The article uses the term "sexist" in its title as a hook. I would hope most people would be sharp enough to realise it's probably not being used in a literal sense when they first read it.
It seems like every other post lately has someone raving about clickbaiting and users leaving the site.
Honestly i feel like people are just looking for something to whine about. If you go back through slashdots archives you'll find plenty of light pieces like this going all the way back to the 90's.
See the thing is, it's not a choice between extremes. In fact we have socialist institutions right here in the US that are incredibly popular.
So excess heat in waste water and a power plant built in a region prone to natural disasters but not built to withstand them means nuclear has to be given up on?
How many people have fallen off of rooves while installing solar panels? Should we abandon this clear impedament to our safety?
Both of the claims I list boil down to nuclear power is bad because there isn't enough nuclear power. How is that a fault with the energy source?
Issues to be concerned about to be certain but these issues amount to almost nothing when scaled against the long term problem of global warming.
And even that's still ignoring the massive health issues parts of the world are currently "enjoying" due to carbon emitting power plants.
The section on climate change and nuclear energy in your linked to article is rediculous. It tries to discredit nuclear power's impact on climate change because its low and decreasing share of global power production means that it's current impact on climate change is small and shrinking. Obviously the problem here is that not enough plants are being built, not that there is a problem with the energy source itself. The article, however, does its best to make this seem like a negative for the power source.
The article then goes on to attribute all of the energy going into uranium enrichment and other accociated energy needs to energy produced from CO2 emitting sources when a nuclear power plant produces electricity at vastly greater scales then what is required for these things.
I'll admit though, after two completely bogus claims I stopped reading so maybe that site has something that stands up to simple reasoning somewhere in its contents.
I dont think you or that articles author understands the comparison. No one makes that comparison because of what Somalia was. They make it because of what Somalia is, a country with virtually no government.
Once again, the site is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" not "All Tech, All the Time". I'm sure you would like the site to be all tech but I've been reading the site since the 90's and it has never been as such
In fact, a simple search of the site for "Simpsons" yields multiple articles speculating on a Simpson movie since at least 2000 (I didn't go back farther), an announcement about Simpsons season 1 being released on DVD and many more posts about the show. This latest article is completely in keeping with what Slashdot has always done
Except this isn't exclusively a "tech" site. The old tag line, "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters" clearly defines this article as relavent.
Plus, stop whining because a specific article doesn't match your individual tastes.
I've spent a good deal of time in London and live right down the road from San Francisco. Don't get me wrong, San Francisco is a great city and I love spending time in it but you clearly don't know what you're talking about. London is a major economic and cultural hub, the capitol of what was a globe spanning empire dwarfing anything that has followed it in influence and significance, a current major fincial hub, the current capital of one of the most influencal and wealthy countries in Europe, home to immigrants from throughtout the commonwealth and beyond, has been the center of major artistic and musical movements and etc, etc.
San Francisco is a very dirty little city by the bay whose culture high point was hippies (note: I still love the city).
The big American comparison to London would be New York which i'd take over London any day (Of course i'm a pretty patriotic American so....). In terms of cultural significance San Francisco doesn't stand a chance versus London.
Ugh, Underworld and Resident Evil? Those movies were so bad and the protagonists more so.
Saw Fury Road, loved its minimalism in regards to dialog. I hate it when movies explain everything to me as opposed to having the audience absorb it through context. I also enjoyed the subtler take on Max George Miller took this time.
Do agree about the War Boy though. Didn't ruin the movie for me but it was a bit of a reach.
It's doing incredibly well critically with a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and 89% on Metacritic. This is even more impressive given that it's an action movie which rarely do so well critically.
Isn't it remotely possible it's a good movie that's just not to your taste?
Ugh, I'm a huge Stephenson fan but I could not stand Reamde.
Hahaha, you're siting internet comments as your evidence? That's rich.