Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Since nuclear is "too cheap to meter"... (Score 1) 207

by PopeRatzo (#47799365) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go

Accusations of shilling are among the lowest form of argumentation.

Unless you happen to be identifying an actual shill.

The person who is attributed with explaining away his father's quote is not some pseudonymous person on the internet. He actually happens to be an nuclear industry shill. Calling him such is not a "form of argumentation". It is simply informative.

Now calling you a shill would be a low form of argumentation. I would never do that without evidence. So keep going. Before you're done, who knows?

Comment: Re:Since nuclear is "too cheap to meter"... (Score 2) 207

by PopeRatzo (#47797189) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go

"I would say my father was referring to fusion energy. I know this because I became my father's eyes and ears as I travelled around the country for him."

So, a nuclear advocate covers for his nuclear advocate father's boneheaded remark pretending that nuclear energy would be cost effective. Or at least that's the assertion of someone named "Blubbaloo" who is the person who created the "too cheap to meter" wikipedia page. It is the only wikipedia entry that "Blubbaloo" has ever seemed to have made. And one that he seems to guard very carefully. And the only person who has ever disputed the meaning of Strauss' statement was his nuclear advocate son.

It's funny that a "physicist" wouldn't be able to understand the concept of externalities.

Here's a little detail from the talk pages of that very interesting wiki artifact:

We should not discount the popular impact of this statement. I added "Newspaper articles at the time..." and I wonder why there is any question about Strauss' meaning. Clearly the New York Times, writing about the Sept. 16 1954 speech, understood that Strauss was referring to the entire atomic energy program. Even if Strauss was misunderstood, he did not take any great pains to clear up the record. User:wkovarik -- Bill Kovarik, March 15, 2011.

A direct copy of the entire speech would clear up most of the questions around the usual (often mangled, as the one included today is) quotes. (Did the NYT reprint the entire speech or just portions?)
Robert Pool, 1997 p.71,[1] quotes this preceding line, often left out: "Transmutation of the elements--unlimited power ... these and a host of other results all in fifteen short years. It is not too much to expect that our children...." etc. There's little question that Strauss was waxing poetic; more to the point: many sources say he was encouraging science writers to promote fission power to these ends. Which completely makes sense considering their need to create more plutonium.
His view was not widely shared; in 1951, General Electric's own C. G. Suits, who was operating the Hanford reactors, said that "At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy which can be extracted much more economically from conventional fuels.... This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe."[2] Twang (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

"many sources say he was encouraging science writers to promote fission power to these ends."

Shills is shills, ya know?

Comment: Re:can it get me home from the bar? (Score 1) 267

by PopeRatzo (#47792171) Attached to: Hidden Obstacles For Google's Self-Driving Cars

They handle them fine, detecting when you use hand signals to indicate intentions

So, a driverless car that can't handle rain or snow or recognize a pothole is going to be perfectly safe around pedestrians and bicyclists?


Stop yourself. Nobody reading Slashdot today will live to see ubiquitous driverless cars.

Comment: Re:Human Subjects (Score 3, Insightful) 88

"In reality, the worst case scenario now involves an immune host/carrier. "

Looks like in reality you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Such a person/vector would be a pathologist's fucking wet dream to forming a vaccine against the disease in the first fucking place.

You watch too much TV.
You can't just find "patient 0", or "the primordial sample" as TNT's shitty show calls it, and then magically get a cure shat out.
You can't just find some schlub who's immune and magically figure out why and make a vaccine to immunize other people.

Comment: Re:talk about "old tech" (Score 1) 87

by sexconker (#47789931) Attached to: Google Introduces HTML 5.1 Tag To Chrome

The whole point of the picture element is that you don't have to download all the possible sizes, just the one that's appropriate for your display.

What's appropriate for my display, exactly?
You have to base it on the VIEWPORT, but that's VARIABLE because the USER can change that shit.
Any viewport change and you risk having to download the newly "appropriate" version.

This shit is retarded - just provide a decent size by default and offer a link to the original size.
The whole premise of why we'd want to do this is retarded as well. Phones are getting resolutions of 2560x1440 now.

Comment: Wringers on washing mashines (Score 1) 610

by PopeRatzo (#47788901) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: What Old Technology Can't You Give Up?

The old technology I am giving up are the wringers on top of washing machines.

They're dangerous (you can get your fingers caught) and they mess up more delicate fabrics. Also, the newer washing machines with the agitators that churn the wash around do just as good a job.

Also, zippers. Velcro is much easier to work with and it never gets stuck and it doesn't hurt as much to snag your dick on velcro.

Comment: Re:Dr. Manhattan (Score 1) 35

by PopeRatzo (#47788407) Attached to: Particle Physics To Aid Nuclear Cleanup

Dr Manhattan is unlikely to come into being from energetic mouons interacting with fissile reactor fuel rods.

I'm sure they said a spider-man was unlikely to come into being from being bitten by a radioactive spider, too. But guess what happened.

Either way, as someone who doesn't know from nothing, I'm completely in favor of bombarding nuclear rods with muons. Because I like saying "muons". "Muons...muons..." If you watch yourself in the mirror when you say "muon" your mouth makes a little kissyface. Fun!

Now please excuse me. This bottle of single-malt isn't going to drink itself.

Comment: Re:Broadwell (Score 1) 171

by PopeRatzo (#47787017) Attached to: Intel's Haswell-E Desktop CPU Debuts With Eight Cores, DDR4 Memory

But if I'm trying to game on an old i5-750, wouldn't this be a good time to upgrade to one of the cheaper 4-core Haswells that are running 3.8mhz instead of 2.7? Maybe a Haswell i5 (I guess, I'd need a new mobo then, right?) And the latest PCI-E for a new graphics card.

I don't like to buy the newest and best, but when the second newest becomes cheap. I've got a really nice case, but I'm not sure if I could put a new processor into my old motherboard or if it would even be worth it.

I'd like to do something before the fall games come out. Would I be better off just upgrading my old Radeon HD6850 to a nvidia 760 or a Radeon R9 285 or something?

And did I fall through a wormhole and end up at Tom's Hardware?

Comment: Re:Her work (Score 1) 1215

How can you tell when you receive a lot of death threats whether any of them are credible? Some people are very angry about what she has been saying, probably most of them don't think it would be a god idea to kill her, but in this case most is the operative word, especially when the people giving them know where you live....

The fact that you're receiving a lot of death threats tells you that none of them are credible.
When you receive one death threat, it's worth looking into. The police will investigate, offer protection, and determine if it's credible.

Also, if you're getting death threats over the internet in response to some stupid shit you said, then it's not a credible death threat.

Comment: Re:Bad business practice (Score 1) 134

by sexconker (#47786065) Attached to: Australian Consumer Watchdog Takes Valve To Court

Only you normally don't need to be online, as Steam has an offline mode?

Steam's offline mode does not work. It has never worked. It will never work.
The entire premise is fucking retarded - you have to be ONLINE in order to enable OFFLINE MODE. You have to KNOW that you're going to go offline in advance,
If you're not in offline mode and you have no internet connection and you launch Steam, it will simply fail to connect and you can't do anything with the Steam client.

If you are in offline mode and you do have an internet connection Steam will revert to online mode when it feels like it and start to do all the things you don't want it to do. And if a game has an update available, Steam will refuse to let you launch the game while in offline mode. Steam can learn of updates while in offline mode if you do have an internet connection, and lock you out of games.

If you are in offline mode it's just a matter of time before Steam decides you need to reauthenticate. Time, connection to a network (with or without internet connectivity), fucking connected bluetooth devices, etc. can all trip Steam's alarms and cause it to shut you out of your games until you reauthenticate.

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada