Slashdot Mirror

nobody needs OtherOS, it's just a excuse to enabling piracy

The United States Air Force are "nobody"? ZOMG teh USAF r haxxor u gays uze aimbotz!!!!!!!eleven!!!!

Neither the tornado season nor any floodings are outside of historial norms. Don't let mass media educate you on science.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-04-tornadoes-climate.html

For example, they could find the same troubles than the guys at Sandia labs trying to fix a stuck source of radiation with a M2 robot:
http://www.physorg.com/news9093.html

Having random plastic parts of your robot melting because they are not good to use inside a gamma ray oven is really bad. That electronics need radiation shielding is a know problem, but the performance of the rest of the pieces of equipment is something that they would know until they test it in the field or in a radiation test chamber.

Yes, but not on the side you seem to be suggesting.

Sony gets a cut from the games sold. Sony would therefore like it if people buy lots of games, and particularly would not like it if they buy a console to get a powerful graphics processor for their own purposes, and particularly not 1760 of them in order to build a high-performance cluster. (For the military to do something as unorthodox as using gaming consoles for serious computing probably means that it must be significantly cheaper this way.)

The claims about hacking and piracy and so on are shaky, and the real reason is more than likely to protect their own business model.

There is always cold fusion!

After the Chernobyl accident, the team that had created the Lunokhod rovers was asked to build remote-controlled vehicles (RCV) to help clean up. The RCV's first task was to remove reactor debris (chunks of graphite from the core) from a roof, by pushing it off the edge of the roof. The RCVs worked well; eventually though they failed due to the radiation. This despite them being rad-hardened, as the original Lunokhods had been powered by an RTG.

RTGs do not produce much external radiation - they are based on alpha-emitter material that is absorbed by the surrounding shielding converting radiation into heat. However, space hardware is rad-hardened because of cosmic rays - natural radiation present in space. This is often not as high-level as can be found near reactor core.

Here is an interesting description of using a robot to fix a high intensity radiaiton source.

You have a point about Chernobyl, that was 100% human negligence, but Fukushima wasn't much in the way of a human error. Sure in hindsight they could have built a wall that was 10% bigger than needed for the worst event on record prior to that, but that doesn't make much sense.

I dunno, they're in a place that is known to have earthquakes and tsunamis; one would think that they could have built it underground, with shock absorbers in the walls, and double seals (one on the hatch screwed into the ground; another in the entrance to the shock-absorbed core). With a liquid-filled inner lining, to help absorb even more shock. That way it would likely survive any earthquake. And any resulting tsunami would only possibly breach the outer hatch; hopefully nobody is in the inner tunnel, but the inner entrance would be sealed and would be surrounded by a liquid, so the sea water may displace that liquid somewhat, but would not be rushing in as it would if it was air in there. I think this is a decent design; but I'm no nuclear physicist. What are the flaws? (Much of it seems aligned with a smaller design I've seen, which you allude to.)

i've argued with creationists, ufo believers, ayn rand free market fundamentalists..

Hooray for you! Too bad it doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.

congratulations, you're the first person whose article of faith i've challenged is that whale song is as complex as human speech.

How DARE I quote an expert in the field! Why, a marine biologist knows NOTHING about this, do they? *snicker*

watched a little too much star trek iv have you?

You've GOT to be trolling. There is no such thing as "too much Star Trek IV". Still irrelevant.

it's really silly to ask someone to cite what should be as plain as day obvious to anyone with functional senses.

Schrodinger's cat would like a word with you. "Common sense" would dictate that it's alive or dead, but not both.

i am offering you no citations because it's silly and laughable for you to expect them. i probably could easily find some if i tried. but i'm not trying, because the argument is not worth having, because i'm not in the habit of arguing in defense of obvious reality. if someone is delusional and cannot see the obvious for themselves, they are not worth the time to communicate with.

Well, I'm trying to use small words, but you don't seem to be getting it.... ...so I'll just provide yet another link that underscores my point.... y'know, the sciency-kind that you seem to be ignoring so far... http://www.physorg.com/news11980.html

{citation needed]

Only by uninformed basement dwellers, anyone who's been even casually following "the news" for the past five years would know it's true.

That's the problem. "The news" broadcasts controversial events and propaganda and anecdotal evidence and videos of stupid hippies yelling at cops because they hate cops and unruly college students refusing to comply with peace officer demands at public speaking events and then whining when they get tazed. That's all I've ever seen on "the news". How about some actual data? How about some real statistics? Here's an irl scientific study which stated that out of the nearly 1000 cases of Taser use studied, 99.7% resulted in minor to no injury (as in, fall and scratch yourself on the concrete or similar), three hospitalizations, and two deaths which were found to not have been the result of Taser use: Taser Medical Safety: the state of the science - William P. Bozeman, MD, FACEP, FAAEM (PDF of a slideshow presentation made at University of Florida), Study: Tasers are safe to use - Physorg, Independent studies could answer questions about Tasers. I can't seem to locate a published record of that particular study, but here is another paper by Dr Bozeman that compares Tasers to other methods of incapacitation: Medical Aspects of Less Lethal Weapons.

Your turn.

Science is already well past that point. String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end? Some respond to Japan earthquake by pointing to global warming (Global warming - is there anything it can't do?)

Some random people on twitter makes outrageous claims, and that means that science is broken?

As for string theory, I don't get why it is considered science, but a lot of people more knowledgeable in the field than me thinks it is, so I would prefer to wait and see where it ends up.

Occam's razor is a guide, not an iron law. If it was an iron law, we would probably be using the TeVeS theory of gravity and leave the search for "dark matter & dark energy" (supposedly the matter and energy that makes up all but a tiny fraction of the Universe despite never really being seen) to compete for funding with the search for eluminiferous Ether.

TeVeS? The theory that doesn't explain all of the data, and where even it's proponents agree that dark matter is still needed?

Moreover, there are limits to what can be known, and what is provable. Godel's incompleteness theorems

So, since Gödel's theorem is relevant, science must somehow be an axiomatic system that is capable of expressing elementary arithmetic. Weird, I thought it was all about observations, hypotheses and testing.

Every creationist regardless of religious orientation depends on a logical fallacy to advance their beliefs. Which is essentially a form of lunacy as the OP advanced.

So, committing a logical fallacy renders you insane? I would say that you've just condemned pretty much the entire human race as insane, no doubt including yourself.

As soon as you reject occum's razor and introduce non-empirical shenanigans every theory is subject to the Spaghetti Monster/Last Tuesday fallacies.

Science is already well past that point. String theory: Is it science's ultimate dead end?
Some respond to Japan earthquake by pointing to global warming (Global warming - is there anything it can't do?)

The experiments to try and generate the chemicals of life in what is thought to be conditions on the young earth are interesting, but they are at best a form of speculation. I don't believe there is any way to prove that any given method truly resembles what actually occurred. The fact that some scientists are attributing life or the presence of the chemicals of life on earth to meteors doesn't really change things either. If anything, it just confuses the picture even more - "life didn't begin on earth, but in space, and it came here on meteors!" And how did it start in space? Isn't that just a bit more of a hostile environment?

Occam's razor is a guide, not an iron law. If it was an iron law, we would probably be using the TeVeS theory of gravity and leave the search for "dark matter & dark energy" (supposedly the matter and energy that makes up all but a tiny fraction of the Universe despite never really being seen) to compete for funding with the search for eluminiferous Ether.

Moreover, there are limits to what can be known, and what is provable.
Godel's incompleteness theorems

Godel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems for mathematics. The theorems, proven by Kurt Godel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all of mathematics is impossible, thus giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem.

I think the ground you're on is shakier than you recognize, or care to admit.

Read anything by Donald Knuth lately?

The slow lane could be the inductive charging lane; after all it's not powering the vehicles constantly, just charging them -- which of course would mean that it would need to charge them faster than they are depleting the charge in order for it to be effective. Well, I suppose it would still be "effective" even if it didn't charge as fast as it was being drained, because the extra energy would provide for longer range.

But anyway I agree, adding a significant cost to our infrastructure doesn't make a lot of sense. Now, putting this on toll roads, that might.

But I think burying the smaller nuclear plants, like the Toshiba 4S, and this one, makes even more sense. The math from that link says $25 million for the plant, and it generates $12 million of electricity per year (at 10c/kilowatt hour). And it needs to be refueled every 7-10 years, so even if we say 6 years, it basically triples its investment in that time. And refueling likely will cost a fraction of the expense of the entire plant, so "it gets cheaper over time". I would invest in a fund that invested in these plants. Heck, I might even create one.

And with a nuke in everyone's back yard, filling your car up will be simple. :)

1. The Today in Science listing of birth and death dates of scientists, and notable events. (For example, today is the anniversary of the publication of Einstein's paper on General Relativity, Die Grundlagen der allgemeinen Relativitästheorie.

2. Interactive science simulations from the University of Colorado, Boulder.

3. Science news articles at PhysOrg.com, New Scientist, and Technology Review.

St. Andreas is not the only possible area of a quake. In the Washington area there is more tension building up:
http://www.physorg.com/news169653448.html

Wind, Solar, etc. do not have the capacity to replace gas, coal, and oil fired electric power plants

They certainly do. Solar energy alone received by Earth (annual average) represents five thousand times the total current energy consumption of humanity. And that's only solar. On top of that there's wind, hydro, tides, waves, currents and geothermal to use. So how can you maintain that the capacity is not there?

Now granted, renewable energy sources are diluted and unpredictable on the short term, so there are quite a few technological challenges there too. But considering that developing commercially viable breeder reactors or a complete and safe reprocessing industry is deemed a cinch by the average slashdot nuclear proponent, how can these intimidate them?

That can't be done, actually.

Well, the most common method of time travel that we know of, and there is an experiment going to be done at some point, is that of closed time-like curves.
CTCs have been theorised to be self-correcting before a paradoxical event can even take place, such as being unable to travel back in time.
The act of being able to go back in time in attempt to change the past to prevent something from happening that would stop you travelling back in the first place would have already proved you never succeed in changing it.
You may change the past in some ways, as long as it never stops any interactions with whatever caused you to go back in the first place.
You could go back and wipe out entire countries, as long as you never heard of it happening, nor did anyone involved in the experiment, you would be perfectly fine.

The experiment i speak of was of quantum entanglement. I will find the article.
Ah, here we go, Qubits, time travel and grandfathers
Pretty interesting concept and i would love to see it.

Maybe they foresaw this situation and put fuel caps on them?

The articles I read are sparse in details, but you must remember that fuel was put into the tanks somehow before launch. They will probably use the same connector to refuel.

Fueling up the satellite is one of the last activities before launch, because it's so dangerous. Besides being explosive, hydrazine is extremely toxic. So toxic that technicians use astronaut suits to do it.

the primary being related to energy consumption-- less heat is needed

In summer? We cool our homes in North America while on DST, so the result of Daylight "Saving" Time is that people that use automatic thermostats are cooling their homes at a hotter time of the day. Businesses are generally unaffected due to multiple working shifts or cleaning crews usually in the building to sunset regardless of DST.

less electricity for lights

Which do you think uses more, air conditioning or lighting (now that CFLs are so much more common)?

Please google the topic before opening your mouth, next time.

Same to you: http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120406767043794825.html
http://www.physorg.com/news187946326.html

Have you looked?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage#Metal_hydrides
"Metal hydrides, such as MgH2, NaAlH4, LiAlH4, LiH, LaNi5H6, and TiFeH2, with varying degrees of efficiency, can be used as a storage medium for hydrogen, often reversibly.[8] Some are easy-to-fuel liquids at ambient temperature and pressure, others are solids which could be turned into pellets. These materials have good energy density by volume, although their energy density by weight is often worse than the leading hydrocarbon fuels."

http://web.ead.anl.gov/saltcaverns/uses/compair/index.htm
"Salt caverns or mines have been used to store air under high pressure.
* Compressors use off-peak electricity to fill the cavern with compressed air.
* For peaking demand, the compressed air is withdrawn from the cavern, blended with natural gas, and used to drive a gas turbine to generate electricity.
* CAES Plants of 110 â" 290 MW exist."

http://www.saltcavernstorage.com/caes.html

http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2000/alert14
http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2003/update24
http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb4/PB4ch5_ss2
"Europe is already tapping its off-shore wind. An assessment by the Garrad Hassan wind energy consulting group concluded that if governments aggressively develop their vast off-shore resources, wind could supply all of Europeâ(TM)s residential electricity by 2020. 13 ... This climate-stabilizing initiative would require the installation of 1.5 million wind turbines of 2 megawatts each. Manufacturing such a huge number of wind turbines over the next 11 years sounds intimidating until it is compared with the 70 million automobiles the world produces each year. At $3 million per installed turbine, this would mean investing $4.5 trillion by 2020, or $409 billion per year. This compares with world oil and gas capital expenditures that are projected to reach $1 trillion per year by 2016. 29 Wind turbines can be mass-produced on assembly lines, much as B-24 bombers were in World War II at Fordâ(TM)s massive Willow Run assembly plant in Michigan. Indeed, the idled capacity in the U.S. automobile industry is sufficient to produce all the wind turbines the world needs to reach the Plan B global goal. Not only do the idle plants exist, but there are skilled workers in these communities eager to return to work. The state of Michigan, for example, in the heart of the wind-rich Great Lakes region, has more than its share of idled auto assembly plants. 30"

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/08/24/plan-seeks-100-pct-renewable-energy-australia-ten-years
"The report, entitled Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan, "outlines a technically feasible and economically attractive way for Australia to transition to 100 percent renewable energy within ten years." The plan specifies that the 100 percent renewable grid be "based on proven technologies that are already commercially available and that have already been demonstrated in large industries.""

Recent:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-scientists-breakthrough-nanocomposite-high-capacity-hydrogen.html

The dangers from Sodium and Fluorine are minimal today, and will be almost nonexistent in the future. The primary cause for concern is interaction with water, especially with the high pressure steam loops. However, this should be eliminated soon enough by Brayton cycle turbines using Supercritical CO2. Not only will they be 50% more efficient, but 30x smaller, and correspondingly cheaper. It may even allow the Sodium cooled reactors to eliminate the extra sodium loop, which was the main source of added cost.

For a PWR, the pressure vessel and containment have to be enormous to deal with the intense pressures, which also add significant cost. Refueling and fuel manufacture are also not cheap or easy. It is a lot easier when the contents are at atmospheric pressure in an IFR or MSR type reactor, and the fuel cycles are vastly more attractive as well.

SpaceX Dragon: $300-$400m (est.) per flight (...) The SpaceX Dragon isn't significantly cheaper than the shuttle, and is again, far less capable than the Shuttle, and is still an unproven design

At least for the cargo operations, SpaceX will deliver 12 flights for 1.6 billion. That works out to about $133m per flight. And it is tested so they have a working rocket and a working capsule. How reliable they are can be questioned, but the design works.

Being crazy with hygiene isn't the same as "working hard to reduce infection rates", apparently.

Here's the physorg article. Much better imo.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-nasa-nautilus-x-reusable-deep-spacecraft.html

Bad summary of what Nautilus-X is about, but the article itself fails in the opening paragraphs as well.

A better summary of the idea from physorg of the Multi-Mission Space Exploration Vehicle.

The idea is NOT about taking the existing ISS and strapping rockets to it. Nautilus-X IS about building something that would ride permanently in space out of technologies similar to what was used in ISS, along with inflatable modules such as Bigelow Aerospace's expandable space habitats. Separate crew modules would provide the ability to land and lift off from planets.

About the only part ISS itself would play is hosting a demonstration version of the ring centrifuge.

Pretty much the "real" interplanetary spacecraft as it has been discussed for decades, but Nautilus-X would be built with mostly known technologies.

• New reactor paves the way for efficiently producing fuel from sunlight
• Sandia's Sunshine to Petrol project seeks fuel from thin air
• Making Gasoline from Carbon Dioxide

We need to stop conflating petroleum's source with its capacity as a "battery". We are always going to need hydrocarbons for plastics, oils, etc. Also, the energy density of gasoline, at ~45 MJ/kg, is orders of magnitude better than the best battery technology available.

It would be awesome to run reverse combustion at large-scale nuclear facilities. It would benefit from improved efficiency at the nuclear plants due to running the reaction on thermal energy rather than going through the relatively inefficient step of thermal to electrical conversion. This approach would be, by definition, carbon neutral. Hell, if we wanted to remove CO2 from the atmosphere we could just run the plants in overtime and pump the hydrocarbons back into the geological reservoirs we drained in the past (would the EPA have a problem with that? Hmm...)

The potential benefits are significant: a single point solution that retains all the current infrastructure investment in petroleum distribution/consumption, no issues with hydrocarbon "self-discharge" like batteries/ultracaps have, excellent energy density, etc. We will always need hydrocarbons, so why wean ourselves off of them?

...just don't conflate the use of hydrocarbons with their source. If we can make the source clean/renewable, then what further problems exist? I freely admit much more research & engineering is necessary in this field, but all of these prognostications engage in similar thought exercises (including TFA).

say what you want, but the precedent has been set.
MS is known to ban hacked 360s - i don't remember if the console is banned, or the user is (via credit card/gamertag or whatever)
Blizzard is known to ban WoW accounts which farm/cheat - or use software that automates the grinding.

people may have sued, but they haven't won.

"unauthorized software" is a broad (perhaps overbroad) term, but we're not here to talk about legal syntax. let's say, for example, you're running something that gives you some kind of advantage - maybe a PS3 aimbot - in multiplayer. legit copy of multiplayer game.. but cheating because you can install whatever you want.

and they're not "confiscating" your games. they're still playable online - just not on a hacked console.

this move is aimed at cheaters and pirates, not home brewers.. I'm pretty sure the USAF doesn't care about this because their consoles have never even seen PSN: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-air-playstation-3s-supercomputer.html

banning cheaters/pirates is a good move.

Ahem: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-neurobiologists-weak-electrical-fields-brain.html

The brain may be more than just a squishy neural network.

Your comparison is missing a key point. They moved 13 tons of _enriched_, near weapons grade fuel.

You are talking about 70,000 tons of _spent_ fuel.

Very different logistical concerns.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate.

You may not be aware but the 70,000 tons of material I'm talking about *is* pu-239 i.e. plutonium. In other words _spent_ fuel is *plutonium*. Enriching fuel is the process of separating fissionable U-235 from non-fissionable U-238 (depleted Uranium). Here are some more details with some more pictures of the casks. That article points out

Sandia provided security and logistics expertise to complete the transfer across Kazakhstan of spent fuel containing 11 tons (10 metric tons) of highly enriched uranium and 3.3 tons (3 metric tons) of weapons-grade plutonium

You also may not be aware that _spent_ fuel is *more* radioactive than enriched fuel which is what dictates the size and volume of the casks so, actually, they are very similar logistic concerns.

they've discovered a cloud of alcohol out there. As still there is no Polish or Russian rockets bound to that galaxy, so you think anyone would be more motivated to go for some mixture of hydrocarbons?

It's not as though they came up with that on their own:
PrimeSense's 3-D camera is a key component of Microsoft Corp.'s Kinect motion- and voice-control technology for the Xbox 360 game system

...and they certainly had the resources to do so, but they can't deliver.

"...Molybdenite's 1.8 electron-volt gap is ideal for transistors and gives it an advantage over graphene (which does not have a gap)..."

With Graphene, I can scribble it on Scotch Tape and get a Nobel Prize; can I do that with Molybdenite?

http://www.physorg.com/news166208581.html

Here's a recent study that came up with similar findings.

The magnetic compass will work but there are some runways that should just get marked with a a big 1? as the magnetic deposits on the approach make it a mess.

I'm wondering if its time to stop playing the magnetic orientation game with VOR. Their range now often exceeds the variance in their local area anyway and all new equipment should be reporting true direction and that will come in very handy if the poles do starting moving a great deal. This from 5 years ago http://www.physorg.com/news8917.html shows how the magnetic fields are no longer as clean as they used to be.

And no one goes out looking for someone with deformities or obesity and VERY few people can seriously "look past" them.

That's actually not true. Multiple scientific studies show that most people tend to have a preference for other people of comparable levels of attractiveness and weight. People who are a little overweight tend to shoot for people a little overweight on average. People who are morbidly obese tend to shoot for people who are morbidly obese.

If a human can "smell" metal then a dog can too.

I think one of the neatest things about Ice Cube is that it is essentially using the entire freaking planet earth as a filter for muon sources other than neutrino interactions. It can detect what direction a source of Cherenkov radiation came from, and if it came from the direction of the sky then it's vastly more likely to have been caused by some other form of cosmic ray and neutrino interactions would be completely lost in the noise. Neutrinos can pass through the whole planet with ease, though, so by subtracting out the sky-originating muons, they are left with the probable neutrinos.

In fact I remember a Slashdot article from a while back where they took the data that they usually subtract out as non-neutrino noise and analyzed it, and were able to make some interesting discoveries about cosmic rays. Oh hey, found the article: http://www.physorg.com/news199468476.html

The actual story is here
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-icecube-world-largest-neutrino-observatory.html

The key bits is this (should have been in the summary):

Under construction since 2004, IceCube encloses a cubic kilometer of clear ice, beginning one and a half kilometers beneath the surface and extending downward another kilometer. The telescope has to be this big because neutrino collisions with matter are exceedingly rare: out of uncounted trillions of neutrinos constantly passing through the ice, IceCube will observe just a few hundred a day.

Seeing them at all is only possible because when neutrinos collide with the nuclei of oxygen atoms in the ice, they turn into energetic charged particles called muons, moving in the same direction. Because these muons (and other debris from the collision) are moving faster than light can travel through ice, they radiate a shock wave of blue Cherenkov radiation visible to IceCube’s photodetectors.

From the article: "TMV becomes inert during the manufacturing process; the resulting batteries do not transmit the virus"

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-japan-team-stem-cells-paralysed.html

Does this count?

http://www.physorg.com/news188550483.html

The heat death of the universe is a suggested fate of the universe, its final thermodynamic state in which it has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life

Key word : Suggested. I just read an article the other day that hints at prior big bangs in this Universe which suggests a cyclic nature in spite of the evidence of expansion http://www.physorg.com/news89399974.html. Furthermore, heat death is proposed to happen after 10^100 years. Our sun will have ballooned and scorched the earth before then, and we have billions of years before that happens. Nope, we will go extinct either through our own weapons, some kind of impact, or a super volcano eruption on Earth or something.

"A group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) raised concerns about the 'potential serious health risks' from the scanners in a letter sent to the White House Office of Science and Technology in April... 'While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,' they wrote."

Continued - http://www.prisonplanet.com/naked-body-scanners-may-be-dangerous-scientists.html

Updated - http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-naked-scanners-airports-dangerous-scientists.html

If only humans have developed some form of power that requires a relative little amount of material to make a massive amount of energy. A generator that could power an entire city yet small enough to fit in a boat, and could run for months if not years without needing to refuel, and the fuel itself could be easily transported in a single mars mission. http://www.physorg.com/news145561984.html

That's a special effect you see in movies. It's not real, and there's no real theory for how such a thing could even be made.

You might want to see the AIST free space plasma display, as a theory on how such a thing could be made...

Of course you can make a laser beam hologram... with an IR laser split into a minimum of two beams more for varying degrees of shades (color values) then having it reflected in a symmetrical matrix with adjustable lenses.. I actually just made that up and googled it since it seemed so obvious. And yeah, someone has already done just that.

And.... this could actually make me a millionaire, extending on that it would be a piece of cake making a lightsaber (at least the visual effect of one).

Daylight savings saves (hence the name) billions every year in electricity costs."

Incorrect, DST causes more electricity to be used. It is bad for the economy and the environment. Hint: Air Conditioning uses more power than lights.

Further, it's Daylight Saving(no s) Time, intended to mean we're "saving daylight", rather than incurring "savings" during daylight hours as AC seems to say. This is itself a misnomer, since no daylight is actually saved, but it sounds better than "daylight shifting time"--presumably to the people who like daylight.

Daylight savings saves (hence the name) billions every year in electricity costs."

Incorrect, DST causes more electricity to be used. It is bad for the economy and the environment. Hint: Air Conditioning uses more power than lights.

At least some offset for the energy use? http://www.physorg.com/news140875649.html