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


Forgot your password?

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:Only Republicans are too stupid... (Score 1) 73

by circletimessquare (#49373571) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Net Rules Will Withstand Court Challenge


they oppose government when they should be opposing corruption

the idiots are actually helping the corruptors. the corruptors would rather not have anyone to corrupt as an extra expense, and the idiots oblige by insisting on the same: remove the corrupted position, rather than fix it. because they apparently like shoddy, expensive, manipulated, inefficient markets

it's like someone robs the bank because they paid off the bank guard

the intelligent response is to fire, prosecute, and replace the guard, and go after the criminals who paid him off

the idiots want to fire the guard and leave the bank unguarded, and leave it at that: not pursue the criminals who paid off the guard and robbed their bank, their money

it's stunning how stupid and propagandized people can be

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 568

If your business is supplying cakes, then you should supply cakes, just do it as well as you manage. No matter who wants a cake. No harm at all in that. There's no reasonable place for a business to refuse service based on opinion. Behavior in your place of business, sure -- but that's about it.

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 568

There are quite a few businesses that support themselves, just doing what they do because they like doing it. These people are already financially independent, they just like to work.

I ran a martial arts school with lots of students at a very low rate monthly because I loved teaching. Did it for years. I supported it with my software business. Now, although I'm done teaching, I still keep a free studio open where my black belts can go to practice with mats, heavy bags, speed bags, pads, makiwara, mirrors, recording equipment (for self-evaluation) and so on. It's not huge, but it is heated and cooled and provides everything needed to work on one's progress and maintain conditioning.

Should I decide to hang a "no Christians" sign on my studio, it would make absolutely no difference to my willingness and ability to keep it open. Nor would it for my school. It'd just mean no Christians. And no one who didn't "get it", most likely, as it's just as idiotic as "no gays" or "no blacks" or "no women" or "no felons."

It's quite practical in a case like mine, in terms of doing it and sustaining it. I hope someone in one of these states does it. Not because I support discrimination of this type; but because it puts a point on the real issue here: you shouldn't discriminate based on what others do or don't do as long as it doesn't involve you. And other people's relationship choices do not impact others except in their imagination, and that puts us back to the right and proper and complete lack of a "right not to be offended", which, if it existed, would be a basic and profound anti-liberty concept. Not only would it put a point on it, it would attract the news media quite well, which again would be an entirely good thing, outside of hacks like Drudge and agitprop vendors like Fox News.

Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 3, Insightful) 568

But one doesn't need contraception. sex education, or abortion in order to have sex. After all, no other animals on our planet have contraception, sex education, or abortion and they have plenty of sex.

Yes indeed. But (some) people are able to evaluate the consequences of having sex, such that they would like to modify their behavior so that they can enjoy the act, without the consequences. By attempting to remove the means to do this, religion seeks to leverage people's actions through their concern for consequences (pregnancy and so on, if you are having trouble following.)

Inasmuch as religion has no relevance to my life, I have no interest in what they would like me to do, and I utterly reject anything that they would force me to do. Now, if you want to restrict your access to contraception, sex education and abortion along the lines of some set of religious dictates, that's perfectly ok. Just keep your superstitious claptrap away from my personal choices and you'll be fine. Otherwise, we have a problem.

Comment: Sorry, wrong. (Score 1) 568

your "choice" to like the same sex isn't.

You have to read as far as the ninth amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Other rights that are exclusively a matter of informed, personal and consensual choice, are obviously covered. Any law -- or private action -- that denies such rights is unconstitutional or simply wrongheaded.

Yes, I know there are many such laws and attitudes. WRT the laws, we had laws implementing slavery and denial of woman's right to vote (among many others), and we managed to figure out those were asshole positions to take. So there's considerable highly visible precedent for us correcting our course when ideas like yours manage to turn into law and acting out.

Hopefully, eventually we'll have legislators -- probably by accident -- that will be pro liberty instead of these lace-panty, pearl-clutching corporate shills we have now. As far as the attitudes go, we can't fix stupid. Yet. But genetics is coming right along, there's hope there, too.

Comment: Re:I'm pretty sure Jesus said not to do this (Score 1) 568

The problem is where do you draw the line?

Why is there a line to be drawn?

Photographer refuses to take photographs at a non-white wedding because of "religious" beliefs. Will take photos of any white ceremony.

And? Can the couple still get married? Can they find a photographer? Pretty sure they can. The photographer's bigotry does not pick anyone's pocket or break anyone's leg. It does not interfere with anyone's rights. Let him turn down paying customers and give opportunity to his competition, it's sort of a self-limiting problem.There is no need for any action here, any more than if a Catholic music composer accepts a commission from the diocese but doesn't accept a commission from the local synagogue (or from the Westborough Baptist Church).

Comment: Re:How is bigotry a good thing? (Score 1) 568

Explain to us then the rational opposing position then. Explain to us the pro-discrimination position whereby we should be permitted to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation when none of those things should matter.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all things except what the state have decided are proper should be forbidden.

Yes, among enlightened people race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation should not matter. That does not imply that unenlightened people should be subject to criminal prosecution or lawsuits.

You should be permitted to discriminate in some areas because you should be permitted to do anything you want that does not interfere with the fundamental rights of others. Housing is a fundamental right, so you shouldn't be legally able to discriminate in renting out a house. But hiring a specific person to take your wedding pictures is not a fundamental right, so a photographer should be legally able to turn down a paying customer for whatever reason they want, even bigotry.

Comment: Re:Full benefits & Full responsibility (Score 1) 179

by Muad'Dave (#49370601) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

1 banana equivalent dose is approximately 15 Bq. Table 2 of this document shows the radioactivity of the coal - let's use the lowest US figures. The note above table 2 says to multiply the U-238 value by 14 and the Th-232 by 10, and add those to the K-40. The results in 124 Bq/kg for US coal, and 1628 Bq/kg for Brazilian coal. That indicates that 1 kg of unburnt US coal is 8.22 BEDs. When burnt, between 1% and 10% of the ash escapes the scrubbers and is emitted into the environment directly (new vs old plants). Assuming that all of the radioactive elements are end up in the ash/slag and NOT directly put up the flue (as would be the case with gaseous radioactive elements such as Ra-226 and Ra-228), 12.1kg of coal when burnt and passed thru 'new plant' scrubbers results in 1 BED out the smokestack. With 850 million tonnes (850x10^9 kq) burned in the US in 2009, that resulted in 70.25 billion BEDs.

If you use the worst-case US figures and an old plant, you end up with 12320 Bq/kg, which is conveniently close to 100x the best-case numbers - 0.121 kg unburnt coal = 1 BED, and 7.025 trillion BEDs up the flue. Interestingly, 121g is close to the mass of the average banana at 150g, so unburnt US 'bad' coal is as radioactive as your average banana, mass-for-mass.

Interesting quotes:

In the USA, 850 million tonnes of coal was used in 2009 for electricity production. With an average content of 1.3 ppm uranium and 3.2 ppm thorium, US coal-fired electricity generation in that year gave rise to 1100 tonnes of uranium and 2700 tonnes of thorium in coal ash.

If we apply the 1% up the stack rule, that means 11 tonnes of U and 2.7 tonnes of Th went out the stack - that's a lot of radioactivity up the flue and a lot of fissionable material wasted.

It is evident that even at 1 part per million (ppm) U in coal, there is more energy in the contained uranium (if it were to be used in a fast neutron reactor) than in the coal itself. If coal had 25 ppm uranium and that uranium was used simply in a conventional reactor, it would yield half as much thermal energy as the coal.

Please check my math.

Comment: Re:No they don't (Score 1) 181

by Mr. Slippery (#49370051) Attached to: Chinese Scientists Plan Solar Power Station In Space

Doing the math with the wrong numbers isn't informative. You've ignored the atmospheric losses suffered by ground-based systems -- clouds, dust, the opacity of air. I think you're also being much more generous in estimating the potential lifetime of ground-based systems than space-based ones, which skews your numbers.

It may be that the gains are small enough to not justify the launch costs, though that depends on how much we value land taken up by solar arrays.

Comment: Re:Only Republicans are too stupid... (Score 1) 73

by circletimessquare (#49370023) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Net Rules Will Withstand Court Challenge

well yeah. in which case a "free" market is simply anarchy, in which a monopoly and oligarchy comes to dominate and "govern" in a sense: decide how much consumers pay and that no one competes. truly "free" in the sense there is no government, but a much worse place in actuality

Comment: Re:Only Republicans are too stupid... (Score 3, Interesting) 73

by circletimessquare (#49369829) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Net Rules Will Withstand Court Challenge

it can self-regulate as well.

so company {X} dominates a market for widgets. any smaller companies try to compete, they undercut the competitors prices to starve them out, then jack prices way high when the smaller companies fold, consumers having no real choice

tell me how this problem is "self-regulated" by the market to correct for the abuse

Comment: Re:Only Republicans are too stupid... (Score 1) 73

by circletimessquare (#49369309) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Net Rules Will Withstand Court Challenge

the problem is that we do not have strong laws against corruption

1. corporations and the rich buying congrescritters with election funds (supported in 2010 citizens united)

2. revolving door employment between regulator and the corporations they are supposed to regulate

other countries have clear laws against this type of thing. we can have that too (not easily, but we should, and we should try)

All great ideas are controversial, or have been at one time.