Forgot your password?

Comment: Not everyone can have an antenna, sorry. (Score 1) 195

by Medievalist (#46704115) Attached to: Comcast Takes 2014 Prize For Worst Company In America

I live in the bottom of a little valley, and I'd need a hundred foot tower to get more than two TV stations.

In my state, it's illegal to have a tower so tall that it could fall outside your property line. My property isn't two hundred feet wide, so no go.

But I ditched Comcast anyway and got Verizon instead. Verizon sucks too, but marginally less, and the FIOS technology is nice, at least, even if the provider isn't.

Comment: Bingo, we have a winner. (Score 1) 179

by Medievalist (#46642697) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

So yeah, Vermont Yankee going offline will change things, but we'll manage. Indeed, losing a source of subsidized power will create more opportunities for expansion of renewables.

And that is almost certainly the whole and entire real reason for opposition to the plant closing.

Remember, Green is the New Red.

Comment: Re:and yet even more (Score 1) 179

by Medievalist (#46640671) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

Well, let me know when automobile waste has a half-life equivalent to that of nuclear waste, then.

It's a false equivalency. Yes, coal and oil subsidies are bad, but that doesn't mean the Bush/Cheney nuclear subsidies aren't substantially worse.

Nuclear was on the way out until Cheney stepped in and threw regulated capitalism out the window in favor of Soviet-style centralized economic decisionmaking.

Comment: Yep, you pegged it. (Score 3, Insightful) 179

by Medievalist (#46639793) Attached to: Vermont Nuclear Plant Seeks Decommission But Lacks Funds

Well, that is how they stay competitive with all the other subsidized industries.

In theory, the government subsidies are intended to further social goals that the free market cannot adequately address without regulation.

In practice, the government subsidies are treats that the political powers (such as congressmen) hand out to economic powers (such as favored contributors).

Since our economic powers have evolved into multinational corporations that actively oppose our social goals and purposely subvert our cultural values, this means that the government subsidies are quite often doing the exact opposite of what they are nominally intended to do.

Comment: Re:Let me know if you find it (Score 1) 712

It's amazing how ineffective American greens are, really. Look at what environmentalist lobbies accomplish in places like Germany and the Netherlands and then look at our flock of self-sabotaging knuckleheads.

Not only do our loudest greens never accomplish anything politically, they also somehow manage to get themselves blamed for everything their enemies do, whether it's relicensing obsolete and soon-to-fail nuclear plants or blocking needed pipelines. Total knuckleheads! Well, except for Elon Musk's crew, those guys do seem to have a clue, I'll admit.

Comment: <sigh> Fox News has mod points today. (Score 1) 335

by Medievalist (#46544053) Attached to: Nate Silver's New Site Stirs Climate Controversy

Naturally the pro-we-ignore-the-earths-climate-has-changed-over-millions-of-years crowd cry foul. I cannot ever recall a group of scientists like these folks be so opposed and go to the lengths they do to squelch any and all dissenting views. That is not science but fanaticism.

I do see a group of fanatics at work, but I'm afraid they aren't scientists. Science is carrying on with business as usual, and squabbling over who is right or wrong is a normal part of the process. The scientific method thrives on criticism and dissent, and insisting that a conclusion must proceed from valid premises and data is not "squelching dissent". Some climatologists are raising objections to both Pielke's methodology and his data cherrypicking - and that's what science does, it hones reasoning through criticism. No conspiracies required.

But if you like conspiracies, remember this is slashdot, where there's no lack of right-wing astroturfers standing by to mod any anti-science or pro-nuclear diatribe as "insightful". That conspiracy is a lot more credible.

Comment: OK, guys, I got this one. (Score 2) 358

by Medievalist (#46486775) Attached to: EU Votes For Universal Phone Charger

Why do they think this is a matter for governments to decide?

Ooh, talking points! Let me try! Wait. OK, I've got it!

Every one of the world's mysteries can be explained by proper understanding of the Elvis Factor.

Man, there's a lot of unexplained phenomenon
out there in the world.
Lot of things people say
What the heck's going on?

Let me tell ya!

Who built the pyramids?
Who built Stonehenge?

Yeah, man you see guys
walking down the street
pushing shopping carts
and you think they're talking to Allah,
they're talking to themself.
Man, no they're talking to ELVIS!

You know whats going on in that Bermuda Triangle?
Down in the Bermuda Traingle
Elvis needs boats.
Elvis needs boats.
Elvis Elvis Elvis
Elvis Elvis Elvis
Elvis needs boats!

Comment: Re:Let me know if you find it (Score 1) 712

Again, works for me!

I liked the fact that George W. Bush drove the price of petroleum up to suit his corporate puppeteers, even though I didn't really like the way he went about it (far too much torture and sadism).

We need the price of dirty energy to be high enough that clean energy can get the capital investments it needs to reach infrastructure parity (and plutocrat parity). When T. Boone Pickens starts building windfarms, you know you're on the right track. So I'll be happy to help you make a killing in dirty energy market bubbles, my friend, and I hope you have fun spending it, too.

Comment: That won't work. (Score 1) 712

No need to donate, just stop using electricity altogether - that should offset the use of coal more than the amount you might donate would. Not only would doing so show that you're really serious about the environment, it's a far more reasonable and realistic proposal than shutting down the sole power source for a vast majority of the global population.

I already don't use any coal-generated electricity, thanks. Took that step a dozen or more years ago.

Somehow it has not resulted in the shutdown of any coal mines. Go figure! Something about supply and demand and cost interrelationships.

Or, to put it another way, infinitesimally reducing demand isn't really in any way equivalent to infinitesimally contributing to a blockade of supply.

"I'm not afraid of dying, I just don't want to be there when it happens." -- Woody Allen