The explosions at Fukushima are pretty well understood to be a result of hydrogen buildup in the enclosures. So what? Those explosions resulted in a handful of deaths, which isn't even a really bad day as far as industrial accidents go. The Bhopal disaster killed between 5000 and 8000 people. Are you against pesticides as a result?

Do you have any evidence to back up this suspicion, or is it just casual slander?

Well, the problem is not in the current reactor designs. Those are as good as it gets.

I'm not sure how you can make a statement like this. Are you saying there's no room for improvement?

I would like to hear more about thorium reactors. But India is working on those and here in the USA there is a tremendous NIH problem.

I see no evidence this is true. The reason we don't get newer designs in the US is purely regulatory - it would cost billions to certify a new reactor technology, so companies find it cheaper to just build another copy of the last one that got through the regulatory process.

You couldn't kill millions of people with a nuclear reactor if that were the goal.

That's why Republicans support it. They're not ignorant.

Do copyright holders really think they can win the game of whack-a-mole as people bounce from domain to domain downloading whatever they please?

One has to wonder if this is really about copyright.

I have believed for some time now SpaceX is going to lose its big commercial advantage over time. Congress views these kinds of contracts as political plums to be parceled out on a district-by-district basis - the company is not going to be able to continue manufacturing everything in Hawthorne without losing government contracts.

If a company never hires women it's pretty easy to catch them in a sting where you send two more or less identical CVs, one with a woman's name and one with a man's. If the women's is rejected and the man gets an interview it's lawsuit time.

It doesn't really work that way in the real world. You can certainly embarrass a company that way, and it makes for a good "report" to release to the media. But you're not going to be able to build a lawsuit on a "sting", since you have to show actual harm. You can't sue over a job you never intended to take. Well, you can sue over anything, but you won't win.

The only way to avoid being sued for discrimination is to stop discriminating, not to do more of it.

The system can't be perceived by managers as capricious. If hiring women exposes you to more legal risk than not hiring them, and you don't think you can mitigate that risk, you don't hire women. Or rather you hire only enough women that it's not obvious you're deliberately not hiring women.

People are second-guessing and questioning whether there are exclusionary practices [and] everyday subtle acts of exclusion that collectively limit women's ability to succeed or even to compete for the best opportunities. And that's an incredibly positive impact.

Are people really that stupid? Huge payouts in these sorts of lawsuits isn't going to demonstrate to companies they should spend all their time policing their "everyday subtle acts". It's going to convince them women are legally dangerous and shouldn't be hired at all. It's a hell of a lot harder to bring a suit against a company that never hires you than against one for which you're employed, and business owners know this.

By "classify" you mean declare them to be "common carriers"? No, I don't think they do.

The debate goes beyond policy, though. The question of whether Congress gave or intended to give the bureaucracy these kinds of sweeping powers isn't an idle one. I haven't delved into the details enough to decide if I think the rules are good rules. But I have looked into it enough to know the FCC doesn't have the powers it's claiming to have. This kind of policy change needs to be enacted by the legislature.

Yeah, great to see slashdot is keeping up the tradition of including nonsense right there in the summary so you don't have to go to the comments for it.

>However here in Canada, from any bank I can do an Interact e-mail transfer.

I did not know this, but then my wife does most of our banking.

>Cost is $1.50. which is less than ATMs charge to withdraw your cash.

I pay zero at TD, so long as I'm using a TD ATM.

Unless they've figured out blockchain trimming, and how to vastly increase the transaction rate to traffic ratio, the blockchain simply isn't viable.

There's a reason all those 3rd party Bitcoin intermediaries popped up for 'off-chain' transactions (that solve all of Bitcoin's problems by removing Bitcoin from the equation).

While there may be some Bitcoin enthusiasts at IBM, it won't take very long for the rest of the organization to figure out the technology doesn't scale, isn't efficient, and has a short practical lifespan.

I think the financial harm they're most concerned about has to do with tax evasion.

I live in CA too, and I agree. The businesses that are still here are here because it costs money to move. Unless you're starting up yet another Twitter clone with someone else's money you'd be daft to start you business here.