Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Black swan events (Score 1) 213

In contrast, subsidies for different energy sources are 23.1 cents/kWh for solar, 3.5 cents/kWh for wind, and 0.2 cents/kWh for nuclear. (Tables ES4 and ES4. Solar received $4.393 billion in subsidies while generating 19,000 GWh. Wind received $5.936 billion while generating 5,936 GWh, and nuclear received $1.66 billion while generating 789,000 GWh.) That's right. The subsidy for solar is 1650x more expensive than cleaning up nuclear accidents. The subsidy for wind is 250x more expensive.

[...] Statistically, per unit of energy generated, nuclear power is the safest power source man has invented.

BLESS YOU for bringing forward subsidy per units of energy produced.

I'd like to Krazy-Glue some of these Slashdot posters to the wall and dangle a bottle of nail polish remover in front of them, to be handed over after they answer the question: "Would YOU personally pay ~115 times more for solar, and ~17 times as much for wind?" I should be allowed to glue my poster. I should be allowed to think.

Glad to see you got modded up in general, but sad to see the only commenters you get repeat that "economics don't work out" yarn they heard somewhere and repeat only when emotional appeals will not work. Deep down they just do not like nuclear energy and will grasp at anything. As it stands... to completely green-field Three Mile Island Unit 2, there have been estimates of ~$918 million, of which ~$665 is in the bank. That ~$253 million deficit is hardly worth crowing about... and I strongly suspect that 918 million is the 'Epi-Pen' price, you know, the amount things cost if you lock the most greedy, opportunistic people together in a room and don't let them out until they deliver a nice pork barrel. These things could (and should) be done for less.

Comment After the election (Score 4, Interesting) 173

If there is any, and I mean *any*, evidence that Trumps communications to said senior Russian officials came with a "wink and a nod", or indeed anything more specific, then there is every reason for the FBI to get involved....

And of course, selling a third of our Uranium reserves to Russia or selling dual-use technology to Russia doesn't count. It's not important, and was scrubbed from someone's Wikipedia entry.

Thinking through the outrage over Palmer Luckey (Oculus Rift founder) from his support of Trump, and all the crass, oafish things that have happened during this election, one thing seems clear.

The time to address these issues is after the election.

That's the only time where anyone can legitimately claim that their concern is real, and not partisan sniping.

The ends don't justify the means, and it's not worth tearing down the system "just this once". Getting your candidate elected is not worth sacrificing their legitimacy to do it.

If your candidate was worth his/her salt, then you wouldn't need any of these dirty tricks. Right now, the only limits we should have are legal ones.

I note that while Lyndon Johnson was negotiating the end of the Vietnam War, [candidate for president] Richard Nixon called up [Vietnam revolutionary leader] Pol Pot and said that if he delayed negotiations, Nixon would give him a better deal when elected. Negotiations failed, Nixon was elected and the Vietnam war was extended for 2 more years.

This was an American citizen interfering in the political process of the US, and promising aid to our enemy. It was clearly illegal, and the FBI of the time knew about it.

And did nothing. Illegal, and the FBI did nothing. Ring a bell?

Recently, Hillary literally(*) accused Trump of treason. That seems a bit over the line even for Democrats, and it seems illegal on it's face.

But now is not the time to complain, we've let these people have the run of our media, our internet, and our zeitgeist. Let's let it play out for another 6 weeks, then we can carefully examine these things with the benefit of hindsight.

(*) Using the correct definition of literally

Comment Not bad (Score 1) 841

I have to say, your post was well constructed and cogent, with no insults.

You make good points which are lost within fairly large paragraphs. The reader has to slog through a lot of words and actually parse them out to see your meaning. Consider making your point with short sentences and edit for terseness, I think you'll find that gives your position much more power.

If I came across your post in a different thread I would mod it up. I hope you'll keep posting here, it's rare to find someone who can compose an insightful post.

This is exactly the sort of debate we should be having on this site.

Comment The DNC are cheaters (Score 5, Interesting) 841

But really what did the DNC do do Sanders (who was not a Democrat prior to trying to run for President as one)?

They said mean things in private? They stacked the deck for her prior to Bernie running? And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

Early this year, when Bernie raised $60 million and Clinton had raised only $20, the DNC moved $60 million in funds earmarked for local campaigns directly into Clinton's account.

Bernie and Clinton won popular votes by roughly the ratio of their campaign spending, so the extra $60 million made a huge difference.

Bernie had momentum at the time, and would have outspent Clinton 3-to-1 in political ads. The extra advertizing would have very likely won him many of the early state primaries, and would have likely won him the national primary as a result.

Moving the money as they did is almost certainly a violation of federal election law, likely a violation of money-laundering law, and goes completely against any sense of neutrality in the DNC towards candidates. (Additionally, they short-sheeted all the local campaigns, giving republicans an edge in many areas.)

Effectively, they took all the campaign contributions people gave to Bernie and wasted them.

And you think it is worth fucking-over America (the globe even!) so that she is not "rewarded"?

It's worth standing up and saying "no" to corruption.

The people who gave support to Bernie Sanders should not have had their efforts wasted due to cheating.

Comment Really? Why? (Score 5, Insightful) 841

We complain about lobbyists... but this is so much worse

I'm curious why you think this is.

We've just had an article about lobbyists that prevent Tesla from selling in Michigan without going through dealerships (which are universally hated), another recent article where lobbyists caused a town to lose it's working gigibit fibre internet.

For contrast, note that the democrats put up a billboard of Trump kissing Cruz, and naked statues of Trump in several cities.

Question 1: Why is this worse than what Democrats do, and

Question 2: Why is this worse than lobbyists who actually screw us over and make our lives miserable?

Really. I honestly want to know. Why should this be of any concern to anyone?

Comment Shouda Oughtta Gone For The Duck (Score 1) 167

the final trial in the series was not actually part of the study plan. That kid who was sent to get the signs printed, they did them by the dozen so he cooked it up, it was his idea. With mock earnestness the signs were placed on the post and the horse was led around. They were,

1. A symbol representing quantum "spooky action at a distance".

2. A symbol representing a horse indicating a choice by indicating a symbol indicating a choice indicated by a symbol indicating a choice, by a horse.

3. A duck. No seriously, a duck. Really.

The horse pricked back its ears and leaned away from spooky towards the duck, then swung back slightly, as if to indicate

blurred motion at the edges of vision, for a moment clearly the edges repeated which warp through the center accompanied by a sudden and awful smell of burning plastic (isn't there always?) and a sound half crackling half laughter yet horrifyingly like reality being crumpled up like a newspaper or the sudden horror of blackened paper edges when no flame is visible all to hide something unthinkably

NO CARRIER

Comment Are you smarter than a Trump supporter? (Score 2, Interesting) 524

The last I'd heard, news fact-checking organizations were reporting that he told the truth 15% of the time. Why would I ever care what the opinion of someone like was?

And don't tell me "because he's going to be president". The people of the United States are still smarter than that.

Here's one of your news organizations fact checking some things about Donald Trump.

Bruce, I don't know if you've noticed, but the media sometimes misrepresents things. For example, the polls say that 44% of Trumps supporters have a college degree, which the media is quick to point out is less than 50%, so Trump supporters are mostly uneducated.

What they (and you) fail to notice is that the national average for college degrees is 30%, so on average Trump supporters are more educated than the national average. (And here's a reference to the analysis as backing for that statement.)

From that article:

What’s more, Silver found that 44% of Trump voters have college undergraduate degrees, compared to 29% of US adults.

What I don't understand is why Clinton supporters always resort to insults.

I mean, you're especially recognized as being a smart person, yet I don't see you posting a rational reason why Clinton would be a good president.

Set aside that she's not Trump, because there are at least two other candidates, can you point to one thing she's done that has been of benefit to the people of this country? (With links please - don't just make things up.)

Bruce, You're a smart dude.

Can you explain why you need to defend Clinton... with insults?

P.S. - The term "offensive" is used entirely too much recently, but I was honestly offended by your statement. It was an insult, targetting a clearly defined group of people; hence, offensive.

Comment Last resort (Score 5, Insightful) 294

That said, I don't think that justifies attacking the hospital electronically or physically; just through legal channels. But the hospital and courts were complete and utter pieces of shit in this case.

It's an interesting situation.

We've long bemoaned our inability to hold people accountable for their actions. Example after example of big, politically well-connected entities seem to get off scott free, and we the people are powerless to do anything about it, nor can we force the government to action.

(HSBC directors not being charged, Wells Fargo directors not being charged, Oracle paying $95 million in services restitution for wasting $240 million, and so on.)

Note that Justina's parents were issued a gag order that prevented them from talking about their problems, and it was only *after* her father broke the gag order that the situation received public attention.

Do we believe that the father should be prosecuted for breaking the gag order? He was justifiably concerned for his daughter's welfare. The hacker was also concerned, and wanted to send a message and perhaps prevent more abuse and tortures.

We all know very well that the democratic process is lost to us - as anyone who voted for Bernie Sanders found out.

How can we condemn the "last resort" actions of any individual trying to bring about just and proper changes?

Where do we draw the line?

Submission + - Anonymous hacker explains his attack on Boston Children's Hospital (huffingtonpost.com)

Okian Warrior writes: Martin Gottesfeld of Anonymous was arrested in connection with the spring/2014 attacks on a number of health care and treatment facilities in the Boston area. The attacks were in response/defense of a patient there named Justina Pelletier.

Gottesfeld now explains why he did what he did, in a statement provided to The Huffington Post.

Comment Yet Another Robot/Waldo Nuisance Story (Score 1) 129

Where's Waldo? Everywhere.
Where's the robot? Still trying to climb stairs.

When robots finally do arrive we won't realize that it happened, because the word 'robot' will have been applied to every device out there to which no human is presently attached, but yet is attached through the miracle of radio.

PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN squinting into a video display with a joystick in his hand... THIS... IS... A... ROBOT!

Comment Forum sliding (Score 0) 536

Why must so many geeks be filthy bigots? Every article is littered with racist and otherwise bigoted garbage. It's a shame that Slashdot is morphing into Stormfront.

It's an anchor for forum sliding.

They use bots to get these comments in at the very top, knowing that they'll be voted down to -1.

Then when an inconvenient or embarrassing discussion happens that they want to bury, they log into another account and respond to their own topmost comment, and log into further accounts to upvote the new comment.

The end result is that the inconvenient or embarrassing discussion gets pushed down the page.

They know that few people read past the first couple of comment blocks, so they use this technique to adjust the conversation to their own benefit.

Check out Correct The Record for info, and note that HRC spent $1 million on these sorts of techniques.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The voters have spoken, the bastards..." -- unknown

Working...