Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Nuclear energy reduces greenhouse emissions (Score 1) 274

How would you know if something was successfully suppressed, given that the definition of "successful" includes those who use bullshit assertions themselves while attempting to label others statements as such?

Why is it the government is incompetent at everything it does, but is still suspected of pulling off (or being able to pull off) the most fanciful of conspiracy theories?

You mean like all those years of fanciful tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory crap asserting the government is/was secretly mass-monitoring/storing/analyzing nearly all domestic voice & digital data communications that everyone dismissed for the very same reasons because we didn't have any real evidence to prove it conclusively until Snowden?

Besides, if you have to use "well, not that they wouldn't do it in a heartbeat, it's too hard/impractical" as an argument for it not being done, does that not indicate that the real problem is you having allowed the government to grab so much power that they care so little for the Rule of Law and fear the possibility of retribution from the people so little that they *would* do it if they only could?

Strat

Comment Re:Might actually be the case (Score 1) 372

Why would it not be possible for a C or C++ compiler to do the same thing? The multiple CPU thing could be a problem since C/C++-compiled code typically isn't targeted at a specific system, but it certainly could be specified, couldn't it? And for additional instruction sets, that's been common for ages; with gcc, it's always been possible to optimize for specific CPUs, not just i386. And with the multiple-CPU thing, isn't the OS supposed to handle scheduling of processes and threads automatically anyway, taking advantage of extra cores?

Comment Re:Nuclear energy reduces greenhouse emissions (Score 0) 274

If it became known that someone came up with some sort of "John Galt" type way to generate super-cheap and pollution-free energy anywhere with a relatively small lightweight device, they and everyone around them would be killed or otherwise silenced, and all their research, experimental data, and any experimental models confiscated and/or destroyed faster than one can say "drone".

A bullshit assertion because it has never come up.

How would you know if something was successfully suppressed, given that the definition of "successful" includes those who use bullshit assertions themselves while attempting to label others statements as such?

They want energy and energy distribution systems which they can control and use to confiscate even more of people's hard work better and thus control people better while enriching themselves, not better/cheaper/cleaner energy that empowers the individual and allows them the freedom to be less dependent and more self-reliant.

Note this didn't happen in the internet world with stuff like email or web pages.

Of course not. It was a government-funded research project, FFS. It also makes them money and allows them to more easily, cheaply, and completely identify, monitor, track, and perform data analysis on any individual or group as well as provide valuable feedback on propaganda effectiveness. The wet-dream of a tyranny, beyond even the "telescreen" of "1984" fame.

And once again, it's demonstrated that it's easier to make up shit than to actually come up with economic energy producing technology.

The "economic" part is easy if government reduced or eliminated artificial government-imposed restrictions that are more to do with ideology, politics, and social engineering than actual safety, cost, or environmental impact.

This will also help reduce the effects of "regulatory capture", revolving-door, etc we've seen for decades getting worse with every added regulatory agency, dept, and bureaucracy, and actually improve enforcement and effectiveness of those core regulations that actually work to improve safety, cost, and reduce environmental impact.

But again, that would disadvantage those in power. And I mean all of them, not one party or wing...or even one nation. The US isn't the only nation facing dire economic circumstances or experiencing loss of individual economic and civil freedom and increased government intrusion and control. All of them that have had controlling government power between them over the last 60-plus years that want to increase their control and grow their power even further.

This hasn't happened in the US or the world overnight.

The world right now, especially in the West, reminds me of Prohibition-era Chicago and the gangs that divided up Chicago into "turfs" and who all had corrupt politicians and officials in their pocket to make certain people kept drinking and making them money and giving them power, while they fought over turf, alcohol supplies, power, and money.

That's actually a pretty good analogy for the "NWO" as well. It isn't some shadpwy, tin-foil hat conspiracy. It's simply gangs of corrupt assholes in power in each country warily cooperating with other gangs in each helping to oppress the other's people (keep 'em drinking/consuming/monitored) while increasing their own power, control, and wealth.

If you're oppressing your people, you don't want some other more-free, less-oppressive country around to give hope and possibly asylum and other assistance to your dissidents. It's simply common self-interest among those in power in the West (and increasingly including the East/ME as well).

The *real* fun will begin when the US dollar crashes and the supermarket shelves become bare. That will either be the trigger for, or be triggered by, economic collapse in the EU. It's dominoes all the way down either way.

This in turn will trigger a cascade of major national and international changes and events, and global and national power structures and ideological/political paradigms will shift and some collapse. Many will die globally from wars, rebellions, military coups, riots, purges, even mass genocide and starvation, exposure, and disease within a very short span of time.

Strat

Comment Re:Nuclear energy reduces greenhouse emissions (Score 0, Flamebait) 274

Nuclear energy reduces greenhouse emissions, according to Japan.

OK, so is the most important thing to be anti-nuclear, or to actually save the environment?

It should be pointed out that this depends on the energy source it's displacing.

Not quite.

It actually depends on what benefits the set of politicians and their propagandists with the most power and biggest bullhorn the most. It has nothing whatsoever to do with achieving objective, real-life, positive results for society and mankind, nor with accruing benefits or empowerment to anyone besides those who control the levers of power & law and their cronies.

If it became known that someone came up with some sort of "John Galt" type way to generate super-cheap and pollution-free energy anywhere with a relatively small lightweight device, they and everyone around them would be killed or otherwise silenced, and all their research, experimental data, and any experimental models confiscated and/or destroyed faster than one can say "drone".

They want energy and energy distribution systems which they can control and use to confiscate even more of people's hard work better and thus control people better while enriching themselves, not better/cheaper/cleaner energy that empowers the individual and allows them the freedom to be less dependent and more self-reliant.

Strat

Comment Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (Score 0) 227

Same guy here. Guess you forgot to go fuck yourself. No wait, you only like to fuck minorities the lower income families.

What a shock! Not even a tiny urge to admit that the law you say is a "win" is actually destroying the jobs that lower income people need, and is piling on taxes and debt service - both of which drag down the economy and hurt the people you pretend you're worried about. The law you say is a "win" is causing doctors to run away from subsidized care (impacting the people you pretend to care about), and will subject millions of the people you pretend to care about to new IRS-enforced fines.

But you just keep on avoiding any actual discussion of the facts, and keep harping on like the grade schooler, pretending that anyone who points out reality is a racist because you think that playing that card somehow makes reality go away. How embarassing.

Comment Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (Score -1, Troll) 227

OP here of that response. I didn't know /. was full of either 1) dick ass republicans or 2) farmed out shills posting as dick ass republicans. If you don't think the ACA is a win for America then argo fuck yourselves.

Ah, of course. The classic lefty response: no idea what to say about the reality of the situation, so avoid the substance at all costs, and act like a shrill, shrieking idiot and attack the messenger, instead. So typical.

But good to see that, no matter how angry you are that your party has totally been caught in broad daylight with a legislative mess that everyone else said was coming, that you actually agree about the points above. Which you have to, since they're real. You can now resume your ad hominem denial attack, like the child you are.

Comment Re:If it was Obama's signature legislation..... (Score 0) 227

you can sign up over the damn phone if you want

Where the people on the other end of the phone write everything down, and then will wait until the web site is working, because they themselves will have to use that same system to interact with the system. And that doesn't get you a paid-for insurance policy. You still have to wait for a bill from the insurer. Regardless, you're not going to get off the phone with an accurate quote telling you what you, personally, will actually have to pay. Just age-related bracket prices.

the real win is in the law itself

You're confused. The law itself is an insane train wreck that is destroying people's current insurance, will jack up prices for everyone who actually pays, and will insure only a small number of the people it was theoretically supposed to cover. It kills jobs, raises the national debt, doesn't do anything to address the reasons that it's expensive to interact with a doctor's practice or hospital, and now introduces massive new vectors for fraud, identity theft, and worse. Plus it has all sorts of nice new features like taxes on your house when you go to sell it, or shiny new taxes on medical devices that will end up doing things like making a trip with your dog to the vet more expensive.

This, to you, is a "win?"

You must be one of those people who's going to be on the subsidized side of the equation, expecting someone else to work part of each day to pay for your visit to the podiatrist for that sore toe you got rock climbing.

Comment Re:Natural monopoly is a myth (Score 1) 363

But why can't high-voltage lines be run underground?

Don't you think someone would have done it by now if it were feasible?

For a hint, go look at one sometime (or look up a photo of a HV tower). Look how much distance there is between the conductors. That much distance is needed to prevent arcing in the air between the conductors. Now, try to imagine the size of a tunnel that'd be needed to place those wires underground, with the same spacing between the wires, and also between the wires and the surrounding ground or tunnel walls. And no, coating the wires with an insulator isn't going to help much; air is already a pretty effective insulator; you could improve on it a little with something else, but not enough to make a huge difference in wire spacing (which is partly why they don't bother with insulation; it would add far too much expense for far too little improvement).

Finally, digging tunnels is really, really, really expensive. And tunnels can't cross fault lines; HV lines are used for longer distances, so this would be a real problem since when traversing long distances, you're bound to cross some fault lines.

So no, natural monopolies are NOT a myth at all. The road bit, which you admit, proves it all by itself.

Comment Re:Hope they speed up developing real batteries (Score 1) 363

In places where rural electric coops already exist, then can certainly act for the good of all their customers (in the community) and redistribute stored energy, provide them energy (from the utilities they buy from) during dark periods, etc. What the previous poster was suggesting was creating new coops to directly compete with already-established utilities to do this. That won't work, for the reasons I stated: you can't have someone competing directly with a public utility monopoly. The rural coops only work for the reason you stated: the private companies didn't feel like running power lines, so someone set up a community-owned power company to do the same thing. In places where the private companies already have run power lines, you can't have someone else running more power lines parallel to theirs and competing with them. The local governments won't stand for it. The utility enjoys a monopoly because it's given that right by the government (at state and/or local levels), so that government isn't going to turn around and say that someone else (who's a non-profit, unlike the utility company) can now compete with them.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Of course power tools and alcohol don't mix. Everyone knows power tools aren't soluble in alcohol..." -- Crazy Nigel

Working...