepage Journal

"I actually went and downloaded a 16k line hosts file and started using that after seeing that post, you know just for trying it out. some sites load up faster." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 17, @11:20AM (#38086752) Homepage Journal

"Better than an ad blocker, imo. Hosts file entries: http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm [mvps.org] " - by TempestRose (1187397) on Tuesday March 15, @12:53PM (#35493274)

"^^ One of the many reasons why I like the user-friendliness of the /etc/hosts file." - by lennier1 (264730) on Saturday March 05, @09:26PM (#35393448)

"They've been on my HOSTS block for years" - by ScottCooperDotNet (929575) on Thursday August 05 2010, @01:52AM (#33147212)

"I'm currently only using my hosts file to block pheedo ads from showing up in my RSS feeds and causing them to take forever to load. Regardless of its original intent, it's still a valid tool, when used judiciously." - by Bill Dog (726542) on Monday April 25, @02:16AM (#35927050) Homepage Journal

"you're right about hosts files" - by drinkypoo (153816) on Thursday May 26, @01:21PM (#36252958) Homepage

"APK's monolithic hosts file is looking pretty good at the moment." - by Culture20 (968837) on Thursday November 17, @10:08AM (#38085666)

"I also use the MVPS ad blocking hosts file." - by Rick17JJ (744063) on Wednesday January 19, @03:04PM (#34931482)

"I use ad-Block and a hostfile" - by Ol Olsoc (1175323) on Tuesday March 01, @10:11AM (#35346902)

"I do use Hosts, for a couple fake domains I use." - by icebraining (1313345) on Saturday December 11, @09:34AM (#34523012) Homepage

"It's a good write up on something everybody should use, why you were modded down is beyond me. Using a HOSTS file, ADblock is of no concern and they can do what they want." - by Trax3001BBS (2368736) on Monday December 12, @10:07PM (#38351398) Homepage Journal

"I want my surfing speed back so I block EVERY fucking ad. i.e. http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/ [someonewhocares.org] and http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org] FTW" - by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Tuesday December 13, @12:04PM (#38356782)

"Let me introduce you to the file: /etc/hosts" - by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Monday December 19, @05:03PM (#38427432)

"I use a hosts file" - by EdIII (1114411) on Tuesday December 13, @01:17PM (#38357816)

"I'm tempted to go for a hacked hosts file that simply resolves most advert sites to" - by bLanark (123342) on Tuesday December 13, @01:13PM (#38357760)

"this is not a troll, which hosts file source you recommend nowadays? it's a really handy method for speeding up web and it works." - by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday March 22, @08:07PM (#39446525) Homepage Journal

"A hosts file certainly does not require "a lot of work" to maintain, and it quite effectively kills a LOT of advertising and tracking schemes. . In fact, I never would have considered trying to use it for ddefending against viruses or malware." - by RocketRabbit (830691) on Thursday December 30 2010, @05:48PM (#34715060)


Then, there is also the words of respected security expert, Mr. Oliver Day, from SECURITYFOCUS.COM to "top that all off" as well:


http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

Some "PERTINENT QUOTES/EXCERPTS" to back up my points with (for starters):


"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet -- particularly browsing the Web -- is actually faster now."

Speed, and security, is the gain... others like Mr. Day note it as well!


"From what I have seen in my research, major efforts to share lists of unwanted hosts began gaining serious momentum earlier this decade. The most popular appear to have started as a means to block advertising and as a way to avoid being tracked by sites that use cookies to gather data on the user across Web properties. More recently, projects like Spybot Search and Destroy offer lists of known malicious servers to add a layer of defense against trojans and other forms of malware."

Per my points exactly, no less... & guess who was posting about HOSTS files a 14++ yrs. or more back & Mr. Day was reading & now using? Yours truly (& this is one of the later ones, from 2001 http://www.furtherleft.net/computer.htm [furtherleft.net] (but the example HOSTS file with my initials in it is FAR older, circa 1998 or so) or thereabouts, and referred to later by a pal of mine who moderates NTCompatible.com (where I posted on HOSTS for YEARS (1997 onwards)) -> http://www.ntcompatible.com/thread28597-1.html [ntcompatible.com] !


"Shared host files could be beneficial for other groups as well. Human rights groups have sought after block resistant technologies for quite some time. The GoDaddy debacle with NMap creator Fyodor (corrected) showed a particularly vicious blocking mechanism using DNS registrars. Once a registrar pulls a website from its records, the world ceases to have an effective way to find it. Shared host files could provide a DNS-proof method of reaching sites, not to mention removing an additional vector of detection if anyone were trying to monitor the use of subversive sites. One of the known weaknesses of the Tor system, for example, is direct DNS requests by applications not configured to route such requests through Tor's network."

There you go: AND, it also works vs. the "KAMINSKY DNS FLAW" & DNS poisoning/redirect attacks, for redirectable weaknesses in DNS servers (non DNSSEC type, & set into recursive mode especially) and also in the TOR system as well (that lends itself to anonymous proxy usage weaknesses I noted above also) and, you'll get to sites you want to, even IF a DNS registrar drops said websites from its tables as shown here Beating Censorship By Routing Around DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/1840246/Beating-Censorship-By-Routing-Around-DNS [slashdot.org] & even DNSBL also (DNS Block Lists) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL [wikipedia.org] as well - DOUBLE-BONUS!


* POSTS ABOUT HOSTS FILES I DID on "/." THAT HAVE DONE WELL BY OTHERS & WERE RATED HIGHLY, 26++ THUSFAR (from +3 -> +1 RATINGS, usually "informative" or "interesting" etc./et al):

BANNER ADS & BANDWIDTH:2011 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2139088&cid=36077722 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907266&cid=34529608 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1490078&cid=30555632 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1869638&cid=34237268 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1461288&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=30272074 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1255487&cid=28197285 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1206409&cid=27661983 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1725068&cid=32960808 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1743902&cid=33147274 [slashdot.org]
  APK 20++ POINTS ON HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1913212&cid=34576182 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1862260&cid=34186256 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2010 (w/ facebook known bad sites blocked) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924892&cid=34670128 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS FILE MOD UP FOR ANDROID MALWARE:2010 -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34713952 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP ZEUSTRACKER:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2059420&cid=35654066 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP vs AT&T BANDWIDTH CAP:2011 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2116504&cid=35985584 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP CAN DO SAME AS THE "CloudFlare" Server-Side service:2011 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36372850 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS and BGP +5 RATED (BEING HONEST):2010 http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1901826&cid=34490450 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS & PROTECT IP ACT:2011 http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2368832&cid=37021700 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457766&cid=37592458 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP & OPERA HAUTE SECURE:2011 -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2457274&cid=37589596 [slashdot.org] in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1197039&cid=27556999 [slashdot.org] IN HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&cid=27012231 [slashdot.org] in HOSTS:2009 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1198841&cid=27580299 [slashdot.org] in HOSTS:2009 -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1139705&cid=26977225 [slashdot.org]
  HOSTS MOD UP:2009 -> http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1319261&cid=28872833 [slashdot.org] (still says INSIGHTFUL)
  HOSTS MOD UP vs. botnet: 2012 -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2603836&cid=38586216 [slashdot.org]


Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

Ok - since you can technically use either:

a.) (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0


You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

Simply because

1.) = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte

(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs (here, I mean ones "built into" browsers themselves like Opera has for example))

MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! This compounds itself, the more entries your HOSTS file contains... & for instance? Mine currently contains nearly 654,000 entries of known bad adbanners, bad websites, &/or bad nameservers (used for controlling botnets, misdirecting net requests, etc. et al).

Now, IF I were to use My "huge" HOSTS file would be approximately 27mb in size... using (next smallest) it would be 19mb in size - HOWEVER? Using 0 as my blocking IP, it is only 14mb in size. See my point?

(For loads either in the local DNS cache, or system diskcache if you run w/out the local DNS client service running, this gets slower the larger each HOSTS file entry is (which you have to stall the DNS client service in Windows for larger ones, especially if you use a "giant HOSTS file" (purely relative term, but once it goes over (iirc) 4mb in size, you have to cut the local DNS cache client service)))

NO questions asked - the physics of it backed me up in theory alone, but when I was questioned on it for PROOF thereof?

I wrote a small test program to load such a list into a "pascal record" (which is analagous to a C/C++ structure), which is EXACTLY what the DNS client/DNS API does as well, using a C/C++ structure (basically an array of sorts really, & a structure/record is a precursor part to a full-blown CLASS or OBJECT, minus the functions built in, this is for treating numerous variables as a SINGLE VARIABLE (for efficiency, which FORTRAN as a single example, lacks as a feature, @ least Fortran 77 did, but other languages do not))!

I even wrote another that just loaded my HOSTS file's entirety into a listbox, same results... slowest using, next slowest using, & fastest using 0.

And, sure: Some MORE "goes on" during DNS API loads (iirc, removal of duplicated entries (which I made sure my personal copy does not have these via a program I wrote to purge it of duplicated entries + to sort each entry alphabetically for easier mgt. via say, notepad.exe) & a conversion from decimal values to hex ones), but, nevertheless? My point here "holds true", of slower value loads, record-by-record, from a HOSTS file, when the entries become larger.

So, to "prove my point" to my naysayers?

I timed it using the Win32 API calls "GetTickCount" & then again, using the API calls of "QueryPerformanceCounter" as well, seeing the SAME results (a slowdown when reading in this file from disk, especially when using the larger or line item entries in a HOSTS file, vs. the smaller/faster/more efficient 0).

In my test, I saw a decline in speed/efficiency in my test doing so by using larger blocking addresses ( &/or, vs. the smallest/fastest in 0)... proving me correct on this note!

On this HOSTS issue, and the WFP design issue in my next post below?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I am convinced they (MS) do NOT have a good reason for doing this... because of their lack of response there on this note. Unless it has something to do with IPv6 (most folks use IPv4 still), I cannot understand WHY this design mistake imo, has occurred, in HOSTS files...


2.) The "Windows Filtering Platform", which is now how the firewall works in VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7...

Sure it works in this new single point method & it is simple to manage & "sync" all points of it, making it easier for network techs/admins to manage than the older 3 part method, but that very thing works against it as well, because it is only a single part system now!

Thus, however?

This "single layer design" in WFP, now represents a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE/ATTACK for malware makers to 'take down'!

(Which is 1 of the 1st things a malware attempts to do, is to take down any software firewalls present, or even the "Windows Security Center" itself which should warn you of the firewall "going down", & it's fairly easy to do either by messaging the services they use, or messing up their registry init. settings)

VS. the older (up to) 3 part method used in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, for protecting a system via IP Filtering, the Windows native Firewall, &/or IPSEC. Each of which uses diff. drivers, & layers of the IP stack to function from, as well as registry initialization settings.

Think of the older 3 part design much the same as the reason why folks use door handle locks, deadbolt locks, & chain locks on their doors... multipart layered security.

(Each of which the latter older method used, had 3 separate drivers & registry settings to do their jobs, representing a "phalanx like"/"zone defense like" system of backup of one another (like you see in sports OR ancient wars, and trust me, it WORKS, because on either side of yourself, you have "backup", even if YOU "go down" vs. the opponent)).

I.E.-> Take 1 of the "older method's" 3 part defenses down? 2 others STILL stand in the way, & they are not that simple to take them ALL down...

(Well, @ least NOT as easily as "taking out" a single part defensive system like WFP (the new "Windows Filtering Platform", which powers the VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & yes, Windows 7 firewall defense system)).

On this "single-part/single-point of attack" WFP (vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003's IP stack defense design in 3-part/zone defense/phalanx type arrangement) as well as the HOSTS issue in my post above?

I also then questioned MS' own staff, even their VP of development (S. Sinofsky) on this here -> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/09/recognizing-improvements-in-windows-7-handwriting.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com] & other places in their blogs, to get them to tell me WHY this seemingly intentional inefficiency was implemented... & I have YET to get a solid LOGICAL answer on this as to why it was done - THUS, @ this point?

I'll stick to my thoughts on it, until I am shown otherwise & proven wrong.


Following up on what I wrote up above, so those here reading have actual technical references from Microsoft themselves ("The horses' mouth"), in regards to the Firewall/PortFilter/IPSec designs (not HOSTS files, that I am SURE I am correct about, no questions asked) from my "Point #2" above?

Thus, I'll now note how:


1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...


First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx [microsoft.com]

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths


The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

* "Here endeth the lesson..." and, if you REALLY want to secure your system? Please refer to this:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE [bing.com]

APK [mailto]

P.S.=> SOME MINOR "CAVEATS/CATCH-22's" - things to be aware of for "layered security" + HOSTS file performance - easily overcome, or not a problem at all:

A.) HOSTS files don't function under PROXY SERVERS (except for Proximitron, which has a filter that allows it) - Which is *the "WHY"* of why I state in my "P.S." section below to use both AdBlock type browser addon methods (or even built-in block lists browsers have such as Opera's URLFILTER.INI file, & FireFox has such as list as does IE also in the form of TPL (tracking protection lists -> http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Browser/TrackingProtectionLists/ [microsoft.com] , good stuff )) in combination with HOSTS, for the best in "layered security" (alongside .pac files + custom cascading style sheets that can filter off various tags such as scripts or ads etc.) - but proxies, especially "HIGHLY ANONYMOUS" types, generally slow you down to a CRAWL online (& personally, I cannot see using proxies "for the good" typically - as they allow "truly anonymous posting" & have bugs (such as TOR has been shown to have & be "bypassable/traceable" via its "onion routing" methods)).

B.) HOSTS files do NOT protect you vs. javascript (this only holds true IF you don't already have a bad site blocked out in your HOSTS file though, & the list of sites where you can obtain such lists to add to your HOSTS are above (& updated daily in many of them)).

C.) HOSTS files (relatively "largish ones") require you to turn off Windows' native "DNS local client cache service" (which has a problem in that it's designed with a non-redimensionable/resizeable list, array, or queue (DNS data loads into a C/C++ structure actually/afaik, which IS a form of array)) - mvps.org covers that in detail and how to easily do this in Windows (this is NOT a problem in Linux, & it's 1 thing I will give Linux over Windows, hands-down). Relatively "smallish" HOSTS files don't have this problem (mvps.org offers 2 types for this).

D.) HOSTS files, once read/loaded, once? GET CACHED! Right into the kernelmode diskcaching subsystem (fast & efficient RAM speed), for speed of access/re-access (@ system startup in older MS OS' like 2000, or, upon a users' 1st request that's "Webbound" via say, a webbrowser) gets read into either the DNS local caching client service (noted above), OR, if that's turned off? Into your local diskcache (like ANY fil

Misleading statement in TFA (4, Informative)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#43467945)

... they've discovered a lot of organic molecules that have the potential for 10% or better conversion; roughly equivalent to the current best PV material

The current best PV materials have 20% or better conversion rate
Even the garden variety stuffs from China gets you about or above 15% conversion rate
I reckon the organic compounds are better, in the sense that they do not pollute the environment as much, but to that they are "equivalent" to the "best PV material" in terms of conversion rate, tastes a little bit funny to me

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (5, Insightful)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#43468103)

Nitpicking point taken.
However, the other part of the equation, cost, has the potential to make these very attractive compounds. If you could turn the side of your house into a solar panel for just the cost of paining it, this would be a very attractive value proposition. Even if the efficiency was only half that of a conventional PV panel, the cost per watt would be much lower.
Good to see this research.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468201)

A 100% better conversion rate is nitpicking? Fuck you, fucking fucktard.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (3, Insightful)

djh101010 (656795) | about a year ago | (#43468809)

Nitpicking, my ass. The difference between 10% and 17% is huge. Wake me when someone finds a mass-producable solar cell that has better than that efficiency, and decades of life at that output. Current (heh...) silicon PV cells have reached the point of a 6 year payback on investment, and where the rails to mount them on cost more than the panels they hold. Until someone finds a hypothetical breakthrough, anything less than this efficiency is a waste of time and money other than for pure research.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (3, Insightful)

TheLink (130905) | about a year ago | (#43468901)

Maybe you can paint your wall cheaply with these compounds, but how would you get the electricity out?

I daresay doing it in a way where you actually get electricity would make the costs go up by a lot more. And depending on how its done it could make the efficiency go down too.

Merely painting your wall with crushed/blended solar panel material won't produce much usable power.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (5, Funny)

mspohr (589790) | about a year ago | (#43469141)

I'll take a wild guess and say they use wires.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469317)

And your guess is wrong. Go ahead, take a look at an existing PV cell; they use metal leads silkscreened onto the surface, not wires pasted onto the surface. I also happen to have a sample organic PV cell from the defunct startup Konarka in front of me, and it also does not use wires, but rather metallic contacts (probably silkscreened).

Any other hole you would like to dig today?

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469397)

they use metal leads silkscreened onto the surface

That is still a wire, just an more difficult and expensive kind of wire to make and attach.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469807)

The summary talks about the cost which would be comparable to paint, they didn't say the compound would actually be painted onto the wall. The summary mentions "printable photovoltaic cells". No one reads TFA, but at least read the summary.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469879)

You are probably right but, why the rage?

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43470517)

because you're wrong. wrong on the internet.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43470541)


Do they sell wires in tins of paint?
Oddly enough, they probably actually could do. Paint rollers plus stencils for painting wire grids.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469591)

Just the side of the house? How about every square inch of the exterior of a (every!?) home coupled with solar panel filmed windows. That might do something, and relatively inexpensively.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (2)

RicktheBrick (588466) | about a year ago | (#43469601)

If the potential of these solar panel is so great, why can't they generate enough capital to purchase or rent time on a supercomputer? Why are they relying on 6,000 volunteers? I sure hope if something of monetary value comes out of this project, the volunteers are at least given something for their efforts.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (2)

dinfinity (2300094) | about a year ago | (#43470475)

Some people see the advancement of mankind as something they want to contribute to, even if they don't instantly gain anything other than satisfaction from it.

I, for one, wouldn't mind if somebody makes stacks of money off my contributed CPU cycles. In fact, I'd applaud it if worldwide solar power production would increase because of it.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43470767)

I recommend that you use a dictionary to look up the word "volunteer" and note that the definition doesn't include "petty bastard who only works for personal gain" This will save everyone here the trouble of quoting the Princess bride to you.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

dwywit (1109409) | about a year ago | (#43468137)

I'd be more worried about how long they last. What's the expected lifespan of organic molecules exposed to high levels of UV & heat for the majority of days over a 10 or 20-year period? Although if it's cheap enough, I guess you just strip and re-coat every 3-5 years.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (4, Interesting)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#43468545)

Indeed. They're probably including labor costs, but still. One gallon of paint covers ~32m^2, * 2-6kWh/m^2/day insolation for a vertical equator-facing surface outside the tropics (relatively constant throughout the year, neglecting cloud cover and other shade sources) * 10% = 6-20kWh/day year round for a one-gallon paint job. Wouldn't have to last long at all to pay for itself.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#43468997)

Wouldn't just be paint though. You have to somehow paint a base conductor, the organic PV material, and a transparent top-electrode. You also have to segment and set up chains, otherwise the whole thing will kick out like 1V pretty inefficiently.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43470073)

3D printing with a layer of organic conductors put down first sounds ideal. Paint with microscopic masking and highly toxic conductive metallic paint floating around as a fine mist not so ideal.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43470103)

gallons... m^2 .... head asplode

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43470669)

That is because you are limited to a theoretical world of math. (But not abstract enough to be philosophy.)
Anyone who does actual work knows that there are a lot of implicit information everywhere.
His post contains an unmentioned constant for the thickness of paint and loss during application. You can take the values he gave you and calculate that constant and get the unit of the constant.
It might not always be true depending on viscosity of paint and curvature of the wall but it will always be more expensive to calculate the exact amount needed instead of using the rule of thumb.

Misleading question with no answer in above post (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#43470043)

Nice little trick to ask a misleading question with no obviously no answer yet in above post. Nasty little trick putting in your own false answer "3-5 years" based on nothing. So I'm wondering, why do you hate scientific progress so much that you are trying to turn the kids against it? Is it just because it's solar and thus opposed to some ideology that has currently decided that overconsumption instead of thrift is it's new value? If so I suggest polluting a political site instead of a place where we are more interested in utility than ideology.

Re:Misleading question with no answer in above pos (1)

dwywit (1109409) | about a year ago | (#43470737)

What's misleading about it? No-one knows how long a PV panel made with organic molecule technology will last, so how could I mislead anyone, especially when my point was couched as a query - "what's the expected lifespan....."
Conventional doped silicon PV has a warranty of ~20 years for ~80% of rated output - such as the ones on my roof. That is a reasonable comparison to make - even if "organic" PV doesn't last as long as current technology - say one-quarter of the time - if it costs a similar amount in proportion, then it's a fair comparison . BTW I've been off-grid for almost 20 years and I support any efforts to improve decentralised domestic energy generation. Make yourself a nice green tea and have a good lie down before you attack, next time.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about a year ago | (#43468587)

Actually, depending on how you define best (do laboratory samples count?) I think they're past 40% now.

Still, equivalent within a small fraction of an order of magnitude, which is pretty impressive all things considered. IIRC chlorophyll is only 2%-3% efficient*, and it's had billions of years to optimize.

*real-world efficiency - laboratory eficiency is >40% for the narrow band of wavelengths it absorbs.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

djh101010 (656795) | about a year ago | (#43468817)

Laboratory samples don't count until I can buy them in 1000 piece quantities. Right now, I can buy 17% efficient solar panels all day, every day, at $1.25 per watt. Until the other options improve on that, they're just a waste of investment.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (2)

The End Of Days (1243248) | about a year ago | (#43469063)

Until the other options improve on that, they're just a waste of investment.

So I'm guessing you don't get investment

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43469309)

Overall real world efficiency for chlorophyll can vary from 2% up to a whopping 15%, depending upon organism.

PV with 40% conversion rates (3, Interesting)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#43469323)

Actually, depending on how you define best (do laboratory samples count?) I think they're past 40% now

If you read closely on how they achieve the more than 40% efficiency you would see that they are not "1 sun" PV structure

Case in point, Solar Junction ( http://www.sj-solar.com/ [sj-solar.com] ) came out with the "lattice matched 942X" which has 44% conversion rate

That "942X" denotes "942 suns", which means, the PV from Solar Junction is not flat panel type of PV, but rather, achieve its high efficiency with the use of focusing optics

Allow me to quote from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/10/solar-junction-does-it-again-sets-new-cpv-efficiency-record [renewableenergyworld.com]

" ... Think of a magnifying glass. Basically, you have a very high performance solar cell that sits at the focal point of these focusing optics. The solar cell converts the photon flux into electrons, and power

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (3, Informative)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about a year ago | (#43469349)

Real world efficiency is on the order of 30-35%, and that's for multi-junction GaAs cells that only see use in concentrated solar and space-based power systems. The best crystalline silicon units do in the 20-25% range, and amorphous silicon units do around 15%. Most plants run around 2-3% of conversion of sunlight into biomass, however sugar cane tops the list at close to 10%. Note that's not just chlorophyll activation, but the whole process of using that to drive ion pumps and produce storage molecules.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

ACluk90 (2618091) | about a year ago | (#43469793)

It is much simpler. While having a lower conversion rate, they are just so incredibly cheap that you can easily get 10 times as many.
  To the point of pollution: they are really awesome. In fact around here (Switzerland) it is a quite common high school chemistry project to create such organic solar cells from TiO2 coated glass and tea leaves - quite a fun project.

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year ago | (#43470061)

That's only the best commercially available. Since we're talking about what are currently lab fantasies here, why not consider triple-junction cells which have acheived efficiencies north of 50% (and which will never be commercially viable outside of cost-is-no-object because they're as insanely expensive to make as you might imagine)?

Re:Misleading statement in TFA (1)

WaywardGeek (1480513) | about a year ago | (#43471077)

10% is similar to the best non-crystalline cheap solar cells. You're thinking of the far more expensive type. I can't think of a single large-scale solar utility plant using crystalline silicon. Go read about First Solar [reuters.com]. These are one of the few solar companies still making a profit. Their technology is so much cheaper than the more efficient arrays that literally half of the existing solar production plants will need to close down because they can't compete with First Solar.

Discovering new molecules for competing with First Solar would be huge for any company trying to make it in the utility scale solar space. However, it kills me every time I hear about solar panels or display technology which will be as cheap as paint. Sure, so long as you have zero defects that could cause a short over the area of an entire solar panel. That paint has to be applied in a clean room environment onto a substrate that's defect free. Then they have to be cut up, tested and binned, and merged into complete panels. Even the low-tech mechanical portion of the panel will dominate over the cost of paint. By the time you add up all the costs, the solar paint itself could cost $1,000/gallon and still not be a very significant cost. That's a good thing, because the paint has to be uniform at a nano-scale level. You don't just throw in cheap ingredients and put it in a paint mixer. It's certain to be far more expensive than ink-jet printer ink.

If someone comes up with a cheap way to get the paint molecules to self-assemble into defect free coatings, or self-repairing paint, then maybe I'll start to get excited. Still, this is a very awesome use of crowd sourced CPU power.

Re:Warning about impersonation and mod abuse... ap (-1, Flamebait)

cas2000 (148703) | about a year ago | (#43467969)

I don't give a fuck.

being impersonated does not give you the right to spam.

your impersonator might be a "nutjob" but you've either become one due to stress and anger or you alyways were one too.

fuck off and die.

Re:Warning about impersonation and mod abuse... ap (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468141)

Hi! Let me be the first to welcome you to "The Internet!" My name is Anonymous Coward, but you can just call me "you," or "buddy," or "guy."

On "The Internet" we have a phenomenon known as "trolls" and these people, while occasionally entertaining, mainly spend their time intruding upon communities and eliciting emotional reactions from members in the service of carrying themselves into a receptive state where they can give themselves sexual pleasure using their hands and/or accoutrements. The worst thing you can do is reply to them in an emotionally charged manner, as you have done, since this gives them the satisfaction they seek. My recommendation for the future, and I sincerely hope this advice worms its way into your brain, is to fully ignore them until they go away. They really do!

Once again, welcome to "The Internet" and I hope your stay is fruitful and fun! Check out https://google.com/ [google.com] to search out other things we have to offer. It truly is sensational! Just watch out for those trolls!

Re:Warning about impersonation and mod abuse... ap (-1, Flamebait)

cas2000 (148703) | about a year ago | (#43468271)

i think i'll call you Smug Wanker. and you can FOAD too.

Re:Warning about impersonation and mod abuse... ap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468949)

Wow are you easily trollable. Can you reply to this one too?

Re:Warning about impersonation and mod abuse... ap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468775)

$10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

* POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel, claiming that the APK on OSY was fake.

My reputation as a professional in this field clearly shows in multiple publications in this field in written print, & also online in various GOOD capacities since 1996 to present day. This has happened since I was first published in Playgirl Magazine in 1996 & others to present day, with helpful tools online in programs, & professionally sold warez that were finalists @ Westminster Dog Show 2000-2002.


apk on 4chan [4chan.org]




That was amazing. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948073 [slashdot.org]


My, God! It's beatiful. Keep it up, you glorious bastard. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41835161 [slashdot.org]


Let us bask in its glory. A true modern The Wasteland. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40948579 [slashdot.org]


put your baby IN ME -- I just read this whole thing. Fuck mod points, WHERE DO I SEND YOU MY MONEY?!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3037687&cid=40950023 [slashdot.org]


Oh shit, Time Cube Guy's into computers now... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040317&cid=40946259 [slashdot.org]


[apk]'s done more to discredit the use of HOSTS files than anyone [else] ever could. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]


this obnoxious fucknuts [apk] has been trolling the internet and spamming his shit delphi sub-fart app utilities for 15 years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954565 [slashdot.org]


this is hilarious. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40955479 [slashdot.org]


I agree I am intrigued by these host files how do I sign up for your newsletter? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40961339 [slashdot.org]


Gimme the program that generates this epic message. I'll buy 5 of your product if you do... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40954251 [slashdot.org]


a pretty well-executed mashup of APK's style - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40945357 [slashdot.org]


a very clever parody of APK - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038791&cid=40944229 [slashdot.org]


Please keep us updated on your AI research, you seem quite good at it. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3038597&cid=40944603 [slashdot.org]


Obviously, it must be Alexander Peter Kowalski. He's miffed at all these imposters... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3040921&cid=40958429 [slashdot.org]


Damn, apk, who the fuck did you piss off this time? Hahahahaahahahahahahaahaha. Pass the popcorn as the troll apk gets pwned relentlessly. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041123&cid=40954673 [slashdot.org]


I think it's the Internet, about to become sentient. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3041313&cid=40956187 [slashdot.org]


KUDOS valiant AC. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40897777 [slashdot.org]


Polyploid lovechild of APK, MyCleanPC, and Time Cube --> fail counter integer overflow --> maximum win! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029723&cid=40899171 [slashdot.org]


You made my day, thanks! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3029589&cid=40896469 [slashdot.org]


Wow. The perfect mix of trolls. Timecube, mycleanpc, gnaa, apk... this is great! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3027333&cid=40893381 [slashdot.org]


truer words were never spoken as /. trolls are struck speechless by it, lol! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3042765&cid=41041795 [slashdot.org]


It's APK himself trying to maintain the illusion that he's still relevant. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967209 [slashdot.org]


Mod this up. The back and forth multi posting between APK and this "anti-APK" certainly does look like APK talking to himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40969175 [slashdot.org]


APK himself would be at the top of a sensible person's ban list. He's been spamming and trolling Slashdot for years. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043535&cid=40967137 [slashdot.org]


Not sure if actually crazy, or just pretending to be crazy. Awesome troll either way. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3138079&cid=41432951 [slashdot.org]


Awesome! Hat off to you, sir! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41509273 [slashdot.org]


That isn't a parody of Time-cube, it is an effort to counter-troll a prolific poster named APK, who seems like a troll himself, although is way too easy to troll into wasting massive amounts of time on BS not far from the exaggerations above - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3154555&cid=41514107 [slashdot.org]


that is Art . Kudos to you, valiant troll on your glorious FP - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832599 [slashdot.org]


What? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41832673 [slashdot.org]


It is in fact an extremely well thought out and brilliantly executed APK parody, combined with a Time Cube parody, and with a sprinkling of the MyCleanPC spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41841251 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] er... many people have disproved your points about hosts files with well reasoned, factual arguments. You just chose not to listen and made it into some kind of bizarre crusade. And I'm not the timecube guy, just someone else who finds you intensely obnoxious and likes winding you up to waste your time. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3222163&cid=41843313 [slashdot.org]


it's apk, theres no reason to care. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847097 [slashdot.org]


Seems more like an apk parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847661 [slashdot.org]


That's great but what about the risk of subluxations? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3224905&cid=41847101 [slashdot.org]


Read carefully. This is a satirical post, that combines the last several years of forum trolling, rolled into one FUNNY rant! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41864711 [slashdot.org]


I can has summary? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3227697&cid=41861327 [slashdot.org]


Trolls trolling trolls... it's like Inception or something. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229177&cid=41869353 [slashdot.org]


We all know it's you, apk. Stop pretending to antagonize yourself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3229179&cid=41869305 [slashdot.org]


Now you've made me all nostalgic for USENET. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42981977 [slashdot.org]


Google APK Hosts File Manager. He's written a fucking application to manage your hosts file. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42984521 [slashdot.org]


In case you are not aware, the post is a satire of a fellow known as APK. The grammar used is modeled after APK's as you can see here [thorschrock.com]. Or, you can just look around a bit and see some of his posts on here about the wonders of host files. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486045&cid=42983119 [slashdot.org]


You are surely of God of Trolls, whomever you are. I have had stupid arguments with and bitten the troll apk many times. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3486901&cid=42989683 [slashdot.org]


"What kind of meds cure schizophrenic drunk rambling?" -> "Whatever APK isn't taking" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028403 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43028425 [slashdot.org]


I'm confused, is apk trolling himself now? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3501001&cid=43029495 [slashdot.org]


Excellent mashup. A++. Would troll again. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3503531&cid=43037445 [slashdot.org]


Best. Troll. Ever. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3506945&cid=43044811 [slashdot.org]


I like monkeys. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43051505 [slashdot.org]


This is one of the funniest things I've ever read. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3508287&cid=43052263 [slashdot.org]


I admire this guy's persistence. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063797 [slashdot.org]


It's a big remix of several different crackpots from Slashdot and elsewhere, plus a liberal sprinkling of famous Slashdot trolls and old memes. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063881 [slashdot.org]


APK is a prominent supporter of Monsanto. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43063893 [slashdot.org]


Here's a hint, check out stories like this one [slashdot.org], where over 200 of the 247 posts are rated zero or -1 because they are either from two stupid trolls arguing endless, or quite likely one troll arguing with himself for attention. The amount of off-topic posts almost outnumber on topic ones by 4 to 1. Posts like the above are popular for trolling APK, since if you say his name three times, he appears, and will almost endlessly feed trolls. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3511487&cid=43064383 [slashdot.org]


I love this copypasta so much. It never fails to make me smile. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3512099&cid=43069271 [slashdot.org]


^ Champion Mod parent up. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3513659&cid=43067371 [slashdot.org]


I appreciate the time cube reference, and how you tied it into the story. Well done. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3521721&cid=43094565 [slashdot.org]


The day you are silenced is the day freedom dies on Slashdot. God bless. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522191&cid=43097221 [slashdot.org]


AHahahahah thanks for that, cut-n-pasted.... Ownage! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3522219&cid=43097215 [slashdot.org]


If you're familiar with APK, the post itself is a pretty damn funny parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115215 [slashdot.org]


">implying it's not apk posting it" --> "I'd seriously doubt he's capable of that level of self-deprecation..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115337 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43115363 [slashdot.org]


No, the other posts are linked in a parody of APK [mailto]'s tendency to quote himself, numbnuts. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3528603&cid=43116855 [slashdot.org]


Just ban any post with "apk", "host file", or "hosts file", as that would take care of the original apk too. The original has been shitposting Slashdot much longer & more intensively than the parody guy. Or ban all Tor exit nodes, as they both use Tor to circumvent IP bans. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216431 [slashdot.org]


Sadly this is closer to on-topic than an actual APK post is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3561925&cid=43216225 [slashdot.org]


YOU ARE A GOD AMONG MEN. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43236143 [slashdot.org]


I've butted heads with APK myself, and yeah, the guy's got issues - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569173&cid=43236987 [slashdot.org]


Can I be in your quote list? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569443&cid=43237531 [slashdot.org]


Clearly you are not an Intertubes engineer, otherwise the parent post would be more meaningful to you. Why don't YOU take your meds? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569425&cid=43238177 [slashdot.org]


+2 for style! The bolding, italicizing, and font changes are all spot-on - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569149&cid=43238479 [slashdot.org]


Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243509 [slashdot.org]


APK is not really a schizophrenic fired former Windows administrator with multiple personality disorder and TimeCube/Art Bell refugee. He's a fictional character like and put forward by the same person as Goatse Guy, GNAA trolls, Dr. Bob and so forth. His purpose is to test the /. CAPTCA algorithm, which is a useful purpose. If you're perturbed by having to scroll past his screeds just set your minimum point level to 1, as his posts are pretty automatically downmodded right away. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570085&cid=43243145 [slashdot.org]


I just saw APK a couple days ago. He surfaced, blew once, and submerged... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3570111&cid=43245913 [slashdot.org]


oh man, that incredible interminable list of responses is almost as funny as the original post. This is getting to be truly epic. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247231 [slashdot.org]


"Does anyone know of an Adblock rule for this?" -> "No, but I bet there's a hosts file entry for it..." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43246997 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247097 [slashdot.org]


"Can a hosts file block apk's posts, though?" -> "The universe couldn't handle that much irony." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247135 [slashdot.org] http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247219 [slashdot.org]


"That's it, I've had enough. ... Bye everyone, most of the last decade or so has been fun, but frankly, I quit." - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247225 [slashdot.org]
--> "So basically what you're saying is that you've added yourself to the HOST file?" - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247481 [slashdot.org]


Sweet baby Moses, this is beautiful work - I wish we could get trolls as good as this on TF. :) - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43247533 [slashdot.org]


you have a point - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247823 [slashdot.org]


I do admire that level of dedication. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43247765 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] shut up you stupid cock. Everyone knows you're wrong. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572687&cid=43250533 [slashdot.org]


I will hand it to him, he is definitely consistent. I wish I knew how he did this. That thing is scary huge. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3572629&cid=43250411 [slashdot.org]


I admire the amount of dedication you've shown - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573571&cid=43251593 [slashdot.org]


Word is, ESR buttfucks CmdrTaco with his revolver. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573679&cid=43252957 [slashdot.org]


Hey APK, Protip: It's not the truth or value (or lack of) in your post that gets it modded into oblivion, it's the fucking insane length. In addition to TL;DR (which goes without saying for a post of such length), how about irritating readers by requiring them to scroll through 20+ screenfuls just to get to the next post. If you want to publish a short story like this, please do everyone a favor and blog it somewhere, then provide a brief summary and link to your blog. Readers intrigued by your summary will go read your blog, and everyone else will just move along at normal /. speed. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3573873&cid=43255013 [slashdot.org]


I like how this post seems to just sum up every Slashdot comment ever without actually saying anything. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574283&cid=43256029 [slashdot.org]


extremely bright - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43255855 [slashdot.org]


You provide many references, which is good. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43257043 [slashdot.org]


Obviously very passionate - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3574035&cid=43261975 [slashdot.org]


Thanks ... You should probably stay - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577613&cid=43262993 [slashdot.org]


Art? -- http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3569681&cid=43244883 [slashdot.org]


PROOF apk sucks donkey dick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3577639&cid=43263029 [slashdot.org]


I've been around /. for a while now, but this post is by far the most unique I've seen. Many have tried, but few achieve the greatness of this AC. My hat's off to you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3576225&cid=43264325 [slashdot.org]


I think it's hilarious. Get over it! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578301&cid=43265657 [slashdot.org]


Obviously APK filled his hosts files with backdoors before distributing them to ensure he doesn't block himself. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3578229&cid=43265767 [slashdot.org]


Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42698875 [slashdot.org]


Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file! I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43209619 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42701491 [slashdot.org]


You are my favorite Slashdot poster. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3580251&cid=43270359 [slashdot.org]


Most insightful post on the Internet - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3579259&cid=43275207 [slashdot.org]


I read the whole thing *again* just to see if my comment was in there - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3588003&cid=43293069 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] So, did your mom do a lot of drugs when she was pregnant? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586303&cid=43291531 [slashdot.org]


people are looking at me funny because I'm laughing hysterically at what a perfect APK imitation it is. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581991&cid=43278203 [slashdot.org]


Slashdot devs seem in no hurry to fix this problem and it's been driving me nuts. So for anybody who values viewing at -1 and uses greasemonkey here's a Script [pastebin.com]. There's a chance of false positives and it's not the most optimized. But I value not having to scroll through > 10 paragraphs of APK, custom hosts files, or 'acceptable ads' spam. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287671 [slashdot.org]
--> slashdot devs are too busy installing itunes for their hipster nerd buddys to sort this problem out. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290701 [slashdot.org]


I can't get enough of all of this good stuff! Thanks for the informative links! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43287553 [slashdot.org]


When threatened, APK typically produces a post with links showing he's essentially posted this hundreds of times to slashdot stories... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586291&cid=43290275 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] Your post got downmodded because you're a nutjob gone off his meds. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3586081&cid=43288893 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] The reason people impersonate you is because everyone thinks you're a moron. The hosts file is not intended to be used as you suggest. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302885 [slashdot.org]
-->What? You don't have a 14MB hosts file with ~1million entries in it? Next you'll probably tell me that your computer doesn't start thrashing and take 5 minutes for a DNS lookup! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591803&cid=43302977 [slashdot.org]


[about apk] - this fwit is as thick as a post. worse, this shithead has mod points. and using them. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3591681&cid=43302873 [slashdot.org]


In before the fight between those two guys and their walls of text... - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43306485 [slashdot.org]


HEY APK YOU ARE A WASTE OF OXYGEN -GET A LIFE - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593009&cid=43308147 [slashdot.org]


KPA ...thgim dik a ekil .s.b laivirt hcus no emit hcum taht etsaw t'ndluow I sa ,ti gniod em TON si ti - syug ON - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307605 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] You seriously need to go see a shrink. You are a fucking fruitcake! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43307559 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] Did you ever consider that it's not just one corrupt moderator, it's a bunch of regular slashdot users who infrequently get mod points who think you are totally full of shit? Stop posting annoying off topic irrelevant bullshit, and people won't mod you down. I'm seriously sick of reading your posts about someone impersonating you. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592933&cid=43308389 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] you should be forced to use a cholla cactus as a butt-plug - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308219 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] No one is on your side, that is why you're here. posting. still. No one cares. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43310903 [slashdot.org]


Who's the more moronic? The original moron, or the one who replies to him knowing full well his comment will certainly be ignored, if not entirely unread, thus bringing the insane troll post to the attention of those who would otherwise not have seen it at all (seeing as it started at 0 and would have rapidly been modded down to -1) and whose post (and, somewhat ironically I grant you, this one as well) now requires 3 more mod points to be spent to hide it? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311073 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] I miss trollaxor. His gay porn world of slashdot executives and open-source luminaries was infinitely more entertaining than this drivel. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43311225 [slashdot.org]


PLEASE stop modding biters up. Anyone who responds to an abvious troll, especually one of these APK trolls, should autometically get the same -1 troll as the damned troll. Any response to a troll only makes the troll do more trolling. Come on, guys, use your brains -- it isn't that hard. Stop feeding the damned trolls! - (missing link)


[to apk] Lick the inside of goatse's anus, it's delicious! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3589605&cid=43301757 [slashdot.org]


Excellent post A++++++++++++ would scroll past again!!!! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595009&cid=43312407 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] You are the one who is pitiful. If you didn't spam /. with your bullshit you wouldn't have spammer 'impostors' doing the same. Just fuck off and die already, ok? Please, really. Step in front of a bus. Drink some bleach. Whatever it takes, just FUCK OFF and DIE. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43313459 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] From one AC to another please for the love of god, PRINT YOUR HOST FILE OUT AND CRAM IT DOWN YOUR JAPS EYE!!! For fucks sake we don't care we see this and it takes the piss, short of a full frontal lobotomy what will it take to stop you posting this you moronic fuckwit? - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43314755 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] And someone forgot to take his meds today...Are you really that dense that you cant tell that the only reason the "impostor" exists because you have a hard time realizing that you are wrong and/or wont let it go. It would take a complete moron to not realize that the whole reason he continues to do it is because he knows he can get you to respond by simply posting. This isnt rocket science, this is internet 101... Let me offer you some advice on how to get rid of this "impostor"...shutup - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595561&cid=43313235 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] If you had a 'luser' account it wouldn't be a problem. But you don't want one of those, because your long rambling and bizarrely formatted posts mean your karma gets nuked in next to no time. So I guess you just have to work out which is 'worth it'. Posting AC because I don't want to become your latest fixation. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3593207&cid=43314397 [slashdot.org]


I wouldn't be surprised if that is APK trying to draw attention to himself, since he thinks such endless tirades are examples of him winning and make him look good. When people stop paying attention to him, or post actual counterpoints he can't come up with a response to, he'll post strawman troll postings to shoot down, sometimes just copy pasted from previous stories. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3592647&cid=43308851 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] No one wants to read your copy pasted crap. Maybe someone is mocking you because you make it so easy to? So drop it, and participate like an adult please. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596383&cid=43315069 [slashdot.org]


Seriously.... What. The. Fuck. Can you two homos just go make out on brokeback mountain already, and stop talking about how one of you misspelled "penetration", and how the other cockblocks with their hosts files while grabing the other's goat? Goodness, it sure feels like being in a mountain range, trying to peer around those fucking orbital tether lengthed posts of pure premium bullsit the two of you somehoq manage to keep pushing out on demand. Shit stinks! At this point, i'd be willing to risk the fucking extinction of all life on earth by redirecting siding spring C/2013 1A to miss Mars and land on both of your fucking heads instead. The deaths of billions would be a small price to pay to shut you two cackling lovebirds up! - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596513&cid=43315327 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] Listen up jackass, why the hell would somebody want to impersonate you? You're a certified internet kook. Nobody gives a hot about your 3 gig hosts file. And nobody is impersonating you. You're already a fucking parody. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596557&cid=43315579 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] You have had it repeatedly explained to you that your posts are long-winded, unpleasant to read due to your absurd formatting style and full of technical inaccuracies borne of your single minded i-have-a-hammer-so-every-problem-is-a-nail attitude. Despite this advice you are convinced that your comments are valuable contributions, ignoring the obvious evidence to the contrary (namely the -1 scores your posts earn on a regular basis). - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3406867&cid=42698875 [slashdot.org]


[about apk] Can this be killed off? I don't mean this account, I mean the actual meatbag behind it. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598035&cid=43319201 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] Get an account retard. If you format your password as crazily as your posts no-one will ever crack it. - http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598035&cid=43319999 [slashdot.org]


[to apk] You are the most consistently annoying creature on the internet. There are people worse than you, just like cancer is worse than psoriasis, but you're more like the latter: pervasive, annoying, and always cropping up when one has mostly forgotten about it. You are that indeterminate, continuous itching that slowly erodes someone's mood until they consider cutting off a part of themselves just to stop it for a while. And like psoriasis, you're auto-immune and not fully understood by science. Slashdot continuously makes it worse by scratching that itch over and over again. It's not smart. It just encourages the disease. But everybody's got a limit to their patience. There is no cure for you. But at least, when slashdot dies, you will die with it, and there will be peace. - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3626185&cid=43394107 [slashdot.org]


http://pastebin.com/Cm0HHC66 [pastebin.com]


Did you see the movie "Pokemon"? Actually the induced night "dream world" is synonymous with the academic religious induced "HOSTS file" enslavement of DNS. Domains have no inherent value, as it was invented as a counterfeit and fictitious value to represent natural values in name resolution. Unfortunately, human values have declined to fictitious word values. Unknowingly, you are living in a "World Wide Web", as in a fictitious life in a counterfeit Internet - which you could consider APK induced "HOSTS file". Can you distinguish the academic induced root server from the natural OpenDNS? Beware of the change when your brain is free from HOSTS file enslavement - for you could find that the natural Slashdot has been destroyed!!

FROM -> Man - how many times have I dusted you in tech debates that you have decided to troll me by ac posts for MONTHS now, OR IMPERSONATING ME AS YOU DID HERE and you were caught in it by myself & others here, only to fail each time as you have here?)...

So long nummynuts, sorry to have to kick your nuts up into your head verbally speaking.

cower in my shadow some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.


* :)

Ac trolls' "BIG FAIL" (quoted): Eat your words!

P.S.=> That's what makes me LAUGH harder than ANYTHING ELSE on this forums (full of "FUD" spreading trolls) - When you hit trolls with facts & truths they CANNOT disprove validly on computing tech based grounds, this is the result - Applying unjustifiable downmods to effetely & vainly *try* to "hide" my posts & facts/truths they extoll!

Hahaha... lol , man: Happens nearly every single time I post such lists (proving how ineffectual these trolls are), only showing how solid my posts of that nature are...

That's the kind of martial arts [google.com] I practice.


Disproof of all apk's statements:

http://pastebin.com/XdQRNeQ4 [pastebin.com]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595715&cid=43312649 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43312901 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595843&cid=43314741 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3595851&cid=43314853 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596383&cid=43314951 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43315101 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596285&cid=43315113 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596513&cid=43315283 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596557&cid=43315701 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596725&cid=43317341 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598005&cid=43317813 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598129&cid=43318101 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596709&cid=43318587 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3596889&cid=43318605 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598019&cid=43319227 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598035&cid=43319241 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598225&cid=43319965 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598641&cid=43319983 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598833&cid=43320815 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598839&cid=43321211 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3598779&cid=43321987 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3626185&cid=43399235 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3624213&cid=43399253 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3654751&cid=43467437 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3654575&cid=43467451 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3651853&cid=43467471 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3655151&cid=43467497 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3647643&cid=43467509 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3647643&cid=43467523 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3646191&cid=43467553 [slashdot.org]
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3655187&cid=43467943 [slashdot.org]
REPORT MISSING LINKS FOR REWARD (check pastebin archive first)


TIP JAR: 1EtLgU5L3jhmVkDmqrWT9VhoZ1F2jSimHS [blockchain.info]
RECEIVED: 0.0195 BTC - thx! ;-)

Organic compounds (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43467907)

Yes, it could lead to an organic compound that could do that. It could also lead to an organic compound like the one recently installed into BMWs that, when exposed to fire, converts in an aerosol of the deadliest acid known to man. It was marketed as a "green" alternative to existing refridgerants... and it was approved by the EPA. Twenty thousand molecules sounds impressive -- but the odds of finding one that meets safety requirements and is still effective isn't good. Pharmaceutical companies test thousands of compounds every year... and very, very few of those find a medical application. It's the same story here.

So yes, good first step. Good exploratory research. Don't get your hopes up.

Re:Organic compounds (3, Insightful)

kromozone (817261) | about a year ago | (#43468027)

Are you referring to 2,3,3,3-Tetrafluoropropene? That HF production scenario involved Daimler spraying HFO-1234yf over a burning hot engine block. The conditions were tuned to disqualify it. There's a bit more to that story than the surface. German industry vs. US industry pushing different alternatives and each trying to warp the science their way. PVs aren't going to be aerosolized and sprayed over 500C engine blocks while mixed with compressor fluid. Considerably easier to predict the behavior of an organic molecule in this case.

Re:Organic compounds (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43468087)

That HF production scenario involved Daimler spraying HFO-1234yf over a burning hot engine block.

Okay, am I the only one that thinks that putting a chemical that, when exposed to high heat or fire, converts to one that can cause death if it comes in contact with a patch of skin smaller than the palm of your hand for a few seconds in a car's engine compartment is a really dumb idea? In the event of a front-end collision, you've got shit spraying and leaking everywhere, smoke, flames, people dead, dying, or injured... and you're suggesting that we should introduce into an already inherently dangerous situation for first responders to walk into... the risk of exposure to an airborn acid that can kill them if they come in contact with it and likely wouldn't know at the time they did?

I'm sorry, but I'm with Congress on this: The woman that approved this was a flaming retard that, on no account, should be put in a position of authority over approving other compounds that could potentially save a company a few bucks at the expense of people's lives and health.

Re:Organic compounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468171)

We already have people dying because of the gasoline in the cars.

Re:Organic compounds (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about a year ago | (#43468687)

Yes. Lets throw even more gasoline onto the fire. Great idea. I love it!

Re:Organic compounds (2)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | about a year ago | (#43469009)

Depends on concentrations. Water will kill you in high enough quantity. HF is bad, but how much was being produced? How much of this compound would be put in the car? Look hard enough and you'll find just about everything in an uncontrolled combustion product.

Re:Organic compounds (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469215)

You're such a queef.

Re:Organic compounds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469115)

This is FLAG, in Florida, home of the highest level Scientology services...

Re:Organic compounds (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468177)

The woman that approved this was a flaming retard...

I see what you did there

Re:Organic compounds (1)

Qzukk (229616) | about a year ago | (#43468185)

The woman that approved this was a flaming retard

Flaming retard? Or one foot in the revolving door to whatever company invented the stuff?

Re:Organic compounds (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year ago | (#43468973)

What a horrible metaphor. One foot in a revolving door generally gets chopped off, or at least results in a broken ankle.

Re:Organic compounds (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468733)

Seeing as the current refrigerant we use will have equally BAD results if tested in this manner, I wouldn't go nailing anyone to any crosses just yet.

Don't believe me? Run out, buy a can of air duster, make sure you are in a room without much air circulation, turn the can upside down and light the resulting liquid spray on fire. Breath in REAL deep.*

They both make into Hydrogen Fluoride when burned, just add water for your dreaded hydrofluoric acid. Hey, wait a minute, aren't your lung tissues made up of lots of water?

To further make a point: The Dymler engineers mixed the HFO1234yf with compressor oil to increase its burning potential, then sprayed it over a large area on a hot engine block. In our experiment up top we ignited pure R-152a with nothing but a Bic lighter. Food for thought.

*Don't do this.

Re:Organic compounds (1)

IMightB (533307) | about a year ago | (#43468863)

If you read the article, it appears that DuPont the chemical manufacturer is the one pushing it, because it's patents on R666 (or whatnot) are about to expire. it was approved via the SNAP process because based on Duponts documentation that it was supposedly safer for the environment. Mercedes own testing caught this flammability/poison issue and recalled every single car it made that used it. So far 2013 Cadillacs and Toyotas are still using it.

I'm not sure how much of this "approval" you wish to pin on whats-her-face that she actually had control over. Or whether she was just following the guidelines that congress told her to follow. There seems to be too much political spin either way to get a honest feel for this issue.

Re:Organic compounds (4, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#43469013)

Now, I'm not particularly good with metric, nor am I particularly experienced with engine repair (having done nothing more complex than replacing a water pump), but I would think 500C is a bit unusual for an engine to operate at. That's roughly 900F, well above the melting point of, say, lead, and getting close to that of aluminum or magnesium.

According to some brief googling, the typical operating temperature for an engine is under 250F (120C), and gasoline auto-ignites at 280C (540F). So by the time your engine block has reached 500C, you should already have run a good ways away.

Not to mention that, just by the name, tetraflouropropene sounds like a hard chemical to aerosolize, which is also a condition needed for it to release HF.

So to recap:
You first need to get your engine block to a temperature far beyond what it's designed to handle. Then you need to be in a crash violent enough to aerosolize a decent-sized organic compound, *and* that aerosol has to land on that engine. Finally, all the above has to happen in sufficient quantities to produce a dangerous amount of HF gas, which I will note is not quite as holyfuckballswereallgonnadie lethal as you seem to think (it is very dangerous, and rightly feared [corante.com], but you aren't going to die from a milliliter of it).

Yeah, I'm fine with that. Can't be much more dangerous than gasoline, which can kill you under far less unusual circumstances.

Re:Organic compounds (4, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year ago | (#43469071)

You first need to get your engine block to a temperature far beyond what it's designed to handle.

As I understood the point, they mixed this stuff with oil and then sprayed that mixture over the engine block. The hot engine ignited the oil and the burning oil reached the required temperature, presumably.

Re:Organic compounds (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43469273)

but I would think 500C is a bit unusual for an engine to operate at. That's roughly 900F, well above the melting point of, say, lead, and getting close to that of aluminum or magnesium.

If you pop open the hood and look along the sides of the engines, you'll notice that even though your block is aluminum, your exhaust manifold is not. The operating temperature of that will vary from 500 to 1000F for a V6 or V8. It will be higher if it is a rotary engine, or turbo-charged. A turbo-charger works by taking the pressure of the exhaust and using that to drive a turbine that compresses air and feeds it into the intake -- as a result, the exhaust will be at a much higher pressure, typically 9-12 PSI, and that results in the excess heat not dissipating as quickly. 1000F is easily attainable in a turbo-charged engine, like those typically found on the higher-end vehicles this refrigerant was/is installed in.

So by the time your engine block has reached 500C, you should already have run a good ways away.

As indicated earlier, the engine block is not the only source of heat under the hood, nor is it the hottest location. Also, the ignition temperature of gasoline can be much lower than 280C -- it can be as low as 232C (495F) [hypertextbook.com].

tetraflouropropene sounds like a hard chemical to aerosolize, which is also a condition needed for it to release HF.

It is in a closed loop refrigeration system. The typical pressures for the "high" side of a typical system is 200-350 PSI. Needless to say, a leak in the system would result in already-heated liquid that is designed to vaporize at 15-25 PSI being released into the atmosphere (at zero PSI)... which makes converting it to a gaseous state a simple matter of poking a hole somewhere in either loop; Though it would be somewhat more disasterous on the "high" side of the compressor.

So to recap:
Your understanding of physics is based on incorrect assumptions, and is incomplete as well.

Can't be much more dangerous than gasoline, which can kill you under far less unusual circumstances.

Yes, if you drink it I suppose. But many people have been doused in gasoline and unless they are lit on fire, find that it simply stinks and itches. And in many cases, people have survived being burned by gasoline spills that have caught fire. The same can not be said of anyone exposed to hydrofluoric acid. The CDC [cdc.gov] has a few things to say about it... namely that it can be used as a chemical weapon and is exceptionally toxic and fatal even in small amounts. Gasoline on the other hand...

Re:Organic compounds (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about a year ago | (#43469607)

It is in a closed loop refrigeration system. The typical pressures for the "high" side of a typical system is 200-350 PSI. Needless to say, a leak in the system would result in already-heated liquid that is designed to vaporize at 15-25 PSI being released into the atmosphere (at zero PSI)... which makes converting it to a gaseous state a simple matter of poking a hole somewhere in either loop;

So it will evaporate, not aerosolize?

Can't be much more dangerous than gasoline, which can kill you under far less unusual circumstances.

Yes, if you drink it I suppose. But many people have been doused in gasoline and unless they are lit on fire, find that it simply stinks and itches.

Let's keep the comparison apples to apples, and either note that being doused in a fluorohydrocarbon will probably do little more than to cool you down a bit; or that being doused in carbon monoxide is not exactly the start of a good night on the town, either.

And in many cases, people have survived being burned by gasoline spills that have caught fire.

We don't know how that compares to this compound, all we know is that, under the right circumstances, it can produce HF, while the same can be said of gasoline and CO.

Re:Organic compounds (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43469933)

So it will evaporate, not aerosolize?

Are you really this stupid? Do you not understand how gasses and liquids behave when subjected to sudden pressure changes? I can boil water by simply throwing it in a vaccum...

Let's keep the comparison apples to apples, and either note that being doused in a fluorohydrocarbon will probably do little more than to cool you down a bit; or that being doused in carbon monoxide is not exactly the start of a good night on the town, either.

Dude, it won't "cool you down" a bit. It will, upon being exposed to fire, pass through your skin without leaving any evidence of its passage, and thereupon start to chemically burn your body from the inside out.

We don't know how that compares to this compound, all we know is that, under the right circumstances, it can produce HF, while the same can be said of gasoline and CO.

Exposure to carbon monoxide or gasoline is readily treatable. If I expose you to hydrofloric acid... shooting you in the face would be a mercy compared to what you'll experience over the next (and last) few days of your life, as your body dies, piece by piece, cell by cell, and there is no pain medication strong enough to make you comfortable. You will be in screaming agony until you finally pass, days later, your skin grayed and slagging off, blood pooling and pouring out at the cracks whenever you move.


Re:Organic compounds (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about a year ago | (#43470191)

Let's keep the comparison apples to apples, and either note that being doused in a fluorohydrocarbon will probably do little more than to cool you down a bit; or that being doused in carbon monoxide is not exactly the start of a good night on the town, either.

Dude, it won't "cool you down" a bit. It will, upon being exposed to fire, pass through your skin without leaving any evidence of its passage, and thereupon start to chemically burn your body from the inside out.

[Bold emphasis mine] Which wasn't what I said. You compared HF production to unburning gasoline, which I pointed out was not the fairest of comparisons, and gave two fairer comparisons.

Exposure to carbon monoxide or gasoline is readily treatable.

To the degree that it doesn't kill you, yes. But then, so is exposure to small amounts of HF (at least skin exposure, I imagine no good way to treat lung exposure exists): Rinsing with water for 12 hours removes most of it*. Admittedly not something I yearn to try, but very few things involved in a car crash is. It is not clear to me that this makes it significantly worse.


I never said it was, I pointed out that, without knowing the amount of HF being produced in a typical crash, we have no way of evaluating whether it is a larger problem than gasoline already is. Do we know how much HF could be produced in a car crash, and over how long time? Do we know the concentration produced in the experiment, or is it only being reported as "being produced"?

*I know that injections of calcium gluconate was (is?) the standard. This is probably the worst cause of action, as calcium gluconate is a cell poison in its own right. Luckily, HF happens to be an excellent prophylaxis for this effect. Massaging with calcium gluconate gel probably does a slightly better job than rinsing with water does, if you can get people to massage the spot for 12 hours, which you can't.

Re:Organic compounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43470851)

So it will evaporate, not aerosolize?

Are you really this stupid? Do you not understand how gasses and liquids behave when subjected to sudden pressure changes? I can boil water by simply throwing it in a vaccum...

Yes, boil. Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to call others stupid when you yourself don't know the difference between a gas and an aerosol... or how to spell vacuum.

P.S. Water is quite possibly the worst example to use if you're going to start spouting off about the behaviour of liquids in general.

Re:Organic compounds (1)

Inda (580031) | about a year ago | (#43471005)

Brief Googling is not needed. The water temperature for any car is about 90-95C and a lot of them have sensors and display dials showing this. The metal doesn't get much hotter than 95C.

Also, in modern cars, the fuel pump is disabled automatically after a crash.

I'm not an expect in car drive-trains either. Panels, sure. Everything else, meh.

Re:Organic compounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469195)

The woman that approved this was a flaming retard

okay, I can see where her lack of intelligence might matter, but what does her sexuality have to do with it?

Re:Organic compounds (1)

sFurbo (1361249) | about a year ago | (#43469553)

That depends. How much HF will be produced over how long time in a typical crash? Is there any reason to assume that the concentration will ever be problematic?

Re:Organic compounds (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43470019)

That HF production scenario involved Daimler spraying HFO-1234yf over a burning hot engine block.

Okay, am I the only one that thinks that putting a chemical that, when exposed to high heat or fire, converts to one that can cause death if it comes in contact with a patch of skin smaller than the palm of your hand for a few seconds in a car's engine compartment is a really dumb idea? In the event of a front-end collision, you've got shit spraying and leaking everywhere, smoke, flames, people dead, dying, or injured... and you're suggesting that we should introduce into an already inherently dangerous situation for first responders to walk into... the risk of exposure to an airborn acid that can kill them if they come in contact with it and likely wouldn't know at the time they did?

I'm sorry, but I'm with Congress on this: The woman that approved this was a flaming retard that, on no account, should be put in a position of authority over approving other compounds that could potentially save a company a few bucks at the expense of people's lives and health.

You sir are a fool. Consider that we tell the paramedics to just let the BMW owners die. Fucking pricks the lot of 'em anyway. Doing the world a favor and you call her a flaming retard? Get a check-up from the neck-up, mate.

Re:Organic compounds (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#43470837)

You may want to look in your kitchen cupboard and notice that bottle of bleach. Am I the only one who thinks that storing a compound that so easily produces a deadly war gas that strips the lining of your lungs when mixed with the contents of the bottle of cleaner next to it is a really dumb idea? Don't even get me started on the fool who thought that allowing cables carrying the same deadly electrical current that is used for electrocuting criminals into every home was a good idea.

Daily life is full of potentially deadly scenarios, and yet most of us still manage to make it to old age.

Re:Organic compounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468789)

burning hot engine block

It's a good thing that those can't be found anywhere near cars!

Re:Organic compounds (2)

RobbieCrash (834439) | about a year ago | (#43468043)

Not to be that guy, but I wanted to know more about the acid thing, couldn't find it. It's actually Mercedes, BMW refused to put it in their cars. It also creates an incredibly toxic gas along side the acid.

More here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307265/EPA-nominee-tough-questions-approved-new-car-air-conditioner-refrigerant-caused-ENGINE-FIRES-Mercedes-Benz-tests.html [dailymail.co.uk]

Re:Organic compounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468205)

Can you provide a citation that doesn't come from a fear-mongering rag of an excuse for journalism?

Re:Organic compounds (5, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43468405)

Can you provide a citation that doesn't come from a fear-mongering rag of an excuse for journalism?

Sure can! [foxnewsinsider.com]


Re:Organic compounds (1)

westlake (615356) | about a year ago | (#43469249)

Can you provide a citation that doesn't come from a fear-mongering rag of an excuse for journalism?

From an SAE presentation:

Risk per vehicle per operating hour

Risk of occupant/former occupant experiencing HF exposure above health based limits associated with an R1234yf ignition event: 3 x 10 -12 power

Risk of occupant being exposed to an open flame due to R1236yf ignition: 9 x 10 -14 power

Industry Evaluation of refrigerant HFO-1234yf [sae.org]

Re:Organic compounds (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43469383)

Those numbers by themselves are useless in predicting the number of cases of exposure per year. Unfortunately, accurate numbers for the hours an average person drives are hard to come by, but by miles it's around 13,476 [dot.gov] per year. Let's high-ball it for the sake of discussion and say the average speed of a motor vehicle is going to be 60 MPH. That means the average driver then spends 224.6 hours in their vehicle.

So the risk to the driver per year would be, er, about 1 in 13.3 million. "Coincidentally" that's about the same rate of you sustaining life-threatening injuries in a car accident, per year.

Or put another way... the statistics look safe, but the reality is... you've made it highly probable that after being trapped in your car, shit burning everywhere, you now have another hazard to face: Your air conditioner is now leaking a highly toxic gas which, if inhaled, could kill you and anyone who tries to rescue you. This particular failure mode will be common in a serious car accident.

Now, while you're sitting your car, chest impacted with the steering wheel, blood gushing from your nose, smoke and flames everywhere, I want you to think about this: Do I, a potential rescuer, want to risk walking into a fume of toxic gasses that the CDC says is very deadly and could be a very effective chemical weapon for terrorists... to save your ass?

Hangon... I'm still thinking about it.


Can you please stop screaming? Trying to think here, HELLLO.

Re:Organic compounds (1)

deimtee (762122) | about a year ago | (#43470373)

The chance of dying in a car accident are much higher than that.
in the US : approx 350M people / over 30K deaths/year = on the order of 1 in 10,000.

Re:Organic compounds (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about a year ago | (#43468051)

The problem with Pharma is they need to find a chemical that is effective against the pathogen/disease they are targeting and then make sure it is also efficiently absorbed by the body into the location that the disease/pathogen is so the dose they would need to give to a human are not toxic. The requirements for something like these PV compounds are far lower.

Re:Organic compounds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468839)

Don't forget, it also has to only "arrest" the progression of the disease/pathogen, without eradicating it so that they can sell multi-year prescriptions at mega bucks per month - got to improve that bottom line for the investors that should be held accountable for murder for every person that cannot afford their hideously expensive medication...

Re:Organic compounds (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#43468885)

The requirements for something like these PV compounds are far lower.

Yes, there's no disagreement there. I'm just saying, creating a list of potentially useful molecules is only the first step in the search. Just like it is with "Pharma". Nobody's claiming otherwise...

Re:Organic compounds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468239)

...Pharmaceutical companies test thousands of compounds every year... and very, very few of those find a medical application. It's the same story here.

If you think for one second that the PV market (or even potential one) is anywhere near as corrupt as the pharmaceutical market, you are fucking delusional.

A sane person cannot even begin to fathom the reasons compounds make it out of medical testing and into medicine cabinets everywhere, creating revenue to the tune of trillions while creating millions of addicts to guarantee that revenue perpetually.

Sorry, but your weak-ass attempt at comparing these markets doesn't add up. Not even close.

Re: Organic compounds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468455)

The fucking NIGGER in the White House will point a GUN to the head of the safety testing cunts to make them declare one of them safe.

Roughly equivalent my ass. (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about a year ago | (#43467985)

Try half. High efficiency silicon cells are up to 20%.

Re:Roughly equivalent my ass. (4, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year ago | (#43468109)

Try half. High efficiency silicon cells are up to 20%.

The best are now sitting at 44% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PVeff%28rev130307%29.jpg). That doesn't mean cheaper solar cells don't have lots of potential, but it does mean the editors here screwed up again. There are a few other errors in TFS as well, but this one really got me:

could lead to PVCs that cost about as much as paint to cover a one-meter square wall."

Huh? So does this mean a PV coating will will have the same cost per area as paint. Personal expertise tells me no. Does it mean a postage stamp of PV coating will coast as much as a square meter of paint? That's actually more realistic for the midterm future, but the language in TFS shows such a basic lack of understanding of both numbers and units that it's impossible to tell what the editor or submitter really meant to say.

Re:Roughly equivalent my ass. (4, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43468317)

Those 44% cells use an optical concentrator, aka magnifying glass, and require a substantial cooling system (concentrating the suns energy 418x creates a lot of heat)
They're also not commercially available, although neither are any cells using one of these 20,000 different molecules.

Re:Roughly equivalent my ass. (3, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43469335)

We haven't used optical concentrators for 40% cells in quite a while. Now we use focused-bandgap absorption and silicon nano-structures to act as waveguides, no concentrator needed.

Re:Roughly equivalent my ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469467)

Funny, the optical concentrators in the last year or two that used waveguides still had lens arrays to couple light into the waveguide. And those wouldn't be capable of the high concentration levels needed for some of the higher end PV cells, where you need optical concentrators not just to increase the light level, but to fit the heat sinks for the cell into the array.

Re:Roughly equivalent my ass. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43470087)

You didn't look at that graph did you? The entire top line is triple junction PV cells with a concentrator.
The highest non-concentrator research is 37.8% from a four-junction cell.
If you're doing 40% without a concentrator the National Renewable Energy Laboratory probably wants to hear from you and you're beating the pants off Boeing Spectrolab and Sharp

Re:Roughly equivalent my ass. (0)

Khyber (864651) | about a year ago | (#43469319)

" but it does mean the editors here screwed up again."

No, it means the editors have pretty much lost any and all geek credential, plus have Alzheimer's, since we've had 20% silicon and high-efficiency cells for more than 5 years and we kept getting stories about them on slashdot.

Seriously, me shit-drunk could do a better job than every editor here combined.

one-meter square (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about a year ago | (#43468129)

could lead to PVCs that cost about as much as paint to cover a one-meter square wall

Another wasted effort. Who has a wall that is only one meter square? And if it costs as much as paint and covers one square meter, wouldn't it also cost as much as paint to cover a more useful size structure?

Re:one-meter square (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43468203)

Perhaps it costs more than paint if you cover a smaller area as there may be fixed costs for things like power connections.

Re:one-meter square (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469143)

There are fixed costs to painting. For example, a one gallon can might cost about $25 and could be used to cover 120 m^2 of wall, but if you just want to paint a single square meter you still have to buy the whole can, and the brush. Not to mention supplies like masking tape ($3), overalls ($50), sand-paper ($5), and belt-sander ($200), and more. If you add this all up, I suspect that's how they came to the "same as to paint a one-square meter wall" figure.

Re:one-meter square (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468231)

could lead to PVCs that cost about as much as paint to cover a one-meter square wall

Another wasted effort. Who has a wall that is only one meter square? And if it costs as much as paint and covers one square meter, wouldn't it also cost as much as paint to cover a more useful size structure?

Are you trolling or are you fucking retarded?

Re:one-meter square (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468551)

I think the point is that if the stuff costs the same amount as paint to cover a square meter, then it should cost the same as paint to cover 2 square meters, or 10 square meters, or n square meters. So it was stupid to even mention a unit of area in the blurb.

Re:one-meter square (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43468887)

I think he's a fucking retarded pedant. The square meter is irrelevant to the comparison. A proper comparison would omit the square meter or plainly state that they cost the same for a given area. Pointing it out is pedantic. Not coming up with a proper restatement to go with your pedantry is retarded.

Re:one-meter square (1)

jatoo (2393402) | about a year ago | (#43469207)

The one square meter thing means for the same area, it's just a sensible way to express it. You don't say "my car is cheaper to run for the same distance travelled than yours," you say "I get more kilometres per litre."

Re:one-meter square (2)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43470893)

No its not a sensible way to express it.

If it costs the same for one square meter of PVC as it does for one square meter of paint then you just say ...

It costs the same as painting a wall.

Area is irrelevant if it costs the same for equal areas. Did you not take basic math in school? You don't throw in terms that have no useful meaning to the equation just for shits and giggles, which is whats being done here.

You might as well be retarded and say shit like:

It costs the same as paint on planet Earth!

With cars, we say 'it gets the better milage' because you aren't actually comparing cost, you're comparing fuel burn rate. Cost only comes into play when you include the variable/floating price for gasoline ... which you aren't doing in your car comparison. Its only cheaper if you also buy the same gasoline as me. If I use the cheap pump and you use the expensive pump at a different gas station, a considerable amount of 'milage' is lost at the pump from a cost perspective. This is why GM doesn't put how much it costs per mile to drive the car, they put miles per gallon on the window sticker.

If there are other costs that are different from paint based on area covered, such as the wiring costs that may be fixed regardless of surface area size or something like that, then again, its fucking retarded to compare to a specific size of painted area because you're making a comparison that is meaningless since we have no idea what the ratio is on the high or low side of it.

The one square meter thing makes it clear the person writing the story doesn't understand what they are talking about, and neither do you, which is why you're defending it.

Excuse me (5, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#43468195)

While I go and file 20,000 patents...

Re:Excuse me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43469243)

Now if wasn't a given that there are a bunch of assorted lawyers, big businesses reps, patent trolls and uni researchers desparate for funding all falling over themselves to do just that then I could laugh at this...

Please compare apples to apples. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about a year ago | (#43468285)

Please compare potentials to potentials, actuals to actuals. Comparing 10% potential of something with 10% actual of something that has some 40% or so potential is just plain wrong.

Transparent conductors? (1)

Okian Warrior (537106) | about a year ago | (#43469281)

Don't PV panels require a transparent conductor as a top layer? Something that lets the light through and conducts away the electricity?

Once the side of your house is painted with this stuff, how would you gather the energy?

Cheap photovoltaic molecules is part of the problem. We still need a cheap transparent conductor to gather the generated energy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account