Slashdot Mirror


North Carolina Town Defeats Big Solar's Plan To Suck Up the Sun (arstechnica.com)

mdsolar writes with this excerpt from Ars Technica: The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin solar panels in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun. Another resident -- a retired science teacher, no less -- expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her solar panels didn't cause cancer. "I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

464 of 760 comments (clear)

  1. Well that's a town to avoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Srsly, I'm amazed that some people are clever enough to breathe.

    1. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Im ready to call an outcome: Trump wins that town in the primaries.
      If he gets the nomination he wins that town in the general too.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    2. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Sobakus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Did you say "in the primaries" or "with the primates"?

    3. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That ex science teacher could probably do with a kick in the primaries.

    4. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by SerBantu · · Score: 1

      They just don't understand them 'highfultin solar panels' all different and sheete from the normal solar panels.
      Esse Quam Videri - To be rather than to seem to be.

      anyways there was some thing about Obama, Teeorism and Climate in Paris. Cant be having none of that in NC, no sir
      When keeping it real goes wrong

    5. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by torqer · · Score: 1

      Well... If they are clever enough to breathe: I have a product I'd like to sell them.

      http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecur...

      Bottles of Canadian Air, at the bargain price of $10 a bottle. It's a steal of a deal, and just in time for Christmas.

    6. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If one looks deeper, they'll find that this is really a zoning decision and has nothing to do with fear of solar. The town already has approved other solar farms which are actively being built, but they don't want another one in this particular area. The writer of an article chose to ignore the entirety of the panel discussion and select a few ignorant and irrelevant statements made during the proceedings just to give the people a rise.

      And thus the reaction we see here. It looks like there are more ignorant folks out there than just the few in this town.

    8. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1
    9. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by tchdab1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe you can bottle some Canadian sunshine for them - to have handy if solar panels suck all theirs up.

    10. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by tompaulco · · Score: 1, Troll

      If one looks deeper, they'll find that this is really a zoning decision and has nothing to do with fear of solar. The town already has approved other solar farms which are actively being built, but they don't want another one in this particular area. The writer of an article chose to ignore the entirety of the panel discussion and select a few ignorant and irrelevant statements made during the proceedings just to give the people a rise. And thus the reaction we see here. It looks like there are more ignorant folks out there than just the few in this town.

      And here we get to the one comment that needed to be made on the story and then close the article for comment.
      The article itself was catered specifically to slashdotters who are emotionally disturbed and must be constantly reassured that they are better than other people. Now those people, feeling all good about themselves can have advertisements shown to them while they read comment after comment that soothes their ego and Dice Holdings gets to get richer.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The writer of an article chose to ignore the entirety of the panel discussion and select a few ignorant and irrelevant statements made during the proceedings just to give the people a rise. And thus the reaction we see here. It looks like there are more ignorant folks out there than just the few in this town.

      Nice cherry picking. The reaction is to the people making those statements - and a State where these people vote, and prove their stupidity often. After all, y'all had a Governor by name of Mark Sanford, who was using State money to travel to South America to get a little regular on the side poontang. Then after that y'all elected him to th eHouse of Representatives. I'll bet he's gettin' regular strange in DC. Stupid people, KKK homeland, and people who can be outraged over a presidential blowjob, but rewarding of using guvmint money to facilitate dippin yer wick to a feriner, and then rewarding it.

      Forgive us - for we only make fun of North Carolina because they've worked so hard to deserve it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    12. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      And it's a valid decision. Local government is concerned primarily with what is right in front of their faces. The local economy is paramount in their decision making. This additional land for solar farms will be locked up for decades and essentially be taken away from the community for any possible revenue generation in the future. They get absolutely nothing in return for the solar farm economically, with the exception of several thousand dollars training funds for the local fire department to deal with whatever kinds of electrical or chemical fires might result from a solar farm.

      I'm not sure where the cancer risk concept is coming from, but I can think of some valid (although far-fetched) concerns. One would be if the panels have a chemical coating or break down over time releasing chemicals into the groundwater. A possibly more legitimate concern would be transformers and batteries, which are chemical based and indeed contain (especially the transformers) known carcinogens.

      Also, we're talking about NC here. It is likely these agricultural areas they are trying to rezone were used in the past for growing tobacco. So they used to make a lot of money for the community, and now they're asked to give away the land forever to an industry that will not share in the profits at all. So there is that mindset as well.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    13. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Flea+of+Pain · · Score: 1

      Bad news...It's December. Canadian sunshine is too damn cold for U.S. solar panels.

      --
      Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    14. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      Shhh. You're addressing a genius. Show some respect.

    15. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Forgefather · · Score: 2

      Apparently the town is staunch democrat. Not even joking.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    16. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by hey! · · Score: 1

      Pretty much. There's enough stupid in the world worth attacking without having to make more up.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    17. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I knew who Bill Clinton was before the scandal broke out. He was already a big shot in the media.

      I didn't know who Mark Sanford was until he went missing. Then the media made a deal out of him.

      But I agree there are double standards afoot.

    18. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Only in Am'ruca would these hillbillies say something reasonable, like that solar farms include vertical structures that block light if built too closely to property lines and that local zoning rules don't account for that on agricultural land, and going far enough to point out that it isn't just recreational light we're talking about, but it could block light from the Sun, block photosynthesis and kill affected plants...

      And have self-proclaimed, "ultra-sciency" nerds point out that photovoltaics doesn't vacuum up sunlight from neighboring farms. Sometimes our educated idiots are dumber than the ignorant ones, especially if they stumble into an echo chamber.

      Some of the people said funny stuff; it has already been reported that the local electric company has informed these people that solar is bad for the company, so there is a bit of a contest to say silly things at the meetings about this. If there is no tax produced, the people don't want it inside their town. That was the take-away from the meeting; they repeated, again and again, that these solar farms aren't going to do anything for the town; they won't change the local price of electricity, they won't produce tax revenue, they won't produce significant jobs, they won't need to buy products from the local community, etc., etc. These all sound like reasonable concerns to me; why embrace local changes in land use if you're not convinced of the usefulness, and all the claimed benefits go to somebody else? If they want to be a small town and not a big city, and have local support for their zoning rules, why is it bad? It seems they are doing the right thing to me, even if it is vapid, because the people of the town have vapid, romantic, colloquial regional culture that they want to protect. That is their prerogative.

      The retired science teacher was literally saying that shadows block photosynthesis, and armchair internet scientists decided he must be an idiot because PV doesn't vacuum sunlight. Fuck an A, people. Fuck an A.

    19. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by rsborg · · Score: 1

      Im ready to call an outcome: Trump wins that town in the primaries.
      If he gets the nomination he wins that town in the general too.

      Maybe they can convince the wifi-allergy people that solar panels also contribute to their condition.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    20. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      The article does not specifically state that the townspeople weren't speaking from inside iron lungs.

    21. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Srsly, I'm amazed that some people are clever enough to breathe.

      Well they can breathe -- because they defeated that wind farm that was going to be built and suck up all the air!

    22. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes, those may be the real reasons in the lead-up to episodes 4, 5 and 6. But if you try to fill episodes 1-3 with a zoning war, you're going to piss a lot of people off.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    23. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Layzej · · Score: 1

      My experience is that democrats are much more prone to irrational fear of technology than republicans. I would suspect that most of those who oppose GMOs, Fluoridation of water, nuclear power, and vaccination, are liberals. I was unable to find any research to back up this hunch though...

    24. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      and a State where these people vote, and prove their stupidity often. After all, y'all had a Governor by name of Mark Sanford

      It's very entertaining to be lectured about stupidity by people who don't know the difference between North Carolina and South Carolina.

    25. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Or maybe some of us look at the science and decide that untested technologies (GMO's), dangerous residue from fertilizer production (water Fluoridation), and ineffective but profitable toxins injected into us (see MMR) are not something we favor. Science is not a religion though clearly some here on /. worship at its altar.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    26. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by losfromla · · Score: 1

      well, that was a brave stand from an ac.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    27. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      While what you say is true of those specific examples almost all scientists are liberals. So if anything the trend is slightly in the opposite direction.

      When it comes to anti-science beliefs you just can't top a climate-denying, creationist bible-thumper - and the republicans got *all* of those.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Odd - democrats in general have been rather in favour of green tech, on account of not denying climate science.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    29. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I was unable to find any research to back up this hunch though...
      Bcause Democrate, Rebulician and 'liberals' are not only more than two different things, but scales that are perpendicular to each other?
      What does the american swear word 'liberals' actually mean for you? The 'country of the free' the 'country of liberty' of your 'personal persue of happiness' but 'liberal' is a hate word? Sounds pretty retarded.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    30. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Shhh. You're addressing a genius. Show some respect.

      By gosh, I was definitely wrong. Sanford is indeed from South Carolina.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    31. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the correction.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.

      Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina. Or if Clinton had been indicted for getting a blowjob, rather than for perjury and obstruction of justice (both of which he was clearly *guilty* of -- the politicians of his own party just declined to *impeach* him for it).

      More generally speaking, in a thread about ignorance, your whole post doesn't exactly come across as Nobel Prize-winning stuff. I guess maybe it felt clever to you when you wrote it, but I feel like I should advise you it doesn't really come across that way to others.

      lllll AJ

    33. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I knew who Bill Clinton was before the scandal broke out. He was already a big shot in the media. I didn't know who Mark Sanford was until he went missing. Then the media made a deal out of him.

      But I agree there are double standards afoot.

      Full disclaimer - I was incorrect about the State - Sanford is from South Carolina. He is however still a fine example of we're all about morals and family values until we aren't. We're all about fiscal responsibility until we aren't.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      GMOs are tested. Water fluoridation has no connection to fertilizer production, and most vaccines are highly effective and not very profitable.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    35. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      and a State where these people vote, and prove their stupidity often. After all, y'all had a Governor by name of Mark Sanford

      It's very entertaining to be lectured about stupidity by people who don't know the difference between North Carolina and South Carolina.

      Yes, I've noted that I was incorrect about Sanford.

      But since we're here, and have now included me in that stupid group - I'll note that I was incorrect about where Sanford was Governor, and now representative. But there is a rather big difference, If I make a mistake, I'll admit it. In South Carolina, they reward it.

      Probably the reason I got confused is that the same type of people think that KKK billboards are good, and Solar panels are evil are the same type of people who go on and on about morals and family values and fiscal responsibility, yet re-elect a guy who used government money to leave his wife at home to go fuck his south American mistress, and then lie about it. He was "Hiking the Appalachian trail " as he put it. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/P....

      Not to put to fine a point on it, but these are the same people who gleefully spent millions to impeach a different guy for getting a free blowjob.

      Yeah - I'm stupid...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    36. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Fun fact. Mark Sanford was Governor of South Carolina and currently represents South Carolina in the House.

      But I'm sure that fact isn't important to you.

      Ive decided I was going to apologize for that faux pas to everyone who points it out.

      Some days it's like in Office space where Peter Gibbons when he's talking to the Bobs.

      Peter Gibbons: Bob: I have eight different bosses right now.

      Bob Slydell: I beg your pardon?

      Peter Gibbons: Eight bosses.

      Bob Slydell: Eight?

      Peter Gibbons: Eight, Bob. So that means that when I make a mistake, I have eight different people coming by to tell me about it. That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled; that, and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Pretty typical Slashdot. The one comment here offering actual useful, relevant information is responded to with this inane rambling.

      Hint: You would have looked better if Mark Sanford had been governor of NORTH Carolina.

      I'm really really sorry for saying that Sanford was Governor of North Carolina. I was wrong, and he never was. He was Governor of South Carolina, and is now a member of the house of representatives form South Carolina.

      However, I don't make a moral distinction between Sanford and Clinton. And do have questions about the people who elected Sanford to another office.

      But as noted by a lot of people, Sanford is from South Carolina, so it's not completely relevant.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    38. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I suppose that those are all interesting points, but Mark Sanford is from _South_ Carolina.

      Yes, I was 100 percent wrong about that - I apologize.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    39. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      This isn't a troll. It's exactly what happened.

    40. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Forgefather · · Score: 1

      It is. Which is probably why it was omitted from the article along with the fact that 3 other solar farms had been approved in the surrounding area. Or that NC has the second highest distribution of solar behind California. The entire article is a piece of click bait and really showcases just how shit ArsTechnica has gotten in recent months. Just go to the site and start reading the headlines and you will get an idea of what is going on. They are some of the most egregious click bait I have ever seen, and the articles rarely back up the implications given in the titles or omit valuable information.

      --
      "There are lies, there are damn lies, and there are statistics"
    41. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Really? Long test impacts on the human race and how they impact epigenetics (ie gene expression)? In a system as varied as that of life itself, do you really think that we can understand the potential impacts of introducing trans-species genes enough to reliably judge them safe? If you do, you must be a strong believer in the faith of science, maybe you believers should start a church. Look up how the fluoride which is used in fluoridation of water is sourced, hint, it has nothing to do with the trace element that comes from food sources. Most, is not all, and effectiveness depends on the large pharmaceutical company paying for and conducting the trials. They may not be very profitable per-dose but in aggregate they are. Besides being ineffective, they also come in carriers with varying degrees of toxicity. If vaccines were effective, the idiotic concept of herd immunity would be unimportant. You get vaccinated if you want, you'll be protected no need to worry about whether I am vaccinated or not. I will grant you that some vaccines are very effective though.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    42. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Both the Left and the Right have their members who wallow in ignorance. Living in Sonoma County California I meet a lot on the Left who meet your description. My favorite that's popular around here right now is town wide leaf blower bans. Apperently our cities having to double their park maintenance budgets in highering all the extra staff to do the back breaking racking is worth it for all those poor children with alergies that apperently lack the ability to give these machines a wide berth and must instead congregate directly in front of them. Also, I've been told by people who drive to town council meetings that these things are just the worst in regards to global warming and the noise polution is so oppressive it actually causes them mild discomfort for small periods.

      For every one of these on the Left, however, are your run of the mill rascists, homophobes and conservative bible thumpers denying scientific near certainties like evolution on the Right.

      Also, there are are plenty of conservatives who are anti vac because "God" tells them to be by the way.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    43. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Based on the worries about cancer and the "sucking up the sun" thing, it's actually what I'd expect. Sounds a lot like the left-wing anti-vax hippie crowd.

      Trump voters are the ones who'd drill for oil in their backyards if they knew how, and then run their supersized SUVs on the raw thing for the extra fun soot that it makes, to annoy teh libruls.

    44. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "Liberal" is not an American swear word. It's an American right-wing swear word. Liberals themselves don't see anything wrong about it.

    45. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Layzej · · Score: 1

      "Liberal" has evolved different meanings in different places. I see you are from Germany so you may not be aware that "In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt" - http://www.britannica.com/topi... . "Liberal", "left", and "Democrat" are all but synonymous. I would be interested to know whether your experience in Germany is that the irrational rejection of technology is predominantly associated with the left.

    46. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Actually it helps if you get you anecdotes correct...Mark Sanford was the governor of SOUTH CAROLINA, an altogether different place. As a former resident of South Carolina and a current resident of North Carolina I can say with a bit of confidence "please don't confuse us with those numbskulls down south"

      I have made it a point to apologize to everyone who points out my obvious error, Sanford is indeed the one time Governor of South Carolina who was having government fund his affair with a South American woman, and was elected to the US House of Representatives after that.

      But yes, I was completely mistaken on his state. It was South Carolina, and not North Carolina.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    47. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Is it something in the food? Too much of America is now a very special kind of stupid. Did religion do it? Why are so many note so incredibly dumb? Is it two generations of TV?

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    48. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Mark Sanford was governor of SOUTH Carolina.

      Yes, he indeed was the Governor of South Carolina, and thanks fo rpointing that out. I was definitly incorrect for saying he was the Governor of North Caolina.

      Most sorry for the mistake and the confusion I have caused.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    49. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Dr_b_ · · Score: 1

      You are confusing South Carolina with North Carolina, Mark Sanford was governor of SC and state rep for SC, not NC. This doesn't change the fact however that NC is a backwards shithole, however.

    50. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      You are confusing South Carolina with North Carolina, Mark Sanford was governor of SC and state rep for SC, not NC. This doesn't change the fact however that NC is a backwards shithole, however.

      That is correct. I definitely made a mistake there, Mark Sanford was the Governor of South Carolina, and after his little taxpayer funded affair, his constituants elected him to the US house of representatives. As penance, I am apologizing to everyone who points it out. While possibly related to inconsistency of voters, it has nothing to do with North Caolina. Very sorry, my fault, and caused by insufficient research on my part.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    51. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

      I was going to call you on it, but the OP was about a place in North Carolina. So your earlier post kind of worked.

      And ... from my view on the other side of the coin ... playing fast and loose with family values is worse than explicitly endorsing evil.

    52. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      And ... from my view on the other side of the coin ... playing fast and loose with family values is worse than explicitly endorsing evil.

      It definitely is. Because it is a form of "We are right because we are right".

      No truth needed, merely "truthiness". No morals needed, because we choose to point out our enemies lack of morals, but our's are a special case. Just like someone in here tried to make Sanford's transgressions more acceptable than Clinton's.

      Now I have no doubt that some of the folks in North Carolina share some of those values. But it is a pity in this day and age, we have people saying that Solar panels cause cancer, that they would prevent plants from growing.

      And here's the big tie in of truthiness:

      Mary Hobbs, a woodland resident said that her home was surrounded by solar farms, and has lost value as a result.

      That has been shown to be an outright lie, as the Ars article points out, and I've done a google earth and street view and have not found a solar farm anywhere yet.

      Truthiness has a hell of a time in the internet age, where I can take a virtual tour of the town to check the veracity of people's statements.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    53. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Long term epigenetic studies have not, to my knowledge, been done; however, there's no reason to think that they would change our epigenetics any more than non-GMO food, and no plausible mechanism by which they could do so.

      If the fluoride comes from fertilizer production, then they are connected, I'll give you that. However, that doesn't mean it's bad for you, and most evidence is that in small doses it's beneficial.

      True, most is not all. All vaccines on the market today are effective enough - both on a personal level and on a population level - to warrant approving them. Contrary to your assertion, effectiveness is pretty much the same regardless of funding source. No, in aggregate they aren't profitable - injectables cost a lot to make. Everything has some toxicity; vaccines on average have much lower toxicity than the disease they are supposed to prevent. Herd immunity is a real thing, and it's important for people who are too young to get some vaccines, the ever-growing population of people who are immunosuppressed (because of chemo/HIV/genetic disorders/organ transplants/whatever), and - for some diseases - herd immunity is the only way to wipe them out for good.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    54. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Mark Sanford was from South Carolina. He was never governor of NC

      That is correct, and I apologize for the mistake.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    55. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      irrational rejection of technology is predominantly associated with the left.
      No, usually with the rights, as they are the "conservatives".

      Left and Right in germany basically only means what it used to mea; in which area of the parliament from point of view of the president, is your party sitting.

      Socialist, communist are considered red/left. Christians/conservatives are considered right.

      Liberal has nothing to do to which party you belong. Liberal means: the state should stay out of business as good as possible, our of private life, too. However that means e.g.: pro gay marriage, as the state should not have the right to restrict marriages to couples of mixed sex. Usually liberals demand low taxes and low tariffs. So that business and private persons are "liberal" to do what they want. Also usually they are against surveillance pro citizen rights etc.

      irrational rejection of technology
      Actually we don't have this. Most germans are pro technology. But we judge what technology is worth it ... e.g. wind is easier to handle than nuclear. Germany actually has only limited know how regarding nuclear energy. As our 50 - 70 year olds reactors need replacement we prefer wind instead of new nukes.

      The only other controversial "technology" is GMO food, no one wants it, hence we have it labeled and hence it does not sell good here. Labels solved the problem.

      If that is "irrational" in your eyes ... who cares. Those "irrational" voters or party members are spread all over all parties. (90% of germans are anti nukes, actually I know only one in person where I know he is pro nukes, no one is pro GMO food - a no brainer, we don't need it and most of us learn the risks in school)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    56. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by GroovyTrucker · · Score: 1

      Hate to tell you this, but Mark Sanford was/is from South Carolina. (I know...it is hard for some people to realize there are *two* Carolinas!). That is the same state that gave us Strom Thurmond. I'll let you look that one up.

      The only Sanford we have had in North Carolina as a governor was Terry Sanford. He was a fairly progressive liberal Democrat who also served as a U.S. Senator.

      As for that billboard you keep linking to, remember the KKK has had its claws in a *lot* of states over the years. Indiana was once known as the state ran by the KKK. And as for racism, you might look into the institutional racism in Hollywood and New York before the Civil Rights Act.

      As for these buffoons in Woodland, there is a zoning and NIMBY pushback all over the eastern portion of the state, as solar companies are persuading many landowners to lease/sell land to build them. I don't have a problem with the farms, but I'm also not in a position to give away my land and home for it.

      --
      I can be moderated as Inciteful...
    57. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Interesting. Thanks. I found the following about GMO foods that suggests there is "no statistically significant differences on the safety of eating GM foods between Republicans and those who lean to the Republican Party as compared with Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party." - http://www.pewinternet.org/201...

      So perhaps my perception on at least that technology is skewed.

    58. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Ummm -- Mark Sanford was the governor of *South* Carolina.

      QED

      Yes indeed, I made what has turned out to be a massive mistake - Sorry about that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    59. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      At this point I assume you posted the last 4 SC/NC posts yourself.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    60. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Wrong state, dude.

      Very much so - Sorry about that.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    61. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      At this point I assume you posted the last 4 SC/NC posts yourself.

      I can hardly wait until the subject is closed. I'm a mistaken cow! Mistaken cows go Oh, CRAP!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    62. Re:Well that's a town to avoid. by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Bottles of Canadian Air, at the bargain price of $10 a bottle.

      So, instead of H2O it's made of H1.46O?

    63. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: you're a resident of Woodland, N.C., aren't you?

    64. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      The gas-powered ones are pretty fucking noisy. Are you a leaf-blower salesman?

    65. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by kon23uk · · Score: 1

      If God had meant people to understand science, he wouldn't have made her a science teacher...

      --
      He was a man who didn't know the meaning of the word "fear"; or the meaning of many other words longer than 3 letters
    66. Re: Well that's a town to avoid. by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Let me guess, you haven't graduated high school and weren't qualified for the debate team. Ad hominem's are fine but there needs to be some substance behind them. Also, you must not be strong in statistics as you might have then realized how miniscule the probability of my being from Woodland NC (Pop 776). Yes, btw, it is NC, not "N.C." so I guess we'll have to add low IQ to your list of attributes.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
  2. Hurray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More Sun to us!

  3. Not a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just checking the calender, no, not April 1, must be for real......oh dear...

    1. Re:Not a joke? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe it is April 1st in NC, they are not good with calendars too you know.

  4. Scary... by muffen · · Score: 4, Funny

    Finally someone stands up to these big energy companies, the co2 emissions from the sun far exceeds anything produced by burning oil, and the radiation have caused massive problems with equipment!

    The sun is dangerous, we need to stop using it!

    1. Re:Scary... by Zarjazz · · Score: 3, Funny

      So true, the green movement needs a new motto:

      Stop Global Warming, Stop The Sun!

    2. Re:Scary... by jandersen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, I'm worried about the fact that nobody can say for sure that solar panels don't cause cancer. What other things are they hiding from us? Like, nobody has assured us that solar panel aren't causing tsunamis or earthquakes, or price increases on beer.

    3. Re:Scary... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn right stop Sun! Java exploits have been a problem for over a decade!

    4. Re:Scary... by TWX · · Score: 1

      "Our panels will blot out the sun!"

      We've been installing panels around where I live specifically to blot-out the sun. It's getting kind of nice not having to compete for the rare tree in the summer time, whole shopping centers are getting solar installed over the parking lots to shade cars while the patrons go shopping.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:Scary... by j2.718ff · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Without the sun, global warming would not be a problem.

    6. Re:Scary... by cplusplus · · Score: 1

      If they are indeed using enough of the sun and interfering with photosynthesis (as one of them was concerned with), then YES, it really could be affecting the price of beer! You need those photos and synthesiserezes to grow hops and barley!

      --
      "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    7. Re:Scary... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      Free the beer!

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    8. Re:Scary... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      No, after I broke a vase by accident all she did was offer me some cookies.

    9. Re:Scary... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You forget its He emission! That fuckin' ball of light throws out BILLION TIMES what our planet produces per century in a single second!

      That has to stop! Helium has no, zero, zilch function for us while the Hydrogen it literally destroys in the creation of Helium is two thirds of what water is made of. And I need not mention how water is of crucial importance to the life on this planet!

      Enough I say! No longer may we allow the destruction of a precious resource to produce an element that only serves our vanity in blimps and floating balloons!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Scary... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Price of beer in Germany is the one thing that makes me want to exercise my dual citizenship and vote with my feet.

      It's good beer too. As good as anything you can get in America (but not better, except that it's much much cheaper).

      I couldn't live surrounded by such a bunch of law abiders though.

      It's apparent to me that any politician suggesting taxing beer in Germany would be voted out in a second. Third rail of German politics?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  5. These people by psinet · · Score: 1, Insightful

    These people will be the death of us all.

    People with IQ's averaging UNDER 100 are 50% of the vote. Some day dumb people should be just set up to vote in fake elections. They won't know.

    1. Re:These people by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that current elections are going to have any effect?

      --
      bickerdyke
    2. Re:These people by psinet · · Score: 1

      ...nooooo.........I said we should set up fake elections for the dumb people, so our elections WORK.

      Am I on slashdot?

    3. Re:These people by MrKaos · · Score: 2

      So you're saying that current elections are going to have any effect?

      I think he is saying is that the dumb ignorant people are easily manipulated and that any "progress" will be limited to anything vested interests want the dumb people to believe.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    4. Re:These people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People with IQ's averaging UNDER 100 are 50% of the vote.

      Obligatory nitpick: no, they aren't. At least not necessarily so: not if the overall intelligence distribution is lopsided in some way. Mean vs. median, the old confusion.

    5. Re:These people by freedom_surfer · · Score: 1

      Idiocracy the reality.

    6. Re:These people by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      not if the overall intelligence distribution is lopsided in some way

      It's not, at least not when it comes to IQ. The same number of people should have an IQ under 100-X as have an IQ over 100+X, by definition.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:These people by war4peace · · Score: 4, Informative

      More than 50%.
      100 on the IQ scale is not an average. It's a standard.
      http://www.photius.com/ranking...

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:These people by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You think Median is the same as Average?

      You think I said that?

      Somewhere above 130, since you ask.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    9. Re:These people by Coisiche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some day dumb people should be just set up to vote in fake elections. They won't know.

      They already are. Not caught on to that yet?

    10. Re:These people by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 2

      I'd expect there to be significantly more outliers in the low region, as it is easy to permanentely lower a humans IQ: by accident, medical issue, drug use and so on.
      The opposite is not true however.

      To still aquire 98 points on average as a country under these conditions, the amount of people with 100+ IQ should be more than 50% of the population.

    11. Re:These people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      No it is not implicit, but have you read Flynn's The Bell Curve? An IQ test is supposed to be normed such that the mean is 100. That is the definition. That the test is flawed is a whole other ball game.

    12. Re: These people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't stupidity, it's the people who are both stupid and stubbornly ignorant. And it's only a small fraction of the population - you know, the 10-20% who pick the batshit crazy answer on the polls - but that's more than enough to tip an election in many cases.

    13. Re:These people by turbidostato · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I said we should set up fake elections for the dumb people, so our elections WORK."

      If your surname happens to be Rockefeller or something like that then you don't need to ask. That's been already the case for ages now.

    14. Re:These people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Other AC here.

      The IQ tests are designed and adjusted to give a bell curve with an 100 mean in actual countries. Then they adjust the raw test score so people fit the curve.

      Oh, and I hope you know that the only thing IQ test measures is how good you are at IQ test.

      So the "real" intelligence distribution doesn't matter at all.

    15. Re:These people by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

      I've seen this story a couple of times already today. I hope someone does an analysis of where this "information" about the solar farm came from.

      We've had similar campaigns against wind farms in Indiana. It's resulted in an outright ban of wind farms in at least one county. The claims were also very dubious in that case as well.

      I tend to think that these folks didn't come up with the ideas themselves. I think someone needs to look to see if ALEC and other such groups were part of it.

    16. Re:These people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IQ is normalised so that 100 is where the divisor between half the people lies.

      Yes, it keeps changing.

    17. Re:These people by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      That won't help. Some of the most ardent Trump supporters I know have IQs well over 100.

    18. Re:These people by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Some day dumb people should be just set up to vote in fake elections. They won't know.

      Which is oh so very different from our current situation, thankfully.

      -meanwhile somewhere a business tycoon is rubbing his hands together evilly, chuckling-

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    19. Re:These people by malditaenvidia · · Score: 2

      Some day dumb people should be just set up to vote in fake elections. They won't know.

      The irony, oh god.

    20. Re:These people by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      You think Median is the same as Average?

      What do you mean? An African or European median?

    21. Re:These people by TWX · · Score: 1

      ...nooooo.........I said we should set up fake elections for the dumb people, so our elections WORK.

      Am I on slashdot?

      We already have fake elections. The body that elects the President of the United States is the Electoral College.

      If I remember our history correctly, state legislatures used to elect the electors too, not a direct-populace vote. I suppose one advantage of that is that people have a lot more interest in paying attention to their local officials.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    22. Re:These people by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I tend to think that these folks didn't come up with the ideas themselves. I think someone needs to look to see if ALEC and other such groups were part of it.

      It doesn't matter who came up with the ideas, it only matters that people believe them.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    23. Re:These people by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Plus the pesky old Flynn effect. At this point all of our children are above average, at least relative to 1900.

      Average intelligence is more than sufficient to provide common sense, by the way. The difficulty isn't that the entire population doesn't consist of rocket scientists. The real problems are poverty, poor education leading to ignorance, trauma associated with things like poverty and military experience, mental illness in general, and above all religion. A person of average intelligence or even slightly lower than average intelligence as measured by IQ tests per se can still be plenty clever and sensible enough to come in out of the rain; if they have a weakness it is that they may lack the critical thinking skills to reject religious indoctrination and separate fantasy that they have been taught as fact from the real thing. They may also be more susceptible (on the same basis) to a cleverly constructed lie.

      But there are plenty of people with I.Q. above 110 who have the exact same problems, or who have their own special set of problems. Sanity, as opposed to knowledge or problem solving capability, is distributed fairly sparsely across any population because our brains and perceptions do not work perfectly and because it is pretty much a truism that we are blind to our own failures. I am nominally pretty bright, myself, and teach physics and higher math to one of the most highly selected subgroups of human on the planet, and am confronted with my own failures in ratiocination, those of my also very bright colleagues, and those of the enormously bright students we teach on literally a daily basis.

      This truly is a case where one should worry about the splinter in one's own eye (metaphorically) before worrying about that in everybody else's. Who knows what the real motivation is behind the idiocy posted above (or even what the real truth is, as the article doesn't reveal who had the energy to push for the ban or what their real motivation is). This is a country where a substantial number of people still think that high voltage power lines cause leukemia and that cell phones cause brain damage when you hold them next to your ear, and not just in North Carolina. It is a country where (according to at least some polls) roughly half the population still believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old and that Noah really did build a species-preserving ark:

      http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/n...

      Again, they don't all live in rurlal NC. Every state has its share of them, and if you pick the right community in almost any state or interview the right members of that community you can support the assertion that any state has small towns that are insane. There are members of congress that believe this tripe. Some of the readers of this reply on /. believe some fraction of tripe. Even as a theoretical physicist and hence an ultimate rationalist, I probably believe something that is tripe, or at least I almost certainly believe some things that are objectively false. A degree of humility is very definitely in order, even among the best and brightest of us, for the scale of our errors is determined as much by power and persuasiveness of the mind making the error as it is by the error itself, and the brightest of us often have the strongest opinions and can be quite persuasive of our errors.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    24. Re:These people by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you, but people with IQ's averaging under 100 are virtually 100% of the vote. Minus 1.

    25. Re:These people by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Median is the same as average, for any symmetric distribution. The GP noted, correctly, that IQ is pretty normally distributed.

      Technically, "average" is a bit poorly defined. In common use we normally intend the word to be synonymous with the mean, but in mathematical use it can mean any measure of central tendency, including the median.

    26. Re:These people by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Equatorial Guinea has a population of 722,000 people. IQ: 59.
      India has a population of 1.252 billion people and an average IQ of 82. That's a lot more damage potential than Equatorial Guinea.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    27. Re:These people by dasgoober · · Score: 1

      You know that I think I can give these people .... a monorail!

    28. Re:These people by war4peace · · Score: 1

      An Indian Median.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    29. Re:These people by paiute · · Score: 1

      Fake elections for morons. Sounds good.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    30. Re:These people by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Oblig.

      “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

        George Carlin

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    31. Re:These people by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Some day dumb people should be just set up to vote in fake elections. They won't know.

      The irony, oh god.

      Kudos. Your statement is full of pith.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    32. Re:These people by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Good Grief, considering that Koko the Gorilla scored an 85 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test, the scores on that list doesn't say much for our fellow humans.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    33. Re:These people by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You don't actually understand how a bell curve or the IQ test works, do you? And you want to be the arbiter of votes...

      There will be more people at *exactly* 100. Thus it is impossible (or highly unlikely) that they'll be 50% of the vote. I take it that you'll not be voting then? You'll be willfully giving up your vote so that the smart people can decide what's right for you?

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    34. Re:These people by KGIII · · Score: 1

      You're smarter than that... What you said is true but that doesn't mean 50% of the voters will be below average IQ. By IQs very nature, a subset will have exactly 100 scores.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    35. Re: These people by war4peace · · Score: 1

      The Interwebz.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    36. Re: These people by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Precisely so.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    37. Re:These people by Straif · · Score: 1

      Turns out the story is almost a complete fabrication based on one quote from one idiot.

      The town actually rejected the solar project based on it's impact on property values and the issues of rezoning agricultural land for manufacturing but once a reporter with an agenda gets the quote they need then it's full speed ahead, all facts be damned.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    38. Re:These people by Straif · · Score: 1

      The entire debate at the town hall was about rezoning agricultural land for manufacturing and it's impact on property values. One moron made a comment about soaking up the sun and then the reporting feeding frenzy started with each 'news' article simply referencing each other and no one bothering to actually check on the original sources to see this wasn't some collection of rubes with no understanding of the physics of solar panels but simply towns people concerned about property values.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    39. Re:These people by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      With all the normalizing to 100, 10 per standard deviation etc you can bet there has to be a rounding step right at the end. So nobody (or almost nobody) gets _exactly_ 100.

      Also at some point the really low scores are institutionalized. Hopefully not voting.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    40. Re:These people by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I've seen the numbers in the past and it was a small amount but I think it was something like >5% that hit the exact 100 mark as an average of all test takers. It's not a significant number but it's enough to mean that exactly 50% can not be on one side or the other.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    41. Re:These people by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that some are rounded to 100. I just doubt you could apply all the 'finagler's constants' involved in normalizing to 100 and get it to come out round without just defining it as int.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  6. This is the U.S in the 21st century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This is the lack of education and level of ignorance of the average American in the 21st century. You'd think this was an April fool's joke, or something from The Onion, but it's not. Anywhere else in the world this would've been dismissed as a joke, but in the U.S it's reality.

    1. Re:This is the U.S in the 21st century by khallow · · Score: 1

      Baseless extrapolations from one data point? You must be an average American. Grats! We'll hot drop a pretty flag to your location.

    2. Re: This is the U.S in the 21st century by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Really? Anywhere else in the world?
      I must have missed it where North Korea, China, the Middle East, Africa, all of Central and South America surpassed the quality of life in the US because of how educated their populous was.
      I guess dictatorships, genocide, mass oppression and female genital mutilation are the signs of an advanced civilization these days.

    3. Re:This is the U.S in the 21st century by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Wrong such people would be demonstrating in Germany as part of the "Partiotic Europeans against the Islamization of the occident" (PEGIDA for "Partiotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes"). They are similar nut cases. With the right speech they would also be against communist solar panels.

    4. Re:This is the U.S in the 21st century by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Average IQ in the USA: 98. Pretty damn good.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:This is the U.S in the 21st century by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Baseless extrapolations from one data point? You must be an average American. Grats! We'll hot drop a pretty flag to your location.

      Indeed the availability of education, healthcare, a pervasive unbiased independent press and, job security makes most Americans well informed participants of democracy capable of making voting choices that are in the people's national interest. It's a country by the people, for the people - and nothing can corrupt that.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    6. Re:This is the U.S in the 21st century by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      What does an irrational fear of solar panels have to do with a dislike (or even fear, and not an irrational one either) of islam? And why would it be equally stupid to demonstrate against the increasing influence of islam in Europe?

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:This is the U.S in the 21st century by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      If you look at the fears associated with Syrians, you can clearly see that they are similarly mad. For example, people have claimed in the same statement that those Syrians will take our jobs and are too lazy to work. It can't be both. Furthermore, they claim that they are uneducated and that is will cost well educated Germans their jobs. Its was also claimed that they get more money from the state than poor Germans (which is wrong). It was claimed that they eat your pets and goats which is also wrong. In total they claim any rubbish to get rid of them, just like these solar panel haters.

    8. Re:This is the U.S in the 21st century by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Because clearly a small rural town in North Carolina is a good data point to measure 330,000,000 people.

      I would be on much firmer ground saying that your idiot stereotyping is more of a product of the lack of education and level of ignorance of wherever your anonymous coward ass is from.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  7. Young people moving away? by tomknight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think there might be other reasons for young people moving away. Their narrow-minded elders, a town council willing to be swayed by nonsensical arguments, the simple pure idiocy that seems to prevail. The people who stay are happy with the situation (or just can't get out).

    --
    Oh arse
    1. Re:Young people moving away? by dj245 · · Score: 1

      I think there might be other reasons for young people moving away. Their narrow-minded elders, a town council willing to be swayed by nonsensical arguments, the simple pure idiocy that seems to prevail. The people who stay are happy with the situation (or just can't get out).

      He may actually be a cunning politician. The argument "solar farms don't pay taxes and don't employ anybody permanently" isn't strong enough to extract concessions from whatever developer is putting the solar farm together. If you want to extract concessions, you have to show that you can seriously threaten the project unless you get what you want. Is that extortion and/or payola? Maybe it is. An industrial project that will make lots of money and pay little or nothing in taxes isn't my idea of how things are supposed to work either though.

      This politician used the strongest card available to him- capitalizing on the fears of the people he represents.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:Young people moving away? by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      All 6 of them.

    3. Re:Young people moving away? by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Places like Woodland exist purely as places for people to come from, not go to.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:Young people moving away? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      a town council willing to be swayed by nonsensical arguments,

      Can you PROVE a solar farm doesn't cause cancer? It also seems pretty plausible (at least based on pictures that growing crops under the panels doesn't work too well. And the panels are sucking up solar energy (albeit to output electricity) although sucking up ALL the energy is a bit of an exaggeration.

      It seems to me that the town is on very solid ground here. /s

    5. Re:Young people moving away? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      The problem with this play is that it can't be undone. If the project now comes back and offers to pay royalties to the town in perpetuity, the deal suddenly becomes attractive. But it may be impossible to undo the fear mongering. Better to form the objections in a way that's easier to walk them back.

    6. Re:Young people moving away? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Solar farms are no different from other forms of power generation in that they require a significant investment. Solar power is by no means free, but it is arguably safer and cleaner to the local environment than most other forms of power plants. A solar farm will make money. So tax their profits like any other business. But a profitable industrial project that is forced to pay tribute to the local warlord (even a democratically elected one) is absolutely not my idea of how things are supposed to work.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    7. Re:Young people moving away? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      It seems to me that the town is on very solid ground here.

      Well it better be, otherwise those solar panels will either fall or sink.

    8. Re:Young people moving away? by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      This is but the implementation of the nuclear option. Rest assured that the option was mentioned in private ("if you won't play ball, we'll bury this project in a way that you'll have to wait two generations to bring it up again") before becoming public.

    9. Re:Young people moving away? by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Good point. Normally the receiving end of the nuclear option tries to avoid it. But perhaps they already knew of alternative sites. This whole thread assumes that solar contributes nothing to their local economy. I would think that the developed land would pay significant property taxes and not use any local resources but I don't know much about the local impact of solar farms.

    10. Re:Young people moving away? by GodelEscherBlecch · · Score: 1

      cunning politician

      Sorry, your point is salient but I have to interject with silliness - I was speed scrolling and barely skimming each post, and those 2 words in conjunction made my brain trip on it's own shoelaces and do a faceplant. Long shot joke - if anybody has read 'Lexicon' by Max Barry you know what I am talking about.

      cunning politician

      God, do we still have any of those? Ever read transcripts of debates from 100+ years ago, when education and diction were prerequisites for entry into (or better yet, just attributes of) the political class, and just want to cry? I mean even when one of them is arguing a horrible position, they are at least doing it with a delicacy of language and (misguided) thought that I could just kiss them on the mouth.

      Trump makes me a sad panda.

    11. Re:Young people moving away? by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, good point...the old "hidden agenda" trick, detected by the "follow the money" algorithm.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    12. Re:Young people moving away? by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Oh and only an idiot would think you could grow plants under opaque objects.

      I guess people in japan are idiots.

      Also, if you took the 2 seconds to follow the link I provided in my original post you'd see that I searched for desert solar farms. It's not very surprising that plants don't grow very well in a desert. It was a selective use of evidence to argue for a particular point even though the solar farm was a red herring for why the plants really didn't grow.

      Rubes like you would probably blame them for making the tomato plants cancerous though.

      It's rubes like you that are to blame for not understanding sarcasm, even obvious sarcasm clearly indicated with /s.

    13. Re:Young people moving away? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Sense TV and woman's suffrage the taller candidate with the better hair wins.

      We can't get rid of TV, so we must end woman's suffrage.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Blotting out the sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'm confused. Were the plans to build the panels directly over the town, Mr Burns style?

    Or are Americans actually that stupid?

    1. Re:Blotting out the sun by N1AK · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or are Americans actually that stupid?

      Like your shit doesn't stink as bad. There are plenty of stupid people, and America has its fair share. It also has a fair share of extraordinarily ordinary and exceedingly intelligent ones. Any deviation in distribution from the developed worlds average is almost certainly minimal. Insinuating that a country is full or morons isn't going to achieve any kind of constructive discussion.

      As other people have pointed out here there are other reasons why the project was turned down that probably paid a bigger part; however, a story about a couple of deranged residents causing concern amongst the uninformed population makes for a better 'news' story.

    2. Re:Blotting out the sun by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Funny

      How goes the joke...
      A UN poll asked the question "What, in your opinion, would be the best solution the problem of food shortages in the the rest of the world ?"

      The poll was a miserable failure:
      People in China, Russia, and North Korea didn't understand the word "opinion."
      People in Canada and Western Europe didn't understand the word "shortages".
      People in South America didn't understand the word "solution".
      People in Australia didn't understand the word "problem".
      People in Africa didn't understand the word "food"

      And people in America didn't understand the phrase: "the rest of the world"

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    3. Re: Blotting out the sun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Mwahahhaha........ahh....the conditioning "took" really well with you hmmm ? The USA is full of battery hens who think their government cares about what they think or say. It's sad in a way.

  9. Radiation... by SomeoneFromBelgium · · Score: 3, Funny

    You see, that's the problem: all this radiation.

    Nuclear energy creates radiation. And the sun IS radiation.

    No, no. The only safe energy is the Oil that He has giveth, for us to burn as we please!

    (do I need a sarcasm tag? I hope not)

    1. Re: Radiation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there!
      You subtly snuck IS into your comment. Are they involved as well? If ISIS has anything to do with it, better get dhs involved as well!

    2. Re: Radiation... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I think he meant it as <i>is</i>, since Slashdot is so late to the game that they still don't know it should be <em>is</em>. Try to use the right codes and they simply remove them.

    3. Re: Radiation... by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      And the sun I-I-I-I-S-S-S-Z radiation.
      Consider that each letter is about 1/4 second; when capitalized like that it might also be akin to a word being bold AND italic.
      Emphasis Mine.

  10. Piling on by Mycroft-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I appreciate that the summary and associated news stories are presenting a fair, unbiased view of the situation, free from ridicule and sarcasm (SWIDT?).

    This would have been the THIRD solar farm approved in the vicinity of the town -- there are already two solar projects underway.

    The solar farm would not have increased tax revenues or added value to the town. It would not likely employ any of the town's residents.

    Yes, the town residents are poorly informed about solar -- they have two projects underway and haven't seen the results of them yet.

    The town council did what the town council is supposed to do -- represent the will of their constituents. The solar company seeking the zoning change would have been well advised to work on communicating and educating the town they needed permission from. Why would the town council overrule their voters in exchange for...nothing?

    There's quite a double standard when it comes to education -- take someone in an urban environment who can't name their state capital or point to the United States on a map, and it's the fault of the school system and their environment. Take a similarly ignorant person for a rural environment and suddenly they become a willfully hick and fully at fault for not seeking out and drinking deep of the cup of knowledge.

    1. Re:Piling on by goarilla · · Score: 2

      There's quite a double standard when it comes to education -- take someone in an urban environment who can't name their state capital or point to the United States on a map, and it's the fault of the school system and their environment. Take a similarly ignorant person for a rural environment and suddenly they become a willfully hick and fully at fault for not seeking out and drinking deep of the cup of knowledge.

      That's because the people writing these stories are parents of urban children. And they will never admit their own fault (stop letting TV and the Internet raise your Children).

    2. Re:Piling on by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I also thought it was too insane to be true and looked up the local rag. Jane Mann really does come across as being utterly demented, her husband only marginally less so.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    3. Re:Piling on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In this case, making fun of the people and criticizing the education system is one and the same: The woman who claimed that the solar panels would prevent nearby plants from growing by blocking photosynthesis, and would also cause cancer, is a retired science teacher.

    4. Re:Piling on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Poorly informed"? That is a VERY nice way of putting it. One can be "poorly informed" and still have the common sense to refrain from making random statements on the subject, turning those into deep personal belief, then using it to do damage.

      This person isn't "poorly informed", they are fucking retarded, fucking crazy, and fucking arrogant. A deadly combination that is all too common.

    5. Re:Piling on by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      This person isn't "poorly informed", they are fucking retarded, fucking crazy, and fucking arrogant. A deadly combination that is all too common.

      The correct term would be "willfully ignorant" to be concise; and yes, it's an arrogant mindset to boot. Anyway, if people conjure up this much FUD over Solar Power, good luck getting a Nuclear Power renaissance started. We're so fucked...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Piling on by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Every community has these kooks. I've had the sad misfortune to be on a jury with one. It took all my willpower not to choke the ignorant bitch. We had a case where a car put on their turn indicator and stopped to let traffic go by before turning. The car behind them stopped and so did 3 others but one girl, very cute and sweet looking, plowed into the back of an elderly couple's car. She stated that she felt it wasn't the girl's fault because she probably wasn't looking. She said that shit completely sincere. It went on like that all day.

    7. Re:Piling on by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Sounds about right. Given what they pay teachers I'm shocked when they're actually competent.

    8. Re:Piling on by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      The solar farm would not have increased tax revenues or added value to the town. It would not likely employ any of the town's residents.

      This explains it all right there. The town residents want a "taste" of the solar farm. This is similar to the "Hawaiian Shakedown" over that new telescope.

      The town in NC has a teeny-tiny population. I could imagine that the solar company picked this place, because there would be less people to buy off.

      Except the town folks are not doing it right. All their wacky pseudo-scientific claim can easily be refuted in court. They need to spin some ridiculous religious yarn. Like the solar farm location is the secret ancient graveyard of the survivors of the Lost Roanoke Colony. You can't refute religious beliefs in court.

      However, it is amazing how quickly folks can forget their religious beliefs, when they are offered enough money.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    9. Re:Piling on by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 1

      Social Science?

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    10. Re:Piling on by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Not only the pay but the entire teaching system often seems designed to push good teachers out (drown them with meaningless bureaucracy and politician/corporation imposed "standards" to live up to) so that the only teachers left are the ones whose opinion of the classroom is not that it's a place to inspire and educate young minds, but that it's the place they need to endure every day so they can collect their paycheck.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    11. Re:Piling on by dywolf · · Score: 1

      and if the people's will was to jump off a bridge, no one should them they are stupid for doing that too?

      democracy is great.
      but it requires an informed populace.
      and when an uninformed populace makes an utterly idiotic choice, it completely deserves to be called on it.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:Piling on by gtall · · Score: 1

      Some people will have their religious beliefs for sale, some won't, no matter how demented. I once rented a house in the boonies, I won't say where. The landlord and lady were perfectly reasonable people. Then the gas company decided to move the gas meters. The landlady went Satanic, claimed the G-d did not want those meters to be moved. The landlord figured that living with the landlady would be harder than living with the new placement of the meters were they to remain. The gas company finally relented and sent a crew to move the meters back to their original position. Presumably G-d was pleased, the landlord was able to live with woman going forward. The gas company learned a lesson of not kissing up before the meters were moved. There was no amount of money that would have come between her and G-d. Angels proceeded to dance on their pinhead in joyous celebration.

    13. Re:Piling on by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      Niemann said the only sunlight the panels use to generate power is that which hits them directly.

      “The panels don’t draw additional sunlight,” Niemann noted.

      That's gotta be painful to have to explain...

    14. Re:Piling on by musicon · · Score: 1

      There may be something in the local water supply, as the author has phrases such as "with one of the now putting" and "would be have" in the article.

    15. Re:Piling on by internerdj · · Score: 1

      As someone who lives in Tornado alley. Not only does every community have kooks, a "newsworthy" personality is far more likely to end up on the news than someone who can give a coherent interview.

    16. Re:Piling on by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Jeff Foxworthy one-liner.

      If you've been on TV more than 5 times describing what a tornado sounded like.....you might be a redneck.

    17. Re:Piling on by Alsee · · Score: 1

      She stated that she felt it wasn't the girl's fault because she probably wasn't looking.

      That is so nonsensical that I had to read it four times before my brain was willing to parse the intended meaning and attach it to the sentence.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    18. Re:Piling on by KGIII · · Score: 1

      and if the people's will was to jump off a bridge, no one should them they are stupid for doing that too?

      Yet you imply you're intelligent...

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  11. Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Solar power is just nuclear power done in a very inefficient way. Here in Maryland we get the vast majority (~65% ) from two nuclear power plants. (And we share most of one with Pennsylvania). Yet people still want to build these tiny little 2 megawatt solar panels that only work during the day.

    1. Re:Nuclear Power by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Solar power is just nuclear power done in a very inefficient way.

      On the contrary. It is nuclear power without most of the risks involved and even without having to mine dangerous materials. In fact, life on this planet has evolved to be able to live with it and cannot do without it. So from an environmental perspective, it is "danger in the cloud", all risk are at the "server" (the sun) where you don't want to be anyway, and all benefits are at the "client" (the rest of the solar system). Like most of things in nature, it is abundant, and as long as you do not fight the abundancy itself, you can use it your whole life. Nature isn't "efficient" in the sense that every process runs for the benefit of one sentient entity, but it is efficient in that lots of entities can live of the left-overs in a sustainable way.

      I mean, you could grow three or more trees out of just one apple, but that does not mean that an apple tree is not efficient. The tree produces enough apples to ensure the existence of new grown apple trees and the apples also attract animals who donate manure, etc. So far apple trees have even tricked humans in helping their species to survive.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:Nuclear Power by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "On the contrary. It is nuclear power without most of the risks involved and even without having to mine dangerous materials."

      Parent poster didn't say it wasn't safe. He said it's inefficient. Which, well, it is.

      You probably didn't notice the whooosh either.

    3. Re:Nuclear Power by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. It is true that most apple trees are grafted, but there should be something to graft with to begin with. So there have been edible apples and the best were used to graft with. But these are "lucky shots". Most apples are smaller and edible (they seem to have been on the diet in prehistoric times). But without people experimenting with ungrafted trees, there would not be the variety of apples we know now. A lot of countries and provinces had their own native variety, so growing from seed must have been more common in the old days than it is now.

      In fact, most present-day apple trees do not start with a wild apple. I have a few in my garden that came from seeds, but usually standardized apple trees are multiplied asexually, so the grafted trees start with a predictable root system (which determines the growth and therefore the size of the tree).

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    4. Re:Nuclear Power by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I absolutely do, because I cant have my own nuke plant. Call me when I can buy a small 10kw nuke plant for my back yard. Until them all I can afford is my 10Kw solar array on the roof.

      And yes I DO want my own itty bitty nuke plant.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Nuclear Power by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Nuclear power is fission. Solar power is capturing the byproducts of a fusion reaction. You might be able to argue that it would be more efficient to run a fusion reaction to generate power, but we currently don't have the technology to do so. Besides, there's this huge fusion reaction (on a scale we could only dream of) going on relatively nearby whether we want it or not. Why not capture some of those byproducts and use them to generate power?

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    6. Re:Nuclear Power by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      Solar power is just nuclear power done in a very inefficient way.

      On the contrary. It is nuclear power without most of the risks involved and even without having to mine dangerous materials.

      If solar is nuclear power, then so is oil and coal. By burning oil and coal, we unleash the solar power stored in these fossils fuels.

    7. Re:Nuclear Power by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yup. That one isn't just inefficient, it's gloriously so!

    8. Re:Nuclear Power by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      So is wind, then.

      Actually, it would be more fair to say that all power is solar power, since fissionables too were created in another star's super-nova.

      True until we start generating power from hydrogen fusion ourselves, at least.

  12. Woodlawn is run by Democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The mayor and 3 council members are Democrats, the final council member is unaffiliated.

    Woodlawn is 65% registered Democrats. The state does have a single House member who is a Dem and one GOP senator and one Dem senator and a GOP governor.

    So this is a Dem town, like other longtime Dem towns like Detroit, Baltimore and D.C.

    Of course, Ars Technica can't let some accuracy in reporting interfere with getting a big hate going for Republicans who are pretty scarce in Woodlawn. The writer at Ars is one of their most shameless hacks on these kinds of tabloidy stories that play loose with facts. He is their lousiest writer.

    At any rate, I would support these Woodlawn residents' right to refuse to put a big solar farm in their backyard. Clearly, they could find an area with less population density. You don't have to site these utility sites right next to a town. The solar plant can go buy some land out in the rural where it isn't zoned. Woodlawn is a tiny village of 800 people and the area has low population density.

    Shocking news for some of you but communities do have a right to control where development occurs and what kinds of development occurs via their zoning laws. And every city, town and burg does so.

    1. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 2

      The mayor and 3 council members are Democrats, the final council member is unaffiliated.

      Woodlawn is 65% registered Democrats. The state does have a single House member who is a Dem and one GOP senator and one Dem senator and a GOP governor.

      So this is a Dem town, like other longtime Dem towns like Detroit, Baltimore and D.C.

      Is it that your argument is that Slashdot expects the Democrats to always be the smart ones or that we think all Republicans are stupid? Because, from where I sit, that's pretty ignorant. What we do know is that these people are poor and poorly educated. And to make matters worse, the state is now run by Republicans hellbent on decimating the education system there and they have been quite successful in doing so.

      So, if this Woodlawn story has you wondering how bad things are currently, how about if we predict how North Carolina looks in another 20 years? I would also ask everyone to consider the real cost for us to carry these people once the crisis fully matures. How do we as a country handle the long term damage caused by this short term thinking and are we going to accept that we will have to pay for this stupidity the Republicans caused during their tenure?

    2. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they intend to decimate the education system or not. I know the Democrats have all but destroyed it nationally in the last few decades and I don't see the Republicans improving it but I fail to see how they'll make it much worse. I thought maybe Jeb Bush would get elected and that might actually worsen it but it seems now that he will thankfully fade away so I suppose it will most likely just stagger on at it's current pathetic level for a while.

    3. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that just 3 years ago North Carolina effectively banned climate change science in order to appease coastal real estate developers.

      (Do a search on "North Carolina climate change law" if you don't like ABC News. Plenty of other outlets reported the story as well.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Woodlawn is 65% registered Democrats.

      I don't know if you realize this, but in North Carolina, the Democrats are Republican.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that just 3 years ago North Carolina effectively banned climate change science in order to appease coastal real estate developers

      According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC, right now:

      Residents are soon expected to register a petition to depart from the tradition of daylight savings in North Carolina, on the grounds that the curtains will fade and cows will give birth to kittens.

      Not making that up.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by tomknight · · Score: 1

      Umm... that nugget of strangeness (cows/kittens etc) was added today, by IP 218.17.240.71, with no citation. Note this is that IP's first Wikipedia edit. Not really what I'd call reliable.

      --
      Oh arse
    7. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      This is a better explanation based on Woodlawn demographics:

      For every 100 females there were 101.0 males.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      I don't know if they intend to decimate the education system or not. I know the Democrats have all but destroyed it nationally in the last few decades and I don't see the Republicans improving it but I fail to see how they'll make it much worse.

      The Democrats have all but destroyed the educational system? Really? You blame the Democrats for any number of contributing factors, including societal issues to name but one.

      I guess we really have nothing to talk about, do we?

    9. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except TFA clearly states this happened in Woodland not Woodlawn.

      So ... did you make the same typo several times ? Or is it possible you are thinking of entirely the wrong town ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Well, my IP address is 192.168.0.1, so it couldn't possibly have been me.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      Tip for citing trollish Wikipedia edits: Click the "view history" tab, and then select the topmost edit. Link to that page, not to the main article page.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    12. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      Clearly the Libertarians are the most intelligent party , they are smart enough to wear Tin Foil Hats to block the mind control rays from the UN-Constitutional traffic lights.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    13. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Woodlawn is 65% registered Democrats.

      As someone has pointed out below, the town in question is WoodLAND, not Woodlawn.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Clearly the Libertarians are the most intelligent party , they are smart enough to wear Tin Foil Hats to block the mind control rays from the UN-Constitutional traffic lights.

      To be fair, if Libertarians had been in charge of this town, there would be no zoning at all, so the Council would not have been able to stop the solar farm.

      Also, you're clearly being pedantic. There is nothing unconstitutional about traffic lights. It's the traffic light CAMERAS that violate the Constitution.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    15. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is becoming more and more of a common thing in internet and other political discourse. It's become less and less about any sort of rational discussion of policies, proposals, or problems, and more and more akin to a sort of tribal religious affiliation, with a manichean outlook. Our side is right and good, the other side is bad and evil, and its supporters are either malicious, ignorant, or both. Hell, I'm guilty of thinking that way too at times, so I tend to feel it's something far more widespread than just any sort of individual influence.

      I think a lot of it has to do with the ease of finding partisan reinforcement in selective media, and a resulting feedback loop once you reach a specific degree of certainty in your beliefs - you no longer accept countervailing evidence. Anyone in the middle gets attacked, or at least ostracized, by both sides. There's room for debate, but only within the confines of the core group's general range of acceptable views.

    16. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      I think you have describe the way most of us now deal with society - at least the politics of it all. And this is a shame. I have any number of friends who are conservatives (old school style) and we disagree on many things but allow that we all are trying to build the best country we can. Sadly, that's not the way most approach the situation. We believe that our philosophy is the only correct one and the other side has nothing to offer. And as this continues, the country gets farther down the hole.

    17. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I guess not.

    18. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The real problem began when it became all about graduating people. We can no longer allow people to fail so we must dumb down the system so that the lowest common denominator can pass. The reason children fail, for the most part, is that their parents don't parent. A sizeable chunk of children in the US basically raise themselves. I had a sister in law who was a speech pathologist in the local school system that had children under her care who could not stay awake in school because they went to bed at 1 or 2 in the morning many days. They often fell asleep in front of the TV or on their Playstation. Many of them have single mothers as parents who are barely able to care for themselves let alone their children. If you think the current generation has problems then just wait. You haven't seen anything yet.

    19. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. And if you ever decide to actually learn something about these issues, at least to the point of getting past what Rush Limbaugh has fed you, let me know. It might make for an interesting discussion.

    20. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You were doing okay for a minute. Now your brain farted. What the fuck does Rush Limbaugh, who I haven't heard in over 10 years or so anywhere (didn't he die or something?) have to do with anything. The Department of Education has for the last 4 decades, I know because I lived through them, systematically destroyed education in this country. Instead of bringing the students up to high standards they decided to lower the standards so that people who had a hard time passing, mostly poor people, could pass easily. I noticed that my children's books in the eighties and nineties were much less challenging than those I had when I attended school and generally their work was to a lesser standard. All this occurred during a period of time when the US department of education was mostly under the control of a liberal and "modern" leadership that decided the old ways of learning were inefficient and didn't properly serve the people of today. It's not entirely a Democrat thing though as Jeb Bush has sipped from the Koolaid as well. Of course Bush isn't really a conservative. As to Rushbo who you hold in such disdain, I never really cared for Rush's radio show, it was 3 hours of non-stop demagoguery that got boring quickly. He did have a really fabulous TV show for a while that was a scream. It was almost entirely 30 minutes of video gleaned from various sources of Democrats saying the nuttiest things while he ridiculed them. He being a staunch Republican it was of course entirely one sided. Classic material though.

    21. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      You were doing okay for a minute. Now your brain farted. What the fuck does Rush Limbaugh, who I haven't heard in over 10 years or so anywhere (didn't he die or something?) have to do with anything.

      Oh, we're actually going to fart jokes now. Excellent.

      Since you don't seem to get your information straight form the horse's mouth, Rush Limbaugh loves to talk about how the Department of Education (under Democratic control, donchaknow) has "systematically destroyed education in this country" which is incredibly funny given that the Department of Education can only make suggestions.

      One might suggest that your inability to understand this strengthens your argument but let's not assign credit where none is due.

      The Department of Education has for the last 4 decades, I know because I lived through them, systematically destroyed education in this country.

      Six decades for me and perhaps you can explain why Texas textbooks are rewriting history (among many of the other subjects) if the Department of Education is this all powerful entity?

      Instead of bringing the students up to high standards they decided to lower the standards so that people who had a hard time passing, mostly poor people, could pass easily.

      You do understand that American public schools have to accept anyone who shows up at their doors, right? That includes the kids we used to send to "those schools" kids who were malnourished (and didn't develop properly) kids who were abused and just about every other problem we seem to grow here. Somehow you neglected to comprehend that this happened during that forty years you apparently weren't paying much attention to.

      I noticed that my children's books in the eighties and nineties were much less challenging than those I had when I attended school and generally their work was to a lesser standard.

      Then maybe you should talk to your state or alternately move form the shithole you live in. Where I live, our schools are excellent - and you know why? Because our state spends tax payer money and works hard to make sure our kids get a great education.

      And that all leads back to why you really shouldn't open your mouth in a discussion on a subject you so obviously know nothing about. Here is a table that shows you which states do a better job with education. In our state, and even making allowances for the higher than average low income people we have, we rank almost at the top. In your case, if education has gone to shit (and I am sure it could have) are probably nowhere near the top.

      All this occurred during a period of time when the US department of education was mostly under the control of a liberal and "modern" leadership that decided the old ways of learning were inefficient and didn't properly serve the people of today.

      Ah, but as all of the decisions are left to the states, and in many case, the local school board, maybe you should take this complaint up with your local school board - because the Department of Education has no control over what they choose to teach.

      It's not entirely a Democrat thing though as Jeb Bush has sipped from the Koolaid as well.

      Ah Florida, I should have guessed. Ranked at number 28, your state is below average. At least you're not Mississippi.

      If only there was some federal body that was actually in charge of educational standards, maybe your state wouldn't have provided such a crappy education to your kids.

      Of course Bush isn't really a conservative.

      No? What do you consider him?

      As to Rushbo who you hold in such disdain, I never really cared for Rush's radio show, it was 3 hours of non-stop demagoguery that got boring quickly.

      T

    22. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      In your ignorance you ignore the obvious. The Feds control the money. Don't follow the Feds program? You don't get any money! It's so simple yet you missed it.

      As for Rush copying the daily show, just like everything else your facts are bogus. Rush's show ran from 92-96 and the Daily Show started in 96. Wonder who copied who?

      What do I consider Bush? An idiot.

    23. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      In your ignorance you ignore the obvious. The Feds control the money. Don't follow the Feds program? You don't get any money! It's so simple yet you missed it.

      No, sadly, I didn't miss it, you have no idea what you're talking about. And yes, the feds do exactly what you said in a number of areas but not in the schools. If you actually bothered to learn anything about how this system works, you'd know this.

      How the hell do you think there would be so much difference in curriculum and in cost per student spent if the system worked the way you mistakenly think it does?

      As for Rush copying the daily show, just like everything else your facts are bogus. Rush's show ran from 92-96 and the Daily Show started in 96. Wonder who copied who?

      My mistake. I make them. Are you adult enough to admit yours?

      What do I consider Bush? An idiot.

      I guess I have a somewhat higher amount of respect for Jeb Bush but I am more inclined to agree with you as argue the point.

      So, who do you like out of the entire presidential field? Personally, I am disgusted with the entire pack. The fact that Hillary Clinton is being offered by the Democrats would have me vote Republican if they offered someone like Jon Huntsman this time around - but they didn't.

    24. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by clovis · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that just 3 years ago North Carolina effectively banned climate change science in order to appease coastal real estate developers.

      (Do a search on "North Carolina climate change law" if you don't like ABC News. Plenty of other outlets reported the story as well.)

      Here is the actual law:
      http://ncga.state.nc.us/sessio...

      Here is the relevant section.

      What the bill was about was to put a stop to the various localities making up their own numbers and them demanding state funding to support their speculations.
      What was happening was the various towns had gotten into a race for how much money they wanted from the state based on individual projections made by, well just anybody.

      Note that the bill REQUIRES peer-reviewed science for projections. That is exactly requiring "climate change science" for projections.
      Note that section (e) of the bill also specifically encourages academic research into sea-level change.

      No rule, ordinance, policy, or planning guideline that defines sea level or a rate of sea-level rise within a coastal-area county shall be adopted except as provided by this section.
      (b) The General Assembly does not intend to mandate the development of sea-level rise policy or rates of sea-level rise. The Coastal Resources Commission, in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management, shall have the authority to define sea-level rise and develop rates of sea-level rise for the State.
      (c) The Coastal Resources Commission shall be the only State agency authorized to define rates of sea-level rise for regulatory purposes and, if developed, shall do so in conjunction with the Division of Coastal Management. The Commission and the Division of Coastal Management may collaborate with other State agencies, boards, commissions, other public entities, or institutions when defining sea-level rise or developing rates of sea-level rise. These rates shall be determined using statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data generated using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques. Historic rates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise unless such rates are from statistically significant, peer-reviewed data and are consistent with historic trends. Rates of sea-level rise shall not be one rate for the entire coast, but rather the Commission shall consider separately oceanfront and estuarine shorelines. For oceanfront shorelines, the Commission shall use no fewer than the four regions defined in the April 2011 report entitled "North Carolina Beach and Inlet Management Plan" published by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The oceanfront regions are: Region 1 (Brunswick County), Region 2 (New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow Counties and a portion of Carteret County), Region 3 (a portion of Carteret County and Hyde County), and Region 4 (Dare and Currituck Counties). For estuarine shorelines, the Commission shall consider no fewer than two separate regions defined as those north of Cape Lookout and those south of Cape Lookout. In regions that may lack statistically significant, peer-reviewed historical data, rates from adjacent regions may be considered and modified using generally accepted scientific and statistical techniques to account for relevant historical geologic and hydrologic processes.
      (d) Any State agency, board, commission, or institution that develops a policy addressing sea-level rise that includes a definition or rate of sea-level rise for the coastal-area counties shall use only the definitions and rates of sea-level rise developed by the Division of Coastal Management as approved by the Coastal Resources Commission.
      (e) The provisions in this

    25. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that out of the Democrats the one I respect the most is Bernie Sanders. He has integrity and he's sincere. I disagree with much of his politics but he seems a good person and I think if he was elected it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen. Hillary is just plain corrupt. Out of the Republicans I kind of like Ted Cruz on some levels. I like to watch Trump raise hell but I just can't see him as president. A lot of the crazy things he touts are in my opinion just him going for shock value. I like Carson as a person and he's a hell of a surgeon but that's what he needs to keep doing. Jeb Bush is the Republican version of Hillary. The corrupt money behind the party loves him. I really hate that Ron Paul got too old. I voted for him many times. I'm sort of a libertarian. I think there are many things the Feds should be doing but if we actually limited them to those things then at least half of the Federal government could go away.

    26. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      I lived in Vermont for quite a few years and actually met Bernie. He is exactly what you see, there's nothing fake about the guy. I am going to vote for him and I also disagree with a lot of what he says but I do believe he could bring about some much needed change. More to the point, I can't see him being pushed around by anyone.

      Ted Cruz seems to be positioning himself as a Trump-lite and I can't see that being a winning ticket. About the only possibility for me is John Kasich. And, like Sanders, there are a number of things I disagree with but I think the guy has integrity and some common sense.

    27. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Balances Minnesota, where the Republicans are Democrats and the Democrats are Communists.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    28. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Balances Minnesota, where the Republicans are Democrats and the Democrats are Communists.

      You mean Minnesota, the state with a billion dollar SURPLUS? The state with one of the fastest-growing economies, one of the best educational systems, one of the top health care programs and among the states with the least childhood poverty? And all these things happened after they decided to raise taxes on the rich and refused budget cuts?

      Yeah, those goddamn commies ruined that place, innit?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I know I'm never going to like everything about any candidate. I remember when President Obama got elected I was kind of like "well at least we'll get rid of that stinking Patriot Act bullcrap." Nope! He continued the worst of the Bush policies and brought his own craziness to boot.

    30. Re:Woodlawn is run by Democrats by KenDiPietro · · Score: 1

      The realization that no candidate can be 100% to everyone has to be accepted. My problem is that many candidates position themselves to appeal to a relatively small percentage of the voters thinking that because they scream the loudest, they have to be the largest voting block.

      This needs to change.

      In a more ideal system, instead of arguing over what divides us, we might try all getting together on what we can agree on.

      Here are several examples:

      The buying power of the majority of Americans is too low. Either prices needs to be reduced or wages need to be corrected. I suspect that both of these variables need to be addressed.

      No American should be in a position of not having enough to eat, a safe place to call home, unable to better themselves through education or vocational training or to ever have to worry about health care or retirement.

      Our infrastructure needs to be maintained and in many cases completely upgraded. These include; transportation, telecommunications, our energy generation and distribution, not to mention our energy hungry housing and commercial stock.

      We need to take a hard look at our law enforcement, judicial and corrections systems as all of them need to be fixed. What we are currently doing is not working, is extremely expensive and wasteful of both our resources and our personal liberties.

      The electoral process in this country has lost any semblance of what the American people demand - and this needs to change.

      I suspect that the true discussion needs to be focused on the how but I honestly don't believe anyone would argue that the topics themselves are in question.

  13. This is actually true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis."
    Enough shade and nothing will grow, same reason you don't put the solar panels in the shade. Making him sound like an idiot when he is actually correct is a bit of a dick move. makes you wonder if who ever wrote this has an agenda...

    1. Re:This is actually true. by N1AK · · Score: 1

      So would a proposed road, or anything else that takes any amount of land that previously was touched by the sun and stops the sun reaching soil or something growing in it; thus you're supporting a pedantic and pointless argument at best, and almost certainly an attempt to mislead people into thinking it affects vegetation on a wider scale.

      Furthermore it doesn't have to be that way. We've got multiple solar developments over here that are used for grazing livestock (generally sheep). If you can place solar panels such that grass can grow underneath them in the UK with our modest allocation of sunlight then it shouldn't be difficult in somewhere like NC.

    2. Re:This is actually true. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Who the hell modded this nonsense Insightful? You should be bloody ashamed of yourselves, both of you.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:This is actually true. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Yes, "enough shade and nothing will grow" is true, but unless they were going to build the solar panels above the town, I don't see the relevance. Solar panels don't vacuum up sunlight. They only process the sunlight that hits them. So unless you were planning on putting solar panels directly above your farmland, they wouldn't affect plants in any way.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    4. Re:This is actually true. by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I haven't read the article of course, but calling the argument pedantic, pointless, and misleading depends on why the argument was put forward. If the solar company thought they'd simplify for the dumb small town residents, who knows. Maybe they are making an installation like what you've described and they said "this won't affect your crops at all."

    5. Re:This is actually true. by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Explain how it is nonsense.

    6. Re:This is actually true. by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Yes, "enough shade and nothing will grow" is true, but unless they were going to build the solar panels above the town, I don't see the relevance. Solar panels don't vacuum up sunlight. They only process the sunlight that hits them. So unless you were planning on putting solar panels directly above your farmland, they wouldn't affect plants in any way.

      Maybe they were going to put the solar farm in the woman's view shed. These farms can take 100 acres of land or more. That's a lot of scenic North Carolina mountain vista to lose, especially when there are already 2 of them in the area. Maybe the objection is turning an attractive landscape into more of this eyesore. And, of course, the town actually gets no benefit. At least when Apple builds a solar farm, they provide local jobs...

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    7. Re:This is actually true. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Already has been--just read the rest of the thread.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  14. I dont blame them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really respect their decision. We had a solar plan around here and it got partially built and then the company went bankrupt. Same thing happened to a foreign wind power plan. Several hundred were going up and luckily the company went belly up before installing all those. We have a wind farm south of us that sits idle more then it provides power. Truth is not enough planning is being done with alternatives. Its like Solyendra it had no chance because it had no practical ideal on how to make money.

  15. That's OK by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just tell them we'll add two hours to daylight savings time to make up for it.

    --
    Mostly random stuff.
    1. Re:That's OK by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Just tell them we'll add two hours to daylight savings time to make up for it.

      Funny you should mention that. According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC right at this very moment:

      Residents are soon expected to register a petition to depart from the tradition of daylight savings in North Carolina, on the grounds that the curtains will fade and cows will give birth to kittens.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:That's OK by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Just tell them we'll add two hours to daylight savings time to make up for it.

      Reminds me of when I lived in Korea, and they tried Daylight Savings for a year, and then stopped it. The story going around was that the farmers complained there crops weren't getting enough sunlight.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    3. Re:That's OK by torqer · · Score: 1

      Daylight Savings is actually a hardship on farmers. It tacks on an extra waking hour to their day.

      Farmers generally get up with the animals, at first light. While the cattle may get sleepy an hour earlier the businesses (and other people) that farmers need to interface with all stay open and up later.

    4. Re:That's OK by Chatsubo · · Score: 2

      Not even necessary, for a low-low price I can sell them a device that will 100% reverse any light suckage caused by said Solar Panels, or your money back! I guarantee that if my device is bought and run 24/7, any and all effects of the solar panels.... including the cancer they cause.... will be eliminated entirely.

      Is that a bargain or what?! Call me NC!

      --
      > no, yes, maybe (tagging beta)
  16. ALEC by donkwich · · Score: 1

    Looks like ALEC's misinformation campaign is going on more smoothly than scheduled.

    1. Re:ALEC by Z80a · · Score: 1

      Could you give more details about that?

    2. Re:ALEC by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Could you give more details about that?

      Here ya go.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    3. Re:ALEC by Z80a · · Score: 1

      That sounds just marvelous.

    4. Re:ALEC by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      It's a Koch bro front organization. http://realkochfacts.com/koch-...

    5. Re:ALEC by budgenator · · Score: 1

      At least with wind, you can still use the land for something productive like farming, a big solar farm is pretty useless.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  17. There's a serious side to this funny by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

    This is speculation on my part but I think I have it right. You're going to have to read between the lines of the original side to see the serious side (newspaper article linked by ARS). Woodland is a tiny little farming community with almost no revenue coming in. The per capita income is ~$12,000 (wiki). There us no upside to these solar farms; it doesn't create jobs, it doesn't generate tax additional revenue, there is no return on the land/dollar trade. So Woodland wants a cut of the profits. Strata Solar has not offered said cut

    However, Strata Solar has bought the acreage. Woodland is holding them over a barrel. Now, Woodland can't say that outright so instead they use NIMBY politics.

    1. Re:There's a serious side to this funny by Jerry+Atrick · · Score: 1

      I have no problem with sane argument about who profits, where the farm is, whether it's appropriate.

      None of that excuses the utterly batshit dumb things they claim to believe. Stupidity remains stupidity even if it aligns with a credible argument.

    2. Re:There's a serious side to this funny by Rob+Lister · · Score: 1

      None of that excuses the utterly batshit dumb things they claim to believe. Stupidity remains stupidity even if it aligns with a credible argument.

      It is NIMBY politics clothed as stupidity. They want their cut but have no legal way of getting it absent holding that land for ransom. And they'll probably get it. If not then Strata is stuck with several hundred acres they still have to pay property taxes on or sell at a [probably] significant loss. So, not at all stupid.

    3. Re:There's a serious side to this funny by radish · · Score: 1

      Someone in the town clearly profited from the land sale. Why does the town as a whole deserve something in addition? Unless it's causing some negative impact outside of that private land (in which case compensation would be appropriate).

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    4. Re:There's a serious side to this funny by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      It's not a sale, it's a zoning variance, which would allow the (absentee) landowner to lease his land to an energy company. The solar farms are unsightly, which negatively impacts the value of surrounding residential properties.

  18. And we wonder... by Grog6 · · Score: 1

    How the GOP get so many voters.

    Trump must be proud of his peeps!!

    rofl.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  19. Re:Retired science teacher by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Her primary concern is with property prices. I don't believe for one minute that she believes any of this crap - she's just trying to manipulate the rest of the town to keep her house value up.

  20. 405 nut cases by prefec2 · · Score: 2

    Obviously they are nuts. Solar panel do not scare young people. However, a minimum of 405 idiots might just do the trick. Solar panel do also not suck energy from the sun. We all know that if they do not know that then they never really paid attention to the topics at school. But there is a positive side to that. First, the range of total nut cases is only between 405 and 809. It may be even lower, if people did not vote and if there are any children left. Second, we could promote the town to people who have similar ideas of "reality" and concentrate them in North Carolina. And third, now the town has at least one thing on Wikipedia for what they are famous for. I wonder why such small village is called a town.

    1. Re:405 nut cases by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      True, it is a village full of Village Idiots.

      Town is definitely not the right term.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  21. All the young people are going to move out by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    All the young people are going to move out

    Of course, that could not possibly have anything to do with the town being ruled by a bunch of retired retards.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  22. Wow by Dereck1701 · · Score: 1

    I thought people this stupid only existed in comedy films. However it should be noted that two other solar projects in the same area have been approved and one is already under construction. Sounds similar to something that took place in my area, they were trying to put up a wind farm and same NIMBY arguments were used (they're unhealthy (sound waves) they'll destroy property values (its all farmland anyway), etc). So instead of a new industry brought to our community, increased tax revenue and more (though limited) employment opportunities we've got nothing. I'm not saying that all renewable energy projects are worthwhile, but sabotaging them for these idiotic arguments is akin to burning all of your money because you're afraid the trace amounts of cocaine on the bills will get you thrown in jail.

  23. Fact vs. Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "All the young people are going to move out."

    If I were a young person and lived in rural America, I would be chomping at the bit to move to a city somewhere. As an older adult that is currently living in rural America, I can wholeheartedly understand. Living in rural America sucks, especially if you're educated and cultured. I spend the first 35 years of my life living in cities and thought country farm living might be a nice change of pace. Boy, was I wrong.

    "The solar panels will block photosynthesis in nearby plants"

    Absolutely true, if we change the word "block" to "reduce." After all, solar panels cast a shadow on the ground, and grass on the ground is a nearby plant.

    But see, here's the reason it is completely irrelevant how this town voted. It is because they voted. We do not live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the technorati or envirorati or hipsterati get to decide for everyone else what is good for them. The voters of a political subdivision get to decide for themselves how to deploy and use their resources, because, you know, democracy. If they want to be stupid-as-fuck rednecks, it is their right whether the rest of us like it or not.

    The one saving grace might be the ACA precedent that gave the government the power to force people to take action and buy products. This may allow the federal government to compel people against their will to buy solar panels and carbon credits and other products the government sees fit we should buy. But, someone with standing will have to sue in federal court that the lack of deploying solar panels is causing them a demonstrable loss. That might be tricky, but if the SCOTUS can apply the same tortured logic that they used in Wickard v. Filburn and NIFB v. Seleblius, then it should be only academic once a test case floats to the top.

    1. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is because they voted.

      And yet, what I do on my own land — build a solar plant or dig a lake or raise cows — should not be subject to other people's voting.

      The whole idea of "zoning laws" and "permits" for this and that is absolutely contrary to freedom and property rights.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just what "property rights" do you think you have? If you are in the US, you do not have your "own land." You merely are in possession of a fee-simple title that grants you permission to improve upon its surface and to control access (albeit to a limited degree), subject to whatever restrictions the title issuer sees fit to place upon that title, including the agreement to abide by local zoning laws.

      A fee-simple title does not grant you land ownership. It does not grant you mineral rights. It does not grant you riparian rights. You do not have a right to do whatever you wish with the land described in your title. You do not own the rain that falls upon it. You do not own the sunlight that shines upon it. You don't own the minerals beneath it. That's just the way it is.

    3. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Xyrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is because they voted.

      And yet, what I do on my own land — build a solar plant or dig a lake or raise cows — should not be subject to other people's voting.

      The whole idea of "zoning laws" and "permits" for this and that is absolutely contrary to freedom and property rights.

      So you'd be perfectly happy with a strip mining pit next to your house? How about a toxic waste dump? Or a landfill? Hey it's my property, I can do whatever I want with it right?

      If what you want to with your property won't impact others, great. But if it does, then they very much have a say in the matter.

      --
      ~X~
    4. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Without zoning laws, your could have neighbor could sell their land and build a coal plant. Brothels could be built next to schools. Without permits, someone could build a well that sucks up the water from all their neighbors' wells. Building decisions affect the local community.

    5. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your have absolutely no property rights, other than what your Government protects. Realize what you call your property rights is something people of this country have voluntarily agreed to respect. You can imagine all sorts of rights. Enforcing them without the cooperation of the people around you is impossible. You will be reduced to yet another old man yelling at kids to get off "his" grass.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      And yet, what I do on my own land — build a solar plant or dig a lake or raise cows — should not be subject to other people's voting.

      I would agree with you but would add "so long as your actions don't affect other people or their land." So if you wanted to dump toxic waste on your land, you shouldn't be allowed to because it will seep into the groundwater and pollute the water for the rest of the town. However, if you wanted to put solar panels on your land and you've completed a mandatory environmental impact study showing that it wouldn't hurt the environment in the process, then I see no reason to disallow it. Definitely not on the grounds of "it'd suck up all the sun" or "I think solar cells might cause cancer but have no proof showing this so until it's proved they don't we should ban them."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    7. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It should if the water you store in your lake used to end up on other people's property, or if the waste from your cows does end on other people's property. I'm sure if your neighbor had a water cannon shooting Tabasco sauce onto your land you'd probably think twice about your absurd position.

      You are not an island.

    8. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by mi · · Score: 1

      Without zoning laws, your could have [...]

      I dunno, somehow Houston copes.

      You are explaining the benefits of zoning laws. That does not change the fact, they infringe on property rights and, ultimately, freedom.

      Brothels could be built next to schools.

      Oh, dear, would somebody, please, think of the children?

      Without permits, someone could build a well that sucks up the water from all their neighbors' wells

      Let me Fix That For You:

      Without permits, someone could build a solar plant that sucks up the Sun from all their neighbors' plants

      Live by the permits, die by the permits.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by mi · · Score: 1

      you've completed a mandatory environmental impact study

      So, the burden of proof is on me, eh? Nice... Remember this attitude next time you are accused of anything by the state...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 1

      Your have absolutely no property rights, other than what your Government protects. Realize what you call your property rights is something people of this country have voluntarily agreed to respect. You can imagine all sorts of rights. Enforcing them without the cooperation of the people around you is impossible. You will be reduced to yet another old man yelling at kids to get off "his" grass.

      If that's your point of view, then why stop at property rights? How about "you have absolutely no human rights, other than what your Government protects"?

    11. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      raise cows — should not be subject to other people's voting.

      If you can contain the crap and smell to your own property, go nuts. One drop or one whiff leaks out, and all bets are off.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much standard for any major project. You go over what you plan on doing and how it will impact the surrounding environment. For most projects, it would be easily accomplished and accepted. It's perhaps a bit of annoying bureaucracy, but it helps avoid the case where you use your land in a way that hurts the land other people own. e.g. If a river ran across your land and you decided to build a dam regardless of the fact that the river fed both the water supply to a town downstream and a protected wetlands area. This is the standard "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" case. Your right to use your property ends when said use negatively impacts others.

      Bringing this back to the article's topic, though, the environmental impact study for setting up a bunch of solar cells would be simple and it would be easy to show that this would have no impact on surrounding lands. The "what if they cause cancer" or "they'll suck up all the surrounding sunlight" claims are easily dismissed and shouldn't be used as a reason why the solar plant couldn't be built.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    13. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      That is true too. Realize the rights have meanings only where there is an enforcement mechanism. The only legal enforcement mechanism is the government. That should give a point to ponder about the guys talking about starving the beast and drowning it in a bathtub.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    14. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by mi · · Score: 1

      This is pretty much standard for any major project.

      And it does not bother you, that the suspect must be proving his innocence, rather than the other way around? Wow...

      environmental impact study for setting up a bunch of solar cells would be simple and it would be easy to show that this would have no impact on surrounding lands

      Only as "easy" and "simple" as the government — the same folks we've just read about — make it. Which, as we've just learned, may not be easy at all. Whatever their reasons — simple stupidity, aesthetics, financial stakes in the three other solar-plants already present around this town — they can (and do) make life hell for people.

      You are making it sound as if the proponent — the would-be owner of the plant — didn't do his homework, while in a better country he would not have to do these things at all. The burden of proof must be on whoever is worrying about the plant's impact on environment, or the Sun, or whatever.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    15. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Altus · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a lot of rules and regulations to me... who is going to decide if the noise/smell from your neighboring property is too odious, who is going to approve the designs for these abatements. Maybe we should have the builders present plans to some kind of permitting or zoning board to approve them.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    16. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Except your cited examples could all have negative consequences for neighbouring property. As the saying goes, your rights end where the other person's start so its not unreasonable that you should be required to submit to planning approval for certain things.

    17. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Even the GPs suggestions could be objectionable. A solar plant could be onerous if the panels caused blinding dazzle on nearby property. And raising cows - they shit everywhere, contaminate the ground water, breed flies and damage boundaries. Even a lake could cause issues if it were a breeding ground for mosquitoes or its formation / filling disrupted ground water levels and nearby wells. So potentially neighbours might have reason to take issue with all these things. Hence the reason most places have planning laws.

    18. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

      Without zoning laws, your could have [...]

      I dunno, somehow Houston copes.

      From the quoted BW article:Developers employ widespread private covenants and deed restrictions, which serve a comparable role as zoning. These privately prescribed land use controls are effective because they have a legal precedence and local government has chosen to assist in enforcing them. Some investors are understandably apprehensive about the lack of clearly defined rules. Houston developers have long recognized these concerns and have responded, particularly in suburban markets, by producing planned business and industrial parks that have rigorous covenants and deed restrictions. Not surprisingly, the sites receiving the attention of institutional investors, especially in suburban markets, tend to be in planned parks.

      So Houston simply replaced zoning with restricted deeds and covenants, i.e. zoning laws by any other name except they are not decided by the local government.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    19. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You're ranting and defending dumb-as-rocks idiots who think solarpanels will suck up the sun and cause cancer.... because you're pissed about heathcare.

      Wingnut.

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    20. Re:Fact vs. Fiction by RonTheHurler · · Score: 1

      Or in my case, a year after I bought a nice little farm house, a cement fixture factory went up next door. The noise and dust were incredible.
      That's what I get for buying property outside the city in an un-zoned area. Won't make that mistake again unless I have quite a lot of acreage.

      Oh give me a home... but with an HOA this time please.

  24. Reasonable minds prevailed by mi · · Score: 1

    the solar panels would suck up all the energy from the Sun

    Yeah, the concern about as valid, as the fear, that the inhabitants' flatulence raises the planet's temperature.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  25. Fuckwits are everywhere by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can find ignorant people anywhere. Some places, like slashdot, just have more than their fair share.

    1. Re:Fuckwits are everywhere by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Slashdot suffers from the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

    2. Re:Fuckwits are everywhere by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      You can find ignorant people anywhere. Some places, like slashdot, just have more than their fair share.

      When it comes to bigoted, hate speech against Southern people, it seems like Slashdot has nothing BUT ignorant people. Even the summary excludes any substance in favor of stereotyping a group that is "different".

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    3. Re:Fuckwits are everywhere by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      And Europe has just as many Luddite fuckwits as the US. We may be debating labeling food for GMO content in the US, but in Europe you have no choice. You can'y buy it anywhere.

    4. Re:Fuckwits are everywhere by matfud · · Score: 1

      See, ignorance on Slashdot abounds. Yes you can buy GMO food in Euuurrrope. It tends to be labeled and some countries do not allow GMO crops to be grown. But many products contain GMO crops.

  26. Anti-nuke by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    This sounds just like the silly sorts of thing said by anti-nukes when they're fighting to keep a nuclear power plant from being built.

    So, I take it that the problem here is that they're opposed to something that we like, as opposed to something we dislike?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Anti-nuke by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Nuclear accident do cause cancer. However, federal jurstiction makes them exempt from zoning.

    2. Re:Anti-nuke by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I wish I had points to mod you up right now.

      I find it odd how Slashdot, a forum of people that supposedly are more knowledgeable of science and technology than the average bear, are so pro-solar and yet so anti-nuke. The anti-nuke people will point to Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Mile Island as examples on why we can't have nuclear power toady. This ignores advancements in technology we made since those accidents, changes in policy since then, and generally all the lessons we've learned about how NOT to do nuclear power.

      I am to believe that we've learned nothing from these incidents and therefore no new nuclear power plant can ever be built. On the other hand we have a history of terribly inefficient solar panels but I am to expect that this efficiency will inevitably improve in time. No doubt that we've made considerable gains in solar panel efficiency but we are quickly approaching, or perhaps already met, the physical limits of photovoltaic efficiency. We went from 5% efficiency to 20% efficiency in 40 years, but that does not mean we can go from 20% to 35% in another 40 years. We will be lucky to get 25% without some very esoteric, and therefore expensive, materials. It may be possible to get better than 50% efficiency at some point from solar power but that ignores some very real and unavoidable flaws with solar power. Solar power requires land, or at least surface area. This area cannot then be used for growing crops, and people are not likely to want to live under them since people like to see the sky. Then there is night time, solar power is unavailable at night. Solar power is also unavailable or diminished with clouds. Nuclear power doesn't care about the time of day or the weather.

      Anyone that thinks we can build orbital solar collectors to avoid the land area and night time issues needs to talk to someone that did the engineering and cost estimates on such a system. I'd suggest looking for articles and lectures from Kirk Sorensen on this, he's a former NASA engineer and current nuclear engineer. He's a nuclear engineer precisely because he saw how flawed solar power is for powering anything on earth or in space.

      I believe we can live without solar power. Living without nuclear power is going to be very dangerous and dismal.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  27. Slashdot: full of bigotry by m0s3m8n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I see bigotry for the southern US is alive and well here on Slashdot. Why look into all the facts when you can parrot this juicy headline.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    1. Re:Slashdot: full of bigotry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hea, you can't be bigoted against white people because "reasons".

    2. Re:Slashdot: full of bigotry by JazzHarper · · Score: 2

      Rev. Jane Vinson Mann is pastor of the Immanuel House of Prayer.
      Her husband, Bobby Columbus Mann, is a truck driver.
      Both are black, in their late '60s.
      It is very unlikely that they are Tea Party supporters.
      It is, however, quite likely that they were educated in underfunded, segregated public schools.

    3. Re:Slashdot: full of bigotry by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I see bigotry for the southern US is alive and well here on Slashdot

      Not nearly as much as it amongst those of us who've had the misfortune of spending time in the place...

    4. Re:Slashdot: full of bigotry by swb · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for the NAACP to get involved here, since right-wing white energy companies are showing up in poor, disenfranchised, elderly rural African American communities and bullying the locals, belittling their ignorance and furthering what really amounts to corporate imperialism.

      Further, their ignorance is really not something for the white power structure to mock, since their ignorance is of course a byproduct of the bigoted and prejudicial segregated educational system the white power structure forces minorities into.

      I'm pretty sure the Afrikaners treated the Bantus better than these energy companies are treating these local people.

    5. Re:Slashdot: full of bigotry by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      I see bigotry for the southern US is alive and well here on Slashdot. Why look into all the facts when you can parrot this juicy headline.

      That's what it looks like to me. From TFA, as others have pointed out,

      The Woodland Town Council rejected a proposal to rezone a section of land north of town to M2 (manufacturing) from RA (residential/agricultural), essentially denying approval of a solar farm.

      Once land is re-zoned from residential/agricultural to manufacturing, a few solar panels is far from the only thing likely to be done with the re-zoned land.

      Also from TFA, I notice that very little of the really stupid "reasons" are reported as actual quotes. They are the reporter's characterization of what the person said.

    6. Re:Slashdot: full of bigotry by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Interesting history tidbit: North Carolina was the last state to secede, and only seceded when all surrounded states had seceded. To clarify, due to regional pressure, it HAD to secede. Slavery was more important in Virginia and South Carolina, the states bordering to the North and South.

    7. Re:Slashdot: full of bigotry by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Trollish headlines and articles that omit details are what gets attention. That being said, the company that wanted to put the third big solar project in the area really should have done some PR work.

      Also, the article kind of glossed over the negative impact some o these projects can have on property values, and THAT is a perfectly legitimate concern. Ignoring the reasonable restrictions and opting to promote the more kookie stuff isn't really news, it's merely an exploitative stereotype.

      I remember when slashdot didn't immerse itself in bullshit.

  28. Is It Wrong to Lie at a Town Hall Meeting? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    I read TFA, Mary Hobbs of Woodland, N.C. lied. Why?

    1. Re:Is It Wrong to Lie at a Town Hall Meeting? by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      When you open a microphone for "public comment" in any town hall in the world, you can expect to hear from a disproportionate number of cranks and ignorant concerned citizens. They seek these opportunities.

  29. Re:There are always objections by mi · · Score: 1

    The more rational objections of appearance

    Seriously? "Appearance" is a rational objection?.. Kennedy much?

    environmental impact

    Wait, is this the moment of truth? Democrats admit, solar panels may have a negative environmental impact? Could you elaborate?

    cost/benefit

    In a properly Capitalist environment, the cost/benefit analysis of a project is the private matter for the investors to consider...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  30. Time to finally make that move... by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Canada is accepting the few remaining intelligent, informed Americans as refugees. :-) I've only half-considered moving -- I work for a multinational and could pretty easily get a European work visa through the company. Maybe if Trump wins the election, I'll finally go hand in the old passport.

    This sounds a lot like the same folks who get scammed by homeopathic "doctors" and buy thousands of dollars in quack remedies. Or the people who are scared by exposure to "electromagnetic radiation" and cite it as a cause of health problems.

    I like a previous poster's idea of setting up "dumb people elections" and running the government via a secret bunch of smart people. When all the candidates are going for the dumb people, the outrageous stuff they say should be very amusing, even more than it is now.

    Brawndo -- it's got what plants need!

    1. Re:Time to finally make that move... by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Canada is accepting the few remaining intelligent, informed Americans as refugees. :-) I've only half-considered moving -- I work for a multinational and could pretty easily get a European work visa through the company.

      I don't know much about visas but I'm pretty sure that Canada isn't part of Europe.

  31. Preventing photosynthesis by drolli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    this guy is right.... in the shade below the panel, it prevents photosynthesis. So does his house. I suggest we demolish it and let him live in a hole in the ground.

    1. Re:Preventing photosynthesis by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      Hurray! Hobbit houses!

    2. Re:Preventing photosynthesis by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Chia gardens lit by solar power still have photosynthesis.

    3. Re:Preventing photosynthesis by Socguy · · Score: 1

      No, it would just slow photosynthesis. Light will still reach any plants under the panels, though it would be less. The questions is whether specific plants could still grow with less light reaching them. Of course, if you read the original comment, it was clear that the concern was that the panels will suck up all the energy and prevent photosynthesis basically anywhere near the panels. And this was from a school teacher, hence the global facepalm...

  32. Re:National Report by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    ...is complete balderdash sponsored by none other than Halliburton.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  33. "Green" technologies with Chinese rare earths... by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 1

    are an environmental catastrophe. Solar panels and wind turbines require huge quantities of rare earth elements, and they all come from China today--even the ore mined in the US is shipped to China for processing. Until this is addressed, the so-called "green" technologies are not remotely green. Restoring our local rare earth industry would also enable local manufacturing of high-tech products, most all of which has been moved to China, for access to their rare earth resources.

    There is no shortage of rare earths, and they could be mined and produced locally in an environmentally friendly manner. However, it would require changing the insane regulations surrounding thorium, which drove the industry to China in the first place. Concentrated ores invariably have high thorium concentrations, and the thorium could easily be separated and safely stored if only regulations allowed it. It is just barely radioactive, not water soluble, found in rocks everywhere anyway, and probably the least problematic of the mining wastes. Even ingesting it is essentially harmless; only inhaling thorium dust is of real concern. As it is a metal, there is a rather trivial way of preventing that from happening.

    While this town may be shunning solar for the wrong reasons, there are good reasons. The area looks heavily wooded as well, and clearing vast areas of forest to collect a pitiful amount of unreliable solar energy is not productive. Moreover, unlike wind, PV solar does not coexist with vegetation at all, as even a stray leaf can damage the cells. The entire solar farm becomes a lifeless monument of irony to Big Green, which will long outlive the panels themselves.

    Sadly, the greenest and most promising energy source is equally hampered by insane regulation. Nuclear is not only the least resource intensive, it also has the least environmental impact by far, and has proven to rapidly scale and displace fossil fuels in a number of countries.

  34. *Facepalm* by Orleron · · Score: 1

    Ugh... my face is pink from all the facepalms in that paragraph.

  35. Simcity? by gizmod · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a SimCity newspaper story.

  36. April 1st by watermark · · Score: 1

    I seriously checked the date to see if it was April 1st when I read the summary.

  37. Don't judge us by this place by duckintheface · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please, please don't judge North Carolina by these rubes. This dumb little town is about 100 miles from Research Triangle Park, the largest concentration of PhDs in the world. North Carolina is a progressive and beautiful state with the best climate in the eastern US. It has traditionally had the best public education system in the South.

    Yes, we are currently in the clutches of a backwards Republican state government so there are lots of headlines about regressive policies. But this is an aberration ( the first Republican government in over 100 years) and it will not last long.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "This dumb little town is about 100 miles from Research Triangle Park, the largest concentration of PhDs in the world." - oh, they sucked all the brain powers from those rural people! Ban PhDs!

    2. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      North Carolina is a progressive

      Shenanigans.

      and beautiful state

      Ok sure.

      with the best climate in the eastern US

      Better than Atlanta I'll grant. But still a muggy humid mess away from the coast.

    3. Re:Don't judge us by this place by malditaenvidia · · Score: 2

      They took our jerbs!

    4. Re:Don't judge us by this place by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Funny

      the best public education system in the South.

      Setting the bar real high there, ain'tcha?

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    5. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Please, please don't judge North Carolina by these rubes. This dumb little town is about 100 miles from Research Triangle Park, the largest concentration of PhDs in the world. North Carolina is a progressive and beautiful state with the best climate in the eastern US. It has traditionally had the best public education system in the South.

      Yes, we are currently in the clutches of a backwards Republican state government so there are lots of headlines about regressive policies. But this is an aberration ( the first Republican government in over 100 years) and it will not last long.

      Actually, the rubes are a perfect way to judge North Carolina, because over 95% of the population of North Carolina IS rubes like the ones
      mentioned in the article.

      North Carolina is progressive ? That's utter bullshit. North Carolina is the most backward state I've ever lived in by a huge margin. I've been visiting
      North Carolina since the mid 1970s, and I have lived in North Carolina for the past 14 years ( extended family needed my help and I chose to sacrifice my own happiness for a while in order to do what I thought was right ). I am leaving North Carolina soon, for good, and other than brief visits to family I will never return to the state. I certainly won't live in North Carolina again.

      The original poster is a myopic clueless fool. North Carolina is a backward shithole filled with awful ignorant hateful rednecks. Eric Rudolph and that idiot who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado were both from North Carolina. Trust me, North Carolina is a state that you'd only like
      if you are yourself a clueless idiot.

      Lastly, North Carolina has consistently placed in the BOTTOM 40 of all 50 states, in public school test scores.

      By the way, the high concentration of people with doctorates in RTP doesn't mean anything with respect to quality of life. Most of these people are in "work and raise a family" mode, and they don't tend to enhance the social scene.

      Frankly, I'd bitch slap the original poster if I could. He is an idiot who is spewing misinformation and NEEDS a bitch slap.

    6. Re:Don't judge us by this place by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      "Another resident -- a retired science teacher, no less "

      Umm, about that public education

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    7. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, we are currently in the clutches of a backwards Republican state government so there are lots of headlines about regressive policies. But this is an aberration ( the first Republican government in over 100 years) and it will not last long.

      This is just it though. Those "rubes" also vote, and you're going to have to deal with the fact that they will vote for people that will sell them all sorts of snake oil on behalf of rich benefactors, whether it's voting against solar development, or the state passing laws (at the behest of the telecoms) against municipal broadband, or installing their compatriots in charge of one of the state's flagship universities: http://www.newsobserver.com/ne...

      As for it being an aberration - I have some bad news for you, it's not. It's part of the realignment of politics in the South. Small-c conservative Democrats have almost universally been replaced by Republicans. There are a lot of reasons behind this, but it's highly unlikely to reverse itself, partly because they've gerrymandered themselves into an entrenched position. Take a look at Virginia to your north - it's much the same way, although there at least the Republicans have a less slightly strong grip. At best it's going to be something you are constantly fighting, especially on off-year elections when the turnout is low.

    8. Re:Don't judge us by this place by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then how do you explain the jaw dropping stupidity of these people? Have they all suffered some sort of collective head trauma? Is there some chemical in the water supply? Because, let's face it, these people are simpering morons.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 4, Informative

      You might wanna check out that teeny little town, Charlotte. I mean, I know it's only bigger than Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Cleveland and other small cities, but you'd be surprised at how things are coming together there.

      Also, while not a big town, you're not going to get much more progressive than Asheville. It's a great town, and I recommend checking it out if you get the chance.

    10. Re:Don't judge us by this place by TWX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, generally San Diego is considered to be the place with the best climate in the United States, at least within the contiguous 48 states.

      Places are expensive to live in because people want to live there. That usually means jobs, or culture, or climate, or some combination thereof. North Carolina, by and large, doesn't have a lot of people wanting to live there.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re: Don't judge us by this place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bottom 40 of 50? So they are 11th?

    12. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Funny

      Please, please don't judge North Carolina by these rubes.

      Remember that KKK billboard along Interstate 95 that used used to greet us when we went into progressive North Carolina?

      http://slothed.com/2014/01/13/...

      Quick - someone tell those people that if they don't plug something into every outlet, all the electricity will leak out!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    13. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "Another resident -- a retired science teacher, no less "

      Umm, about that public education

      This is North Carolina, they use the faith based science model.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    14. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      Take a look at Virginia to your north - it's much the same way, although there at least the Republicans have a less slightly strong grip.

      If by "less slightly strong grip", you mean every executive office holder a member of the Democratic party, the legislature split down the middle, and a Democratic governor that was once the campaign manager for Hillary Clinton and obtained his first elected office as the Governor, then, yes, I guess they have a "less slightly strong grip."

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    15. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Also, while not a big town, you're not going to get much more progressive than Asheville. It's a great town, and I recommend checking it out if you get the chance.

      Except for those Chocolate peeple, eh? You forget, they have to travel through those less progressive places to get to your isle of tranquility.

      It will be generations before North Carolina lives down their Interstate 95 welcoming poster put up by the Ku Klux Klan.

      http://slothed.com/2014/01/13/...

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    16. Re:Don't judge us by this place by DriveDog · · Score: 2

      What a crock. There are many progressive, intelligent spots in NC outside of the Triangle.

      However, like most everywhere else these days, much of the state is populated by people who prefer to remain ignorant. Which is bad news for little things like education, justice, and individuals' rights, all of which have suffered mightily in recent years after decades of improvement. The nice part is that those people dislike the intelligent spots and mostly stay away.

    17. Re:Don't judge us by this place by vw_bob · · Score: 1

      As an NC resident, I think the key word was "traditionally". The state is aggressively gutting education programs and forcing conservative republicans into important positions in the UNC (state wide) university system. It's seriously a big problem.

    18. Re:Don't judge us by this place by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      "North Carolina, by and large, doesn't have a lot of people wanting to live there."

      False. For better or worse, NC population has been growing for a long time.

    19. Re:Don't judge us by this place by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      More to the point, we are ranked second in the country as far as installing solar power is concerned anyway, behind only California:

          http://www.seia.org/research-r...

      There are solar farms all over, with more being built pretty steadily. Much of the state is well-suited for solar. The local electrical grid is supplied by Shearon-Harris, a nuclear plant about 15 miles away from where I type this. This is a nearly ideal mix -- solar reduces demand on the nuke when the sun shines, but there is plenty of capacity for days and times it doesn't.

      Interestingly, it has achieved second place ranking even though electricity is cheaper than the national average at just over 0.09/kw-hr, where CA is upper-middle at just over $0.15/kw-hr. They have six more cents per kw-hr to use to amortize the cost of solar panels and regulators. I've looked at doing our house in NC, and for better or worse after I already replaced all of our furnaces and air conditioning units with super-high-efficiency units, installed low-E super-insulating glass windows, refinished the attic so that it acts as a thermal buffer in the summer with two layers of insulation (ceiling at R-40 and floor at R-20), and put in all CF and now gradually LED lighting -- there is just nothing left to use to amortize solar -- my monthly electrical bill is around $140/month for over 3000 hsf including summer air conditioning to a level of complete comfort, and I can barely break even on a 5 KW roof installation over 15 or so years.

      However, I would prefer that you do judge NC by these rubes. Please! Stay away! You don't want to live in NC! These are not the droids you are looking for! California is definitely the state you want to move to. Or Florida -- think of all that sun! Or you can go work on civilizing Texas -- if enough people of sense move in, maybe they'll start to believe in things like evolution. And you really don't want to live in the fully integrated communities of Durham, and have to worry about deer eating your Hastas inside the city limits and have to worry about your kids drowning in the area lakes or getting lost in the local museums or galleries. And who really wants to see shows in venues like DPAC or the Carolina Theater, or experience world-class college basketball or even (gasp) football or soccer firsthand? See? I hear that Northern Virginia is very nice, and the suburbs of Detroit can probably hold a few more souls.

      Look deeply into my eyes. North Carolina is a b-a-a-a-a-a-d place to live. You do not want to come here, even for a visit. You just want to buy our craft brews and cigarettes and feel superior right where you are... You may now wake up, and will not remember anything about this, but if anyone mentions the opportunities and advantages of living in North Carolina -- one of which is its relatively low population density and the charm of its small and heavily forested cities -- you will experience a feeling of panic that will only go away if you think about the joy of moving to rural Texas or Chicago.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    20. Re:Don't judge us by this place by StayFrosty · · Score: 1

      Please, please don't judge North Carolina by these rubes. This dumb little town is about 100 miles from Research Triangle Park, the largest concentration of PhDs in the world. North Carolina is a progressive and beautiful state with the best climate in the eastern US. It has traditionally had the best public education system in the South.

      Yes, we are currently in the clutches of a backwards Republican state government so there are lots of headlines about regressive policies. But this is an aberration ( the first Republican government in over 100 years) and it will not last long.

      What is insightful about this? The stupidity of people participating in a direct election (not indirect, where political party would actually matter) is being blamed on the Republicans currently in power in the state. If anything, this should be blamed on the Democrats in power for the last 100 years for having such a horrible education system. If this truly is the output of the best education system in the south, I really hope this town is an aberration.

      FWIW, I'm not defending either political party here, I'm just appalled that people actually modded this comment insightful.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
    21. Re:Don't judge us by this place by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      I'll take the hot, humid summers any day over the crappy winters everywhere north of Virginia.

    22. Re:Don't judge us by this place by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Please, please don't judge North Carolina by these rubes. This dumb little town is about 100 miles from Research Triangle Park, the largest concentration of PhDs in the world.

      Obviously, Research Triangle Park has sucked up all the intelligence from the surrounding area. Definitely don't want one of those in my backyard, either.

    23. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      That's just my point though. Even though the democrats currently hold every statewide office in Virginia, the Republicans still have a majority in both houses of the state legislature, and hold 8 of the 11 seats in the House... and North Carolina has far more of a Republican tilt in its voting population.

      As for the Governor - the reason he got elected was that the Republicans ran a complete right-wing ideologue, who on top of being a jackass that had used the Attorney General's office to go on political witchhunts against scientists (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/science/earth/23virginia.html?_r=0), was also tied to the scandals of the outgoing Republican Governor (who wound up later convicted of bribery - https://www.washingtonpost.com... ).

    24. Re:Don't judge us by this place by ErichTheRed · · Score: 1

      There is currently a massive migration of people from New York to North Carolina. It seems like every day I hear someone I know tell me they got a job in Charlotte/RTP, and how happy they are to be free of the horrible yoke of property taxes. (Yes, taxes in NY are very high, but you get what you pay for.)

      What people who move there tell me after being there is the same people who abandoned northern states for Atlanta in the 90s. They love paying comparatively no taxes and living in huge mansions within the Relocation Zone. Companies are moving most of their paper-pushing mid level jobs to regions like this because they don't have to pay as much for run-of-the-mill employees, so there is work for most people. And I agree with them somewhat -- where I live in metro NY, a 60-year old tiny 3 bedroom house starts in the half-million dollar range in a location that's a reasonable commute to the city. Take someone out of that environment and put them in a 5000 ft^2 mansion on 2 acres of land for the same amount, and why wouldn't they be happy?

      However, they also tell me that once outside of the Relocation Zones, things get a whole lot less progressive. You know, full of people like the townspeople in the article. I heard the exact same thing from the Atlanta relocators last decade -- great inside the enclave, backwards outside of it. I'm sure there is change afoot, but change takes a long time to come around.

    25. Re:Don't judge us by this place by mr_mischief · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In Missouri the courts told the state they couldn't keep a local chapter of the KKK from adopting a section of highway for trash removal. The courts said that unpopular speech was still protected speech, and putting up a sign saying who was part of the program didn't openly and directly endorse racial violence. The state could end the program, stop putting up signs thanking people, or give the KKK their sign.

      The state legislature came to the rescue, though, with another sign. That whole section adopted by the KKK was designated an honorific route. They found themselves in charge of volunteer trash cleanup of the Rosa Parks Memorial Highway. After unsatisfactory participation in the program (one guy showed up once IIRC), the adoption was removed.

      It doesn't take a whole state to do something that embarrasses people. It just takes a few neighbors you'd rather not have in the neighborhood practicing the same rights the non-bigots don't want to give up.

    26. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obviously, North Carolina is NOT progressive, and these "rubes" ARE representative of the population of your state. Do you even understand how democracy works? You have a "backwards Republican state government" precisely because people like this are in the majority in your state, and elected that government. The PhDs in RTP are the aberration, not the rubes.

    27. Re:Don't judge us by this place by DriveDog · · Score: 2

      "I am leaving North Carolina soon, for good"

      Good riddance. I can't imagine you did anything to help with such a positive attitude as that. I suppose you're returning to NJ?

      For anyone contemplating a move to NC, there ARE a lot of idiots here, as in most places. There are also some very nice places, people-wise and nature-wise. Choose your home town—area of town even—wisely. Historically, NC has been ahead of the rest of the South and has tried harder to improve, but there's been some backsliding and there's some danger of serious regression. So come on in and help us get back on track.

    28. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      North of Virginia? At least in Northern Virginia the winters can be somewhat crappy although most of the crappy is really the crappy drivers.

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    29. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Bigbutt · · Score: 1

      Okay, that was funny :)

      [John]

      --
      Shit better not happen!
    30. Re:Don't judge us by this place by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Then how do you explain the jaw dropping stupidity of these people? Have they all suffered some sort of collective head trauma? Is there some chemical in the water supply? Because, let's face it, these people are simpering morons.

      I hear you...and I have no good explanation for the blithering stupidity that seems to be rampant in the South. It's like they're all taking extra strength Stupid Pills twice a day.

      I think religion plays a part, however, because it makes people happy believing in utter bullshit and makes them satisfied with not knowing the answers to anything. Curiosity is discouraged in religion and any "explanation", no mater how ridiculous is solemnly accepted as the truth. Wisdom and insight are considered to be overrated.

      But then there's also just weapons-grade stupidity, and the Southern states seem to have it in abundance.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    31. Re:Don't judge us by this place by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In short if the science is in conflict with your political belief, you will find a reason to distrust it, and point out the science is part of some conspiracy.

      GMO Foods, Study after study shows no negative effect on people. However the liberal activists still fear of its danger because of the conspiracy of the Agro business is hiding the real science. It is to a point where anything GMO even if it is just extra nutrients to help feed the poor is still outcasted and millions of people starve, because it is scary science.

      Conservatives: Will not believe in a science that is shown to be dangerous.
      Liberals: Will not believe in a science that is shown to be good.
       

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    32. Re:Don't judge us by this place by sycodon · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Most of these people are in "work and raise a family" mode, and they don't tend to enhance the social scene.

      In other words, they are the people that make America function.

      What kind of dipshit are you that you judge others by the fact they have a job and are raising a family? You stupid fucker, that's what life is.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    33. Re:Don't judge us by this place by jddj · · Score: 1

      More to the Virginia story than that - the "Golden Crescent" - an arc sweeping from Northern Virginia's tech corridor through Richmond to Hampton Roads - is facing an influx of job-seekers who will urbanize and suburbanize the area, and who largely trend Democratic. It's night-and-day different from rural Virginia. Old Dominion politics are indeed changing right now.

    34. Re:Don't judge us by this place by wyHunter · · Score: 2

      Yet this is a Democrat town.

    35. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Berkyjay · · Score: 2

      North Carolina is a progressive and beautiful state with

      I was going to dispute the progressive part. But then I looked at the list of the governors you've had. I was shocked to learn that in recent history they've been mostly Democrat. Who knew?!

    36. Re:Don't judge us by this place by pslytely+psycho · · Score: 1

      "the best public education system in the South.

      Setting the bar real high there, ain'tcha?"

      Everybody! LIMBO DOWN!!!

      --
      Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
    37. Re:Don't judge us by this place by sycodon · · Score: 1

      All these people you look down on, they are the ones that make your "social scene" possible. Not because they show up and preen and pretend to be chic and cool. But because they are the ones that built the infrastructure in which you preen and pretend to be chic and cool. If not for these people, you would die of starvation, standing in a puddle of your own shit.

      As for your inane statement...perpetuating the species is what makes life possible. It's not a fucking question. It's a necessity.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    38. Re: Don't judge us by this place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah? How's history class treating you?
      Learn anything about how many black people your grandfather helped lynch?

      Think that might have added to inner city violence we see today at all?
      Ignorance is bliss eh?

    39. Re:Don't judge us by this place by quax · · Score: 2

      When I lived in the Research Triangle I had these young dudes come by the house, with hardly any teeth left, offering me to clean the gutters or sell me fresh meat. The Research Triangle is nice, but as soon as your drive out of that oasis of wealth, you notice it is the aberration and not the other way around. I decided I rather raise my kids in Canada.

    40. Re:Don't judge us by this place by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      They left the nut jerbs, though.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    41. Re: Don't judge us by this place by slazzy · · Score: 1

      Shallow end of the gene pool?

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    42. Re:Don't judge us by this place by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      I'd venture to guess, part of the reason small-c democrats became republicans is all these Democrats calling people rubes, rednecks, idiots, bigot, racist...

      That may be qualities of some, just as some Democrats might be elitist communists. But that is sadly what happens when ideologies become so polarizing.

      People ultimately drift to where they feel they belong. If you make your side so unwelcoming to the other side, the division is going to occur.

    43. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hey, we all let the court jester take the throne for a while, now it's your turn. Enjoy, relax, and maybe laugh once in a while.

      And if you're down, just remember that it could be worse. Just think about it, the UK have Cameron.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    44. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have fun getting your stuff stolen by police when you leave. NC has some of the best civil asset forfeiture protections of any state. In the rest of the country, civil asset forfeiture now exceeds all burglaries.

      Such a hard decision. Live in a place where the police are thugs who steal my stuff, or live in a place where I can't have solar panels in one town.

    45. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Road adopting conflict is hilarious. You can almost always get rid of the "controversial" applicants by instituting trash cleanup standards and just checking if they did it. The only people who actually go out and pick up track are the people who signed up... to get recognition for picking up trash. And there seems to be very little overlap between that, and "wants to make a political statement to offend their neighbors."

    46. Re:Don't judge us by this place by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      GMO Foods, Study after study shows no negative effect on people. However the liberal activists still fear of its danger because of the conspiracy of the Agro business is hiding the real science. It is to a point where anything GMO even if it is just extra nutrients to help feed the poor is still outcasted [sic] and millions of people starve, because it is scary science.

      Liberal here with a soft anti-stance on GMO food here. I can't say that I'm against GMOs food totally, but I'm in favor of having them labeled. I'm not so much concerned by the GMO products themselves, but the potential for having my food contaminated by Round-Up or other pesticide. GMO crops are given increasingly heavy doses of the pesticides which not only threaten food safety, but the health of farmers. That being said, I have contributed to the glowing plant Kickstarter to make bio-luminescent crops. I would also eat GMO salmon, if I liked salmon.

    47. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was shocked to learn that in recent history they've been mostly Democrat. Who knew?!

      No one posting prior to you, apparently. This thread deteriorated quickly into smug self-rigteousness. NC is about like any state, I'd imagine.
      What's so striking is that not one person has noticed that this town already has multiple solar farms. That this was a thinly-veiled hit piece, a fact that thankfully didn't go unnoticed by Ars readers Readers more interested in the actual story than anecdotes about just how backwards NC can be, apparently.
      But carry on, Slashdot. You've got some rednecks to make fun of!

    48. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      LOL where you're from do they teach something different? The Universe where I'm from she's spot on; shadows really do block photosynthesis!

      From the local paper that reported her comments:

      She said she has observed areas near solar panels where vegetation is brown and dead because it did not receive enough sunlight.

      She went on to point out that "I don’t see the profit for the town," something repeated again and again by the townspeople.

      Some of the concerns are reasonable; would young people stay in a place that used to be a small town, but now most of the land is bought for solar farms which don't provide many jobs? That is their concern; land is scarce. The guy with that quote is comparing it to the building of the interstate. If you see an interstate freeway as a negative thing because now jobs (and therefore young people) migrate to the centralized locations, then it should be natural to also oppose zoning for new technologies that don't create jobs but take up land.

      Hicks where I'm from love photovoltaic, because nothing is more anti-establishment, anti-city, than being off-grid.

    49. Re: Don't judge us by this place by sycodon · · Score: 1

      And there's the Race Card...right on the heels of you conceding the point.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    50. Re:Don't judge us by this place by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      Then how do you explain the jaw dropping stupidity of these people? Have they all suffered some sort of collective head trauma? Is there some chemical in the water supply? Because, let's face it, these people are simpering morons.

      Solar panels sucked up all the energy from the Sun, preventing photosynthesis in the surrounding plants, reducing the nutritional value of the food, causing wide-spread malnutrition and stupidity. That, or all the inbreeding.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    51. Re: Don't judge us by this place by sycodon · · Score: 1

      The most pathetic AC is the one that replies to himself.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    52. Re:Don't judge us by this place by orgelspieler · · Score: 1
      Yes. I think it's high time we stop assuming that progressive means smart. There are stupid people of all stripes.

      Just the other day I was flying home from LA and there was a nice couple behind me. Obviously very progressive hipster types. But occasionally their conversation would venture into bizarre territory like talking about the health benefits of certain crystals and the aura they could see out the window (aka glory). My favorite was as we were flying into IAH over the piney forest of east Texas: "Oh, look how green it is here! There's no way all of these people could be so bad, living in such a nice place!" WTF?!

      Also, some rednecks are progressive.

    53. Re: Don't judge us by this place by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      Are they stupid? Or are they using any means available to them to keep commercial solar plants from their area. Large panel installations aren't very aesthetically pleasing, so it's natural they are trying to fight it. Usual NIMBY stuff that's been done in every state, including your heaven of intelligence, California.

    54. Re:Don't judge us by this place by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Politics.

      Solar panels are an environmental issue.
      Environmental issues are a liberal cause.
      Liberals are America-hating godless commies.
      Therefore solar panels are evil and must be fought.

    55. Re:Don't judge us by this place by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      GMO foods, vaccine conspiracies, the abortion/breast-cancer link... some myths persist because they reenforce the way people see the world.

    56. Re:Don't judge us by this place by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      Ha! Brillant! Kudos to dem gubmint johnnies.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    57. Re: Don't judge us by this place by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Learn anything about how many black people your grandfather helped lynch? Think that might have added to inner city violence we see today at all?
      Ignorance is bliss eh?

      Nope. Doesn't have much to do with it anymore. It makes for a wonderful scapegoating though, a fantastic way for blaming someone else for the choices you made.

    58. Re: Don't judge us by this place by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean Cupertino, CA?

      I think the people who work at Apple are probably ok. Probably better than the hipster douches that double as Apple evangelicals.

    59. Re:Don't judge us by this place by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      At least you can barter with these natives in USD; and actual attacks on the green zones are comparatively rare and low-level.

    60. Re:Don't judge us by this place by budgenator · · Score: 1

      These comments were reported not in The Onion, but rather by the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald. They came during a Woodland Town Council meeting in which Strata Solar Company sought to rezone an area northeast of the town, off of US Highway 258, to build a solar farm.

      So we have a News Paper Reporter, reporting on what someone said in public, being reported by yet an other Internet Journalist; Yeah that's going to be accurate.

      expressed concern that a proposed solar farm would block photosynthesis, and prevent nearby plants from growing.

      Silly woman didn't realize that were going to use the new invisible solar panels that shade the plants growing under them!

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    61. Re:Don't judge us by this place by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of rural areas in the US are in economic decline. In many cases, the only people who remain are the ones who are "stuck" somehow - family ties or don't have sufficient education/skills to get a job elsewhere or similar anchor.

      This is a rural area, with similar strains and population loss. The educated have better options and generally leave.

      Right now, the state is split roughly evenly between rural and urban population. However, the rural areas continue to shrink, and the urban areas continue to grow. After another decade-ish the state will resemble many of the "liberal" states: Rural areas full of rednecks, but politically dominated by much larger cities.

    62. Re: Don't judge us by this place by losfromla · · Score: 1

      NC is 36th by education attainment
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      28 by some other metric
      http://datacenter.kidscount.or...

      8th here:
      http://www.urban.org/urban-wir...

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    63. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It will be generations before North Carolina lives down their Interstate 95 welcoming poster put up by the Ku Klux Klan.

      You know, it's been a few generations already. That was over 40 years ago now. If they really were sponsoring a part of the interstate, as a black man I might have been tickled by the thought of throwing trash out the window knowing the white KKK dudes would have to clean it up, but if anyone caught me, the repercussions might have been dire.

    64. Re: Don't judge us by this place by losfromla · · Score: 1

      Ignorance is bliss, I get it. Enjoy your happy simple life.

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    65. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      But this is an aberration ( the first Republican government in over 100 years) and it will not last long.

      Wisconsin thought the same thing, look how those bastards are destroying us.

      Clever move, Wisconsinites, trying to get rid of Scott Walker by encouraging him to run for President! Unfortunately for them it didn't work for Texans either.

    66. Re:Don't judge us by this place by losfromla · · Score: 1

      The extra strength stupid pill you are referring to is also known as Fox "News".

      --
      Only I can judge you.
    67. Re:Don't judge us by this place by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When did progressive mean smart? I must have missed it. Was it in Teddy Roosevelt's day?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    68. Re:Don't judge us by this place by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      The extra strength stupid pill you are referring to is also known as Fox "News".

      You're right, FAUX News is indeed a major factor the the spread of "Stupid Syndrome".

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    69. Re:Don't judge us by this place by utdpenguin · · Score: 1

      >Lastly, North Carolina has consistently placed in the BOTTOM 40 of all 50 states, in public school test scores.

      So . . . . it's not in the top 10 is what you are saying?

      > Eric Rudolph and that idiot who shot up the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado were both from North Carolina

      Good point. I bet that this is the only state with disreputable representatives, right?

      >The original poster is a myopic clueless fool.
      You might want to invest in a mirror . . .

      > I am leaving North Carolina soon,
      Just like the idiot who shot up planned parenthood did. . . .

      --
      In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes
    70. Re:Don't judge us by this place by KGIII · · Score: 1

      My business was headquartered there. NC is awesome and full of smart and good people. Every area seems to have a percentage of stupid people and I've spent some time trying to figure out how it is they manage to end up clustered together.

      No, really, I've devoted too much time to trying to figure this out. I've concluded it's mostly harmless and probably best that they're off in concentrations. I don't know *how* they end up in those concentrations with movement being as easy as it is but I assume the smart ones move away or just stick around to be virtual gods among men.

      Back home, in Maine, we've got "Avon" which is home of the "Happy Valley Wave." The family tree "ain't naught but a two-by-four, ayuh." There's Destin, Florida (not far from my next destination) where they somehow manage to attract tourists and yet are also the home of The Backup device which is a hanger for your shotgun on the side of your bed.

      I think "mostly harmless" is apt.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    71. Re:Don't judge us by this place by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Then don't vote for labelling for GMO, vote for labelling for any pesticide content. (Though if it really has pesticide in it, it probably already violates other laws.)

    72. Re:Don't judge us by this place by sycodon · · Score: 1

      I suspect the only reason you are a none breeder is because you can't convince anyone of the opposite sex to get naked with you. Maybe you should leave your mother's basement.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    73. Re:Don't judge us by this place by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      True enough. I'm sure I'll offend someone, but IMO the worst of the worst drivers wear Maryland plates. I have no idea why they're so bad, either.

      I've found NoVa to be about 5 degrees F below Piedmont NC in the winter with a little bit more slush. Not much different weatherwise except it's quite a bit further from warmer southerly states for winter escapes.

    74. Re:Don't judge us by this place by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There are exceptions of course but there are essentially two types of Republicans these days. The ones guided by extreme nationalism and greed and the mystics that are guided by religious fanaticism.

      There's three, I think. The two you listed: the Ayn Rand slash nationalist fanatics, and the religious nuts (which is largely the evangelicals). The third is the mainstream conservatives a la Barry Goldwater, but they're slowly moving to the Democrats I think, after realizing that the Dems are now the center-right party that loves big business.

    75. Re:Don't judge us by this place by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Ayn Rand fans and nationalist fanatics are two different and largely non-intersecting categories. And there aren't that many libertarian fanatics in the party (the ones who are serious about it are usually in LP, and adore Ron Paul from afar).

      Overall, I'd list three main GOP factions:

      - Economic liberals
      - Social conservatives
      - Right-wing populists

      The first one doesn't have any clear leader to speak of (there's Rand, but he's too extreme to represent the whole thing). The second one is represented by Cruz and Carson. The third one is represented by Trump, with everyone else veering into this territory occasionally.

    76. Re:Don't judge us by this place by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Great post and well said my neighbor.

      The moderation in this thread is a shame, really. Lots of big city dwellers who have no idea spitting hot takes, being the same as the very ignorant assholes that the story is criticizing.

    77. Re: Don't judge us by this place by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Those cheatable voting machines could see Republicans in power for a while. They may be dumb as posts, but they know how to cheat.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    78. Re:Don't judge us by this place by wallsg · · Score: 1

      Yes, we are currently in the clutches of a backwards Republican state government so there are lots of headlines about regressive policies. But this is an aberration ( the first Republican government in over 100 years) and it will not last long.

      So, what you are saying is that it was a Democrat state government that resulted in the town full of rubes.

    79. Re:Don't judge us by this place by anti-disney · · Score: 1

      From the state that brought us former Senator Jesse Helms who was a Conservative Republican who was re-elected and served five terms.

  38. And we all thought the Onion was satire by Guru80 · · Score: 2

    I was seriously hoping that was an Onion article that escaped into the wild masquerading as a real story but nope, just a whole town of people that obviously worship it's insightful reporting style.

  39. FTFY by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    NC town filled with drooling morons.

    Seriously, this is a beautiful example as to how public school is an epic failure.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:FTFY by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      this is a beautiful example as to how public school is an epic failure.

      Probably more of an example of how local control [by religious fanatics] of education is bad. Look at the parents for blame, not the schools.

      .
      I am sure these good town folk will be able to recite all manner of Biblical stories, and the lessons they teach, for you.

      It's more a matter of what was taught and for what purpose, than who was doing the teaching.

    2. Re:FTFY by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      It is widely accepted that the quality of education in segregated, rural, black public schools in the late '50s and early '60s was poor. However, to hold the generation who received that education up for international ridicule is the height of bigotry.

  40. Re:National Report by SirSlud · · Score: 1

    Uh, that entire website is a just a low grade parody site.

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  41. Re:"Green" technologies with Chinese rare earths.. by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    Oh and hellz yeah I only buy China Solar panels. Because the scumbags here in the USA are charging 4X the price for the exact same panel. I refuse to buy USA made solar panels unless I get them used at a deep discount that is lower than the monosilicon panels I am buying new from china.

    Fuck american made, it's just as crappy and 99% of the time it's from the exact same parts that my China panels are made of, they just glue the frame on here in the USA to call it "made in the USA"

    Right now most american companies are ran by incompetent and greedy assholes, and they do not deserve any of my money.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  42. Change by wkwilley2 · · Score: 1

    Stop global warming, move to a different solar system.

    --
    Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?
    1. Re:Change by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      What do you mean you’ve never been to Alpha Centauri? Oh, for heaven’s sake, mankind, it’s only four light years away, you know.

  43. ALEC by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    I think you could be right about that. #EXXONKNEW is an example of spreading lies for market advantage. But so long as towns can zone to keep out fracking, they should be able to zone to keep out wind or solar too. They'll come around on the latter but the news on the former will only get worse.

  44. NC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I lived in NC for 15 years (unfortunately) - and was glad to see it go (I grew up in VA). Unless you are in Asheville or RTP....Beware!

    There have been alot (let me say that again) ALOT of solar farms spring up in NC in just 3 years. I counted at least 12 during a recent trip to Wilmington - what I don't understand is...they've talked about solar and wind power since time out of mind. They finally have some infrastructure going into place, and I have to take a trip to see it????

    Drive through NC and look at the poor towns and leaning houses, it's depressing! I've never seen so many ignorant hillbillies in my life. I'm just surprised something like this didn't come out sooner. People there never ceased to to amazed with being a few french fries short of a happy meal.

    Goodbye NC
    (paddle faster, I hear banjo music)

  45. Forget about it, Jake. Its North Carolina. by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 2

    Motto: At Least We Aren't Mississippi

    1. Re:Forget about it, Jake. Its North Carolina. by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      You do have to admit that Billie Jean is known world-wide, though.

  46. Asshole Editor by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    Well someone is a bit high and mighty, aren't they? Whatever the reasoning, these people are in the right. I live in southern Ontario and we have wind turbines dotted all over the landscape. I don't mind them. I actually like the way they look. I do however dislike the fact that in the years that they've been installing the turbines, hydro costs have only gone up. Hydro rates are at an all-time high here even though we were promised time and time again that the rates would go down substantially while "healing" the environment.
    The only thing those turbines generate are profits for the companies and the farmers who let them build on their land. Now not to mention the fact we're losing good farm-able land to these turbines, but they generate such a massive amount of CO2 in their construction and transport that they are essentially useless. They generate too little power and rarely ever do I see more than a couple going at a time.

    Hey, as long as they tell you it's good for the environment you can sleep easy while ignoring all the waste these things do in fact create, and they benefit nobody but the companies and the landowners.

    The same is true of solar panels. Aside from the landowners, as most have to pay for their own. Around here they are older, expensive, and inefficient static models that don't do anything more than say "I can afford carbon credits so I'm able to pollute guilt-free." So pick on the little rural bumpkins if you'd like, editor, but they are doing more to realistically protect the environment than most people in the Church of Climate Change.

    You can hang out up there on your high-horse all you want. I've got some tires to burn.

    1. Re:Asshole Editor by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

      Farming is an environmental disaster. I don't know about Canada but in the US we pay huge subsidies in order to have unnecessary fertilizer poured onto the land only to wash into the river so that we can grow food that will never be eaten. Replacing farmland with wind turbines is an environment benefit even if they never produce any electricity!

    2. Re:Asshole Editor by mark-t · · Score: 1

      but [wind turbines] generate such a massive amount of CO2 in their construction and transport that they are essentially useless

      If you think about the logistics of that hypothesis for just a moment, you would realize that it is categorically impossible, unless you allege that a turbine only has a life span on the order of weeks before it must be completely replaced with a completely new one, because that's about how long it takes for a typical wind farm, in real-world use under real world conditions, to generate all of the power that was used to create it in the first place.

      And the ecological impact per kilogram of construction for such turbines is no more costly than the construction of practically anything else. You cannot advocate that the emissions of construction should somehow be an ecological justification for them to not be constructed in the first place without simultaneously suggesting virtually all forms of modern construction, in absolutely all industries. should also cease.

    3. Re:Asshole Editor by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      "Now not to mention the fact we're losing good farm-able land to these turbines."

      Most of the ones I see around here are built atop farmland. The only land lost to farming is the footprint of the tower.

  47. The real back story. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    The science teacher actually read a little bit of physics and learned that technically the Sun is a black body, since it emits radiation in all frequencies. The town decided it is is too politically incorrect to state their real objection to the black body, at least not until Donald J Trump becomes the President. So they pulled a little euphemism and misdirection to give some vague reason for the ban.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  48. These same morons by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    ...are probably decrying the evils of that destructive and pervasive dihydrogen monoxide.

    1. Re:These same morons by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      People die from dihydrogen monoxide, you know. Even the mob uses it to kill people. And let's not even mention all the dangerous predators that hide in it, some of these fuckers have have "lasers".

    2. Re:These same morons by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      "even have"... damn you Slashdot, let us edit our shit within 10 seconds, at least!

    3. Re:These same morons by messymerry · · Score: 1

      Im a hydrophiliac. I need that stuff...

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  49. Sometimes... by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 2

    I think we should have an intelligence test to be allowed to vote...

    1. Re:Sometimes... by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

      They tried that. The Supreme Court struck it down.

    2. Re:Sometimes... by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Right, like that would never be abused.

      We'll just define "too stupid to vote" as "someone that disagrees with me" and the problem is solved. Right?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Sometimes... by dysmal · · Score: 1

      Didn't they do something like this in Florida in 2000?

    4. Re:Sometimes... by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the Supreme Court can always reverse itself. Just ask Marco Rubio.

    5. Re:Sometimes... by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 1

      It might be, but which is the greater wrong?

  50. Zoning by mdsolar · · Score: 2

    Localities do have an interest in promoting things like public safety. If you want to put up a subdivision with no fire hydrants, zoning should prevent you from doing that.

  51. Re:National Report by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    You mean they're not going to give free weed to Syrian refugees? Darn.

    (Serves me right for not looking at their front page.)

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  52. Woodland, not Woodlawn by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    According to the Wikipedia entry on Woodlawn, NC, right now:

    Why not instead cite the Wikipedia entry on Woodland, which is the town being talked about here?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  53. Thanks for the warning by BlytheBowman · · Score: 1

    (plotting new course to stay atleast 200 miles away from that town)

  54. Now Greens feel the burn by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    I love it when the Greens' favorite technique, letting a tiny minority of conspiracy-theorizing idiots manipulate the legal system to derail every needed infrastructure project, gets used against them.

    We will enjoy progress again if we can elect candidates who will take more of a Chinese approach: whenever a protest movement gratuitously ignores scientific facts, just ignore the yammerheads and ram it through.

    1. Re:Now Greens feel the burn by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Greens prefer to work with scientists at the policy level but will use other approaches when needed.

  55. Is Government the Fount of Rights? by mi · · Score: 1

    Your have absolutely no property rights, other than what your Government protects

    Interesting. Do we derive any other rights from the Government, or is everything else coming from our Creator (whoever that might be), with government merely being hired to help us protect them?

    You are putting up great defence of property seizures by the government — without bothering with criminal convictions and even making accusations. You aren't alone, of course, but it is rather rare to see such an idea being so highly moderated.

    old man yelling at kids to get off "his" grass.

    Ah, so the grass is not mine either, right? It belongs to a community, is that it?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
      All the rights granted by your favorite Creator will be protected by your favorite Creator. If anyone violates it, you can appeal to the Creator. All rights granted by the Government will be enforced by the Government. If anyone violates it, you can appeal to the Government, through the proper channels, police, civil courts etc. You can't imagine a right granted to you by your Creator and enforce it on your own. Because just as easily I can imagine a right to deny you the very same right you have imagined your Creator has granted you, and take action to deny it. If everyone does that law and order will break down and we will not have a civilization anymore.

      So this is the real deal: Only the rights granted to you by the consensus of the society are actually your rights. Anything else, is just your imagination. We have granted you the freedom of thought. So go ahead and engage in childish fantasies.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    2. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      You aren't alone, of course, but it is rather rare to see such an idea being so highly moderated.

      My idea is not new, it is centuries old. You need to start from the Leviathan, do a quick read on Monopoly on violence to understand why your stand is childish.

      Right to liberty is even more fundamental than the right to property. Every one has liberty and freedom and not all have property. Still we recognize that government can incarcerate people, with just cause and after going through due process even liberty can be taken away. What makes your childish claims on your property more important? The key is just cause and due process. Your objection to property seizures without convictions is a complaint about the absence of due process.

      In fact recently Scalia, darling of the right wing nutjobs, made a stunning statement that "once due process has been granted death sentence can be imposed, whether or not the condemned prisoner is actually innocent or guilty does not matter" or words to that effect.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    3. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by mi · · Score: 1

      My idea is not new, it is centuries old.

      Sure, sure. It is not new — many cultures think, the government's power is unrestricted. It is just that the US is (or pretends to be) different.

      Still we recognize that government can incarcerate people

      The Executive government (and that is, what we mean, when simply say "Government") can only do that upon convincing the Judiciary, that you are guilty of something, that the Legislature has earlier declared illegal. Nothing of the kind happened here.

      or words to that effect

      Once you find the actual citation, you'll realize, he is absolutely right — because, in the context, the very word "innocence" is a legal term. One defined by whether or not guilt has been proven through the proper legal process.

      The innocence you'd like to make this about is purely between the accused and his creator — but that's not, what Scalia was talking about.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent," Scalia wrote in a 2009 dissent of the Court's order...

      Citation provided

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    5. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Still your complaint is about the due process, or its lack. Fundamental right of the government (all the three branches put together) to deprive citizens of liberty or property is not under any dispute. Your property rights are limited to what We, the People, grant you through the Government, that we set up for ourselves to form a more perfect Union. It is limited to what we grant you and it is limited to what we can enforce and what we choose to enforce. You can appeal to the government if you disagree.

      As far the rights granted to you by your Creator ... pray for enforcement.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by mi · · Score: 1

      Fundamental right of the government (all the three branches put together) to deprive citizens of liberty or property is not under any dispute.

      That does not mean, the Government is the source of the rights.

      Your property rights are limited to what We, the People, grant you through the Government, that we set up for ourselves to form a more perfect Union.

      So, you'd be Ok with Congress deciding — collectively and through all proper procedures — to confiscate an arbitrary property or prohibit certain uses of it? Not because you hate the particular property (like firearms), but because you think, Congress can pass any law?

      And, forget Congress, are you Ok with towns banning brass-knuckles, for example? Just how would you reconcile such a position with the Bill of Rights? Do we even need a Constitution — or is it just an impediment — if majority's opinion is the sole source of laws, rules, and rights?

      As far the rights granted to you by your Creator ... pray for enforcement.

      If, as I insist, the rights are granted by the Creator, I can — in addition to prayer — hire the government to help me enforce them. You call my stance "childish", but are unable to point out, what is wrong with it. Yet, I can demonstrate, what's wrong with your approach of placing "community" (Collective) above the Individual — bad things start happening very quickly, when this idea is given a free reign (see USSR).

      Worse, by your logic of might makes right, we should be ruled by the military — and any objector can only pray...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      And, forget Congress, are you Ok with towns banning brass-knuckles, for example? Just how would you reconcile such a position with the Bill of Rights? Do we even need a Constitution — or is it just an impediment [npr.org] — if majority's opinion is the sole source of laws, rules, and rights?

      Towns can ban anything from brass-knuckles to assault weapons. Then citizens can sue, appeal if they don't like the judgement and if eventually the Supreme Court rules that the law is constitutional, yes, it would be the law. What is so difficult for you to understand this? Basic rule is, if you like brass knuckles and if your town bans it, you can not proclaim, "this is a my God given right" and proceed to own/display/intimidate people with brass knuckles. All you can do is to sue and get the courts to overturn the law.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    8. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      So, you'd be Ok with Congress deciding — collectively and through all proper procedures — to confiscate an arbitrary property or prohibit certain uses of it? Not because you hate the particular property (like firearms), but because you think, Congress can pass any law?

      It is not *me* who is ok with it. In fact whether *I* agree with it or not, whether you agree with it or not does not matter. Congress can pass *any* law. If the Supreme Court does not overturn the law, that is it. It is constitutional law of the land, by definition. All you can do is to vote for legislators to change the law or elect enough people to amend the constitution.

      The Supreme Court has ruled the second amendment is a personal right to own weapons. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But it does not matter what *I* think. It is the law of the land.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    9. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      You don't derive rights from anywhere. They are an agreed-upon fiction. A fiction that is made real by enforcement - if you occupy someone else's land then they can eventually have armed police officers come and physically haul you off. A right without enforcement is not only worthless - it doesn't exist at all. Just look at almost all of history.

    10. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by mi · · Score: 1

      It is not *me* who is ok with it. In fact whether *I* agree with it or not

      And yet your own bias obviously shows through the choice of words and examples — as does mine...

      But this topic is beyond personal biases. As I pointed out, the argument that government simply must be the source of rights, because only government can uphold them due to its monopoly on violence is flawed at the core. Because, taken simply one step further, military — the part of government, that does nothing but violence — must then be the source of rights.

      The Supreme Court has ruled the second amendment is a personal right to own weapons

      No, it upheld the natural right to arm oneself — the right, that existed ever since the opposable thumbs allowed us to hold something, long before humans thought of "government" and other concepts.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      You keep harping about "natural rights" as if they were some sort of fundamental, universal idea, like the value of pi. That they are central to your personal philosophy does not determine the nature of reality. In this world, rights are neither endowed nor enforced by any Creator.

      The key point here is that you're taking a rational (as opposed to empirical) view of things. Rationalism is a fine thing, much of philosophy and law is based on rationalism and logic. The problem is that logical systems are frequently inconsistent, and the further you are from observable facts, the more likely you are to come to some conclusion that while logically correct bears no resemblance to reality.

      In your world, rights represent some sort of absolute which humanity may or may not live up to. You could describe this as a noble ideal, or as a fantasy. Either way, it is somewhat in contradiction with the world as it is observed. It's also very dependent on the philosophical and cultural background to produce consistent answers. Usually, I don't think it's wise to try to compare rational truths with empirical ones -- it's hard to come to agreement when there is no common test of validity. That said, I heavily favor empiricism.

      As for the specific topic of violence: short of death, there are few ways to take the ability to do violence from humans. Generally though exercising this right is frowned upon, and we may be said to delegate it to peacekeepers and warriors. As concerns the 2nd Amendment, frankly, the Founders should have known better than to trust in asymmetric combat to protect anyone from either a tyrannical government or foreign power. A war for independence might eventually have been winnable without aid from France, but such was not the case in 1776 and there aren't terribly many historical examples of militias overcoming world powers. The more common case is that resistance leads to massacre. However, if one is to insist on the 2nd Am. being interpreted to its fullest intent, one must also adopt the corresponding ideal of the Founders, which was that a standing army in times of peace was a threat to liberty.

      Over the years, it has become established that the Founders were completely nuts in thinking that an armed citizenry would be any use against a modern military, and correspondingly the army has grown and individual rights to armament have declined. Disbanding the military in peacetime would certainly put a dent in the military industrial complex, and reduce the need for citizens to defend themselves against their government. We have peaceful relations with our neighbors and vast oceans protecting our borders. However, massive war machines and a trained warrior caste are much more effective at conducting warfare. I'm fine with either option. Picking both options is just setting yourself up for an arms race that I'm pretty sure has already been lost.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    12. Re:Is Government the Fount of Rights? by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

      As I pointed out, the argument that government simply must be the source of rights, because only government can uphold them due to its monopoly on violence is flawed at the core. Because, taken simply one step further, military — the part of government, that does nothing but violence — must then be the source of rights.

      Only insofar as they are used against the citizens. Otherwise that would be the purview of the police/justice system.

      It's not that you disagree that rights are what can be enforced (either by one's self or the government), it's that you're ideologically motivated against the conclusions of that fact. That cognitive dissonance must be maddening.

      --
      Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
  56. Re:"Green" technologies with Chinese rare earths.. by dave420 · · Score: 1

    If your very first statement is factually incorrect, why should anyone listen to the rest of your argument?

  57. The planet needs a working dehumidifier . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

    There is simply enormous potential for not using electricity in the first place and people are pushing the expensive solution of solar power generation,.

    A dehumidifier is this device that people put in their basement with the best intentions of fighting dampness and the accompanying mildew, a device that is cheaply made in a Certain Country so the refrigerant leaks out, after which the dehumidifier runs constantly to effectively double the household energy usage only the dehumidifier isn't doing anything except act as a space heater, a device that no one these days will repair after the refrigerant leaks out because government regulations, only it doesn't matter because homeowners with the humidifier discharging to a floor drain that they don't have to empty the bucket don't check on the operation of this device or even know how to check.

    Even if you keep tabs on your dehumidifier, if you run it on the humidistat control, the humidity setting can be wildly inaccurate and setting it to a "reasonable" level can have the unit run constantly at great expense in electric use, and even if you check it against a humidity gauge that you have checked against outdoor weather reports of temperature and humidity, most units today either run the fan continuously or have a long fan run-on time past when the humidistat clicks off, where you end up evaporating moisture clinging to the coils by surface tension amounting to about half the moisture condensed during the on-time part of the cycle. And this is for an Energy Star qualified unit. And the neither manufacturers nor Energy Star won't answer their e-mail when asked about this.

    So we are to spend effectively 10's of thousands of dollars per house to generate the electricity to supply the energy wasted by a $200 dehumidifier?

    I do not have any solar cells nor any exotic tech and don't do anything apart from 1) run the dehumidifier on a timer and empty the bucket manually, 2) use fluorescent lights, and 3) turn off stuff not is use, and my electric usage (I air condition, dehumidify, cook, and dry clothes electrically) runs about 220 kWHr/month whereas houses in the same neighborhood are using 4 times as much per month or more. The local power company lets you look up household energy use by address and I have checked.

    1. Re:The planet needs a working dehumidifier . . . by swb · · Score: 1

      To complete the picture, can you tell us which MVNO you use for $2.99 unlimited talk, text and data on your smartphone?

    2. Re:The planet needs a working dehumidifier . . . by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Reducing energy usage would mean lifestyle changes. People hate that. Passionately. Remember the outrage that surrounded even something so slight as energy-efficiency requirements for light bulbs?

    3. Re:The planet needs a working dehumidifier . . . by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Right, because the rules banning incandescent bulbs weren't stupid, and arbitrary at all.

      I've replaced more CFLs in the last decade than I have incandescent's in the last 40! And there's nothing at all hazardous or toxic in a tungsten filament bulb.

    4. Re:The planet needs a working dehumidifier . . . by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Not quite true: Tungsten is toxic. It's just not an issue with tungsten bulbs because the amount of tungsten in them is so tiny as to be negligible. Just like the mercury in CFLs.

      The quality of CFLs varies - if you buy cheap, it's going to be unreliable and perform poorly. With incandescent bulbs they are all effectively interchangeable, one manufacturer is as good as any other.

    5. Re:The planet needs a working dehumidifier . . . by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1

      What's a "smart phone"?

  58. Re:Americans are fuckwits by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Because clearly one small town in North Carolina is representative of the other 330 million people.

    Didn't anyone tell you that painting hundreds of millions of people with the same brush is even stupider than anyone quoted in TFA?

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  59. Should have told them it came with a side o'Slaw. by CaptnCrud · · Score: 1

    They would have been all over that solar deal then.

    Lived in Hickory for 4 years, nice town. State is pretty, but wouldn't want to live their....plus I hate colslaw, and they put it on everything.

  60. they are right to worry by slazzy · · Score: 1

    They are right to worry, it seems like something has already sucked up all their common sense.

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  61. Cryptobiotic soil by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    Okay, sure, the people of this town have some loony reasons but one should also consider how panels covering a vast land area (not on rooftops) will affect the natural effects of sunlight on the soil and vegetation.

  62. OT: Scalia's statement on "innocence" by mi · · Score: 1

    "This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent"

    And your objection to this is?..

    Has the court ever held that — contrary to the cited statement?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  63. Re:"Green" technologies with Chinese rare earths.. by pla · · Score: 1

    they all come from China today--even the ore mined in the US is shipped to China for processing. Until this is addressed, the so-called "green" technologies are not remotely green.

    "Made in China" has nothing to do with whether or not a resource counts as renewable. Economies of scale frequently make it more efficient to ship raw materials halfway around the world than to process them on-site.

    You could, of course, argue that anything mined has a finite supply present on Earth; but at least in the case of the Rare Earths, we can recycle 100% of them (and in fact, we'd count as idiots not to - Your $100 solar panel, even once it has reached the end of its working life, contains a good $20 in silver alone).

  64. Witches by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised they didn't' attribute solar panels to witches, witchcraft, and the moral degradation of the youth. Maybe throw in the existence of D&D and we can call it a day, although I didn't see any mention of Obama, or terrorism so there may be a few more things that could be piled in there too.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  65. What did you expect? "Welcome, sunny?" by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 1

    "Build yourself a power plant?" "Give my daughter a job?" You've got to remember that these are just simple Southerners. These are people of Fox News. The common clay of the new America. You know... Morons.

    --

    Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
  66. rename that burg Spitoon Junction by swschrad · · Score: 1

    because those folks... aliens or an asylum.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  67. Amplifying vs filtering nonsense by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    There is a troubling trend in media to give a voice to nonsense. Reporting anonymous twitter messages or the ranting's of fools to cherry pick or reinforce narratives that may very well have no basis in reality.

    If you want to report on what people think about a subject then conduct a poll. Random quotes from random folks are completely worthless.

  68. Too sunny already by theendlessnow · · Score: 1

    Too sunny already. I'm having to stoke the coal fires more often just to help blot it out.

  69. North Carolina Town Too Stupid to Live by FreeUser · · Score: 1

    The citizens of Woodland, N.C. have spoken loud and clear: They don't want none of them highfalutin brain cells in their good town. They scare off the kids. "All the young people are going to move out," warned Bobby Mann, a local resident concerned about the future of his burg. Worse, Mann said, brain cells suck up all the intelligence from everyone else. Another resident -- a retired science teacher, no less -- expressed concern that a proposed school would block education, and prevent nearby kids from growing up. Jane Mann then went on to add that there seemed to have been a lot of cancer deaths in the area, and that no one could tell her brain cells didn't cause cancer. "I want information," Mann said. "Enough is enough."

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  70. Hot humid is the worse ... by drnb · · Score: 1

    I'll take the hot, humid summers any day over the crappy winters everywhere north of Virginia.

    Mom's basement is air conditioned isn't it? :-)

    Seriously, I don't get that. From personal experience hot humid seems the worse. The cold can be dealt with using layered clothing. The wet can be dealt with using an outer layer. Hot and humid can only be endured. You don't even get relief at night like you do in hot and dry regions.

    And then there is the complication that different parts of North Carolina have very different climates. Its not simply a north/south thing, there is also altitude. There are parts that get a lot of snow and very cold temperatures.

    1. Re:Hot humid is the worse ... by DriveDog · · Score: 1

      Personal preference, I guess. I hate cold weather. Boone is the worst. That cold wind rips through you. Rain sucks too. As long as I can wear shorts and sandals or preferably go barefoot, I'd rather have the heat. Sure, less humidity is nicer, but it's not that big a deal. I do, however, think "down east" is horrible in the summer. Between Raleigh and close to the coast is not just hot and humid, but it's flat, there's no breeze, there are more pines than hardwoods, and the bug population is legendary. Yuck. I'm pissing off my neighbors to the east, but I can't imagine a life in Kinston or Goldsboro or Fayetteville.

  71. Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by drnb · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure where the cancer risk concept is coming from ...

    Solar panels absolutely produce cancer, but its at the factory in China where they are made.

    1. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And ... how would they do that exactly?
      Which chemical used in the process would be causing cancer? Hu?
      And what is the difference to Intel chips in your computer? Oh, you did not know that solar panels and chips are more or less the same thing?

      I'm pretty tired about idiots claiming that solar panel production causes environmental or health concenrs ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    2. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      "Compared to the domestic manufacturing scenario, the energy use efficiency is generally 30% lower and the carbon footprint is almost doubled in the overseas manufacturing scenario."
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

      "the countries that produce the most photovoltaics today typically do the worst job of protecting the environment and their workers ... The quartz is extracted from mines, putting the miners at risk of one of civilization’s oldest occupational hazards, the lung disease silicosis ... turning metallurgical-grade silicon into a purer form called polysilicon—creates the very toxic compound silicon tetrachloride ... So some operations have just thrown away the by-product. If exposed to water—and that’s hard to prevent if it’s casually dumped—the silicon tetrachloride releases hydrochloric acid, acidifying the soil and emitting harmful fumes ... one of the largest photovoltaic companies in the world, spilled hydrofluoric acid into the nearby Mujiaqiao River, killing hundreds of fish. And farmers working adjacent lands, who used the contaminated water to clean their animals, accidently killed dozens of pigs"
      http://spectrum.ieee.org/green...

    3. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Your conclusion? Or argument?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      Actually those are answers. The links provided answer all four of your questions.

    5. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The links you gave where about accidents or criminal behaviour of some factories ... in China, kr other third world countries.

      I had no questions. You had idiotic claims.

      So: which polution is usually happening during solar panel production in ... hm, Germany, Sweden, France, USA?

      What exactly is causing cancer?

      I'm waiting ....

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      The links you gave where about accidents or criminal behaviour of some factories ... in China, kr other third world countries.

      Are you having a reading comprehension problem? My original comment that you responded to was "Solar panels absolutely produce cancer, but its at the factory in China where they are made."

    7. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No you have problems of comprehension.

      There are plenty of places on the world where solar panels are made: no where is cancer produced.

      Unless there are accidents or criminal activities.

      So: there is absolutely no difference to nuclear plants.

      On top of that: it is easy to avoid to have any cancer producing stuff in the production line of solar panels. So your general claim that solar panels production "produces cancer" is simply wrong.

      Also: the links you gave, did not include any cancer producing poisons. So I still doubt that you have a clue about what you are talking.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    8. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of places on the world where solar panels are made: no where is cancer produced.

      Thank you for confirming your reading comprehension problem.

      Clue 1: I mentioned none of those places, my comment specifically referred to only China.

      Clue 2: Even if we look globally, which I specifically had not done, you are still wrong. For example the linked article mentions a manufacturing cancer risk and a cancer risk to users: "So each of these technologies uses compounds containing the heavy metal cadmium, which is both a carcinogen and a genotoxin, meaning that it can cause inheritable mutations ... Exposures after solar panels are discarded are also a concern ... not every consumer has access to a free take-back program, and indeed many consumers may not even be aware of the need to dispose of panels responsibly."

    9. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is not a reading problem but a posting problem :D

      You simply post stuff that is wrong, so it is your problem, not mine.

      For starters: Silicon solar panels usually don't contain cadmium, I'm actually not aware of any. Regarding health hazards if they do: that is wrong. The Cadmium would be basically inside of a shell of glass (for thin film Silicon cells, e.g.).

      Cadmium is contained in "Cadmium Telluride" cells, which are something like 5% of the market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... -- as they get recycled after dismantling the plants (the resources are just to valuable) there is basically zero risk of contamination of anything or anyone, but thanx for your concerns.

      Your problem simply is: you have no clue, and you are a FUD monger, so you google for articles supporting your case but you don't comprehend what is written in those articles.

      I suggest to get your head out of your arse and learn a bit about the main stream PV cells, which are simply Silicon doted with Phosphor and Bor.

      Nice starter article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:Solar panels absolutely produces cancer ... by drnb · · Score: 1

      I am not claiming anything, well other than solar has externalities and environmental issues like anything else, that it is not some problem free magic unicorn. What I am doing is quoting the finding of the IEEE, an extremely well regarded organization among academics, industry and government. An organization focusing on electrical engineering issues, an area that includes photovoltaics.

      Cadmium Telluride accounts for only 5% of the market because it is an emerging 3rd generation technology. In other words its new and just starting out.

      Whether one is contaminated with crystalline silica, silicon tetrachloride, etc as part of legacy solar manufacturing or cadmium as part of thin-film manufacturing or usage does not change the fact that solar can have extreme health risks in it is manufacturing processes as I had pointed out. Including cancer.

  72. Two photons walk into a bar... by Kevin+by+the+Beach · · Score: 1

    Two photons walk into a bar... The first waves while his friend particles on the wall.

  73. Original Article and Idealogical Authoritatians by kartaron · · Score: 1

    http://www.roanoke-chowannewsh...

    The original article shows several disputes concerning the project including the fact that the community would not receive any benefit from converting the property besides working along with the power company which owns the massive power junction around the town. No tax benefits, no diminshed power bills, unsightly sites all over the place (This was to be another addition to the 4 solar locations in their area). The council disputed the more controversial/uninformed reasons, passed 3 additions and rejected one (for unspecified reasons). Then tabled discussions for further additions. The people primarily objected to loss of taxable business property locations and lack of a tangible benefit to the community (which the town council represents). The sunlight comments arent in quotes which makes them at least questionable considering the rest of the comments are in quotes. If one makes reasonable accomodations to the nature of the objections, you could easily see that the comments about cancer would apply to the GIANT ELECTRICAL ARRAY in town, which the WHO states the that they arent sure why but there seems to be high incidents of correlation to cancer... The article amounts to so much Trolling by the original author, and subsequent hangers on to illegimately bash objectors to the current idealogical correctness.

  74. Re:Go ahead - judge us and let us be a warning to by losfromla · · Score: 1
    --
    Only I can judge you.
  75. Cool it with the NC hating... by overlook77 · · Score: 1

    I've been to tremendously shitty places in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, SC, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. I would live in Raleigh, NC over any place on the east coast except maybe for Boston. I've seen dumb, ignorant people in rural areas of all those states. I will say, I did get the hell out of rural NC as soon as I could. HOWEVER, Raleigh NC is a very nice place to live and it is very diverse. And if you want to generalize or stereotype NC, reply back with your own state and let the peanut gallery decide if there's any backwards dumbasses where you live. In response to some of the KKK comments, in over 30 years living in this state, including very rural areas, I have never once seen anyone that said they were in the KKK, I've never seen anyone in a robe, never saw any marches, etc. The most racist person I've ever met was an Italian guy who lived in a town about 1-2 hours outside New York City. Racism is everywhere. I do have a theory about a lot of the racism in rural NC however. I grew up in a small area that was 50% minorities and it was not fun. My elementary school was literally in the projects. We had Rodney King backlash going on in our high school. The problem is that a lot of the locals who don't leave these towns end up living with high minority populations. They only know very uneducated people that act obnoxious and dangerous and they draw correlations along racial lines. When they see a redneck they don't say, 'oh look, there's a dumb white person...white people sure are dumb!', but they draw those conclusions when the person isn't white because they don't know any other minorities. The minorities (and everyone else) that are educated and more intelligent leave to find better jobs in the city.

  76. wow by nensondubois · · Score: 1

    Just thinking how many of these people actually go out and vote. Pretty scary.

    --
    http://gamehacking.org/vb/threads/12747-nensondubois-codes http://twitter.com/nensondubois_
  77. Got any more Hot Takes for us? by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

    Over half of NC's population was not born in the state, a majority of them moving to NC from the Northeast. It is well known to be a huge transplant state.

  78. Is the article accurate? by pedz · · Score: 1

    The actual original article is here: http://www.roanoke-chowannewsh... Various phrases and the general tone makes me question the accuracy. There are other little tidbits that make me wonder. The town gets no benefit. And there are a few other phrases that creep in that somewhat makes me question the bias of the article in Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald, the cited article in Ars Technica, and the little clip posted in slash dot. To my eyes, this looks like a smear campaign by big solar to make it clear that if anyone pushes back against the big American corporations, you will get mocked by the ignorant blood thirsty press. And, it also may be a poker game that has not finished the last hand. Perhaps what the town is really saying is -- make it worth my while to allow you to build there and then we'll talk. Seriously, if you want me to welcome you, then do something positive for me. Otherwise, get off my @#$%ing lawn! Are you thinking some hip liberal Austinite is going to do anything different?

  79. Please Educate YOURSELF before speaking out by ThisJust!N · · Score: 1

    This is the link to the ORIGINAL source article. (http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/) It appears that they already have several solar farms and they are sick of seeing them. There is no benefit to the town. The only money goes to the solar firm and the landowner. It does not help their utility cost nor does it contribute to their tax base. It looks like some of the quotes are out of context. Since some of you are making this a political issue you should note that the county went to Obama in 08 and 12. The Mayor of Woodland is also a democrat.

  80. I know! by Kaitiff · · Score: 1

    Tell them all that the sun is really just an out-of-control nuclear power plant showering them continuously with solar radiation! That'll fix their wagon. Next generation will have our first fully formed Morlock society in NC.

    --
    If I sound stupid, it's not me talking....