Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:This isn't really that hard to understand (Score 1) 680

Alas, no. Earth's general temperatures are dictated via a variety of sources, and methane is also a very insulating gas that no one really talks about. The amount of naturally occurring CO2 has risen markedly since 1990, not because it has increased, but because it is woefully underestimated. But hey, CO2 levels, right? The Sun's activity also has a massive effect on the Earths climate, but we'll not talk about that either.

But hey, it's obvious, right?

Comment Re:So where will existing content come from? (Score 1) 187

Are we going to see a resurgence in the DVD service?

Conceivably. The online service is simply too expensive to maintain and as it is right now, not sustainable into the future. Subscription fees will have to rise drastically, content will have to fall dramatically or possibly both. The assumption has been that subscriber growth would rise enough to offset this but that has been nowhere near to happening. Unless Netflix can get a copy of DVDFab and rip all of their DVD rental stuff online.

It sounds daft but Blockbuster's administrators might want to start dusting down the store fronts, or at least a decent postal service because unless something changes we're going right back to optical media...............

Comment Re:Transformation (Score 2) 187

If the movie studios or television networks aren't willing to license their content to Netflix either because they don't want people to stop watching TV or because they want to sell ads through their own streaming platform, what choice does Netflix have at that point beyond only being able to provide older less popular TV shows and B movies that don't appear to most of their audience?

It's not that they don't want to license, it's just that from Netflix's point-of-view it's too expensive as their costs rise.

Comment Re:Transformation (Score 1) 187

Their costs are simply too high and can't be covered unless they start drastically increasing monthly fees, and the only way people will pay that is if they drastically increase content, live TV, sports etc. The content costs are obviously a problem, but there's not much they can do about that, but their infrastructure costs are way too high and getting higher. Creating their own content is obviously a way to reduce long-term costs but a with lot of investment upfront. The trouble is, the reduced choice can't be made up with producing their own stuff, no matter how popular it is. They're also going to have a few bombs eventually as well, which they can ill-afford. If they'd applied the same logic to their infrastructure as their 'original content' they might have a chance.

I don't see a way out of this.

Comment Re:Look beyond Hollywood (Score 1) 251

Instead of making us feel sick here why don't you go watch some Vegas demolition videos or disaster footage.

Making you feel sick? It is what it is I'm afraid and I wasn't responsible.

Buildings don't just have bits fall off or topple like cardboard boxes like they do in the Hollywood movies.

I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to tell us.

Also you've already seen why this happened you just are not thinking clearly. Surely you've seen at least on TV if not anywhere else a smith heating up steel so it's soft enough to work? Hot structural steel cannot support the weight above so the whole thing collapses - simple as that.

There is a lot of steel in that building, most of which as on the lower floors was completely intact and had no reason to be destabilised. The whole bottom two thirds of the buildings were solid, intact structures. You're not going to stabilise anything above which will cause all of that to crumble from top to bottom. You'll get a dissipation of debris and energy.

Comment Re:"Conspiracy theory" (Score 1, Insightful) 251

The buildings collapsed exactly how you'd expect a building with strong center and shell supports would collapse, thus there's not much to explain there.

Nope, that is not how anyone who has even ever built a Lego or Meccano model would expect a structure to collapse.

Fuel heats cross-beams, steel loses half its strength at those temperatures and they bend in the center, one floor falls down to the next and cascades. The outer shell and inner shell hold it all together as its going down. Every single thing that happened to all three buildings and the field in PA is easily explained by physics, and doesn't need the conspiracy. Nothing that happened that day is "comforting," and insulting people doesn't help your case.

Bollocks. In a large building like that there is absolutely no reason for the floors below to be affected. Floors do not cascade on to one another either, which is where you do show your ignorance. When one floor collapses on to another it collapses on to the eighty or however many floors below bound together in one whole structure. Tall buildings have to be built that way, otherwise they would be dangerously unstable.

What would happen is you might possibly get a partial building collapse, but the energy and debris would dissipate outwards lessening as the collapse progressed. A full collapse? No chance. There is no reason for every floor right down to the basement to destabilise.

You're simply repeating the tripe of others I'm afraid and the pancake tripe has been pushed every time this comes up. There is absolutely no way this can happen because this is not the way buildings are built, otherwise they would be dangerous...... Another possibility is that the towers were incompetently and scandalously built. Is that possible? Yer, it is, but either way there is a scandal here.

Slashdot Top Deals

Federal grants are offered for... research into the recreation potential of interplanetary space travel for the culturally disadvantaged.