Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


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

Comment Re:Wouldn't need subsidies (Score 1) 90

The "nuclear is expensive" claim is only true because the anti-nuclear lobby has made it that way.

This is unequivocally false. Nuclear power has been the most expensive way to generate energy since its inception. The only possibilty and the only way nuclear power in practice has been economically feasable is more or less due to the quote in the summary:

"does better in a socialist economy than in a capitalist one, because nuclear energy prefers to have the public do the cleanup, do the insurance, cover all of the losses and it only wants the profits."

Breeder reactors are a great idea, but do nothing to mitigate the insane and massive cost already incurred, and will continue to cost, indefinitely. Clean up nuclear power's current problems first, pay off the massive subsidy-debt to governments (to the people that payed for it), solve the waste problem (the current one, as it is, without invoking the largely non-existent messiah breeder reactors), and then you can once again receive massive government subsidies for energy companies to build their breeder reactors, take all the profits, with none of the respinsibility.

Or, you know, spend that money on alternative energies and actaully get what you pay for without incurring insane massive debt and the possibility of any sort of nasty waste that lingers as a dnager for a millenia.

Comment Re:Accenture (Score 1) 66

After they mismanaged the company for a few years, trashing our corporate culture and making all the employees miserable I found another job and resigned.

If you were an ethical person, you would have bailed as soon as the acquisition was announced.

miserable, judgemental jerk

Why would I be miserable? I don't have the taint of working for a criminal organization on my conscience.


Comment Re:Which Democrat? (Score 1) 90

Nice sound bite, but this can be a rational decision for a society to get things done. Heaving too much regulatory burden on business can slow or stop progress.

After all, most likely you have no problem with government spending wads of billions on things with little or no return, covering hurricane losses, propping up industries and Amtrack, or creating a colossal high speed rail in California, or spending more on a Boston subway or Denver air port automated luggage system than the moon landing* .

* Exaggeration, but a small one.

Comment Re:Which Democrat? (Score 1) 90

Not that I'm disagreeing with him/her. I don't like Nuclear because America doesn't have the balls to properly regulate and punish businessmen who flaunt safety. The risks are too great. It's not NIMBY. Make it public run or show me you're willing to throw people responsible for lesser disasters like oil spills in jail for 10-20 years and we'll talk. Until then it'll be like always: privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Nice sound bite, but ths can be a rational decision for

Comment Re:Independentd ealerships=ineffective retail syst (Score 1) 251

If Ford can do that, so much the better.

This is like Ford charging extra not for cachet but because they used the power of government to keep competition low.

Dealers in Michigan didn't want anyone opening on Saturdays, not because they valued their time off, but because forcing most to take a day off work to look at cars worked in their favor to rush people to buy.

Slashdot Top Deals

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark side, and it holds the universe together ... -- Carl Zwanzig