hardcore capitalism = anarchy

softcore capitalism = capitalism plus government regulations

What were you expecting here? The GP was right. See, it's only in softcore capitalism where one side negotiating an arrangement doesn't have to worry about getting shot if his offer is insultingly low or high. Police officers don't exist in hardcore capitalism.

d

Here's the way it works

Step 1: Politicians become politicians. For whatever reason. Idealistic or whatever, doesn't matter.
Step 2: 93% of all Politicians who spent MORE money got elected or re-elected this past election.
Step 3: Politician realizes that their sole job is to raise more money for next campaign. (not run the country or other silly shit like that because none of that matters.) More money = re-elected.
Step 4: Realize easiest way to get more money is from corporations and rich folks.
Step 5: Do what rich folks and corporations want, thus ensuring re-election.
Step 6: Spend more money that the next guy thus giving you a 93% chance of getting re-elected.
Step 7: repeat

There you go. The system is set up to encourage certain behaviors. This is a corporation owned system. Anyone who doesn't kowtow to the corporations is quickly removed because corporations will then back the other guy giving them more money.

Now, while I agree with the GP that the real problem is that the public is too stupid to see things "correctly" and are bought off by advertisements, etc, however that doesn't really matter. It is what it is. "You go the [elections] with the [country] you have, not the [country] you wish you had."

This is the system we have and it seriously depresses me.

d
(far left)

The difference is making money. Yes, taking GPL code and distributing it is the same as DLing movies and then selling those movies to other people.

d

This Mark Zuckerberg guy sounds like the biggest douche ever.

Yeah... heh heh... Those stupid conservatives! What iiiiiidiots! They don't even know how to use a homopho--- homophone? what? wtf is a homophone? (*goes to google and looks it up*) Yeah! Stupid tea party! /s

d

I don't get why you think building 100 smaller plants is standardizing but building 10 large ones isn't. None of these are going to be done on a mass manufacturing scale where parts are "tooled up for high volume manufacturing". In both cases a large engineering company like Parsons or GE will come in do a design that must be approved. Scale won't change things too much in that whole process. You won't save much money either way from an engineering or building perspective, but if you look at it from a site to site perspective, getting 100 smaller nuclear plants sites picked out an approved it'll be 10 times harder than getting 10 large ones approved. These days, that's where all the stress and headache is so I don't see why anyone would think smaller is better.

d

Well whatever. Permitting problems are often a sign of a community or a group of people that are fighting back by using lawyers. That's not always bullshit but sometimes it is.

d

I looked all through out the article and I couldn't find any arguments for "small modular" vs "massive". With all the permitting problems and the like, small and modular seems much harder to pull off. I'd rather have more eyes on a single large facility making sure nothing goes wrong and that security is foolproof than 100 sites scattered around hoping none of them have a Homer Simpson running them.

d

o_O

You sir win the prize for the least interesting person to talk with here.

They'll give you the money... weather or not you choose to fix your minivan is up to you. Seriously, if you are a good sport about this they'll easily throw in extra. You can always claim all sorts of crap like emotional destress and try to squeeze more money out of them... but if it were me, I'd take the money, plus a little, and get some extra perks on the show. Meet the hosts, that type of thing.

d

I wonder how much energy this is...

Does someone know how to convert this to Megawatt or gallons of gasoline of energy?

d

Ah... thank you for admitting to conspiracy to commit fraud. The black helicopters will be there shortly. If you don't wish to be tasered and "fall down" a few times on your way to booking you must go out in your front yard, lie down on your stomach with your hands and legs spread. Stay like that until we arrive.

The Authorities

nuff said

Please, MS has NOTHING on Rambus when it comes to using the courts.

d

Of course refusing to sell a book based upon content of the book is censoring that book. Is refusing to loan out a book in a public library censoring that book? Of course. Does it matter that you can go down the street to the local bookstore and buy it? No. The library is still censoring that book.

I tend to agree that the use of the word implies that what Amazon did was stronger than what they did.... or to put another way, they censored stuff that 99.9999% of the people in the US feel is objectionable and we don't mind it being censored. If some people write books on "how to torture small animals" I hope they censor those books too. I don't hold any animosity toward Amazon for CENSORING the books they did.

I think it's better to point out how stupid and over the top the guy's language by simply stating what Amazon's crime was rather than going off on this word. It's like calling a guy a convicted criminal because he got a J-walking ticket. While it may be factually true, it implies more than the reality of the situation. Pointing out how stupid the statement is is more useful than going off on the definition of "convicted criminal".

d