Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: Not everyone (Score 2, Interesting) 140

Forced their hand? Last time I checked, they are: 1) still operating the program, and 2) tenaciously defending it.

It's a bit like the Japanese and Whaling. Turns out that the whalers operate at a loss, nobody in Japan actually likes whale meat, etc... But as long as they're under outside pressure to end the program, it becomes a matter of face to defend it.

In short, they may have ended the program since then if Snowden hadn't leaked because the program wasn't justifying itself, but now they're having to defend their illegal and unconstitutional actions, thus they 'have' to continue and justify the program in order to avoid saying they made a mistake.

Comment Re:Well, well, well, taking about safety... (Score 3, Informative) 227

...what is very little recognized worldwide, is that nuclear energy gets a free lunch at the expense of the taxpayers, as regards risk insurance.

How many other industries have more than $12B in insurance before the government will step in?

I mean, there's no other industry that could cause that much damage in a single incident, is there?

It is the most damned uninsured thing in developed countries and when one of these plants goes bust, you know what happens, ref. Fukusima.

Yeah, we're up to 2 busted nuclear plants in the whole world. All of them were old as hell plants, newer plants survived just fine, and realistically speaking we're being paranoid about the radiation.

If nuclear industry wishes to operate on-par terms with other forms of green technologies, please, bring the actuarial scientists in, to do all the math!

They have. It has even fewer deaths per TWh, including Chernobyl and Fukushima, than solar & wind

Comment Re:Full benefits & Full responsibility (Score 1) 227

Sure, just as soon as the federal government pays them back for the fees it charged while promising to take care of the waste...

Oh, and enjoy how things end up priced as we force this standard on other companies... Many of the pollutants that other companies are releasing don't break down, period.

10M years is a bit long as well - allow reprocessing and such, and you can get rid of 90% of the 'waste' by reusing it, and of the 10% remaining, you only need to keep it 'safe' for about 1-10k years, not the over 100k.

Comment Re:Still too dim (Score 2) 169

In your case I'd consider getting away from 'bulbs' and going with a new fixture. That's what I've been doing lately. Rather than toss 2-3 'bulbs' into a fixture meant for incandescent, I've been replacing it with a fixture with the LEDs integrated. No cooling problems when you can scatter the emitters throughout the fixture's light emitting surface.

Comment Re:Good Luck (Score 4, Informative) 331

Remember this isn't a criminal offense. Most warehouse workers are 'judgement proof', in that they don't have the assets to pay anything. The court isn't going to say 'you have to quit your job' because it has financial interest in NOT paying for their welfware because they can't work at what they're skilled at due to the non-compete.

Amazon would pay more than they could recover pretty much every day the court trial went on. Also, there might actually be enough push-back if they tried to change laws.

Personally, I'd like to see a law of 'sure, write up whatever non-competes you want. However, it means that the the employee is still your employee during the non-compete period. Which means you still have to pay them their salary and benefits'. Don't want them working for the competitor for 12 months? You gotta pay them to sit on their ass for 12 months.

Finally, it sounds like they stuck the non-compete into their boilerplate employment documents. It's not intentionally targeting warehouse people, though I suppose that with the increasing amounts of robotics in them, it might be deliberate, so said workers don't go describing how the robots work.

Comment Re:LOL .... (Score 4, Interesting) 71

I remember reading that the $20k 'hammer' was actually a set of tools, including a spade & pick, made of a special set of alloys(can't remember what) designed to be non-magnetic, non-sparking, and a few other nons for use in helping to clean up stockpiles of explosives that were destabilizing, getting more sensitive. Given the location and amounts, they couldn't just set them off in location.

The toilet seat was actually a whole toilet system, I can't remember if it was for a plane or submarine. Still not cheap, but something that had to be custom designed and produced for that vehicle, and they were including design costs.

Comment Re:We should lobby to break the cable companies (Score 1) 536

You're only using the FIRST definition of 'break'. There are many more.

"To break something is to" also covers:
  to overcome or wear down the spirit, strength, or resistance of; to cause to yield, especially under pressure, torture, or the like:
  to disable or destroy by or as if by shattering or crushing:
to ruin financially; make bankrupt
  to impair or weaken the power, effect, or intensity of
to train to obedience; tame
  to become inoperative or to malfunction, as through wear or damage

I think my use of the word is particularly appropriate.

Comment Re:We should lobby to break the cable companies (Score 1) 536

Such agreements actually exist in the USA, it's just that there are exemptions like 'only if it's 300 ft or less, in which case the person requesting service has to pay for the extra distance'. Generally said distance is 'around' double the average necessary hookup distance, and the extra install is at the marginal cost - IE the extra labor & materials. If it costs $1k just to show up on location and start pushing pipe, but only $1/ft after that, a 100 foot install would cost $1100, the maximum 300 foot one $1300, and the homeowner that's 400 feet away would be charged only $100 for being hooked up.

Comment Re:We should lobby to break the cable companies (Score 1) 536

I said 'for example', and that they need to be 'broken'. That can mean either removing their monopolistic protections, or breaking them through regulations. I suggested examples of both paths.

If service in an area is so broken that a community decides to replace them by issuing municipal bonds to form a cooperative, that's their business.

Slashdot Top Deals

Kleeneness is next to Godelness.

Working...