Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Hey wait a sec (Score 1) 511

"United States leases the Guantanamo Bay base area from Cuba. It's under US jurisdiction, but Cuban souvereignty." No, the US always claims to be leasing it, but the US doesn't pay (they write checks to a Cuban position that no longer exists, and hasn't existed since the revolution). Plus the terms of the lease are in violation of the Vienna Laws on Treaty Conventions. What you have there is simple occupation at the point of a gun to a government that the US doesn't like.

Comment Mercedes -- warning! (Score 2) 672

PLEASE please please people!

If you're going to discuss Mercedes' vehicles it's important to distinguish between cars built 20 years ago, and Mercedes cars built today. None of the cars built today will ever make it 90 days without going back in for service. They're one of the LEAST reliable vehicles on the road. If you like service room free coffee, buy a Mercedes. (I learned my lesson, and talked to everybody else who also learned THEIR lesson.) Shitty, shitty vehicles today. They can't even keep their supercars on the road without an oil light going on. And it doesn't help that their sales staff think they should have egos. DO NOT BUY A MODERN MERCEDES!

Comment Re:After so much disinformation... (Score 0) 266

"including things like wind, solar, and hydro."

Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. The solar fatality numbers are outright false, they came from anyone in California who ever fell off a roof. And wind and hydro? Puhleeze. Obviously you're including construction fatalities without including uranium mining fatalities for any of your stats. Additionally nuclear never includes unattributed deaths due to cancers -- after all, who can prove the source of a particular cancer?

Comment Re:Some economics professors saw it coming ... (Score 1) 676

Krugman got it timed pretty well -- ten years ago. He even predicted the double dip recession:

From 2001:

"Here's my nightmare: America's recovery from its current slump, whenever it comes, is tentative and short-lived, because the business investment that drove our boom in the 1990's remains stagnant. Eventually the housing bubble bursts and we have another slump; then we have another weak recovery, this time driven by deficit spending, but that, too, fades out. Eventually we look around and realize that it's 2009, and the economy still hasn't fully recovered from the slowdown that began at the end of the previous decade."

Comment Re:I can't figure out Slashdot . . . (Score 0) 371

Wow, Knave, you're really ignorant about yourself.

Your response to a description of a psychological process that affects everyone, and especially those with "poor social skills and superiority complexes" -- is to say "YEAH BUT THEY'RE WRRRROOOOONNNNNGGGG!" Thereby proving his point. You should get some kind of award for being utterly non-self-aware.

Comment Re:Backup and fill-in (Score 1) 394

"If someone brought up solar power in Finland, they'd rightly be called an idiot, because solar power simply wouldn't work there very well. It's too far north, and there isn't much sunlight." Gosh, if only Finland had access to the ocean... or if they had some kind of wind! But no... Oh well, they can't use solar -- I guess they'll have to burn a dead thing for energy or use Rube-Goldberg nuclear. That's their only choice.

While the politicians are proposing the new nuclear plants, maybe the politicians could propose injecting everyone with herpes to guarantee re-election! They're about as popular (with the exception of the third-world and the southern US.)

Comment Re:German Parliament Outsources Nuclear Power (Score 2, Insightful) 364

The fact that you're citing "Wikipedia" speaks for itself, but here's some actual German energy facts:

As you can see, they use fossil fuels for most electrical generation and 30% for nuclear (slighly old numbers, as they've increased renewable generation since then to 17% of their total power generation). Now to put their solar growth alone into perspective, "Germany set a new world record installing 7,400 MW of solar PV in one year. The country also reached a renewable energy electricity penetration of more than 30% on February 7th, 2010."

It has doubled the amount of energy from solar panels and, before their nuclear decision, already targeted to have 35% of electricity generation from from renewables by 2020. So while Luddites tell us that France will be selling nuclear power (which France has to heavily subsidize with taxpayer dollars) France already has 6.7% of its energy generation supplied by renewables with their goal of having at least 20% by 2020.

Meanwhile nuclear plants don't even have their storage issues worked out.

Comment Re:Everybody's right and so am I. (Score 1) 474

Yeah, first off, they're not using their nuclear plant because it was down for refueling. They're not using their coal plant because it wasn't needed because of all the renewable energy that they've got (150% of load, previously). Thirdly, they don't make a large profit because their profits are rebated back to their customers. Nuclear is dead in the long term because, not only is it unpopular, it simply isn't needed in the long run, no matter what Slashdot says.

Slashdot Top Deals

The decision doesn't have to be logical; it was unanimous.