Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 1) 140

Just say alternative energy plus battery plus conservation and efficiency.

I'm skeptical of nuclear generation run by a corporation and maintained by human operators.

Even governments cut corners and rationalize like hell eventually tho.

Humans rationalize until things fail.

I would like to see one thorium reactor actually reducing the volume of waste. But where?

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 1) 140

Reading the study (which is pretty dense), it appears the extra thyroid cancers are in hundreds (but less than a thousand), extra cases of leukemia are maybe 30ish?, and general mortality is an average of 5 years lower.

I couldn't tease out the number of extra heart attacks or cataracts tho they were increased.

Given enough general health problems to lower average lifespan by 5 years for the affected populations (residents and cleanup workers), that's pretty significant.

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 1) 140

Coal is actually pretty comparable to nuclear in terms of land permanently lost and has a higher number of deaths. Hundreds of square kilometers have been lost to coal seam fires, and 99% of coals put out a ton of mercury. There are laws which say coal should be as clean but they didn't go into affect until last year and compliance has a big grandfather time window (which may be further expanded under lobbying pressure).

But the half life of coal negative effects is much lower. Oil is too expensive to use to generate power and would be much more expensive if humans seriously tried to use it to generate power instead of coal or alternative energies.

Personally, I don't think humans and city scale nuclear reactors pair well. The humans always fuck it up. Fukishima was really due to cost cutting, not due to the tsunami. Humans always fuck it up because over time they either get cheap, or they get careless, or they do something actively stupid.

I do support smaller scale (5,000 houses) automatic nuclear power generators which are literally fool proof and do not rely on humans to operate as much.

Forbes is adwalled, but when I've read similar articles from other sites, they always did funny stuff to reach their conclusions.

I'm concerned about nano solar technology because its a new and not well understood form of pollution. We are putting a lot of nano-particles into our environment. It's new. It may be harmless, or it could be a serious problem


On topic with the article, we have a higher chance that aging (and already older tech) plants will have an issue. On the flip side, we have a lower chance with newer tech and fewer nuke plants in general.

Comment Re:I'm just waiting for.... (Score 1) 278

Until the police arrive and start firing back, it's a low stress environment for the shooter.

It's irresponsible to encourage people to commit suicide. But it sounds like you know all about being irresponsible.

You tube is full of non professional gun enthusiasts saying and showing how wonderful and easy the AR15 is to use with so little kick you can put it against your nose and pull the trigger with no risk of hurting yourself.

The second someone says the AR15 (and similar weapons) are dangerous after a mass shooting, suddenly the same gun enthusiasts are saying how difficult the weapon is to use.

And then flip it right back around that they'll be easy to use in the second amendment sense to fight government oppression.

It's obvious from non-professional gun enthusiast example videos that these weapons can maintain extremely high rates of fire while easily hitting targets up to 100 yards away.

I'm not sure you are a retard, but you sure are ignorant of the actual facts pertaining to this class of weapons.

If we have another AR police ambush or night club mass shooting, these weapons are going to be restricted. As they should be.

Comment Re:Well.... (Score 3, Interesting) 140

It is now well-documented that children and adolescents exposed to radioiodines from Chernobyl fallout have a sizeable dose-related increase in thyroid cancer, with risk greatest in those youngest at exposure and with a suggestion that deficiency in stable iodine may increase the risk. Data on thyroid cancer risks to other age groups are somewhat less definitive. In addition, there have been reported increases in incidence and mortality from non-thyroid cancers and non-cancer endpoints. Although some studies are difficult to interpret because of methodological limitations, recent investigations of Chernobyl clean-up workers (âoeliquidatorsâ) have provided evidence of increased risks of leukaemia and other hematological malignancies and of cataracts, and suggestions of an increase in risk of cardiovascular diseases, following low doses and low dose rates of radiation. ...
Twenty-five years have passed since the Chernobyl accident led to exposure of millions of people in Europe. Studies of populations exposed have provided significant new information on radiation risks, particularly in relation to thyroid tumours following exposure to iodine isotopes. Recent studies among Chernobyl liquidators have also provided evidence of increases in the risk of leukaemia and other haematological malignancies and of cataracts, and suggestions of increases in the risk of cardiovascular diseases, following low doses and low dose rates of radiation.

Further careful follow-up of these populations, and the establishment and long-term support of life- span study cohorts, may continue to provide important information for the quantification of radiation risks and the protection of persons exposed to low doses of radiation.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1135

Poor people commit small crimes. Rich people rob thousands of people of millions of dollars. See.. bernie madoff as an example. one of MANY.

Thousands of people on wall street should have gone to prison for fraud after 2007. They broke the law, they forged documents, they sold bad debt as AAA debt. They aren't in prison.

Willie nelson was caught with 5 oz of pot. He spent no time in jail and paid a fine of $4000.
Patricia Marilyn Spottedcrow was caught with $31 worth of pot. They alleged she intended to sell it (it was well below the amount a normal person would carry for personal use). She's spending 12 YEARS in prison. And lost her children.

In ferguson, it was well known the whites were breaking the law more often than the blacks. But the police wouldn't even pull them over and search them in the first place. Only poor blacks were pulled over and given predatory tickets with enormous interest charges.

Poor people go to prison because they can't afford nice lawyers.. or in the case of the Stanford Rapist, because the judge feels 3 months (jail time- no prison record) is sufficient because it would "damage" the young rapist's prospects in life.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1135

A basic income would likely raise wages by killing the labor glut.

This would have the double effect of raising prices because of higher production costs and lower supply.

Yup. So you'd have to earn more if you wanted the "nicer" things in life. The income curve would be flatter. The wealthy might go back to earning 50x the middle income instead of 534x the middle income.

A basic income would mean you had to save less to retire.

It would mean that many people retire the day the first check arrives. So yes, you have to save less.

Young people do not typically want to live in poverty their entire life. With a basic income, you keep most of the first money you earn above a basic income. There's a strong incentive to find a way to work. And you don't have to work a full time job. You can also get training instead of being trapped.

A basic income is cheaper to much cheaper than the cost of imprisoning people.

Imprisoning criminals is not so that the state can take over their care, it is to protect the public from criminals. If you think that we should stop imprisoning people because we can just give them $10,000 a year not to commit crimes, well ...

Sure.. that's why the U.S. imprisons it's citizens at a higher rate than every other country on earth. I.e., most criminals are in for doing minor crime. They shouldn't be in prison in the first place. Prison should be for dangerous criminals. For real criminals.

Taking about 10% of that wealth and income as taxes would pay for basic income.

So in ten years the program would become unfunded. 10% per year cannot be extracted from the wealthy forever, you know.

Dude.. you said it yourself,"If only the economy were a zero sum game." it's not. The government has took 90% of decades and we did fine. The government takes 35% now and we do just fine. You can take 10% and make sure it goes to balance society and get better results.

It can afford a few trillion dollars to share the benefits of society with all citizens.

If only the economy were a zero sum game.

Your statement is much more applicable to your prior statement than mine.

I don't think you get it. 30-40% of people without the ABILITY to work at all. Period. Think they are just going to stand around and die in a nation that has multiple guns per citizen?

High unemployment is strongly correlated with civil unrest, revolt, increased crime, and violence. You only have money as long as the society exists. You boot out 30-40% of people on their asses to starve and your days are numbered.

Comment Re:Kinds of work? Ekronomics strikes again (Score 1) 1135

One point I think you missed...

Forcing people to work at jobs which do not make a profit means the salary for those jobs must STILL come from the taxes of greedy bastards like Robert Greenstein. So it doesn't matter if they are pushing leaves around a park or caring for seniors, it's still coming from tax dollars.

When you can rent a machine for $7 per hour (no overhead costs for social security or unemploymen taxes) to do the work or buy a machine for $2400 (china) to replace a human making $3000 per year, there is literally way to create sufficient profit to pay for a human's poverty level wages.

Basic Income will be needed to prevent civil disorder (possibly quite violent and we have a LOT of guns in the U.S. so especially there).

Basic income is cheaper than imprisoning people (about 60% to as low as 30% of the cost of imprisoning people).

People don't get it. Robots are essentially "there". They now have faster than human reflexes, better than human vision, higher than human endurance, lower than human downtime. For many jobs right now, today, robots are 30% to 40% the cost of humans if the job has 2 or more shifts. Societal friction and capital investment costs are the main reasons robots are spreading slowly at this point. And they are getting less expensive and more capable along moore's law lines at this point.

This is like the luddite situation on steroids. They revolted and had to be put down by the army. Many luddites died homeless and from starvation.

Comment Re:Soros? (Score 1) 1135

Most UBI programs (including the recent swiss one) are targeted at the local poverty level.

People with poverty level income are not typically homeless now (tho they may need to share a residence).

A basic income would likely raise wages by killing the labor glut.

A basic income would mean you had to save less to retire.

A basic income would provide significant savings by eliminating social security, welfare, and other support programs, their staff, and their administrative costs.

it's almost certain people will find ways to abuse basic income. And that should be addressed by tuning basic income rather than not using it at all.

A basic income is cheaper to much cheaper than the cost of imprisoning people.

Trends in automation and robotics are likely to lead to rapid destruction of jobs for about 1/3 of the population. It may take a generation or two (20 to 40 years) for society to adapt and find new ways for people to work. 20 to 40 years with over 33% unemployment without basic income would almost certainly result in civil unrest and violence. Crime would shoot thru the roof if the unemployed have no way to get food and shelter. Especially if they think the rest of society doesn't care about them.

The top 2% have 95% of the wealth and a little over 45% of the income. Taking about 10% of that wealth and income as taxes would pay for basic income. The U.S. GDP is 15 trillion dollars per year. It can afford a few trillion dollars to share the benefits of society with all citizens.

Comment is there a difference (Score 1) 1135

between paying trillions for tanks and planes the army and airforce says we don't need and billions to imprison people for non crimes (at a cost of $31,000 to $110,000 per YEAR) and having poverty level basic income support which would drive up wages?

I think so.

The study is way off.

As automation and robotics becomes ubiquitous and an estimated 30 to 38% of people can't find work at any salary, we'll need something to prevent civil unrest.

What's the cost of mass rioting by abandoned people?

We have a LOT of guns in this country.

Slashdot Top Deals

"It is better to have tried and failed than to have failed to try, but the result's the same." - Mike Dennison