Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Extradition from Sweden is a lie (Score 0) 299

Assange keeps saying this but its been shown to be false.

Shown by what, the Swedish government handing people over to the U.S. to be tortured? Assange offered to return to Sweden if they promised not to extradite him to the U.S....pretty easy for them to call his bluff - if this is actually about a rape case, of course.

Comment Re:That's pedantry.... (Score 1) 227

Speaking of incorrect pedantry...

A democracy is a form of government in which the people govern directly.

No. It's not. You're thinking of direct democracy. There are different forms of democracy, just as there are different forms of republics. Anyone who insists that the terms are incompatible doesn't understand either one.

Any other kind of so-called democracy, such as a "representative" democracy is a "kinda" democracy.

No more than the United States "kind of" has a representative branch because it has a congress and not a parliament.

Comment That's pedantry.... (Score 1) 227

....and incorrect pedantry at that. If he had said something about the Constitutional electoral process, you'd have a point, but that's not the case. Would you happen to also be one of those who jumps in with the correction 'the U.S. is a republic, not a democracy' except the fact that its representatives are democratically elected?

Comment Re:The Republican House (Score 2, Insightful) 227

Because building up a huge all-encompassing governmental establishment is what the statist Democrats are all about.

Then they would have been pushing universal health care, universal higher ed, a national pension system, four weeks paid vacation for even part time employees, a massive investment in high speed rail, etc etc. But of course, Democrats have the same range of antipathy to outright hostility to all those items as any Republican.

But, don't let facts get in the way of a little mindless partisan tribalism. You meet up with Obamabots for coffee on Tuesdays?

Comment Re:No shit sherlock .. (Score 1) 342

How is it you're allowed to criticize the author's opinions but the author isn't allowed to criticize Feynman's actions?

Because that's a complete non-sequitur, that's why.

And on the topic of consent it carries a lot less weight when it's predicated on a lie. While it's legally nowhere near rape it's still really greasy.

So, you're saying women who lie about their age should be charged with misdemeanors, rather than felonies? Interesting. Maybe let them off with probation in exchange for community service?

Comment Re:Unintended consequences (Score 1) 178

With that said, the storage problem for solar and wind is absolutely not solved, nor will it be cheap.

It's been solvable with technology from the 70's - or even the 1870's - and still be cheaper than either coal or nuclear, if all of the latter's costs are counted rather than externalized. You even mentioned part of the solution:

We can easily transmit power 1000-2000 km today. Some day we'll be able to transmit it 3000 km and in the distant future 4000 km and 5000 km, which will be enough that we'll barely need storage.

It might be overcast and windless in Jerkwater, Kansas, but that's not going to be the case all over a 2000 km radius. It's going to be sunny or windy somewhere. As for storing the energy, get some molten salt batteries - or just build more water towers into your grid and use excess energy to pump up water. If you need power, just let it out into a tank or retaining pond and use gravity to generate electricity. It's going to have some up-front costs, but it's still going to be cheaper than coal or nuclear, and the infrastructure should last a long time - we have hydro plants that are over 100 years old that are still producing electricity. For the rare areas where neither wind or solar would never work - build a plant that burns ethanol (cane or switch grass based, not that corn corporate pork) or wood, and you'd still be carbon-neutral.

The nice ting about nuclear power is that we can build it now. You can call GE and order a plant on Monday, assuming you have the $5 billion (or $10 billion after the usual cost overrun) that they want for one of those and in 10-15 years you, your kids, grandkids and great-grandkids will have a clean and safe power plant.

You can build a lot of green energy for $5 billion (more when you include all the costs, not just the up-front government subsidies) over 10-15 years. Take the $1 trillion plus imperial budget - most of which is focused around guarding the world's gas station, the middle east - and spend it on green energy, and not only could you have us carbon-free within a decade. You'd have an economic boom that would make the post-WWII era look like a recession, from the number of jobs created.

If you are concerned about what future generations will do with your nuclear waste storage sites, you should probably be more concerned about what they will do (or rather what they will fail to do) with your hydro dams.

Every hydro dam in the world could collapse tomorrow, and the loss of life would be huge. But rebuilding could start as soon as the floodwaters receded, and it would be a historical footnote hundreds of years from now - as opposed to the nuclear waste facilities that will still need to be maintained in 2515, A.D.

Comment Re:Another Win For the Anti-Nuclear Guys (Score 1) 178

A majority of Americans were affected.

Not even close.

At the very least their television programming was interrupted for minutely updates.

You could say the same for the Caitlyn Jenner transition. Whoop de do.

The 2% of Americans that lived in NYC had their normal daily routines interrupted.

And then then went back to work.

Flights were grounded for a few days, affecting yet more Americans.

Which was due to the decision to ground airplanes, not due to the attacks on the WTC. A decision that didn't apply to planes or people from Saudi Arabia, where the the attackers actually came from. Curious, that.

Comment Re:Another Win For the Anti-Nuclear Guys (Score 1) 178

Yes, and the US would have been a third world country with 50 million people in it, and the discussion about a fence between Mexico and the US would have been a topic in Mexican elections, not US elections.

Red herrings are red.

and also the cleanest and safest way to create the required amount of electricity.

Then you must be thinking of wind and solar, not nuclear, as the former wont be causing problem for people living a thousand years from now. The canard about "baseline power" is also addressed with technology that has been around for decades: long distance power lines. It might be heavily overcast and windless in Jerkwater, Kansas, but it's not going to be windless and sunless across the entire region. So you build enough redundancy into your green power grid to compensate - and it's still going to be far cheaper than coal or nuclear, when all costs are counted in.

This is only a problem because rational people point out that the unicorn plans for waste managment are dangerous.

FTFY. There is nothing sane about building a facility, anywhere on the planet, and pretending it's going to be find and dandy 900 years from now.

Comment Re:Fossil fuels (Score 1) 178

yup, let's panic about a couple of tons of radioactive waste.

A couple? How many tons are generated from a single nuclear plant? How much will be generated if coal plants are replaced with nuclear power plants, rather than other forms of power generation.

And that's still ignoring the time scale. How enthused would you be if you had to deal with radioactive waste left by Charlemange?

it's so much better instead to rely on a method that constantly dumps countless tons of shit, diluted into the atmosphere

There's the false dichotomy crutch, again. If you don't want nuclear, it means you must want coal. If you don't want GMO foods, it means you want your meat from factory farms where the pigs/chicken/cows can't even stand free from their own shit. If you don't support the invasion of Iraq, it means you must love Saddam.

Etc, etc, etc.

But compared to what is currently used in lots of place, nuclear is *definitely less worse*.

Nuclear power is unjustifiable, and that's putting aside completely the risk of meltdowns. Don't bother to claim otherwise until nuclear power companies roll the complete cost of mining, refinement, construction, maintenance, security, insurance, disaster preparedness, and of course storing the waste for hundreds of years into the rates it charges to customers.

As much as you would like the alternative to be wind farms, and solar panels, the reality is that the alternative against which nuclear power is competing is mainly burning fossil fuel and filling the atmosphere with its waste.

The reality is this a problem solvable with technology that has existed since the 70's. Solar and wind are already cost-competitive with coal, and that's if you let coal externalize much of their costs (pollution and damage from mining), much less nuclear.

You've been Berkeley'ed!