Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


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

Comment Re:Renewables will never work (Score 1) 287

Of course - you aren't counting the millions of people NOT getting serious respiratory diseases from coal (which kills at every step of production - indeed it is the deadliest form of energy by a huge margin and has by far the highest rate of death for people not directly involved anywhere in the production chain) which you no longer have to pay for.
Considering that Canada has single payer healthcare - EVERYBODY who does NOT get sick from coal is money in YOUR pocket.

But sure, let's keep coal going, we'll just make the market far - that doesn't just mean gettting rid of all subsidies - it means the costs they've been outsourcing onto the rest of society, they have to pay - and charge their customers. So you have to have a ZERO emision plant, and you'll just have to pay for those scrubbers and (for disposing of the used filters in a sustainable manner) by charging more. It means ZERO coal dust mining operations - we don't even HAVE the tech for that so they'll have to invest in some serious R&D - which they'll be charging back to customers. Most people suggest dealing with this stuff by taxing them- but this is a more efficient way and nobody gets to argue the tax is out of line with the actual cost of the impact (either too low or too high) and there is zero risk that the tax will end up being lost to corrupt politicians or anything BUT cleaning up the mess. So, I favour just forcing them not to outsource their costs. Which is against every principle of a free market anyway as it forces people to bear the costs of a transaction they are not party to and have not consented to.

Now sure, we'll also let solar and wind and hydro pay for whatever costs they impose, by forcing them NOT to impose those costs.

You may find that coal power will cost a shitload more than those - because it's harm factors are so incredibly high.

But unless THAT Is what you're comparing, you are not comparing apples to apples and your argument is bullshit intended to push your personal ideology and not based on any real facts or economics.

Coal ALWAYS costs MUCH more than any other power source - its just that most of the money you spend on it you don't KNOW you're spending on it. Con artistry is not savings.

Comment Re:Renewables will never work (Score 1) 287

After eating curry my pants can be fartless for several minutes at a time.

Germany is a seriously tiny country. Yes, yes I know it looks big on the map- that's the mercator projection for you, Iceland looks bigger than France on that same map and the actual place can down in Lake Michigan. So can Germany by the way.

Comment Re:Subsidies (Score 1) 287

>Except the Iraq War did NOT make the transport of oil more secure, and did NOT lower the "true cost" of oil in anyway. It did the exact opposite.
Failing at the goal doesn't mean you subsequently get to pretend that wasn't the goal. Just because the execution was terrible doesn't mean the plan wasn't bad as well.

Comment Re:Subsidies (Score 1) 287

>Colonialism involves colonies, where the inhabitants of the area in question are citizens of the mother country.

So according to your bizarre and unique (made up) definition - the Dutch colonies (which once spanned half the globe) were not colonies then. Since nobody in them were citizens of the mother country, the best you could hope for was 'employee of the corporation' - but most were simply 'slaves' or 'natives to be shoved aside'.

In fact, hardly any colonial power EVER granted citizens to the people of the colonies - that would mean you have to give those people RIGHTS and no colonial government wanted to do that. Citizens of the motherland who went to live in the colonies usually retained their citizenship - but the people being taken over never gained it.
In the aftermath of colonialism a lot of colonial powers gave a path to citizenship for their former non-citizen subjects - which usually only consisted of some rules to make emigrating to the land that once ruled you a little easier than it is for other people. The levels of that vary greatly even within a single colonial power. For example citizens of former British colonies can get automatic citizenship in Britain - but not ALL former colonies. It does not apply to South Africans for example.

Comment Re:Subsidies (Score 1) 287

> The price of oil skyrocketed when war broke out in 2003, and remained high for more than a decade.
That was pretty good for the oil companies.

You're assuming there are only one kind of subsidy. Subsidies can be tailored to reduce the price you pay for a product - or just to give money to those who produce it so they keep doing so. Just because it wasn't the former kind, doesn't mean it wasn't the latter kind.

Farm subsidies fit almost entirely in the latter category as well - they actually make food more expensive world-wide because farm subsidies in Europe and America make it impossible for farmers in other countries (which have more suitable climates) to actually compete despite their cost of production being lower. That actually means that, eventually those unsubsidized farmer start going out of business - forcing their countries to become food importers rather than exporters, which raises prices even in the countries that used to supply their own food with exports to spare. Nobody wins.

In fact- farm subsidies are so bad that, every year, farmers in Europe and America burn crops because the subsidies are contingent on keeping supply below a certain level - they burn so much produce every year that just the food burned could feed every hungry person on the planet. Nobody in the world needs to be hungry- we produce enough food to feed everybody on earth twice over but we burn so much that huge numbers of people still starve and a massive percentage of the global population have no food security - they may get enough food over time to survive but they never know if they will eat today.

Subsidies don't always bring prices down - many are DESIGNED to keep prices high. Some oil subsidies are in that category as well.

Comment Re: Founders / Hamiltonians (Score 1) 90

Hamilton and Madison however both also believed government should be as big as it can be, and democracy with it (which may have been an early stab at arguing for universal suffrage). Madison wrote in the federalist papers that making democracy and government as big as possible was a crucial vanguard against corruption (the exact opposite of what libertarians think) - because big organisations get filled with competing interests, and the more competing interests there is the harder corruption becomes - there is always somebody who will personally benefit or be able to advance the interests of his group by ratting you out.

The US government - even at it's barebones just-the-congress-and-white-house is already one of the largest on earth, and that's how it was STARTED. Two houses of congress, each with hundreds of members - the average parliament has half as many members as the house of representatives, and even in countries with two (common) that's still typically half the number of lawmakers. You appoint several representatives per state - two senators for example, while most countries get one representative per represented area (which, granted, is usually smaller regions - typically covering a city or such). Then there is the state governments below that, which are significantly larger and more powerful than the average provincial government - and the metro-level governments below that: ditto.

Same with welfare - having a welfare system has been part of the US since it's foundation - indeed it was one of the requirements for statehood, before a territory could become a state it would have to have a welfare system implemented. Andrew Jackson refused to sign Brigham Young's appeal to grant statehood to Utah until Utah had a welfare system that extended beyond the membership of the mormon church (and was not run by said church).

And frankly - they were right. The most corrupt governments in the world - are also the smallest and provide the least services, with the least number of government employees. The most corrupt government of all is the dictatorship - which ultimately shrinks the all the powers of government into a single person. The most successful nations on earth, with the highest standards of living and the lowest levels of corruption are also the nations where the governments are the largest, the markets the most heavily regulated and the government-services cover essential public needs the widest.
In a small government like in the D.R.C. you can get a sitting president refusing to step down as he approaches a term limit - and the government unable to budge him leading to violent clashes in the streets as the citizens try to do the government's job for them (and come up against the loyalist parts of that government and it's military apparatus - so much for the gun-nuts assertion that in a revolution the soldiers would side with the people, the world is full of revolutions and that NEVER happens) - clashes which have killed tens of thousands in the last few months.
Now imagine if Obama tried to pull that stunt? Not that he is likely to - I think he can't wait to get the fuck out of that house - but just imagine if he did. The republicans would be in uproar and they would remove him from the white house, by force, if needed - and they military would not obey him because there are enough republicans in the senior command of the pentagon. It would take seriously weird circumstances to even get to a civil war, in reality no president would try because the odds of success is just too low - the government organs set up to provide oversight over him are just too large and powerful to try and resist.

That is whats good about a big government - but one constrained by a constitution that strictly limits what they may apply their sides and power to. Competing interests - so that if anybody tries to abuse their position too much, there will be somebody else who can score big by busting their ass.

Of course, what Madison could not have predicted was a world where a wealthy elite could buy nearly all the politicians on BOTH sides... and turn their competition into loud but meaningless squables that are never about anything substantive. The working parts of the plan is the competing interests of entire branches of government with each other, but there is no more competition WITHIN the branches - that's a bad thing, and why the next ammendment really ought to make election campaigns publicly financed and outright prohibit all donations. Just take the money out of politics. Sure it is censorship - but this is actually one of those rare cases where that's a good thing, because what you're censoring is corruption. It isn't a contribution to the democratic process - it's an undermining there-off.

Comment Re:fun fact (Score 1) 69

Awww how cute, a conservative idiot who can't tell the difference between a cleverly poetic way of calling him an idiot and 'namedropping'.

If you spread bullshit theories that are supported by your ideology but disputed by the actual facts - you must be a conservative. Whether it's creationism, climate-change-denial, tax cuts for the rich, the relationship between gun-laws and mass shootings, the impact of race on police shootings, what REALLY happens when you deregulate things, how to get the best healthcare outcomes for the lowest investment, which race is most likely to kill each other (hint: it's white people, white-on-white murder outstrips all other races by a huge margin), what things actually cost (so they want to cut or avoid things for having a high price despite those things having a NEGATIVE cost [the ROI is higher than the price] and they end up actually cutting revenues when they attempt to cut costs - as with UBI and single payer healthcare), or how a company that is successfully doing something the company's they like told them can't be one is actually making it's money... if you do all that, you must be a conservative.

Which is not to say that there aren't bullshitters and idiots on the left - Jill Stein sadly has gone full retard this year for example, but at least there it's a fringe group - not the fucking party platform !

Comment Re:AIDS in the 1970s (Score 1) 170

There were doctors who said this - but they had no confirmed diagnosis from before that time (since the disease didn't official get recognised) and after-the-fact diagnosis is not very hard evidence. The 'patient zero' theory was considered stronger on the evidence then available, and fitted with the a lot of people's preconceived biasses (that gays are too blame) which gave it staying power.
The article speaks of 'widespread theories' - where do you think those came from ? From all the doctors who were saying "We had patients with all the symptoms of AIDS in 1970". What the gene study has proven is that those doctors were not mistakenly applying a more recent diagnosis to something they saw 20 years earlier, they were actually correctly identifying the mysterious disease that killed their patients back then.

Comment Re:AIDS in the 1970s (Score 2) 170

>They are on average promiscuous on a level heterosexuals just don't get close to.

Not for lack of trying - the only difference is that half the gay men have not spent their whole lives being told that their total value as a person is dependent on how little they have sex, that if they enjoy it they have bad self respect etc. etc. in fact the gay male population is entirely made up of people who have been told all their lives that their value as a person is measured by how MANY people they have sex with.

The hetero version sort of cancels out - with one gender pushed to constantly seek sex and one pushed to constantly try and avoid it (that this is a fuckup in every possible sense aside - my only point is that it gets you fairly steady numbers), but in the gay community the 'avoid' conditioning doesn't exist.
Interestingly lesbians tend not to be particularly promiscuous and the average lesbian has the same amount of sex and partners per year as the average heterosexual woman - which supports the idea that social conditioning is the major influencing factor.

Comment I'm pissed with them right now (Score 1) 1

Ordered a long-throw stapler and staples 2 weeks ago. The stapler came last week, staples today. The box was open at both ends, staples spilled out into the bag, box crushed and staples broken.

They won't let me return them. I'd be REALLY pissed if it wasn't just a couple of bucks.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Live or die, I'll make a million." -- Reebus Kneebus, before his jump to the center of the earth, Firesign Theater