Slashdot Mirror
New Nuclear Power Plants in the next 5 years
Guinnessy writes "As oil, coal, and gas become increasingly expensive, energy utilities take another look at nuclear power. The nuclear reactor builders are jostling for business as more than 26 plants may be ordered or constructed over the next five years in Canada, China, several European Union countries, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa. Companies in the US and UK may order an additional 15 new reactors. Physics Today magazine has a global roundup of the new plants on construction, and how the builders are getting around some of the potential road blocks in their path. I'm sure many slashdot readers would be surprised to know that some new plants will be coming online so soon."
Considering that ice ages tend to disrupt hydro power generation and occur rather more frequently than once every hundred thousand years, I'd say that nuclear power is less finite than hydro power.
um...how many ice ages have we had in the last 100 years?
"Too bad California will never allow one, seeing we're run by a bunch of fat, short-haired, middle-aged white women
I'm convinced the sheeple out here would vote 80% to 20% for the "Golden Beaches Environment Protection Act", even if it was actually a 2 Trillion dollar bond to exterminate all white men."
Given your description, i dont think that demographic would mourn the loss of white men or any men for that matter..
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
What the hell is your signature supposed to mean?
What the hell is your signature supposed to mean?
According to the exit polls in the 2004 election, the number 1 reason people voted for Bush was "moral values".
Kerry and Bush are both supposedly Christians, they both have the same stated moral values with one exception. Kerry didn't support gay marriage but felt it was up to the states to decide. Good solid Republican position (WTF?!?) Bush didn't support gay marriage and further supported amending the Constitution for the first time in history to specifically discriminate against a specific group of people. Totally immoral position.
So by their own words, large numbers of Republicans feel that it is not only moral, but *the* overriding moral issue in the election to actively work against 2 people loving each other.
This is completely backed up by the mass of gay hatred bills passed by various states.
Yet, their great morals don't seem to extend to anything that is generally considered moral behavior such as lying, using a tragedy as an excuse to start a war that was only waiting for some justification no matter how unrelated, living off of the forced charity of others while condemning that very thing (Check which states actually pay taxes) etc. etc. etc.
Add in the fact that the primary driving force behind the "moral decay of society" is unrestrained capitalism which is the Republican party's big "thing". You see that the so called "moral voters" consistently vote against the very thing they claim to stand for, and it's quite clear that my sig is a simple statement of fact.
The primary driving force behind the "moral decay of society" is unrestrained liberalism.
Social liberalisation is inevitably driven by capitalism. This is not Liberalism. It's built into the system, not by anyones design, but due to the nature of the capitalist system.
After all, them faggots and niggers have money too, sex sells, and driving rampant consumption *is* a way to build sales.
Also, as a straight man, I can only marry a female. A gay man can only marry a female. Same rights = !descrimination.
You can marry anyone you love. A gay person can not. So, they do not have the same rights. That is horrendously discriminatory since it is you through the power of the state telling another person who it is ok for them to love.
All of this stuff about 'love' is just adding more 'squishy', 'touchy-feely', 'hippie' bull that anti gay marriage people can attack and use to obfuscate the real issue. Let me illustrate the core issue (note that I'm brushing aside legal age for marriage, legal insanity, etc., because they aren't relevant to this case):
Currently, the set of people that I am allowed to enter into marriage with is the set of all unmarried females.
If I were a woman, the set of people that I would be allowed to enter into marriage with would be the set of all unmarried males.
Thus, I am being treated differently by the law because of my sex. It doesn't matter who I actually want to marry (I'm happily engaged to the future Mrs. rkanodia). It doesn't matter that "everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite gender, so men and women have equal rights" because, like the Supreme Court said about racially-segregated schools, separate sets are inherently unequal.
You can marry anyone you love. A gay person can not. So, they do not have the same rights. That is horrendously discriminatory since it is you through the power of the state telling another person who it is ok for them to love.
Look buddy, you can't have it both ways at once. Either you believe that there is an objective concept of right and wrong, or you don't. In the first case, you shouldn't bitch about someone taking a moral stance on an issue on the basis that they are being discriminatory. Discrimination is built into every level of the human experience, and most of it is good and necessary. Do you think you should be able to marry anything you love? Your dog? Your sister? your childhood security blanket? Your new car? Your own children? All of the above at the same time (I mean, hey, we can't discriminate against those who want to marry multiple things they love). Do you support a pedophile marrying a two year old because he's "in love?" These are all enforced as not legal through the "power of the state." Do you support the legalization of murder as well?. Legal prohibition is an assertion of the "power of the state" over a minority. After all, some people don't have any moral objection to it. Why does society have to toe your line? Because you happen to be one and society is the many, and therefore not agreeing with your view is necessarily "tyranny of the majority." Silly. Show me the credentials that give you the right to decide on your whims what is morally acceptable for society?
On the other hand, you don't believe that there is a real objective concept of right and wrong, and that everyone gets to decide this on their own, without respect to society. There's no arguing with you in that case. The best thing to do is treat your views as irrelevant.
Truth be told, I'd be willing to listen to why you think society should be forced to accept gay marriage, if you did not prance about wagging your finger at everyone with an air of self-righteousnes and superiority.
You're either a hypocrite, or dishonest and manipulative in your arguments. Probably both.
The sharp edge of a razor is difficult to cross. Thus the wise say the path to salvation is hard...