Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Why force her to do something she doesn't want (Score 1) 246 246

Luckily we are largely immune to it in the US due to our high immigration rate.

lol Far from it. http://mercatus.org/sites/defa... BTW, the "trust fund" is just special bonds currently held by the US Treasury. Those bonds are then sold along with the regular Treasury bonds that are issued to make up the regular "national debt".

Comment: Re:War is Boring is shit (Score 1) 817 817

They are a mostly known quantity, and they greatly out perform the systems they are going to replace.

That may be true unless you are looking for speed & agility to replace what the Navy and Air Force need it for or survivability while attacking ground targets like the A-10. It is supposed to match the F-16 manueverability and acceleration, but according to the test pilot report, it can't. In IMHO, instead of a fighter that "a jack of all trades, master of none", it would have been better to design different airframes for different roles, but have common subsystems where possible so you can have a common supply chain. Let the Marines have their STOVL aircraft that they think they need so badly, but don't cripple the other services. If the Chinese can make a F-35 clone, but without the problems brought on by having an airframe that can handle STOVL capability, Lockheed should be able to do it too.

Comment: Re:How is this news for nerds? (Score 1) 1082 1082

I'm sure the "love and commitment" crap got some people warm and fuzzy, but as far as I know, Federal laws don't care if one is in love or committed to the person that they married. The only reason the Feds care whether a person is married or not is give them access to a variety of benefits/protections that lawmakers have created over the years. This opens the door for more people to have reduced income taxes, eliminated inheritance taxes, Social Security death benefits, etc, etc.

What upsets many people about this is that they view marriage as a religious institution and feel the government shouldn't be involved with it at all. What other instances are govt benefits tied to a religious ritual? IMHO, a better way to settle this issue would be to purge Federal law of anything related to marriage and have the government institutions only recognize civil unions. That allows the govt to define who is eligible for civil unions, lets the religions decide terms of what they call marriage, and eliminates any potential church/state contention which is the root of most of the opposition. It's what Mexico does: people can get a civil union, religious marriage, or both (potential for two anniversaries and two parties).

Comment: Re:Why bother with installed capacity? (Score 1) 259 259

Fourth, the nuke plant has long term radioactive waste problems the former doesn't.

That can be addressed by recycling the fuel, but IIRC, there are weapons treaties that complicate that. Coal use emits more radioactive material into the environment than what is used by the nuclear power industry, so I wouldn't say that it doesn't have a radioactive waste problem. It's a different problem. http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/M...

Comment: Re:Don't give money to your alma mater. (Score 1) 348 348

Actually A&M is a great STEMI University (albeit with it's main campus in the Middle of Fucking Nowhere). Excellent engineering, math, biology faculty and a world renown oceanography department. Socially it's a bit on the odd side, but you're either there to study, play football or learn how to shoot people.

That's why it's located where it is. If you have nothing better to do, you better just study and/or do the other two activities.

Comment: Re:DHS was never about Homeland Security (Score 1) 357 357

On the bright side we have another example of how expensive and incompetent the government is at doing a straightforward task. I'm not saying that the private sector would be more competent, but they sure would be cheaper.

That depends on whether or not the Feds were going to pick up the bill or not. If the Feds are paying, the private sector will make sure they get every dime they can.

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!

Working...