Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Allow me to be the first to call bullshit. (Score 2) 285

Yea, I find it a little funny (in a sad, depressing, sort of way). We have a short memory as a country/culture. Most people today don't realize that these are the exact same arguments slave owners used to use to justify the continuance of slavery (and, almost certainly, then used to justify the sharecropping system after slavery was ended). Instead of "I can't find American's to do the job", they used to argue "I won't be able to find a white person to do the job". It's all complete bullshit.

The simple fact is, if you're not paying someone enough to live off of and/or you are putting them in a work environment that will literally destroy their body over their career then you are just vermin living off the misery of others. A great example of this was, a while back, when Steven Colbert spoke about illegal immigration in front of a congressional committee. It was posted to YouTube because it was a rare opportunity to hear him speak out of character but what really got my attention was the gentleman who spoke immediately after him. The guy in question was an illegal immigrant rights/labor activist who was there to protest the horrible working conditions (extreme temperatures without adequate water; poor medical services in case of emergencies such as heat stroke or heat related heart attacks; too many hours of work to be healthy; etc.). You know, all those things that make these into jobs "American's don't want/won't do"... It's not that the illegal immigrants want to do them (in those conditions and at that pay) any more than the Americans do, it just that in the case of the illegal immigrants, the farm owners can prey on their higher level of desperation.

Comment: Re:freedom 2 b a moron (Score 1, Flamebait) 1051

by GameMaster (#48582311) Attached to: Time To Remove 'Philosophical' Exemption From Vaccine Requirements?

It's not about alternatives. You're not entitled to alternative ways to put other children at risk by exposing them to your un-vaccinated spawn. Frankly, you shouldn't even be entitled to bring them out in public as long as they're a threat to other children or anyone else who couldn't get vaccinated for some other reason outside of their control. Willful ignorance should come this a heavy cost.

Comment: Re:Forget reading, GET AN IMPLANT! (Score 2) 87

by GameMaster (#47419103) Attached to: A Brain Implant For Synthetic Memory

I think you're comparing apples to oranges. For every example like the ones you gave, there seem to be just as many like jetpacks and the flying car that have just never happened long, long after everyone assumed they should.

The way I see it, the difference is all about how clearly dangerous experimentation in a certain field happens to be to human lives and how much infrastructure needs to be built out to make a given iteration of the tech useful. Computer and telecommunications tend to evolve extremely quickly because they are widely assumed to be harmless to humans and because they don't usually need lots of infrastructure build-out. You'll note that in the few places where infrastructure build-out IS required (broadband and wide-area wireless communications) the time between iterations seems almost glacial in comparison to the rest of the industry.

While the kind of implant tech described in the article doesn't require lots of physical infrastructure build-out, it does involve lots and lots of human medical testing. To make matters even worse, the kind of medical testing (surgical experimentation on the brain) is the most complex and risky in the entire field of medicine. In such a field, by it's very nature, moving a single iteration of tech from prototype to commercial product can take a decade or more at it's best.

Comment: Re:I dont see a problem here (Score 1) 146

by GameMaster (#47389559) Attached to: NASA Approves Production of Most Powerful Rocket Ever

The claim they're trying to make (right, wrong, or otherwise) is that the sub-systems used in the development of this system have already been proven to be so uneconomical that developing a new system, using more modern technology, would produce a more cost-effective system in the end. Furthermore, (and ironically, considering the claim you're making in your last sentence) they are inferring that the only reason these existing sub-systems are being championed is that they represent products already being produced in the congressional districts of US politicians and, thus, the people pushing for them only really care about the jobs and don't care about the actual costs involved.

Again, I'm not suggesting that they are factual correct in their argument. I'm just trying to clarify their position as I see it.

Comment: Re:WUWT (Score 1) 441

From what I took away from the WUWT article, it seems that the crux of their "argument" is that there's a possible chance you might have enough consecutive days of "just enough" wind and/or "not enough" wind that your back-up energy storage system will be empty when you have an additional day(s) of "not enough" wind (thus leading to black-outs or brown outs). Of course, what they seem to be ignoring, even if the original writers of the paper didn't take this into account and didn't include enough over-capacity in the turbine system to make this almost impossible, is that the energy industry has had proven solutions to this problem for a very long time. As it is, it's very common for power plants to have a set of back-up natural gas generators to provide power in down times. They're relatively cheap up-front; drop in;in; still relatively cheap to operate (if not as cheap in the long-haul); and they should last almost forever if they're well maintained and only run in emergencies.

"Buy land. They've stopped making it." -- Mark Twain

Working...