Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



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

Comment Then do your homework? (Score -1) 87

I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but the things you're describing here sounds like one time costs - ie, the pollution created only occurs once, unlike fossil fuels which continue to produce the pollution.

Trump has not banned alternative energy but welcomed it. He repeatedly stated that he wants to unleash all forms of domestic energy, not just Coal. This will break the energy dependency we have had for.. 50 years or so and reduce energy costs in the US. The propagandists won't repeat that part of his policy statements or speeches though, because that does not fit the agenda.

It really helps to study _all_ sides of the debate.

As to the "one time costs" it's not quite so simple. Storing nuclear waste is extremely expensive and horrible for the environment without considering failures like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or 3 Mile Island. I find Nuclear to be the best option, but it's a massive investment to bring a plant up and work out the logistics of waste disposal.

Wind and Solar require huge amounts of land resources for roads and cabling. The large amount of cabling needed for them means higher maintenance costs. Making Cable requires huge amounts of heat, and a whole lot more pollution. Geothermal requires killing off rare ecosystems to trap the heat. Tidal plants requires destroying and interrupting large areas of the coast. Each of those has it's own unique maintenance challenges, and are very expensive to maintain as well but for different reasons.

Yes, petroleum has nasty gasses that hit the atmosphere. Is it worse than any others? Yes, but the amount of difference is not as big of a margin as people want you to believe.

Everything has a cost and every aspect of energy can be argued against and for.

Comment Re:I did (Score 1) 313

There is no social pressure taking women out of STEM degrees, women are free to make their own degree choices and do so. Just like men. Fact: Assessment tests for promising areas of study are not gender specific. Countless men are given the same results as women for the same reasons and choose their degree choices by those tests. Numerous men do not pursue STEM degrees for the same reasons as women.

So unless you wish to claim that somehow a number 2 pencil and piece of paper can be bigoted, stop repeating propaganda which is easily dismissed as irrational nonsense. If you are not smart enough to figure out that you are repeating propaganda, or the irrationality of paper and pencil being biased, consider drinking heavy amounts of Thorazine.

Comment Re:Wholly Delusion Batman! (Score 1) 278

Clinton's email server was perfectly legal.

False statement. It was not legal when she implemented it, and it was taken down and confiscated exactly because it was illegal. Her particular uses of it were similarly illegal. If you have doubts go work for the Government and send to your Gmail account some classified documents. The same can be said for her top aide Huma, who may soon be facing charges for sending copies of those emails to her personal Yahoo account. "It is easier to print" is not an excuse for breaking the law!

The FBI Director stated both of those facts (actions were criminal and illegal) but recommended not prosecuting. His reason for doing this was a claim that there was no proof of intent. Intent is not a defined statute of the Laws. Former Prosecutor and current Congressman Trey Gowdy refutes that position very well and you can read his Congressional statements (or listen to them on CSPAN tape or Youtube clips). Hillary may still face prosecution for both perjury and violation of federal law for the use of the email server. She has yet to be pardoned and has not been cleared of wrong doing. She has simply avoided facing criminal charges.

Facts, you should learn to use them.

Comment Re:or Common Sense and expected? (Score 1) 311

My comments on "Grants" are fact based, but perhaps a tiny bit of hyperbole. Tuition grants almost exclusively go to the bottom 99%. I could not find a case of a tuition grant going to someone someone wealthy. I mentioned the "tiny bit of hyperbole" here specifically because exceptions are quite possible. Me not being able to find a grant going to a wealthy kid indicates that they are rare, but not necessarily impossible.

My first post referenced Scholarships separately because those cover everything from athletics to academically gifted. The wealthy can, and do, receive scholarships. Their chances of obtaining a scholarship is reduced because most scholarship programs look at a persons means to pay their own way when considering applicants.

The only way you could end up at the 1/3rd number is by looking at something other than "Grants", which is probably why you failed to provide a source for your argument.

Comment or Common Sense and expected? (Score 2) 311

The top 1% own more mansions than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% own more Ferrari cars than the bottom 99% combined. The top 1% go to the most expensive schools. Did you also know that the bottom 99% get more grants for education than the top 1% by 100%? How about the amount of "free" tuition from scholarships going to mostly the lower 90%? More assistance programs exist for the bottom 30% than the top 70%.

There is no equality of opportunity at any level when discussing higher education. I don't want rich people to have "free" college any more than I want lower income people strapped with decades of debt for useless degrees. There is plenty of rational dialogue on making sure there is no discrimination and that College is actually useful and not just brainwashing. Those issues are not being discussed. Discrimination is simply assumed all the time regardless of any facts by way too many people.

Comment Huh? (Score 1) 147

I honestly don't remember a promise of no commercials from Cable, only certain channels one could receive from cable. Some of the available channels, like early HBO did say "commercial free" because you paid (and most likely still do) for the subscription. Subscription based TV is why people go to Netflix and watch Netflix owned shows. Just like I pay for CRTV and watch their shows. The "Free" Youtube content can have commercials, but if you subscribe you don't get them either.

Networks who continue to use commercials for funding are on the decline, but this is not new or shocking.

Comment Re:I did (Score 1) 313

A BLOG by a Politically motivated Person != FACTS Collected for analysis by the Department of Labor. It never ceases to amaze me how you left wing nut jobs fail to use facts in any argument and continually prop up opinions biased to your causes as "evidence." In fact you continually deny facts exist and have claimed facts are biased to gender and race.

FACT: MORE WOMEN THAN MEN ARE EARNING DEGREES! Are going to now claim "not enough STEM" indicating that you want to revoke a woman's choice in degree fields and force her into a STEM job instead of the degree of her choosing?

Comment I did (Score 4, Insightful) 313

The response is correct: "The complaint is politically motivated, based on false allegations, and wholly without merit."

Merit is the biggest modifier in people's pay, and has been for decades. Equal opportunity has been the law several decades now. More women graduate college than men, and have been superior in terms of years of education for quite some time now. The Gender pay gap has been debunked so often that I honestly question the sanity of people who continue to argue that it exists. US Department of Labor data shows that women make more than men with the same qualifications and work habits, not less.

Simple questions answer the issue easily. If women work for less than men, why does any company run by a man hire a man? I'm really tired of this leftist religion being crammed down everyone's throats. Yes, it has become a religion.

Comment Wholly Delusion Batman! (Score 4, Insightful) 278

Anyone who watched the process KNEW full well that there was massive collusion by the DNC and Media to INSTALL Hillary as the candidate. In the first election, she won 6 straight coin tosses to take Iowa. That was day 1. So did Russia fix all of the coin tosses, card flips, and dice rolls of which Hillary won 100% of the "tie breakers"?

Good grief, I honestly wonder how much medication some of the people spreading these conspiracies are missing. I personally really enjoy researching conspiracies, which has led to me personally debunking most of them. What people are claiming over this last election cycle fails the most basic of scrutiny. Russia did not make Hillary attack women who accused William J of rape. The Russians did not make Hillary setup an illegal server. The Russians did not make her spread the lie that a crappy Youtube video caused 4 Americans to die. The Russians did not make her give 2-4 Hundred thousand dollar speeches where she said foolish things about erasing borders. The Russians did not make Hillary praise Sanger and Byrd. Those are things off the top of my head which have been public information for a very long time, all reported by sources OTHER THAN RT.

The Democrats ran a worse candidate than the Republicans. That is why Hillary lost! Not some baseless allegations. Good grief, think about the allegation. "Trump hates Obama so much that he paid hookers to piss on the bed that the Obama's slept in."

Slashdot Top Deals

According to all the latest reports, there was no truth in any of the earlier reports.

Working...