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


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

Comment Re:15 years old? (Score 1) 394

Are you truly so ignorant as to not be able to make the connection between the Keystone pipeline and climate change? The keystone pipeline represents a massive investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, at a time when it has become blatantly obvious that the US needs to instead invest in alternate clean energy technology. If the US is to continue to be a leader in technological progress they - as Obama right decided - need to take a bold stand against the entrenched Oil and Coal lobby and reinvest in new energy sources. Does it cost more in the short term? Yes. No matter what, there is going to be a painful and expensive period where we transition away from fossil fuels, but that process has already begun to happen, albeit slowly.

No, it hasn't. Energy use is expanding and will for the foreseeable future, particularly abroad. Moving to electric cars simply means we burn coal instead of oil.

It doesn't have to be that way. If lunatic leftists would quit getting in the way of nuclear power we could have clean, dependable energy.

Comment Re:15 years old? (Score 1) 394

Not that I agree or disagree, but I've heard this argument advanced: by building a pipeline, you increase overall production cost efficiency; the supply and demand curve meet at a lower pricepoint, and oil is consumed at a higher rate.

The rate doesn't really matter. The looney left needs to come to grips with the fact that every drop of oil that humans can find is going to be dug up and either burned or turned into something else. Every lump of coal that humans can find is going to be dug up and burned. This is reality. Trying to delay it isn't going to do anything except harm economies in the short term.

But, then, the actual point is heavier regulation, so I guess it works out for them.

Comment Re:corruption, not victim compensation (Score 1) 60

... Yes, I'm serious.

You think servants will be punished for obeying their masters, plus, in many cases, making their masters richer? If the wealthy and powerful started that, they'd have to fight the pitchfork-wielding townsfolk themselves. Never gonna happen.

Bullshit. Not only has it happened, it was such a stupid defense that we gave it a sarcastic name, the "Nuremberg Defense". 70 years ago we (our civilization) listened to people all day long whine "I was only following orders" and they'd be hanging the next morning.

Something rotten has happened since then in our culture, and we will pay heavily for it.

Comment Re:corruption, not victim compensation (Score 3, Informative) 60

The US Marshall Service deputies work for the federal judiciary, much like a county sheriff handles local court matters. This is most likely all "criminal forfeiture" which isn't the problem in the US. This is the proceeds of actual criminal activity as verified by a court.

The problems are with "civil forfeiture", which is handled by the FBI on the federal level. Civil forfeiture needs to be shut down entirely, and any LEO found to have taken part in it should be prosecuted. Yes, I'm serious.

Comment Re:15 years old? (Score 3, Insightful) 394

I see this and his age, and I can only think, "does he realize that, while Obama can make some action, the majority of such a thing has to come from Congress?"

I can only see him as being a brat trying to make a name for himself targeting a well targeted person.

The biggest thing on his table politically about climate change recently, might have been Keystone, which he didn't let go through

WTF does the Keystone pipeline have to do with climate change? The Canadians are selling the oil to China, anyway, it'll just take a different route.

So tired of this mindless repetition of "facts" from partisans on both sides.

Comment Re:Not doing his job? (Score 2, Funny) 394

Not to mention that I'm sure we can find over a dozen activities this kid takes part in that negatively impact the climate.

Let me help you:

"Xiuhtezcatl Tonatiuh... hip-hop-savvy Coloradan...,' he told me here at the U.N. COP21 climate change summit in Paris.

I'm guessing he didn't row a boat to Europe.

Comment Re:Islamophobia is real (Score 1) 815

I'm not aware of anybody arguing to keep out legitimate Syrian war refugees. I *am* aware of plenty of people rightfully arguing that we need to figure out how to screen Syrian refugees before letting any more into the country to make sure that we're not paying ISIS members to come to the US. That's a whole nother ballgame.

Comment Re:No concept of family or shared homes. (Score 1) 148

The advertising would be a mishmash of varying tastes

It's still going to get a better result than the shotgun approach. Marketers are good at many things - not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is one of them.

Yeah, kind of. Before netflix allowed different profiles for different users my kids "consumed" every single kung fu movie on there. A year later I still can't get any "recommended for you" entries that aren't kung fu.

I fear what my mix of commercials would look like.

Comment Re:Yeah, other ways (Score 1) 369

Oil isn't really a major earner for any railroads or a particularly high proportion of their revenues (IIRC it's less than 3%, but I can't be bothered right now to find the exact figure.) The railroads themselves aren't actually interested in the business - they carry it because they're common carriers, but from their point of view it's risky (see Lac Magentic) and a major liability with inadequate profit margins.

And, again for what little it's worth, if you open up a large map of Northern America, plot where all the recent oil disasters have been, and then the Keystone XL pipeline, you'll notice that it seems to be fairly far away from them. Why is this? Well, because crude oil trains travel the entire US. The Keystone XL would have been a tiny proportion of transported oil had it ever come to pass. So Keystone XL's rerouted oil would be a tiny percentage of an already tiny percentage of the market.

So, no, this wasn't done as a favor to Buffett, in fact he's probably unhappy with the decision, if he cares at all.

Meanwhile, here in reality:

I've linked before to the article that showed he gained about $180M in valuation in a single day back when Obama (President 1%) first said he'd deny it. That's many, many lifetimes of money for most people. Buffett "earned" it in one day when his buddy said he'd make sure Buffett continued to get the oil business. Well, he didn't say that directly, but Buffett made it clear that he was there to haul the oil.

Comment Re:Yeah, other ways (Score 1) 369

Are we pretending that Canada's just going to leave it in the ground if we don't buy it?

Actually, yes. Shell just abandoned a project because of lack of pipelines.

So, the answer is "yes", we are going to pretend that they'll just leave it in the ground.

They've made it clear that they're selling it to the Chinese and they'll get it there another way if we don't build the pipeline. FYI.

Comment Yeah, other ways (Score 3, Informative) 369

"The decision comes as no surprise to the oil industry, and they've been busily working on other ways to transport the oil."

Like, for instance, the railroad that Obama's 1%'er buddy Warren Buffett owns. I'm sure there's no connection there, though.

Oh, and is it cleaner to transport by rail?


And is it going to cut carbon emissions? Are we pretending that Canada's just going to leave it in the ground if we don't buy it?

Bell Labs Unix -- Reach out and grep someone.