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


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:Side effect of the Fake news in MSM (Score 1) 257

Government is way too incompetent to pull any of these crazy scenarios off....

Especially while keeping it quiet.

Look at the big government scandals of the last few decades, how many people were involved and how they were outed. Then line them up against common conspiracy theories and look at how many people would have to have been involved in them and how perfectly they would have to be executed and how many people would have to be kept quiet. Any rational analysis will quickly conclude that a government that couldn't keep a blow job in the oval office secret, or a hotel room wiretap, or low-key, small-scale sale of arms to Iraq, or prisoner abuse in a prison on the other side of the world, could never manage what the conspiracy theorists claim.

And, actually, this isn't even evidence of incompetence. Keeping secrets is really hard, and it's darned near impossible when the secrets carry moral baggage that encourages disclosure. Someone eventually outs it. Attempts to bully or eliminate possible leakers to keep them quiet just generates even more secrets with even more moral baggage. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il can probably suppress information he wants suppressed. Most of the time. In the US? No way.

Comment Re:"Green" technologies aren't sufficient. (Score 1) 211

The nuclear field's safety record is stellar, at least in the USA, so honestly that's a non-issue, but clean and safe nuclear power has never been cost effective. The controls required to meet current American safety standards are prohibitively expensive

And it was stellar before the regulations were ratcheted up, causing the cost to quadruple.

The reason that nuclear is prohibitively expensive is that we've pushed the safety standards far, far beyond what any rational analysis would require. We could reduce them dramatically and still have the safest power generation technology mankind has ever produced.

In a nutshell, I gave up on nuclear power after investing a decade of my life in it because it's a solution in search of a problem.

Nonsense. There's a very clear problem: clean, safe, cheap, large-scale power generation. Regulations have killed the "cheap" part, in order to add a few more nines to an already-outstanding safety record. Worse, they've so badly damaged the industry that newer designs that are inherently cheaper and safer can't even get off the ground because everyone is afraid to invest in them because of what the NRC might think of to hamstring those as well.


Luckily, it looks like renewables are progressing and might someday be able to replace fossil fuels with clean energy. It'll take a lot longer and be a lot more expensive than nuclear, though. Our insane nuclear power regulations are going to make global warming significantly worse and the economic impact of managing it much greater.

Comment Re:Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score 1) 607

The EU is democratic, so your entire argument is nonsense. For someone who complains about the EU so much you seem to really not understand it. I'd probably have voted to leave too if I also assumed this dystopian view of the EU was true. As it is, a cursory glance over the EU's functioning shows you've been mislead.

Hell, the EU is arguably more democratic than the UK as Westminster uses FPTP as opposed to a more sane system. That's why UKIP had better representation in the EU than in Westminster - how can that be if the EU is not democratic?

Comment Re:Tradeoffs (Score 1) 607

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the sort of nebulous, incorrect argument that convinced many people to vote leave. It is factually incorrect from top to bottom, and relies on bottomless optimism for any positive outcomes. Oh, and complains about the Germans for doing what Britain could have but refused to. Top marks.

Comment Re:The law has changed since 1934 (ie 1996) (Score 1) 302

I think the problem that chairman Wheeler was trying to solve was states that attempted to block all provision of broadband service under the universal service rules. I'm still trying to figure out why a state would ever deny an internet provider permission to be a lifeline provider. It can't be a profit-maker for those internet providers. It can't be that there aren't poor people who need service in the provider's area, or there would be no lifeline business. It can only be that the state did not wish for there to be broadband at all under the universal lifeline rules.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 302

Without electoral weighting, lots of people who don't bother to vote now because it is pointless (like in my state) would be up at the crack of dawn, in line at the polling places, waiting their turn to cancel out the votes of bicoastal pricks or flyover hicks.

You can't really have it both ways. Without the electoral college, the popular majority would be the list of counties here and we know how those counties voted. This would not have biased the election further in Trump's favor.

Comment Re:You may not like this (Score 2) 302

No, the founders who raped their slaves were not Democrats. The founders had a "Democratic-Republican" party, which is also referred to as "Jeffersonian Republicans" or "The First Republican Party" and isn't the Democratic party, and the other party at the time was the Federalist party.

Each of the amendments started out with the decision that the intent of the founders wasn't going to matter any longer. Any future amendment must do so as well.

Democrats fought to keep slavery, and they fought to prevent women from voting.

Well, that's really bad. But the Democrats wisely decided to stop doing those things. In the years that the Democrats cut their ties with the segregationist portion of Southern voters, spanning from the Goldwater to the Nixon campaigns, the Republicans took them up. So we're now in the position that the Republicans are the political heirs of the 1964 Democrats. So having taken over the bad stuff the Democrats used to do, you are not in a good position to revile us for our past sins.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 2) 302

We have no idea what would have happened if the election had been done by different rules.

Actually, we do. We counted the votes, and not just the Electoral College votes, but the votes in every district across the entire country.

If you are trying to say that people would have voted differently if the rules for counting votes were different, that might have been true if the rules gave the people a different way to actually influence the vote, for example the Condorcet method or its variants that are commonly called "ranked choice" or "instant run-off".

But you seem to be saying that the popular vote would have been substantially different if there was no electoral college. Which is difficult to buy given the polarity of this election. There wasn't much middle ground.

Comment Re:Background and the real issue (Score 1) 302

If you'd like to crow about the achievements of the Republican party, be sure to include this one: The decision in Rowe v. Wade was written by a Republican, Harry Blackmun, appointed by Nixon. He was seated on a Republican panel with appointees going back to Roosevelt who all agreed with him, with the exception of Rhenquist. The two Democrats seated nullified each other.

One could rightfully wonder why the Republican party ever turned from that decision.

What radicalized the Republican party? I think the Southern Strategy was the start. Having been so radicalized, what even gives them the right to call themselves "The party of Lincoln" any longer?

Comment Re:Give the conspiracy stuff a rest (Score 1) 302

I think you can go on to the article without arguing with me about the summary. The issue at hand is that 12 states challenged FCC because those states did not approve a set of companies to be lifeline broadband providers, and then FCC went ahead and approved them. Unlike Chairman Pal, I believe this is indeed a Federal responsibility due to the Postal Clause of the Constitution and the Communications Act of 1934.

I am at the moment lacking information regarding what other internet providers those states approved, whether they approved any at all, and what the grounds for not approving a company to provide lifeline service (which can't be a profit-maker) could be except to deny access to the potential customers. In other words, I'm really suspicious of the states in question.

Slashdot Top Deals

You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).