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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:It's just too expensive for the hardware (Score 1) 151

It's pretty simple really: When the systems themselves reach a certain affordability threshold, sales of the games will increase dramatically. I don't know what that price threshold is, but I imagine it's much much lower than the Vive's current price.

Agreed, price is a major factor in adoption. However, there is evidence that VR prices could come down to much more affordable levels for people in the near future (maybe within 3-10 years?). For example, currently Google Cardboard VR is really cheap (assuming one already owns a compatible smartphone), but it's low-quality makes it little more than a novelty right now. However, it's a really cheap starting point and technology steadily improves over time. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe tech advances will allow VR systems priced similar to current Google Cardboard, but with quality more similar to current Vive, Oculus, etc.

Comment Re:Prove your case (Score 1) 382

Your own source shows that there is very little change in the last 3 years in terms of actual percent. The biggest change is coal is down and natural gas is up because it's cheaper and can change to fit demands, like peak loads, far easier. If your electric car was getting 40mpg co2 equivelant as above it maybe went to 41.

People asked for data, I provided. Data is not political, it just is, and you can read from it as you please. Personally, I see a significant increase in renewables electric mostly across the board, which is a positive for electric cars, but to your point it's is not all roses and puppy tails.

I was admittedly beating around the bush some before, so here's the real point... Any claim of how green or dirty an electric cars are is fundamentally flawed if it does not account for the sources of the regional electric grid the car operates in. You can glance at the charts in my link and see that the environmental benefit of operating an electric car in Kentucky (grid sourced from 93% coal) is very different from operating it in Idaho (grid sourced from 62% hydro, 21% renewables, 17% NG).

P.S. I noticed you have no supporting citations or calculations for your claim that coal vs NG electricity is the difference of 40mpg to 41mpg. You can say and do whatever you want, but understand that to others you come off looking like someone who is a simple believer that ignores any facts that might get in the way of that belief.

Comment Re: Market Forces Kill Coal (Score 1) 201

Two types of people burn wood fires in a house.

Rich people for ambiance, not heat.
Poor people who can't afford to live in the modern world.

I'm guessing you are in the angry subset of the second.

Not necessarily. My middle-class parents have a modern house heated by a wood-burning furnace in their basement with ducts that efficiently blow hot air around the whole house. They live in rural New England, so the wood furnace gets a lot of use in the winter. When they crunched the numbers vs other fuels wood was the most economical and renewable. They have a few back-up electric baseboard heaters to keep pipes from freezing if they have to leave the house in the winter for a few days. The rural area they live is relatively close to the forests that supply the wood, so wood a relatively cheap heat source, but wood costs increase in more urban areas such that other fuel types become better. The main drawback is the effort of stacking wood and hauling it to the furnace, which wasn't a problem for my parents for the last 40 or so years, but they are reaching retirement age and are looking into other heating options now.

Comment Re:Market Forces Kill Coal (Score 2) 201

It's true, natural gas combined cycles are far more efficient, produce much less CO2, require fewer operators and maintenance techs, and can be dispatched more easily with faster ramp rates. Design and construction times are much shorter, and the equipment is very robust after decades of optimization.

Another big advantage of Natural Gas is it can distributed more efficiently through pipelines.

Comment Re:first (Score 2) 382

...my diesel car, which is a 2 litre sporty car that delivers a lot more performance than a Leaf while delivering 45mpg. And that's taking the grid in those areas as a whole; it probably isn't 100% coal even in the worst places. So I'm afraid you're wrong.

For the consumer electric is a cheaper "fuel" than gas or diesel. Tree-huggers and climate-deniers can argue all they want about carbon footprints, but it doesn't matter because it's the green cash in people's wallets that will make EVs happen.

Also, you might be surprised at the performance of a Leaf (or any electric car)... it's worth a test drive at a dealer for curiosity's sake if nothing else. I own a Leaf, and while it's by no means a Tesla, it's still quite fast off the line as it has the electric advantage of instant power/torque. The acceleration curve flattens considerably above 45 mph, where ICE cars would still be accelerating well, but personally I don't feel the need for punchy acceleration at high speeds (your results may vary), and I can still get my Leaf going over 80mph, which is fast enough to get a speeding ticket most anywhere in the US. I'm not an EV zealot though... I acknowledge they aren't for everyone (yet) and are not perfect, but there are a lot of misconceptions about EVs, performance being one of them. Put it this way, Porshe isn't investing in EVs for their carbon footprint! ( http://www.businessinsider.com... )

Comment Re:Prove your case (Score 1) 382

I stopped reading your comment when it has no evidence of any kind. By the way, fossil fuel sources by region haven't changed much in 3 years and electric motors have almost no changes.

Then here is a link to a breakdown of each US state's energy grid sources (e.g. coal, nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, natural gas) by percentage and how the sources have changed from 2004 to 2014: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...

How much of the electric grid is from "green" sources varies significantly by state, but renewables are improving across the board.

Comment Re:Makes me glad I don't eat seafood (Score 1) 74

The study summary in the Nature.com link gives the analytical results, and yes the values very low, orders of magnitude lower than any human-health PCB standard in the US that I'm aware of (I'm an environmental consultant), so if we were eating seafood from the marianas trench (we do not) it's unlikely there would be any health risk to humans. However, it's very hard know what contaminant concentrations pose a risk to specific animal species and a lot more study would be needed. Don't hold your breath though, because full life-cycle ecological risk studies animals is hard enough to do at the surface, much less in Marianas Trench!

Comment Re: Cogent is shit (Score 1) 186

You're still not seeing my point. You're thinking with your emotions rather than your logic and reason.

I mentioned below that my main reason to support limiting blatantly illegal file-sharing activities is because transmitting large files strains ISPs forcing them to upgrade systems, the cost of which they pass on to me in my monthly bill. If a portion of those costs is due to illegal activities I don't support, then I don't want my internet service fee to pay for it. Why is it not reasonable and logical that I don't want to indirectly pay for someone else's access to illegal stuff? If ISPs charged internet usage based on the actual amount of data used, then I wouldn't care if someone wants to use their data on Pirate Bay, torrents, etc., but that's not the business model most [non-mobile] ISPs use.

Look, you make good points, I'm not saying you're completely wrong, and I certainly don't want the walled gardens, but you need a better argument than a fear of the slippery slope, because to me that fear looks more emotional than logical.

Comment Re:Hey cogent... (Score 1) 186

They can make an argument about overall traffic and network stability. But it's not clear if that's actually at play.

I think that would be the main argument for blocking known pirate sites. Transmission of large files (like movies, programs, etc.) require resources necessitating ISPs to make network upgrades with demonstrable financial impacts, which ISPs of course will pass on to consumers. If certain sites are well-known for transmitting large illegal files, then blocking them could have a real financial benefit for everyone. There's also a moral argument here, because if ISPs pass on infrastructure upgrade costs to customers, that means we all help pay for someone to have access to illegal movies, music, programs, child porn, etc.

It not sound like it, but I'm actually pretty libertarian on many issues and generally support net neutrality... but I really do not like that any portion of my internet bill will supplement some asshole's illegal online activity. I live my life mostly above board, including my online activities, as the majority of people in our society do, and until we pay for internet access by actual usage (i.e. not flat connection fees) then I will support shutting down blatantly illegal file-sharing like this, because it does impact my wallet one way or another.

Comment Re:Hey cogent... (Score 1) 186

Do you want to retain common carrier status? Or do you want to be charged for every illegal piece of data flowing through your network? I am sure if you look hard enough you can find illegal porn, drug deals, terrorist communications, plans to commit crimes, insider trading.. etc.

The difference between your examples of illegal internet activity and illegal file sharing on Pirate Bay, Torrents, etc. is the latter typically hogs way more network resources, which someone has to pay eventually. ISPs will just pass the buck down to customers, which means you and I will supplement others illegal movies, music, child pornography, etc.

Comment Re:So it's more like PLEX in EVE (Score 1) 69

I played for maybe 6-8 months when Warcraft was first released (never got into high-level stuff), then when the first expansion came out I played for about another year. It felt like the expansion just catered to twinks with completely over-powered drops and quest exp in expansion areas compared to similar level areas in the original, so the original areas became worthless ghost-towns. I never had an interest in going back.

Slashdot Top Deals

Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor