Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re: Isn't Government wonderful? (Score 1) 149

It's the monkeysphere in action. The right will complain about the "evil" government, while the left make the same complaints about "evil" big business. Whether govt or big business, they'll all just groups of people like us. And as you say the bigger they are, the harder they are to manage, and therefore require more internal processes to maintain order, the side effect of which is roadblocks to efficiency.

Comment: Re:Economics (Score 1) 148

by Jack Griffin (#49364269) Attached to: First Nuclear Power Plant Planned In Jordan
It's not a cop out, it only sounds like one to people who haven't weighed up the options thoroughly enough. As much as it wind and solar makes us feel all warm and fuzzy they cannot solve the issue of base load requirements. There's only two viable solutions today, Coal and Nuclear. So given the choice of coal and tens of thousands of deaths per year from air pollution, or Nuclear with it's known risks, I still think Nuclear is a less worse option.

Comment: Re:How many minutes until this is mandatory? (Score 1) 282

by Jack Griffin (#49342299) Attached to: Ford's New Car Tech Prevents You From Accidentally Speeding

It also massively increases the severity of accidents (remember, a 40mph crash has 4 times more energy involved than a 30mph crash).

Yeah we've all heard the bullshit line "every km/h over is a killer". The problem with that logic is that if 50 is safer than 60, then 40 is also safer than 50, and therefore 30 is then safer than 20, and so on until 0 is the only "safe" speed there is.
At some point there is risk, and the risk of a modern vehicle at 100km/h is still a lot less than an old clunker doing 60km/h when the current speed limits were decided.

Comment: Re:Economics (Score 0) 148

by Jack Griffin (#49342243) Attached to: First Nuclear Power Plant Planned In Jordan

Nah, I thought I was on to something, but I got nothin.

As much as it sounds like a cop out, leaving it to future generation who will no doubt have better technology isn't such a bad idea. As a poor example, we didn't have the capability to combat microbiology 200 years ago, now it's trivial (well in some cases at least). Who knows, when space travel becomes cheap we could shoot it all into the sun, or maybe someone will invent a genetically engineered Kaiju that eats Plutonium and shits out crude oil. As long as the costs of long term storage and maintenance are taken into account, I have no problem with this approach.

Comment: Re:Kill them all. (Score 1) 335

You mean, like how we effectively nuked Saddam's army and occupied Iraq?

Everyone keeps using this as a counter argument, but Iraq was never an occupation. Occupation is when we instill our own government, law, values, language, education and religion, and stay there for generations until the locals are assimilated. You know just like the British did in the US. It's why the US is no longer just a bunch of rabid tribes like the Middle East is. Sometimes progress needs to forced onto a country to improve it.

Comment: Re:Careful, they might shoot back (Score 1) 335

If you really want to go down stupid unrealistic option routes then there's a better choice

It isn't unrealistic, It has already been done once under similar circumstances to great effect.

: You wont have to endure any longer at all if you nuke every major metropolis in America.

How would that change anything in the Middle East?

It also wouldn't cause you all of the additional problems of nuking the middle east.

What? It doesn't even address the problem at all.

What, you think American civilians should be protected but not those in Syria or Iraq? Really?

No-one is protected. You have the the choice of putting Middle Eastern civilians through decades more war, persecution and terrorism, or you can cut the cancer out in one fell swoop, and give the survivors a chance at a prosperous life. Just like it did in Japan.

Comment: Re:Careful, they might shoot back (Score 1) 335

The difference with Iraq is we tired to impose 21st century democracy on people with the mental attitude of cavemen, and this is the end result. firstly we should've never gone into Iraq. It was quite clear that Saddam for all his ills was actually keeping the locals under control. Once the decision was made to go in, you have to commit to full time colonial occupation. No democracy, no voting, an enforced dictatorship to bring them up to 21st century values. This takes at least 3 generations to breed out the dissent.

What good is a ticket to the good life, if you can't find the entrance?

Working...