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


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:Christian Theocracy (Score 1) 410

Sell somebody a cake regardless of race/religion/sex or sexual orientation/etc/etc fine. No problem.

Being forced to *participate in and/or advocate* for or against a religious principle or political/ideological position, *there* is where the problem lies.

For example, an LGBT-owned bakery should not be forced to provide a cake with "God Hates Fags" on it for the Westboro Baptist nutjobs. Provide a generic cake? Yes. Provide the message? No.

Same thing here. Provide a cake, yes. Participate in advocating LGBT practices, no.

Why is this so difficult a concept to understand? What gives anyone the right to force someone else to participate in and/or advocate for something they are fundamentally opposed to?


Comment: Re:And what good would it do? (Score 1) 408

by sjames (#49371493) Attached to: Why the Final Moments Inside a Cockpit Are Heard But Not Seen

Since we didn't get any black box from MH370, I fail to see why also not getting video would have helped.

In Silkair 185, the voice recorder was shut off. I somehow doubt the video would have fared any better.

Perhaps what we really need is a more reliable way to get the data we already gather.

Comment: Re:Disagree (Score 1) 410

If they are open to the general public it ain't so clean cut.

Your home, yes. No questions about it. If you don't want any gays, Jews, blacks or Christians in your home, there's nothing anyone could say. I'd still consider you an asshole for discriminating people for something they have little control over (well, except the Christian maybe), but it's your private space and it should be your prerogative to decide who may and may not enter it.

It's different if we're dealing with a place that can (and by its very definition and the general idea behind it should) be frequented by visitors and other strangers you have no direct connection to, i.e. a business. What do you think would happen if someone made a "White only" restaurant? Or how about "Muslim only"? Think that would sit well?

Comment: Re:Good thing Cook doesn't make law (Score 1) 410

Why? Why do they have "the right not to be mocked"? Does that idiot that searches corn circles while wearing a tinfoil hat so he won't be controlled by the Illuminati have the right not to be mocked?

I'm forced to live among people who have imaginary friends, and not only that, they let their imaginary friend dictate what they can do and who they may speak with! Where's my right to be left alone by those loonies?

Comment: Re:Full benefits & Full responsibility (Score 1) 176

by Muad'Dave (#49370601) Attached to: Nation's Biggest Nuclear Firm Makes a Play For Carbon Credit Cash

1 banana equivalent dose is approximately 15 Bq. Table 2 of this document shows the radioactivity of the coal - let's use the lowest US figures. The note above table 2 says to multiply the U-238 value by 14 and the Th-232 by 10, and add those to the K-40. The results in 124 Bq/kg for US coal, and 1628 Bq/kg for Brazilian coal. That indicates that 1 kg of unburnt US coal is 8.22 BEDs. When burnt, between 1% and 10% of the ash escapes the scrubbers and is emitted into the environment directly (new vs old plants). Assuming that all of the radioactive elements are end up in the ash/slag and NOT directly put up the flue (as would be the case with gaseous radioactive elements such as Ra-226 and Ra-228), 12.1kg of coal when burnt and passed thru 'new plant' scrubbers results in 1 BED out the smokestack. With 850 million tonnes (850x10^9 kq) burned in the US in 2009, that resulted in 70.25 billion BEDs.

If you use the worst-case US figures and an old plant, you end up with 12320 Bq/kg, which is conveniently close to 100x the best-case numbers - 0.121 kg unburnt coal = 1 BED, and 7.025 trillion BEDs up the flue. Interestingly, 121g is close to the mass of the average banana at 150g, so unburnt US 'bad' coal is as radioactive as your average banana, mass-for-mass.

Interesting quotes:

In the USA, 850 million tonnes of coal was used in 2009 for electricity production. With an average content of 1.3 ppm uranium and 3.2 ppm thorium, US coal-fired electricity generation in that year gave rise to 1100 tonnes of uranium and 2700 tonnes of thorium in coal ash.

If we apply the 1% up the stack rule, that means 11 tonnes of U and 2.7 tonnes of Th went out the stack - that's a lot of radioactivity up the flue and a lot of fissionable material wasted.

It is evident that even at 1 part per million (ppm) U in coal, there is more energy in the contained uranium (if it were to be used in a fast neutron reactor) than in the coal itself. If coal had 25 ppm uranium and that uranium was used simply in a conventional reactor, it would yield half as much thermal energy as the coal.

Please check my math.

Comment: Re:Let's see (Score 1) 365

by sjames (#49368603) Attached to: Experts: Aim of 2 Degrees Climate Goal Insufficient

The person who provided citations to back my position. You would read it if you wanted to be educated. Clearly you are quite happy being a braying ass (how ironic).

But I have to ask, are you paid to spout drivel on /.? Surely nobody could actually believe that runoff from paved surfaces explains flooding on a clear day?!?

Either way, it hardly matters. You have proven yourself ineducable. You have your fingers jammed in your ears all the way up to your metacarpals and you're screaming LA LA LA at the top of your lungs. probably crying tears of desperation wondering how long until you have to gouge your eyes out in order to keep believing.

I have no more time for that crap.

Comment: Re:Your Fault (Score -1, Troll) 139

by aliquis (#49368555) Attached to: Europol Chief Warns About Computer Encryption

You backed us into a corner by monitoring non-suspects.

How would not monitoring non-suspects stopped the criminals from encrypting their data?

Also are you suggesting that only criminals used encryption before?

That one could know that someone was a criminal because they used encryption? Guess not. Just that that was reason enough to warrant more spying on that person? If so isn't that just a follow through on your monitoring of non-suspects (well, if the suspected activity is just using encryption rather than committing a crime.)

Somebody's terminal is dropping bits. I found a pile of them over in the corner.