Too late. I already found that with Bing I get primary sources rather than the first search result being Wikipedia followed by a bunch of blogs, so I switched. (And I hate Microsoft.)

"renewable" isn't going to cut it, either."

I love how something which is being done, ie. power being 100% generated by renewables, today, can still be denied by people who don't want to accept that it is. Reality is no match for anyone's ego gratification. Here's BPA's power output by power source:

http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx

"Slow down progress?" That's just terribly obvious framing. Actually by voting this way they're speeding up progress towards modern renewables. After all, nuclear fission technology is not a "modern" technology, it's over a half century old and it's simply not needed anymore (Bonneville Power Administration shut down its nuclear plant for refueling and their coal plant was shut down because it was unnecessary and still had excess power to export -- 100% from renewables so please, please don't post stupidly about "baseline" power.)

They're in a particularly sunny climate, there are already rolling out solar thermal storage systems so that their solar can generate 24 hours per day, They have tidal sources which France used to generate hundreds of megawatts back in the 60's out of a single installation -- ignoring the efficiency increases of what we can do today.

Fuel is finite, so fuel based sources are out of date. Meanwhile, renewables just keep coming down in price. Solar dropped 20% last year alone, and is expected to drop another 20% this year. Meanwhile, nuclear keeps increasing in cost. Costs for implementation, fuel, owner's costs, massive grid tie-ins, and let's not even discuss the fact that they don't pay for their own insurance and push that on to the public purse in the event of a catastrophe.

So "progress?" I don't think that word means what you think it does. The first world has made it's decision and you can flog the dead horse of nuclear, but the only new adopters will be the third world and powers that want to refine for nuclear weapons, such as arabic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Yes, this music industry will push back, just like Napster.

Just think, they could have controlled the online music industry by now since they owned Napster, instead they gave an entire new industry to Apple. That's just smart management. And remember, those same geniuses are in charge still.

That's why they get the big money.

To put it in perspective, the supercollider cost about $8 billion over ALL its years. By contrast the nuclear fission industry received $38 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees in a single year, and the CBO projects that it will default on more than half of them. That's about $20 billion in taxpayer money. In one year. And that doesn't include direct subsidies, the eight year federal tax credit, the $2 billion dollar cost overrun fund, and debt waivers.

...off the roof of a building!

Now when the same problems cause a second leak we can 100% confirm those problems are the cause!

How else will we address the third leak?

Wow, $6.79 of purchasing power per hour for 15 hour shifts! Where do I sign up? Gotta love the libertarian view of "screw them, they're a different color." I've pretty much stopped posting to slashdot because I'm so disgusted with you people.

Yes, I have. Your position that excessive protectionism is bad, therefore ALL protectionism is bad, is wrong and silly.

Protectionism is quite often useful. And 1930, the great depression, would not have been helped by outsourcing to Chinese children.

What you have written is false. H1B Visa holders almost to a man get paid less than regular salaried employees. In fact, law firms have seminars to educate management on how to rig the system to hire H1B employees, how to advertise jobs in areas where they won't get applicants, and how to advertise so that they can obtain green cards for foreign employees. Here's one such seminar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU