Slashdot Mirror
Nobel Prize Winning Physicist As Energy Secretary
bledri writes "Officials close to the Obama transition team say that
Physics Nobel Laureate Steven Chu is the likely candidate for Energy Secretary. Some are worried that Chu is not politically savvy enough,
but I'm hopeful that a scientist will base policy on evidence.
Discuss among yourselves."
now, riddle me this, mofoes:
How will your so-called messiah save you when he's seconded by fucks such as ben gates and hillary?
Smile, don't click...
Shut up, you fat fuck.
You're sounding annoyingly "me too"-ish.
Why don't you put your zitty ass-licking face in a China-made microwave, for a change?
Jealous of US-ians? Why don't you fly there and choke of everyone's dick, including the numerous homeless fucks, once landed?
Smile, don't click...
I have a politics filter on for a reason. This story is about a political appointment and the summary clearly has political undertones. Lately, I keep encountering stories that are clearly political in nature being posted as non-political - it's really very aggravating. I eventually blocked stories from kdawson because of his political bias kept creeping into what should have been non-political stories, and now it looks like the trend is spreading to other Slashdot editors.
"but I'm hopeful that a scientist will base policy on evidence" Me too! The planet has cooled almost 3 tenths of a degree since Mr. Algore's assertion that the plant is getting hot. I am all about being a good steward of the planet. I question the logic of allot of the radical answers to almost insignificant issues, all the while making the problem worse. As an example: Lets switch vehicles from burning "hydro"carbons with a maximum efficiency of 30 to 40 percent to electricity. Electricity, here where we generate most of it with carbons at a max efficiency of 40 percent and can lose almost half of that in transmission. Add another 10 percent loss in battery storage and another 10 percent in conversion back to kinetic energy. Silly. How about make the vehicle more efficient... period. Where is my Turbo Diesel Hybrid!
> Just because someone is a great scientist does not mean the person is a good administrator or a good politician.
Yeah, but it can't be any worse than the current lot, who believe the earth was made by some cunt with a white beard 6000 years ago, and that dinosaur bones were planted as a trick, etc.
your doomsday scenario of everyone on bikes is just not going to happen. its not beijing, 1970. sorry to burst your fantasy bubble
As I've stated, it's all about attitude. My solutions are easier and more realistic than yours. But then again if people (well, let's be realistic here, when we're talking about lazy and stubborn we're really talking Americans). Electric cars is certainly an intellectually lazy argument that is unsustainable.
The only sustainable and most practical solutions are the most common sense in this case. I don't understand why people feel the need to argue against common sense. The only thing that I do agree with you on is that it is never going to happen, and as I stated the only reason it's never going to happen is because people don't want to change their attitudes. Excuses I did expect, as always.
everyone on bikes
good luck with that
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Is this supposed to make up for all the nazis he already appointed? It's like a game of duck, duck, goose, where every duck is a corporate bush appointee and the goose is the occasional nobel winning scientist.
I still have VERY little faith in the Obama presidency, though it's probably still to early to assume:
He will STILL not thoroughly investigate 9/11.
He will STILL be more beholden to corporations than the American people.
He will STILL be allies with maniacal genocidal fabrication states like Israel.
I'm not holding my breath. And please don't respond about the 9/11 thing unless you want to discuss the found thermate residue and THIS PICTURE:
http://a986.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/72/l_a567c508f431db9f78e20057b5b59fb9.jpg
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
even the founder of greenpeace is for nuclear power now
a REAL environmentalist understands that coal is far more damaging to the environment than nuclear is, even with 10 more chernobyls
actually, i remember seeing a special on tv about chernobyl as it is today, and how it is a wildlife paradise
so perhaps a real environmentalist militant worthy of their greenpeace stripes would go around sabotaging nuclear power plants to create human free wildlife zones?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
when faced with the same mornic stupidity, i'm supposed to think up a new and novel response every time?
no. if i am faced with a repeat moronic point of view, i will regurgitate the boilerplate response which shuts the moron down
every single piece of idiocy deserves its own detailed and original unravelling?
no, it deserves the standardized smackdown
nothing wrong with that in the least
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
did you believe it was possible to participate in the tomfoolery and yet still stand in remove of it and criticize it?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it