Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment critique - it sucked - spoilers - (Score 1) 776

saw it, as a mad max movie it sucked IMO.

max had almost no dialog, no character development.
almost his sole dialog was a monologue to himself/audience
at the start essentially saying "I'm crazy because I failed to save some people after the world went to shit"

He was essentially a cardboard caricature put there to sell a movie with mad max in the title.

If you expect to see a "Roadwarrior" movie with Max as an actual self-sacrificing hero type, skip this movie....

Had some cool visuals for the vehicles though.

Spoilers -

What sucked -

He starts off looking like a hobo, gets captured right at the beginning and cleaned up by the bad guys.
His biggest action sequence is right here when he tries to escape and fails.
You really don't see him go "bad ass" on anyone - although it is implied in one "after action" scene.
He doesn't kill the villain, and never really has any sort of "hey e - do I survive or try to help out" forced on him.

His only real contribution is towards the end when he convinces the escapees that they should head back and take over the place they left.

The movie had some cool visuals, but I think they spent too much time on some scenery shots at the expense of characters.

I'd say the best performance was probably Nicholas Hoult as a "war boy" - essentially he ended up in the mad max role almost.

The only negative I can say is the conversion of his character seemed a little too easy
- from "I'm a bad guy who REALLY believes in what I'm doing" - to -
"Hey, you mean all those fanatical beliefs I held all my life are wrong?"
"Okay I'll do a 180 and now I'm a good guy"

It was an action movie where essentially all the good characters were female, and all the bad ones were male. But they were almost ALL throwaway parts IMO.

Charlize Theron was okay but she did not seem to fit IMO as an action hero. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for bad ass females action movies - Underworld and Resident Evil, but this was supposed to be Mad Max.

Comment Re:Of course (Score 5, Informative) 308

Why the fuck do people keep on mentioning Thorium reactors? They still produce fission products. And fission products are the only thing that nuclear reactors need to protect against releasing to the public. Fission products are also statistically determined. You will always get short medium and long term radionuclides even if you burn up some.

There are benefits to Thorium reactors, but in a major accident they will still release enough highly radioactive substances that will require evacuation and quarantine of the affected area for decades. Yes, a thorium reactor can still meltdown, it still has decay heat, and it would require complex engineered safeguards to protect it.

You do realize that EXISTING thorium reactor designs -

1. Do not need water as coolant (hence no high pressure evironment and much smaller)
2. As designed will shutdown on their own with no outside intervention.
3. As designed they can't "overheat".

"Best results occur with molten salt reactors (MSRs), such as ORNL's liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), which have built-in negative-feedback reaction rates due to salt expansion and thus reactor throttling via load. This is a great safety advantage, since no emergency cooling system is needed, which is both expensive and adds thermal inefficiency. In fact, an MSR was chosen as the base design for the 1960s DoD nuclear aircraft largely because of its great safety advantages, even under aircraft maneuvering. In the basic design, an MSR generates heat at higher temperatures, continuously, and without refuelling shutdowns, so it can provide hot air to a more efficient (Brayton Cycle) turbine. An MSR run this way is about 30% better in thermal efficiency than common thermal plants, whether combustive or traditional solid-fuelled nuclear.[27]"


4. The US has a metric fuckton of thorium in it's coal deposits.

Comment Re:Scary (Score 1) 447

And not real money.

Gold is no more "real money" than anything else. The only value gold has is what people think it's worth, just like regular dollars.

We need to get back to sound money that "connects" to something of constant value, like gold or land.

No, we don't.

YES we do.
The ability of government to fund policy by the creation of new money invites corruption at the highest level. Hence the rise of ongoing deficit spending.

1 Votes are essentially "bought" for unfunded social and military spending through lobbying.
2 Politicians then pass unbalanced budgets bringing this new currency into being.
3 The lobbyists who are essentially the beneficiaries of #2 above then fund election campaigns for said politicians.
4. go to step 1 and repeat.

Comment Re:Scary (Score 1) 447

"Second lesson: The "devaluation" that you speak of is called inflation. Yes, over time an individual dollar is worth less. We also make more of these dollars for our time. This is not some giant conspiracy."


First Lesson - a program of CONSTANT Inflation is in effect a recurring tax upon saved capital. E.G. I am already taxed on wages, inflation then continuously erodes the value of those savings. And don't give me the "put it in the bank" BS because interest earned on deposits is LESS than inflation so I would in effect be losing value by depositing it.

Second Lesson - Since these new dollars are brought into being to fund government deficit spending and benefit the federal reserve banks as well. I'd say yeah there is indeed a "conspiracy". Both people in government and banking are WELL AWARE of the game, who it benefits and how.

Third Lesson - A powerful argument for using gold as a medium of exchange is primarily based upon the idea that it removes the ability of the government to continue deficit spending via inflation as they cannot easily create gold (as opposed to fiat currency). Value is based upon supply, demand and time preference.

When government is given the ability to create money political corruption necessarily follows. I.E. the power to "create" wealth attracts people and lobbyists
who then fund the politicians providing them said wealth.

Your argument that using gold as a medium of exchange is a return to a barter system is invalid. I could make the same argument that trading little green pieces of paper for goods or services does the same thing. E.G. bartering paper for goods instead of gold.

Last lesson - The dollar was backed by gold up until Nixon severed the last remaining ties in the 70's Why did he do this? because other countries were redeeming our currency and demanding the gold it was backed by. Since then government spending has essentially been from from any restraint as there
is no inherent limiting factor upon the emission of money. The only real limit to the debasement will be the destruction of the nation and/or world economy.

Comment Nullify! Jury Nullification (Score 5, Insightful) 897

Not only demands for Jury Trials -

Occupy should start the Nullify movement - E.G. if you are on a jury refuse to return a guilty verdict for victimless BS charges.

It is your right and DUTY to judge not only guilt or innocence but also the merit of the law itself.
Fully Informed Jury Association -


"From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere." -- Dr. Seuss