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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Nope (Score 2) 537

Not to pixk at your argument, but chances are as an economist he probably understands far more about currency than any bitcoiner. Even the economists that ARE interested in Bitcoin (Mises doesn't count) are only interested in it as a study in penny stock trading. The fact that bitcoiners see the hyperinflation of their currency as a GOOD thing in the face of all common economic theory saying otherwise is worrying.

Comment Harsh...but correct (Score 1) 961

While I think Scott was a little harsh in addressing his detractors, I side with him. Euthanasia laws needs to be modernized, especially in the case of terminal illness. The idea that we are okay with putting down cats and dogs but not humans when it is no longer possible to cure or treat them is rather sad, and we allow unnecessary suffering to ride those with terminal illness into their final rest. Something must be done, but considering how poor the US Medical System is, I have no doubt it shall be some time before favorable changes are made.

Comment Re:Meanwhile... (Score 4, Insightful) 181

And nothing has happened. The amount of radiation released from the leak, while the leak should be repaired ASAP, is minute and is still LOWER than the background radiation. http://tech.mit.edu/V131/N13/yost.html If you have taken College Chemistry, you'll know why even the radiation released from the leak is nothing compared to both the background radiation in the ocean due to dilution and not even a drop in the bucket compared to the radiation released from nuclear testing we conducted in the Pacific Ocean.

Comment Re:Nuclear safety is different (Score 1) 200

So...your solution is to assume ANY power generation system has to be 100% safe? Because that isn't possible. There is inherent risks just in the act of generating power, the idea that you could make a risk-free system is impossible, its an engineering fantasy. Nuclear gives us more 'bang' (hehe) per buck, uses FAR less fuel than coal, and if the system is operating within specifications releases minimal radiation. Nuclear power won't progress because if its up to for-profit companies they'd never use it because its not CHEAP. Its fairly clean, EXTREMELY efficient, but its not cheap like coal or natural gas. Why do you think they are pushing so hard in the US for natural gas and coal? Because the fuel is so cheap and abundant. That's it. They don't care about 'how clean it is' or the fact that they are both fossil fuels.

Slashdot Top Deals

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...