Less freedom to get royally fucked by your friendly neighbor monopoly? The government doesn't always have your best interests at heart but it's still miles better than any corporation.
Unbundling would be great, but until then this is some much-needed regulation.
Absolutely, we need to know the facts! Who is funding all 12,000 studies supporting AGW and how the hell did they get $14B to spend buying scientists?!
The summary for this story is completely useless since it doesn't give any specific information on what the proposed regulations would change or what the US changed about them. I read the linked article and it's more of the same, with no actual facts about anything, just empty quotes and Fukushima references. This isn't a story, it's just FUD.
"...the legislation known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires phone carriers to decrypt communications for the government only if they have designed their technology to make it possible to do so. If Verizon and Cellcrypt had structured their encryption so that neither company had the information necessary to decrypt the calls, they would not have been breaking the law."
The lack of tornadoes does not have much to do with climate change. We do not understand how tornadoes form, and no climate scientist has ever predicted that climate change will lead to more tornadoes or larger tornadoes. It's not surprising that we can't find the reason for decreased tornado activity since we don't know where to look really, but it might be that this lull can help us narrow down the possible reasons for tornado formation.
I may be wrong, it's very difficult to find reliable information on this as no reactors have been built since the 70's, but as of now there are very little incentives for nuclear power. Those that do exist are just loan guarantees and some tax breaks (source). If you do have more information let me know.
Price per MWh is not dishonest, those are the only units that matter in the field of energy production. Even if wind/solar were at parity with nuclear they would be receiving more per MWh. In 2013, nuclear produced 19% of US power, while solar and wind produced a combined 4.36% source. Let's assume that solar and wind are also producing 19% of US power, or 4.36 times their current level (interestingly enough 4.36 is almost exactly the square root of 19). divide the $24/MWh by 4.36 and you get $5.5/MWh, still several times that of nuclear.
The cost of waste is not infinite, they do eventually degrade, and it's irrelevant anyway because the cost of waste storage is 100% paid for by the nuclear plants, not government subsidies. If you would use actual data then we could have an argument, but it seems you're content to just ignore everything I say just because it doesn't fit within your worldview.
Please provide sources. There are no plant build subsidies, only government loans (admittedly with low interest) that are paid back. I don't know what you mean by plant operating subsidies but the power produced is very scarcely subsidized, according the the Wall Street Journal, nuclear is subsidized at about $1.59 per megawatt hour, whereas solar and wind are given roughly $24 each per MWh. A research study on the externalities of energy found that nuclear externalized 0.2-0.7 cents per kWh depending on the country, while solar externalized 0.6 cents and wind externalized 0.2. For comparison, coal and oil were at around 10 cents per kWh. Plant waste is not subsidized, the cost of disposing/storing nuclear waste is added to the price of the electricity (source). I was unable to find any information on subsidizing retirements for nuclear workers, and I have no idea what you mean by money spent on nuclear education.
I am not "forgetting the other 6 decades", they were taken into account in the $73 billion.
Look closer, I was responding to catmistake, not your post. I would use EIA but they only have information on subsidies and not the government money spent on research. Wikipedia is usually a good enough source for an argument on Slashdot, but if you have higher standards then you can view the original source here.
The sample set was 55 kids, but nowhere in the study does it support the statement that girls learned more about coding. The improvement between the pre- and post-tests was roughly equal for boys and girls.
I actually was able to read the study through my university. The story claims that girls are better at making games because they use more triggers than boys--except the other 95% of the time when they use the same triggers, at close to the same frequency as the boys. Of the 108 scripts produced by girls, five of them used triggers that boys did not use, with one extra trigger used three times and the other two used once each. The majority of girls also used the 'when someone says a line' trigger, not just boys.
The girls did on average score higher in computational thinking and produce more complex scripts.
Slashdot Mirror
Lying politicians are not a recent phenomenon. People have always been dishonest, but for some reason the "kids these days" argument remains popular.
"300 pages !!!1!" seems to be a favorite among ISP shills today...
Less freedom to get royally fucked by your friendly neighbor monopoly? The government doesn't always have your best interests at heart but it's still miles better than any corporation.
Unbundling would be great, but until then this is some much-needed regulation.
Absolutely, we need to know the facts! Who is funding all 12,000 studies supporting AGW and how the hell did they get $14B to spend buying scientists?!
Easy, people are less likely to pay for a new product if it looks just like the old one.
I was withholding my opinion until I heard the expert opinions of random Softpedia readers, but now it seems pretty clear that Windows 10 is a bust.
Imagine their disappointment when they only get an apology and no scholarship! The emotional damages must cost millions.
You might want to listen to music in 720p as well; according to Google audio from videos at less than 720p plays at a lower bitrate.
It may have been an "accident", but I'll bet Sony was still getting paid by the ad companies for the advertisements
The summary for this story is completely useless since it doesn't give any specific information on what the proposed regulations would change or what the US changed about them. I read the linked article and it's more of the same, with no actual facts about anything, just empty quotes and Fukushima references. This isn't a story, it's just FUD.
From TFA:
"...the legislation known as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act requires phone carriers to decrypt communications for the government only if they have designed their technology to make it possible to do so. If Verizon and Cellcrypt had structured their encryption so that neither company had the information necessary to decrypt the calls, they would not have been breaking the law."
Excellent, I love a nice warm dessert. You can never have enough pie.
Nobody has ever predicted a rise in tornado activity.
Climate change does not attempt to make predictions about tornadoes. Nobody knows how tornadoes form.
The lack of tornadoes does not have much to do with climate change. We do not understand how tornadoes form, and no climate scientist has ever predicted that climate change will lead to more tornadoes or larger tornadoes. It's not surprising that we can't find the reason for decreased tornado activity since we don't know where to look really, but it might be that this lull can help us narrow down the possible reasons for tornado formation.
Thank you for your sound and logical assessment of the american people.
I've got an advanced device similar to this that can hack the environment, it's called a thermometer.
I may be wrong, it's very difficult to find reliable information on this as no reactors have been built since the 70's, but as of now there are very little incentives for nuclear power. Those that do exist are just loan guarantees and some tax breaks (source). If you do have more information let me know.
Price per MWh is not dishonest, those are the only units that matter in the field of energy production. Even if wind/solar were at parity with nuclear they would be receiving more per MWh. In 2013, nuclear produced 19% of US power, while solar and wind produced a combined 4.36% source. Let's assume that solar and wind are also producing 19% of US power, or 4.36 times their current level (interestingly enough 4.36 is almost exactly the square root of 19). divide the $24/MWh by 4.36 and you get $5.5/MWh, still several times that of nuclear.
The cost of waste is not infinite, they do eventually degrade, and it's irrelevant anyway because the cost of waste storage is 100% paid for by the nuclear plants, not government subsidies. If you would use actual data then we could have an argument, but it seems you're content to just ignore everything I say just because it doesn't fit within your worldview.
Sucks relative to what? The infrastructure you truly deserve? It's not perfect but it's better than the nothing we would have without taxes.
A 4-day delay on a 6-year mission? Not even worth it anymore, just scrap the thing. Asteroids will be old news 4 days after the original return date.
Please provide sources. There are no plant build subsidies, only government loans (admittedly with low interest) that are paid back. I don't know what you mean by plant operating subsidies but the power produced is very scarcely subsidized, according the the Wall Street Journal, nuclear is subsidized at about $1.59 per megawatt hour, whereas solar and wind are given roughly $24 each per MWh. A research study on the externalities of energy found that nuclear externalized 0.2-0.7 cents per kWh depending on the country, while solar externalized 0.6 cents and wind externalized 0.2. For comparison, coal and oil were at around 10 cents per kWh. Plant waste is not subsidized, the cost of disposing/storing nuclear waste is added to the price of the electricity (source). I was unable to find any information on subsidizing retirements for nuclear workers, and I have no idea what you mean by money spent on nuclear education.
I am not "forgetting the other 6 decades", they were taken into account in the $73 billion.
Look closer, I was responding to catmistake, not your post. I would use EIA but they only have information on subsidies and not the government money spent on research. Wikipedia is usually a good enough source for an argument on Slashdot, but if you have higher standards then you can view the original source here.
The sample set was 55 kids, but nowhere in the study does it support the statement that girls learned more about coding. The improvement between the pre- and post-tests was roughly equal for boys and girls.
I actually was able to read the study through my university. The story claims that girls are better at making games because they use more triggers than boys--except the other 95% of the time when they use the same triggers, at close to the same frequency as the boys. Of the 108 scripts produced by girls, five of them used triggers that boys did not use, with one extra trigger used three times and the other two used once each. The majority of girls also used the 'when someone says a line' trigger, not just boys.
The girls did on average score higher in computational thinking and produce more complex scripts.