Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



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

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 2) 247

Painfully ignorant. Do you understand that nuclear power works in exactly the same as coal except instead of trucking in tons of coal you simply put a pile of fissile material under the water and let it sit there for a very long time before you need to refuel ? The only expense is the initial refining of the U235 but after that you can breed more fuel.

Beyond these relatively small fixed costs, nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need. One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying. But it is completely wrong to argue that nuclear is intrinsically more expensive than paying to dig up and cart around thousands and thousands and thousands of tons of coal.

Hold on a second "nearly every single dollar that nuclear costs more than coal is due to increased safety regulations. Some of those regulations we obviously need." yes we do. Do you care to identify the safety regulations that you think we do not need that is adding to the cost of nuke?

Also: "One of those safety concerns (namely, security and proliferation concerns) is actually quite worrying." -- yes, I agree that is the major concern for me. Breeder reactors are generally frowned upon because of their refinement proliferation potential and our direct allies have also shutdown their breeder programs. The only states still operating them are proliferation states. The additional downside to breeder reactors is the increased nuclear waste and higher potential for radiation exposure. These are not marginal concerns, these are quite frankly life altering and life ending concerns.

My reasons for opposing nuclear power is not because of the science (I understand the science) my concern is I do not trust corporations to operate in the common good. Davis-Besse which is not far from where I live is one of the major concerns I have. You state that increased safety regulations have increased the cost of nuclear power, yes it has, but the operational negligence of operators over the years have required increased safety requirements and Davis-Besse is a prime example of a major lapse in safety culture.

Other than the safety issues reactor design has come along way since the old 1950->1980's era reactors (for those that disagree ask the US Navy) and modern designs are a lot safer and more reliable. The sticking point is the safety culture surrounding them.

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 2) 247

Let's just make the market fair by imposing similar restrictions on coal, petroleum and gas. Coal is a radioactive substance too.

Yes you are correct, but the potential of a nuclear plant releasing highly concentrated deadly amounts of radiation in to the atmosphere in quick succession is higher than that of coal. While I agree coal has a lasting effect on the environment and human health and can lead to chronic health issues, acute radiation poisoning in the short can lead to death and in the long, lead to increased cancer risks and other related health issues.

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 436

One additional item; my post was also directed at the unqualified to own a firearm... I was buying a .308 bolt action last year and a head of me was a lady buying what looked like a .38 special. She had zero clue how to hold it safely, was handed a firearm and just assumed it was not loaded and did not know the difference between target and defense rounds.That scares me. I understand her right to defend herself, but I do not understand her right to use a weapon she could kill my wife, child, family member, friends or even myself with because she doesn't want to spend a hundred or so hours at a range learning how to be effective?

How do I know she was going to go to the range? Because when the clerk looked at me and saw my facial expressions he asked and I quote: "Ma'am, do you plan to head to range to learn how to safely use it?" her response, "Inaaah.... do not have time for that."

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 436

Whaddup, fellow liberal gunny?

The issue isn't 'gun violence,' the issue is 'violence.' Somebody wants to massacre a room full of whoever, they're going to massacre a room full of whoever, guns or no guns. Chainsaw, propane tank, backpack full of molotovs (mix in egg whites in the right proportion for simple napalm,) cube van, diesel/fertilizer bomb, baseball bat, whatever.

Whaddup back at'ya! :)

True. But out of everything you just said a firearm is the most effective and quite frankly easiest by a magnitude to get a high body count for your average joe. Shoot, I've lost count the times I've made napalm and thermite as a kid, but by far a gun was easier. But you are 100% right the issue is violence, guns are the easiest form to commit it.

Unfortunately there is the side of me that goes: Okay, we prevent individual x from getting a gun.,.. when does he come back with diesel and fertilizer as an alternative to get the job done? Are we forcing these people to more extreme measures?

Comment Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score 1) 382

So you're trying mighty hard to ignore the repeated questions (about Clinton's statements) put to the director, asking if her statements were true. His repeated answers: "That was untrue."

Again you claimed the director she said she lied:

"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."

Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.

Clinton asserting that Comey said her public statements were true may have been a stretch by Clinton, but his lack of damnation and making the comment he is not qualified to comment on them is not affirmation she lied.

Truth does not require trying hard...

Comment Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score 1) 382

Funny thing about that, the whole birther controversy was started by the Clinton campaign in 2008, when she was running against Obama for the presidential nomination. I guess that means her credibility is even worse than the right-wing's, right?

Funny thing is that it was NOT. There were a lot of questions thrown around by both the left and the right; most of the questions were whether he was a Muslim or not (who cares anyway) and a few Clinton supporters and surrogates repeated anonymous emails asking, "Is he an American?" in a desperate attempt to keep her campaign afloat, but it was dropped by these individuals pretty quickly. Cue the right (who already were involved) running with it, in fact foaming at the mouth with it.

Now if we step back to 2004, Andy Martin accused Barack Obama of being a complete fraud and who had lied about his heritage" in his memoir. So this was the actual start of accusations Barack Obama was lying. Cue 1st Obama presidential cycle when a post on freerepublic.com commented on him being sworn in on the Koran for his senate seat and not being naturally born and it took off from there where Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant and Trump etc all foaming at the mouth and screaming he was not naturally born.

Comment Re:Give some protection to Combetta (Score 1) 382

I know, how about we let the FBI director explain to you that she lied repeatedly about her efforts to avoid public scrutiny of her public records and her casual mis-handling of extremely sensitive classified material? She's on the record lying about it from the day the coverage of that mess started, and she's still doing it today - though she's learned to spend eight months at a time without a single press conference in order to avoid digging that hole any deeper.

Comey Let's quote him shall we?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked Comey at the July 7 congressional hearing, "Did she lie to the public?"
Comey responded, "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer."

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said in a July 5 statement.

Comey also said that there were some emails that were insufficiently marked and there were no basis to conclude that Clinton lied to the FBI about her email practices.

So here are the issues:

1) Did Clinton lie to the public? If so why? Was it to cover it up, or was there material and reasons that we as the public and not security authorized to know and she took the best approach she could? BTW YOU and I are not qualified to answer that beyond offering an opinion (and they are like assholes...).

The ONLY thing we can go on here is the integrity of the FBI Director and the Justice Department; the fact they are NOT intending to press criminal charges implies a) they are corrupt (again, please prove it) b) or the wrong doing was not sufficient enough to constitute criminal negligence or intent.

2) Now the remaining issues of her operating a private email server stem back many administrations as Colin Powell has provided a glance in to himself. Also, the Bush administration would routinely use an RNC email server for correspondence and have committed massive intentional email purges. All of which has NEVER came under any congressional scrutiny like Hillary Clinton's has.

Why is it that we have a culture in our government that thinks they can do whatever they want? Why is it we have a culture in our government that think they can spend our tax dollars targeting one person for their parties gain? If you think Trump will be any different you are totally wrong. He has shown zero transparency AT ALL during his campaign (worse than Clinton, which quite frankly is shocking) and his distinct lack of answering any questions directly or producing any solid and concrete details in his "policies" is just dumbfounding.

This entire situation is a freaking mess and anyone that thinks it comes down to one person (Hillary) is quite frankly so stupid they need their internet access revoked. If the right actually wanted to help the country, they would not have been focusing solely on Clinton during Benghazi or this email situation they would have broadened the scope of the inquiry to include decades of Embassy security issues (including deaths) and decades of operating informational sources outside of government control and oversight, and the amount if information security breaches of existing government systems, instead, it is all about stopping Hillary Clinton... great...

Comment Re:Asinine. (Score 1) 436

Predicted response: "Won't someone think of the children! Guns kill people, encryption doesn't!"

Alas when it comes to proponents of gun control, you don't often encounter honest or thoughtful people. They have a single goal in mind and ignore all of the existing regulation on the books today.

Hi, I am Tesen and I am a thoughtful person. I am all for gun control, but not targeted at guns, but people. The amount of accidental shootings in our country is incredible (including accidental discharge by adults and children with access to unsecured firearms). In Ohio, unless you are going for concealed carry the only "regulation" that is required is if you want to hunt, but you can attest that you have undergone a hunter safety class before (I attested, since I went through two as a child and young adult but no longer had paper proof that I did). The concealed carry classes are quite frankly pathetic.

All my progressive and liberal friends (I am progressive) do not want to ban guns (though we often wonder why people want tactical / military looking weaponry, whatever though, their choice) but we would like more training before a person is able to take a firearm home. Unfortunately there are far to many individuals that lack common sense, so in order for them to be safe, they need extensive training. Yes I know, it does punish those of us that are well trained and safe, but this could be a new law, that first time gun buyers must complete a training course and gun range safety / exercises or prove that they have. As time progresses training and safety improves.

To me my gun's are like my chainsaw, my SUV etc... all tools that have a correct and a "wrong and dangerous" way to be used.

To be honest I am getting sick of people claiming those of us that want some kind of firearms control are unthoughtful; I hunt and will NEVER give up my firearms, but that does not mean we can;t improve safety, improve background checks etc.

Comment Re: Makes sense to me! (Score 1) 210

Perhaps I'm a special snowflake, but I also don't discuss my workouts or diet etc. with anybody, except for cases like this. Heck, each device brand gives different estimations on calories burned. My fitbit shows an extra 300 calories a day burned versus the same time last year for the same routine. Software updates.

I wouldn't say a false sense of accomplishment but poor accuracy /bad math can cause poor results.

Exactly. I used the app "Lose It" to drop huge amounts of weight several years ago to track calorie/carb count and with reasonable exercise; due to meds and health reasons I have put on weight again and are back at the point to lose it. If I compare Fitbit vs. Lose It calorie estimates on food, waaaay different. I am about to switch back to Lose It, but then I lose the combined steps, heart rate and calorie intake in one place... which sucks.

I also use http://nutritiondata.self.com/ a lot last time to help plan meals in advance etc; instead of putting random ingredients I think I know stats about in my food, I plan my meals around using that site last time for nutrient tracking (understand it is just a guide).

Comment Re: Let me see if I understand (Score 2) 83

Employment contracts are between employer and employee but have you heard of tortious interference?

The real problem is the non compete is not enforceable in California. Hopefully it is dispensed with by the judge quickly.

FOX will need to actually prove they suffered harm and loss; maybe I misunderstand tortious interference, but it was my impression that as long as Netflix was not aware of the provisions of the former executives contracts (which they can claim and FOX will need to prove otherwise) they acted in good faith to extend a job offer to two executives in a state where non-compete's are invalid (i.e. tough to prove they suffered harm and loss).

My opinion is this will come down to an employment dispute between FOX and its former employees, most likely over stock options, bonuses etc and whatever other incentives they had in their contracts and that Netflix may pay a penalty during their next streaming rights negotiations with FOX :)

Comment Re:Let me see if I understand (Score 1) 83

There is a concept that is alive and well in contract law called "Torturous Interference" - if Netflix did indeed incite these execs to breach their contracts, they have a case to answer.

It is my understanding that FOX would be required to prove that Netflix has caused FOX to suffer great and irreparable harm by hiring its executives in an attempt to undermine its business and in additional aware of the contractual relationship between the two and still carried with intent to incite the former employees to breach their contract, but since the non-compete is not enforceable in California where are the violated provisions in the contract that are the responsibility of Netflix? If anything this is a labor dispute between FOX and its former employees, one that will most likely come down to vested options in stock, bonuses etc with their former employer.

Slashdot Top Deals

FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis

Working...