There are enough people who do say it though, which was why I brought it up. Generally they pop up when there is any mention of building a renewable power supply, as if they shouldn't build those and just go nuclear.

But I agree, it is all about having a mix.

You didn't. You read that she wants to have 33% of all energy from renewables which is enough to power all the homes. This was not about the ludicrous notion of attempting to segregate domestic and industrial power and then wholly supplying one if those networks with renewable energy.

The headline was misleading, possibly in an attempt to turn the people who only read the headlines against the idea. I guess it is a good lesson of why you shouldn't just read the headlines.

I know what you mean, although at least this is a story about one side making a proposal to combat climate change. It's better than hearing more stories of yet another research organization having their funding cut in a bid to muzzle the scientific community and stifle the debate.

But if it all counts for nothing because neither side can agree then this proposal will just be one big waste of time.

If you think that we can discount the pollution caused by nuclear plants, why did you mention the pollution caused by solar plants then? You say that I don't get it, but you were the one that brought up this piece of FUD in the first place. You were being completely disingenuous and deliberately misleading by bringing up non-problems with one technology while ignoring that exactly the same non-problem exists with another.

With the exception that you had to qualify your statement by saying air pollution rather than all pollution (like I said) because you know that nuclear power DOES actually produce a hazardous waste.

While nuclear power plants grow organically without generating any pollution, and then run without generating any waste? A solar power plant easily offsets the pollution required to build it over its lifespan. I can't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

And people aren't fixated only on one or two power sources, as opposed to the ones who trot out the line "there is one solution - nuclear".

It has always been about creating a workable mix. Even Hillary Clinton's recent proposal was to only generate 33% of America's electricity by 2027.

When does anything on /. get changed, resolved or decided? We are fortunate that the world isn't run by the comments on forums like here.

Although now I write that, I'm not quite sure that this is true considering the inability for our leaders to solve these sorts of problems to date due to political backlash. What was supposed to be a funny quip just got depressing.

You can't be serious! If you are willing to lie about science then there is a HUGE fortune to be made selling your services to energy companies and conservative think-tanks.

There is a reason why the same people keep cropping up shilling for the large corporations with their anti-climate messages. Often those scientists turn out to be talking outside their fields of expertise, like physicists and geologists (hmm, what are the chances that a geologist works for a mining company?). In fact, some have managed to become "experts" in climate change now after having also been "experts" in health back in the days when they would attempt to debunk the links between smoking and cancer.

This whole unfounded notion that climate scientists are just greedily in it for the money is just a lazy way lobbyists attempt to discredit the scientific research by creating doubt and manipulating debate. You can't argue with the science, so you attack the scientists. Seriously, what has it got to do with a story about additives for making feed more efficiently digested by cows. Farmers are very serious when it comes to any improvements to how they can make to how they do their business. Would you have belittled the scientists if this has simply been a story about feed efficiency to reduce the amount that you need to feed cows and improve nutrition? Why is it only because this has an aspect regarding climate change that you cynically paint those involved a greedy liars out to suck taxpayer dollars.

When this story never mentions costs or government involvement at all, why is the most prominent response from the climate change deniers about "oodles and gobs of new governmental regulations and spending"? It is simply the usual denier FUD that gets trotted out when they have nothing useful to say about the science. It's pathetic!

Any competent Corporate IT already scrubs URL's from all email, it get's quarentined and a tech has to look at the email before the user can get it.

Comcast was doing that back in the early 2005's

Unless it's active low, then tie it to V+ rail.

Pull Write Enable line to ground and the best hackers in the world cant change anything on the chip.

Dont need to be. All they need to do is add a very small switch. you are updating the firmware? flip the physical switch.

Lessthan $0.10 in electronic parts to make something hackerproof.

TeleAtlas kicks Google's butt in maps.

There are comments here on slashdot from 10 years ago that are EXACTLY like yours.

"put it off for a few months" turned into 10 years.

The great thing is that I don't have to pick and choose what to believe. If someone makes a discovery that blows the current climate change theories out of the water then I can celebrate. I will consider it a win that would be well, and will happily cheer alongside you. You can say that you told us all so to your hearts content, but since you cannot now actually give a reason why you think that it was wrong that doesn't mean much.

And that's the problem. This is not about winners and losers in a side. This is about those who seek the truth no matter where it takes them, and those who will deny any truth but the one that they want. It is you and your fellow deniers who are wedded to a particular outcome, and you make the mistake in assuming that all those you call alarmists must be similarly rigid in their stance; that they want global warming to be real.

If I say that the sky is blue, while you insist that it is actually green, then I can happily report when the sky changes colour and that it is now red...and black...and gray. And if by some miracle the sky turns green then I will say that it is green. You will keep your head in the sand while you insist that it is green, and then once it becomes green you will see that as proof that it was green all along. No matter what I see, I will be right, but you can only be right if the world changes to be like your preconceived viewpoint. There is no stress in being right all the time. It seems to me that it must be stressful to have to keep constantly rejecting reality. If you are always searching the sky for green airplanes to so that you can stare at that and claim that the rest of the sky is also green then you have to put a lot of energy into blocking the parts of the sky that you don't want to see.

I do not feel stress for you. I feel sorry for you.

So what? I had a gigabit home network back in 2001...