Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Take advantage of Black Friday with 15% off sitewide with coupon code "BLACKFRIDAY" on Slashdot Deals (some exclusions apply)". ×

Comment Cost of solar (Score 3, Informative) 176

The cost isn't different between US and Germany, The way it's paid for is different. Germany subsidizes solar power far more than the US. Just because tax revenue is spent, doesn't mean it's cheaper. One of the biggest reasons for it being uneconomical is that there is still the huge amount of hazardous waste that needs to be disposed of from the manufacturing process. It may be less of a carbon footprint, but green energy it is not.

Comment Re:As long as the Republicans... (Score 3, Insightful) 359

blink... blink... wow. there really are people in the world who think like this?

Supply and Demand my friend. If you want rent prices to go down, you need to flood the market with more housing, not less. Only an idiot would think that limiting the increase of available houses while the population is growing would reduce the cost of said houses. But then I notice that you post as AC and I am probably poking a troll.

Comment Re:BS (Score 2) 359

If you can't afford to live in the Bay Area, then don't. You can always find a good place much cheaper if you just expand your scope a bit. So you may have to add 45 minutes to your commute everyday. The idea is to build your wealth over time and not demand instant gratification.

Comment Re:Politics as usuall (Score 1) 723

The insurance companies were happy to jump at an opportunity to raise their rates and get new customers. If the law was removed, I'm sure they would just complain about losing customers and raise rates even more.

Not going to argue against that point. I have often heard that the ACA was merely a means to destroy the current system and usher in a single payer system. There may be some truth to that.

Comment Re:With Congressional authorization unlike Korea, (Score 0) 383

After Bush had already stated that you're either with "us" (meaning him) or you're with the terrorists and the American public were still bleating like sheep.

Way to take it out of context and put your own spin on it. Bush was addressing foreign nations at that point in his speech. The "us" he was referring to, was the majority of Americans who supported some sort of retaliation for 9/11. But by all means, go ahead and tout your revisionist history.

Comment Re: One and the same (Score 3, Insightful) 441

The creation of the electoral college had nothing to do with large distances or travel time. It had everything to do with giving the lower population areas a voice. If we went with just the popular vote, candidates would end up only campaigning in a handful of high population cities. I once saw an extreme example, but quite apropos. Imagine somebody campaigning on the idea all our problems would be solved by nuking Montana. That candidate would only have to convince enough people in the top 5-10 population centers to win enough votes to do so. Can you at least see that the people in Montana might have a problem with that? I am always open minded about replacing the electoral college, but unless an idea comes across that gives low population centers a voice, it probably is not a good idea.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.