Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

Comment Re:Surprising display of ignorance... (Score 1) 296

I'm surprised that Utah isn't in on this. I suspect that they are waiting to file an even more frivolous and doomed lawsuit after this one is defeated.

Hey, give my home state some credit - it seems Idaho only makes the news when our citizens or government does something stupid. Gov "ignorant fucking hillbilly" Otter and AG Wasden $800k of taxpayer funds fighting same-sex marriage when AGs in most other states said, "That's a losing case, we're not pursuing it."

Comment Re:Simple answer (Score 2) 491

>> It's unfit for the purpose
> There is nowhere in the US that has that concept.

Sure there is, embodied as UCC 2-314 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-314]: courts may imply a Warranty of merchantability when (1) the seller is the merchant of such goods, and (2) the buyer uses the goods for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are sold. Thus, a buyer can sue a seller for breaching the implied warranty by selling goods unfit for their ordinary purpose.

There is also UCC 2-315, fitness for particular purpose [https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-315]:

> Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.

By being part of the Uniform Commercial Code, it is a nearly universally accepted law across the United States.

The UCC is mostly a codification of a much longer standing bit of law with similar aims and construct, the implied warranty of fitness for purpose, that iirc as part of the common law predates the sovereignty of the United States.

Comment Re:uranium runs out (Score 2) 320

Good catch. Thorium can't be used to produce weaponizable plutonium. My recollection is:

P-239 is weapons-grade plutonium.

U-238 is weapons-grade uranium.

P-238 is an alpha emitter, degrading to U-234(5?) (i.e. it skips U-238).

Thorium produces P-238 (and not P-239/U-238), so it is not useful for nuclear fission weapons.

In any case, I recall back in the debate about uranium or thorium reactors, DoD refused to produce Thorium precisely because they cannot be used to produce nuclear weapons.

Comment Re:uranium runs out (Score 1) 320

> Not to mention thorium. My CRC Handbook says that the available energy in the earth's crust from thorium is greater than uranium and all fossil fuels put together; thorium is about as common as lead.

The problem appears to be that you can't make plutonium from thorium.

And plutonium is the military industrial's buy in.

Otherwise it's just relatively inexpensive, safe energy. Clearly nobody actually wants that.

On point, the explosion in question was waste from nuclear weapons production.

Comment Re:Reminds me of a crazy, hot girlfriend (Score 1) 320

> Nuclear energy is the crazy hot girlfriend of energy. She may be nice, kind, and wonderful for days, months, or years - maybe decades. But someday, somehow, she's going to go berserk on you. 100% chance. And cleaning up the mess at that point will leave you with a very long term scar.

Coal is the dysfunctional fat chick that'll take anyone for a ride, but eventually comes knocking on your door pregnant and tagging along a few babies, named Katrina, Sandy, Ike, .... Keep banging coal and whatever life you had before will end up being over.

Slashdot Top Deals

Serving coffee on aircraft causes turbulence.

Working...