Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Seems he has more of a clue (Score 3) 691

by JWW (#49578527) Attached to: Pope Attacked By Climate Change Skeptics

Actually it will.

I seriously believe that Tesla's cars are beautiful electric cars and if I had enough money, I'd own one.

I also believe that Tesla's will get both better AND cheaper until more people (even most people) can afford them. Of course that also includes other manufacturers upping their electric car game too.

When superior electric cars (and the high range Tesla Model S's are superior) are cheap enough for everyone, people will flock to buy them.

Then we just need to build Nuke plants to power all these electric cars, shutter all the coal plants an viola! Problem solved.

Now you will argue that that won't happen, that its all pie in the sky, but I'm saying its inevitable -- given time. Because if we want to solve this problem without kneecapping the economy, its what HAS to happen.

Taxes, and rules and regulations are the things that seem like they'll solve the problem, but they really won't.

Technology WILL.

Comment: Re:Why excempt anyone? (Score 1) 218

by JWW (#49469079) Attached to: Legislation Would Force Radio Stations To Pay Royalties

Well, talk is excluded because they don't play music outside of the bumper music going into and out of commercial.

You could argue that they should pay based on that, but then a talk station with less than $1 in revenue would be paying the same as a 24/7 music station, and that hardly seems fair. Plus if that happened, it could spell the end of bumper music and the talk stations would claim that they play no music, why are they being charged.

The religious exemption, I have no clue. Religious music publishing and radio works the same as regular music.

Comment: Re:Honestly (Score 2) 587

by JWW (#49415327) Attached to: Hugo Awards Turn (Even More) Political

The story is here: http://www.apex-magazine.com/i...

A word of warning. You will not get the minutes of your life wasted on reading this back.

To call it sophomoric drivel is an insult to sophomores.

It may have good and correct political intentions, but it is overtly cloying, snooty, and pretentious.

It is not good writing by any measure. That it is "award winning" is a travesty.

Comment: Re: freedom (Score 2) 1089

by JWW (#49300033) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

Do you realize just how many potential mandatory voters don't file taxes every year? Or move beteween voting locales between elections? It's much larger numbers than you think. Mandatory voting would require the authorities to find them and, and this is the truly larger point CHARGE THEM WITH A CRIME.

Voting is a right. Mandatory voting is a compulsion. It changes the power of the vote from being something of the citizen over the government to a power the government wields over a citizen.

You can believe that power would be wielded honorably, but you'd quickly be proven wrong.

Comment: Re: freedom (Score 1) 1089

by JWW (#49298039) Attached to: Obama: Maybe It's Time For Mandatory Voting In US

Bzzzt. Wrong. Voted in every national level election since 1988.

But of course you got it wrong because you have it backwards. Those the vote would be known, those that don't vote would need to be looked into, investigated, or dare I say, spied upon.

My post was relatively in jest, but partly serious.

The government can't know who didn't vote without keeping meticulous records, hmmmmm lets call them "metadata", about peoples voting habits and whereabouts on voting day.

And don't say that they'd just look at the voter rolls and compare them to census data, they'd need to be far more thorough than that in their tracking and monitoring to be able to effectively fine or charge someone with the crime of not voting (and it'd have to be a crime to not vote because "mandatory").

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin

Working...