Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


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

Comment Whoosh (Score 1) 93

Passive monitoring isn't 'getting involved'.

That is the "understanding your community part", second section.

The first part is using Twitter to reach out to people, which IS getting involved. That is true of my own local police department.

Where do you guys even come from with this logic?

It's called "reading comprehension", you should try it sometime. Maybe if someone diagrammed out the single sentence for you?

Comment Re:Good luck, Europe (and China) (Score 1) 233

"Because not one near-worthless American dime will be spent on alternative energy research in now Big Oil America. I also fully expect any and all solar / wind subsidies to be eliminated (hell, they'll probably be levied a Big Oil Butt-Hurt tax to compensate for the Oil Patch's hard times)."
Taking Hillary's loss rather hard, aren't you?

Have you bothered to check out how many GW of solar power generating stations have been and are being built? Check out Wikipedia, it has a nice article about the topic:
Notice that the graphs projecting future trends for Solar power in the US have a hockey stick shape. You know what that means ... it's gone exponential, and the data behind those graphs have not been tampered with, fudged or cherry-picked. Also, note that the countries with the dirtiest air are those controlled by tyrants a/o Marxists. Why should Americans have to pay a Carbon Tax so China can continue to massively pollute the skies of our Planet with impunity?

Comment Pie in the sky promises ... (Score 1) 233

Ive been seeing propaganda like this for both fission and fusion reactors for the last 60 years, and I'm 75. It started with "Nuclear energy will be so cheap it won't be metered". No mention of the radioactive waste storage problem, which was passed along to future generations and now is a HUGE problem. Then came the fusion reactor promises: "Within 25 years .... ". They were trotted out every five years, along about funding time. This one is no different, except its lies are about its promise to be free of nuclear waste. High temperature plasma can produce high energy Neutrons which make metal brittle, leading to failures. They also strike other atoms, knocking out other Neutrons and Protons, creating radioactive elements. Some of the high energy Neutrons are slowed down, becoming Thermal Neutrons, which allow them to be captured by some atoms, making the atoms radioactive. Of course, the projected per KW costs for consumer electricity never include the processing and storage of radioactive waste products. IF they were honest about that consumers would not opt for nuclear power because it would be too expensive.

Comment Re: Not gonna happen (Score 1) 233

His point is that there aren't really any oil companies left anymore. Most of the 'big oil' companies are now fairly diversified energy companies. Fusion would be great for them, because it has very large capital costs, but huge return on investment, meaning that only companies with experience in power systems and a lot of spare capital will be in a good place to be first movers. They wouldn't want to kill this, they'd want to own it and be the first to provide electricity in the kinds of quantities promised by fusion.

Comment Re:Reads Like An Ad (Score 4, Insightful) 233

I'm in my 50s, and I've been hearing that practical fusion generators were only 10-15 years off since I was a little nerdling

There was an article a few years back that put these in perspective. They pointed out that N years in the future really means $M dollars more spending in the future and that these predictions have been quite consistent: if we'd kept funding at the anticipated rate in the '60s, we might have working fusion already.

Comment Re:Hillary Lost Because of Her (Score 1) 459

There's a bunch of us in those (and other states) that don't buy into being extorted by corporations, the acceptance of hate crimes against minorities, the total destruction of our natural resources, and endless wars that accomplish nothing.

And yet you passed over Bernie Sanders for a bellicose corporate whore who was pro-torture, pro-war and who spent a good deal of her campaign assuring Wall Street that she would be friendly towards them if they would donate to her campaign. Great choice!

Comment Re:Hacking review !== Election results review (Score 1) 459

Really? Trump was claiming election rigging for months, and Bernie's failure proved it in the Dem nomination race, because of Clinton's "super delegates". Clinton and her sock puppets in the media and entertainment were so sure that she would win they denied any meaningful rigging existed. Hillary said that refusing to accept the election results was "horrifying", and "un-democratic and un-American". Refusing to accepts the results now is not those things, especially since she only collected 232 electoral college votes? She'd need to steal 68 votes from Trump to reverse the election, an impossibility.

It was only AFTER they lost that they started making claims about hacking and the ridiculous claim of Russian interference, and about "fake news sites". Before he won they were laughing at him and mocking him:

The Democrats revealed a 2005 audio tape about Trump and pussy grabbing. Here is a 2006 audio of Hillary proposing election rigging:
And this is to say nothing of her claims to have landed in Bosnia "under fire", or that the Benghazi debacle was caused by a YouTube video, that she was related to Sir Edmond Hillary ... the absurd lies go on and on. and that doesn't cover the lies she told this year!
The fake news sites are the ones that repeated Hillary's lies without bothering to verify her statements before publishing them.

Jill Stein, candidate that drew less than 1% of the popular vote, has no standing to demand a recount in any state.
Then she raises $6M to fight the results? According to Hillary she's horrifying, un-democratic and un-American for refusing to accept the results of the election. Clinton won Nevada by less than 27K votes, Colorado by less than 75K votes, Minnesota, by less than 44K votes and in New Hampshire Hillary Clinton won by less than 3,000 votes. If she is interested in merely "verifying" the results why doesn't she want a recount in those states as well?

The facts are that Clinton would need 68 electoral votes to switch the results of election night. That big a shift has never happened and would never happen, not even this time. The Left's real purpose is to either corrupt the Electoral College with intimidation and death threats, or throw the election into the House by making it impossible for the Electoral College to function on December 19th, and you know it.. They still wouldn't win because the House is now controlled by the Republicans, but then the "Progressives" will claim that Trump stole the election and create chaos in the country, even worse than their Media Matters puppets have orchestrated with the SJWs and BLM since the election.

Comment He could save himself a lot of time by ... (Score 1) 459

Watching Veritas' videos exposing campaign disruptions and voter corruption in the Democrat Party and the shenanigans the Republicans pulled trying to defeat Trump as well.
No matter how much editing Snopes claims O'Keefe has done, the entirety of all videos are available for examination AND there is no denying that the Democrat operatives said what they said and no reason to disbelieve that they did what they said they did.

Comment Who? What? Why? (Score 0) 93

What do the founders of Black Lives Matter: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi have in common?
They are members of the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, avowed Marxists.
That's why Twitter cut the API access. They don't want law enforcement to track the activities of subversives trying to destroy our Republic, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution on which it is based.

Comment DHS Weaponized? (Score 3, Interesting) 129

The last two administrations have weaponized a lot of Federal agencies against the American people, violating the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 8th and other Amendments of the Bill of Rights, and their oath of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States".

Were they trying to break into the election computers and change the counts?

Comment That's the best reason to buy bitcoin (Score 1) 70

I don't know who wants this stuff other than the criminals

But that's exactly the point; buying BitCoin is a lot like being able to buy into a mutual fund solely dedicated to criminal profits!

It's the ultimate hedge, the worse off society gets the more rewarding crime (and therefore your Bitcoin) becomes!

Slashdot Top Deals

You will be successful in your work.