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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Oh boy, here we go... (Score 1) 353

Carbon Capture is yet another argument for nuclear. If the alarmists are right, it's already too late for us. Well, too late if we assume only natural processes to capture existing atmospheric CO2.

Real carbon capture, as in, mining the atmosphere for CO2, is the answer, but will take a whole lot of power. Perhaps close to the amount of power generated when it was released in the first place.

So, the only way to actually reverse AGW would be to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere faster than we put it in. Think of the amount of non-carbon electricity that would be required for that. A lot.

Nuclear is the only thing we have that could possibly do that.

Comment Re:How about those backdoors (Score 1) 80

I don't get the outside firm part. Everything else you said is spot on. How is an outside firm any more trustworthy than a Federal agent? One who has actually taken an oath to discharge his duties faithfully, makes good money and can't easily be fired? Those outside employees are going to be ripe pickings for spying and corruption.

If the NSA was still secret then this issue would be irrelevant. They should eavesdrop on everyone; know everything; and none of it matters because of that very big firewall you spoke of. They go to their FISA court when it's bad enough, a real matter of national security, that the FBI is going to find a beginner's nuke kit or something. Otherwise what is seen in the NSA basement is best left there.

Comment Re:Does indeed happen. (Score 1) 634

Oh no, not you for yourself (or your kids). I mean employers. For employers to hold it against you, that you put your career on hold.

And here I go a little sexist: If you're a woman; for them to even ask why there is a multi-year hole in your resume should be off limits. The thing is; it's women that have babies, not men. And we need for them to do that, and not have it impact their career in any way.

You shouldn't have put the NOT in caps, because you're wrong there. You are absolutely 'paying your dues' by raising children. Raising children isn't some priority; it's the whole reason there are such things as jobs in the first place. Try this mental exercise; do the jobs thing with no children for just one generation, and then tell me how important jobs are.

You're going to tell me that XYZ Corporation isn't responsible for all that. I'm still working on my answer there.

Also, there are people that seem to do both; raise children and advance their careers. I never want to work that hard myself (again). Plus I was never a woman or a mother, so it's difficult for me to judge 3 young kids hanging off me, with one stuck to my tit. I see no way I could work a job while doing that.

Comment Re:Does indeed happen. (Score 2) 634

You skip the main reason a woman might have a 20 year gap - being a mother.

I understand that wasn't where you were going, but I think it's important. It's the number one main reason we try to do away with gender and age discrimination.

Those people carried the main task that humans have in society; making babies; and didn't even get paid for it. To then hold that against them later on; well, that's practically on the level of crimes against humanity.

Comment Re:More by whom (Score 0) 368

Yes. Both items are already law.

But given the activist courts that CA has seeded, it is possible a firefighter could get sued successfully after the fact.

I would say, irony; but probably just unfortunate. For us.

That is what I dislike most about liberalism: Equality under the law has to be done away with. And that is irony.

Comment Re: Secure Boot (Score 1) 628

I can't argue with any particular point, I mean, look at my handle.

I'm saying that if it is that important, then the government gains a legitimate interest. However fucked up it may be. Like banks that are too big to fail, are too big to exist.

Or maybe the money supply was too small; I'm not a real economist. But if our economy depends on one or three banks, that is messed up, and too much power over us.

It's the same with an OS that we have to have, to continue the economy that exists today.

If I'm wrong, then it is still early, and there is yet time for your millions of alternative OS hippies to move society. I'm waitin' here...

BTW, if the government were to fuck up Windows (more) by taking some control of it; Good.

Comment Re: Secure Boot (Score 1) 628

A free-marketer eh? So am I.

I'll remind you of the two things needed for a free market: Freedom, and a market.

In this case you have neither. You must run Windows, and there is no alternative.

So you will be oppressed. You have two choices: be oppressed by a giant entity that you can (somewhat) vote for; or a giant entity against whom you have no recourse.

Comment Re:Everything is relative (Score 1) 99

"need it to shrink to be able to properly feed everyone"

You miss the point of our existence in the first place. If that is true, (which I doubt) then we simply need more food.

Someday soon when the population is 40 billion, I wonder how we are going to look back on these days. Especially the 70s, when many were convinced most of us were going to die soon of global famine. And the population was less than 4 billion then...

"Once they go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department." -- Werner von Braun

Working...