Slashdot Mirror

You may care to re-read this and fix your posting

No. Fuel from algae is no where near commercial viability. Current costs are about $35 per gallon, a factor of ten too high, and little progress is happening.

That's only what it costs if you try to do it the frankly dumb way, where you do it in sealed reactors with bioengineered algae. The smart way is to do it in open ponds, and let nature colonize them. They figured this shit out at Sandia NREL in the 1980s . They had a program to study breeding superior strains of algae, but they got outcompeted by random colonization every single time. The total volume of lipids produced is higher when you just let some strain nature has already produced do the work. As a side benefit, everything that's not a lipid can go into the ABE process for making Butanol, a 1:1 replacement for gasoline which we would already be able to buy if BP and DuPont's company Butamax hadn't sued GE Energy Venture's GEVO to prevent them from selling it to us. (To save you time: The lawsuit was on the basis of a patent which should have been rejected for obviousness, which was furthermore developed at a public university, and therefore partly with our tax money.)

Nah, they'll just build out municipal broadband that's ten times as fast for half the price.

Yeah, because all of the earlier governmental undertaking proved so superior to private enterprises. To wit:

• Public schools, which cost 4 times more today than in the 60ies
• Public roads, which suck by all accounts, particularly in California
• Public transit, which sucks by all all accounts
• And last, but the most germane to the topic, the glorious Municipal WiFi — which sucked so bad, it got abolished by most, who attempted it

Yeah, let's build even more success on that glorious track-record — all the while letting the governments know even more about our online behavior and policing any misbehavior not as ToS-violations, but as civil infractions. What can possibly go wrong?

Given the posts, it appears that many ./ members do not understand the difference between quality of service QOS (which uses port numbers) and other methods of traffic shaping by IP address, or by link. The ISPs do a good job conflating the two topics when interviewing with the media, thereby spreading even more confusion.

Using QOS, I can give priority to SIP (VOIP) packets on ports 5060 and 5061. When that occurs, web browsing, on ports 80 and 443, does not knock live telephone traffic offline. This is a good thing, especially during emergency calls. ISPs do this all the time.

Using bandwidth and clock rate restrictions, I can slow a peer's traffic down as it enters my network. I can also use access-lists or firewall rules to deny traffic from a particular address or set of addresses. This is what ISPs have been doing recently to cause poor performance with Netflix and Amazon Prime, or to make them pay extra fees.

Since Comcast promotes a competing Xfinity service, it could be argued that their dominance as an ISP is being abused in a monopolistic way to expand their content provider services. Except that Comcast is not a monopoly. In fact, they may have agreements with other large ISPs not to compete in the same service areas. This leads to other legal troubles, but I digress...

Netflix and Amazon pay their ISPs for a given bandwidth, and we pay our ISPs for a given bandwidth. These companies are peers who do not originate network traffic on either end. When Netflix sends us data, it is because we requested it through our ISPs. Therefore, it does not seem right for our ISPs - Comcast, Verizon, etc. to demand money from Netflix in order to permit the bandwidth that the consumers already paid for.

Evidence of this anti-competitive behavior has been released by Verizon. Comcast has also been caught throttling through VPN speed tests. In fact, after Comcast made a deal with Netflix speeds magically increased.

ISPs are now using various framing methods to force this bitter pill down everyone's throat. For instance, the original issue was called throttling. Then ISPs announced a fast lane and a slow lane. Finally ISPs came up with a fast lane and a faster lane. All the while, we pay extra for our Netflix subscription to pay off the bridge trolls.

Thank you Chairman Wheeler, for enforcing Net Neutrality, and shame on you Chairman Pai for trying to convince us that anti-competitive ISP behavior is somehow good for the U.S. public. Your actions may literally result in the forking of the Internet in this country.

Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.

Except when it does.

Not the first time either

Those are the things that caused Network Neutrality to become an issue. I'm sure there's more, more subtle examples that have been less widely publicized too.

Now imagine if there was explicitly no legal framework to prevent this. Imagine if it was not only expressly legal but accepted. There would be no competition for online services, no innovation, and higher prices for inferior service.

So when you say shit like this:

If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.

You clearly have your head in the sand.
=Smidge=

Butanol can use the existing gasoline/oil distribution infrastructure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

It has almost the same octane and air/fuel mix as gasoline so retrofitting older cars isn't needed. Its a renewable and could be carbon neutral once its production gets high enough.

Still not at the point where it is commercially viable but several companies are working on it. And the oil companies are already trying to kill any competition in the production of it.

http://technical.ly/delaware/2...

Yes, that image had a nice run, but we live in different times, with lots of girls attending CS classes, not just 99-percentile types like Grace Hopper. Use a different image.

Not sure if you're trolling, but girls in technical classes actually drastically declined. And no, there were no dedicated IT courses, computers were simply part of math and physics as thats what they were primarily used for.