Slashdot Mirror

nuclear is one of the safest.

You must live in an alternative universe

Holly shit who is living in an alternative universe? How can an industrial process be "one of the safest" when it has the potential to destroy a country and almost did? How blind are you willing to be?

You may want to check out, well, the facts.

Your "facts" are utter bullshit, and you're an idiot for putting them forth. This well-known page, that comes back each time an idiot feels like defending NP, says that the WHO announced 4000 deaths from Chernobyl in 2005 but fails to indicate that the same WHO admitted later that the report was "a political communication tool" and issued a new statement in 2006 pointing at very different figures.

Also comparing rooftop fall deaths to nuclear is ridiculous because you're comparing very shoddy construction practices to the extreme requirements of nuclear, but nothing prevents people from using proper equipments and practices when going on roofs. Also it ignores solar thermal energy which is probably the cleanest and safest way of generating electricity bar none.

Ultimately the issue here is that you need to consider the intrinsic risks, which are high with nuclear, not the mitigated risks, which indeed have been reduced but mostly by pure luck.

Anyway believe what you want but don't blind yourself with partisan bullshit when trying to form an opinion.

Solar (or geothermal and definitely not wind) isn't even a viable option yet.

Not less than breeder and thorium reactors that people need to push forward as soon as proposing NP as an acceptable solution, because in its current form it is not.

What? no. I think you are missing the point.

This isn't about her deciding later that it was rape. This is about an alleged (and I have to say that as, I do think the whole thing stinks, but for the sake of discussion, lets assume that the allegations are, as stated, true)

I am basing this on this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/17/julian-assange-sweden

Lets start here:

Miss A then realised he was trying to have unprotected sex with her. She told police that she had tried a number of times to reach for a condom but Assange had stopped her by holding her arms and pinning her legs. The statement records Miss A describing how Assange then released her arms and agreed to use a condom, but she told the police that at some stage Assange had "done something" with the condom that resulted in it becoming ripped, and ejaculated without withdrawing.

Now.... I was thinking "what a dirtball" right up until he had "'done something' with the condom". That sets off my red flags, big time.... based on what? What made her so sure he did something or even knew that the condom has broken? Too much detail missing, but it sounds fishy as hell. That said... we are assuming that it is true, as stated. So he "did something".

Well... what is that? She explicitly gave conditional consent, and he subverted the conditions of her consent? its clear action in bad faith. In fact, even if he didn't "do something", if he was aware that the condom had broken, shouldn't her insistence on the use of one indicated that he should immediately replace it or at least consult her again? Do you really think thats ok?

Note...we are not even considering the, very real, possibility that he wasn't aware at the time, since that is not what is being alleged. (or the very real possibility that she is full of shit, being paid, etc.)

Now... I also have to retract some statements I have made...as I find this line in the article:
"The police record of the interview with Assange in Stockhom deals only with the complaint made by Miss A."

So we can disregard the other incident entirely, and not get into how sleazy it is (alleged unofficially, and also probably BS) to have someone wake up to having unprotected sex with you, after having repeatedly refused to and insisted on condoms at every previous encounter.... even though she did, finally, consent.

Given that this is the actual topic, I can't say that this is a scenario that really I would categorize as "any sex". The allegations paint a picture of an individual who has shown extreme disregard for the personal safety and boundaries of others.

That, btw is an interesting aspect of it.... look at what Manning told that shit-head rat Lamo. Claims that Assange would refuse to work with people who were careless. He setup his own system to protect his sources from even him knowing their real identities. It doesn't fit.

What you don't seem to grasp is that there are more than one type of fission reactor, probably because the only one that people are told about are the big, squeezed conical towers call fast breeder pressurized water reactors (PWR).

PWRs were designed with the following priorities:
1) nuclear weapons (governments hand the utilities reams of money)
2) make lots of money (re)processing uranium (utilities hand themselves reams of money and call it a "cost")
3) electrical power (and thus more money, but the industry is regulated, so it isn't hand over fist like the above two).
4) safety (costs money, so the less spent the better - just like BP cutting corners on their oil rigs - the lower the cost, the more the profit)

and yet still they cost far less lives than coal and oil.

But if you knew anything about other types of fission reactor like the molten salt reactor experiment from the 1960s or liquid fluoride reactors (LFTR mentioned elsewhere, a modern take on MSR), you'd know we could build scalable, passively safe, self regulating, raw fuel burning reactors for electrical power that are really bad at #1 and don't need #2 and thus utilities don't want to invest any money in the technology because #1 and #2 are cash cows.

Unfortunately, this is not a thorium molten salt reactor like the proposed LFTR and it is more like traditional reactors, but China is working on them, and there are test reactors being built in Japan and Europe (see here for China - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html ).

Of course, there are naysayers - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
The author of this was obviously biased against or chose biased views
1) nobody has ever tried to build a thorium molten salt reactor on a larger scale, but even if it ended up not scaling, many small nuclear reactors can be used much closer to residential areas. They don't spew radiation when their container is breached and they don't melt down. They also can be shut off and restarted easily, as Oak Ridge used to do with theirs on the weekends.
2) they will be uneconomic - this is a chicken or egg problem - yes Thorium currently costs about $5000/kg vs $40/kg for Uranium, but it currently is a novelty metal and not mined heavily like Uranium (in fact, it is often buried as waste). It is as abundant as lead and 4x more abundant than Uranium. It also doesn't need refining like Uranium and burns much more efficiently.
3) environmentalists say - "its reactors disgorging the same toxic byproducts and fissile waste with the same millennial half-lives" - hardly - if 97% of it is burnt up, there is 94-96% less nuclear waste than traditional reactors which burn .7%-3% of their fuel.
4) U232 byproduct - I'm not a nuclear scientist, but as I understand it, U233->U232->U233 is the reaction cycle and thus is self recycling. Leftovers can be separated from any other remaining byproducts chemically (you can't separate U233 and U233, but you can other byproducts). U233 mixed with depleted uranium creates natural uranium in time.

I found the agnostic blog you posted to be both interesting and an irritant. His analysis of the various debates is a neutral mindset I have a hard time maintaining, and something I find admirable. But what I found irritating was the debates themselves. So many of them depend on Rhetorical Style, of techniques and phrasing, instead of dealing with facts. When the purpose of a debate is to simply make the best sounding argument, then of course the charming evil man who thinks that with god on your side mass murder is justafiable and who pities the murderers is going to have a reasonable chance of winning.

Choice quotes:
"So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong."

"Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing."

"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

And simply PEGGING my Irony meter:
"The problem with Islam, then, is not that it has got the wrong moral theory; it’s that it has got the wrong God. If the Muslim thinks that our moral duties are constituted by God’s commands, then I agree with him. But Muslims and Christians differ radically over God’s nature. Christians believe that God is all-loving, while Muslims believe that God loves only Muslims. Allah has no love for unbelievers and sinners. Therefore, they can be killed indiscriminately. Moreover, in Islam God’s omnipotence trumps everything, even His own nature. He is therefore utterly arbitrary in His dealing with mankind. By contrast Christians hold that God’s holy and loving nature determines what He commands. "

And yet, the argument these tasty bits of cruelty and intolerance fall from is considered a well constructed retorical statement. Completely ignoring the fact that he thinks the murder of infants and small children is justifiable because God said so, though I'm sure he'd loudly condemn anyone in modern times who said that God told him to murder all the Palestinians as an obvious madman, because he worships a loving god. As opposed to that arbitrarily acting god those muslims worship that consistanly has no love for unbelivers and sinners and is consistant in that they not be treated the same as Muslims.

Also, while I'm no big fan of Dawkins (While he's certainly intelligent and witty, something about him strikes me as arrogant), he's got pretty good reasons for not bothering with such a charming well spoken sociopath. It'd be like sitting down for an afternoon chat with Stalin or Slobodan Milosevic. I'm sure they'd speak well, and be able to render me unable to say anything in response other than "I'm sorry, I know I can't explain it well, but you're wrong," but just because they would be able to beat me in a structured arguement doesn't mean th

Is another person's dirty tricks rape accusation. A rape accusation that amounted to buyer's remorse in the first place (as opposed to forcible rape), and would only be rape in Sweden. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/09/anna-ardin-julian-assange_n_794285.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/21/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-warrant-sweden

That's harsh. Just a few months ago, Blackberry's unique social networking features played an important role in facilitating the high profile collaborative activities of many members of the key under-25 demographic!:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/08/london-riots-facebook-twitter-blackberry

Even the chart you point to makes that point.

You and your attitude is the reason the rest of the world has been able to watch the rise and fall of the USA over the last 40 years.

His attitude is what made America great. The increasing entitlements are what have been draining the American work ethic.

When you realise the wealth of a nation is in how it cares for the worst off there may be some hope for the USA.

America takes care of its worst off very well, thank you very much. Then it takes care of its "not quite as worse off". Then it takes care of its "not bad off at all, but only have one flat screen TV and two game consoles, how am I supposed to eat?". In the latest RedBox article, there was this tidbit:
"Douchebags in the suburbs who can afford the 4 DVD plan from Netflix wouldn't know any redboxers but low income areas are all over these things. Reserving Blu rays from an iPhone app at one of the many kiosks means you don't even have to chance it anymore and waste time in these lines. A twenty cent increase != a twenty dollar increase."
Notice that? Low income, but using iPhone apps to rent movies.

But if you remain narrow-minded uncharitable xenophobes you will reap what you have sown.

Just because one gets taxed out the wazoo and that money is then given to someone else doesn't make one charitable. What makes one charitable is having the individual choice to give to someone else. I would advise you not to pay attention to sites like this which list charitable countries by how much their governments contribute, and instead check sites like http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country or http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682100&page=1 which discuss individual charity. Americans might be slightly xenophobic (although not really; we're the f-ing melting pot!), but we are charitable.

OK, a number of people contacted the Guardian before this, but however it happened they got the point and gave him a full page on the Saturday edition. I hope that goes some way to make up for Google having to help rescue Bletchley Park.

Every year dozens of people die in the installation and maintenance of solar panels and wind generators

That argument comes back all the time but it sounds completely ridiculous to me. How is handling solar panels or wind turbines more dangerous than working on a nuclear power plant construction site, or any power plant for that matter? Just enforce similar security measures for workers and you'll get similar fatality rates.

Meanwhile nuclear has caused zero deaths in its history in this country - but somehow nuclear is unsafe and we need to devoting more resources to solar?

Fukushima went inches away from collapsing Japan as a country it seems. Would the wind have blown in the wrong direction (i.e.,inland) during those fateful few days, Tokyo might have had to be evacuated for decades possibly. That's where nuclear energy is unsafe, markedly more than any other form of energy generation.

Now you may say that newer designs, or more probably future designs do mitigate the risks, but unless you can come up with a design that cannot possibly lead to any widespread contamination, even in the face of human stupidity, corruption and greed, all of which we are not going to get rid of anytime soon, then you're disingenuous IMHO if you deny the inherent risk with nuclear energy.

Risk by the way that the people who make a living from estimating risks, i.e., insurers, have properly assessed, and thus simply refuse to bear.

nuclear is safer

How do you define safer? Oh I see, you mean "disregarding a few annoying incidents that won't ever happen again, promised. In fact they almost didn't happen at all".

nuclear is cheaper

Especially when you disregard the potential cost of accidents (i.e., insurance).

By pretty much any metric

At least by unicorns and fairies, definitely.

These numbers aren't a big change from estimates 5 months ago.

Which estimates? I started with "a small amount of radioactive noble gases, which decay within minutes", then it became 7% of Chernobyl, some times later 20% of Chernobyl, now it's 40% it seems, is this the final figure? Do you promise?

Fukushima was not management incompetence, it was downright criminal negligence as far as I can tell.

Not even remotely true. Take a look at this picture to see the tangled mess of lawsuits a year ago - it's got worse since then, but I couldn't find an updated image.

To the guys running these corps. Government is just another tool which they use to get what they want, and a tool which has M1 tanks, F16 fighters, black ops aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons.

See what is happening in the UK. They are on the route to a 'market' experiment in higher education. This has been launched by no other than lord Browne, the CEO of BP who had to resigned in 2007, and then named at the head of a commission to review higher education finances.

Academics are waking up to the meaning of a law that has been passed without the preliminary white paper, that is, without sufficient public discussion.
They are going to cut 90% of public financing to the universities, and harnessing the student with the resulting debt. They call that: "putting the student at the center of the reform".

Stefan Collini is the foremost critic of this idea and has just published a book about this. Read this article in The Guardian (free access) to get an idea of how the UK is on the path to destroying one of the finest higher education system: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/19/university-market-white-paper

An experiment of this sort has been carried on in New Zealand in the 90's. The result has been catastrophic. Proposals of this kind, all with a libertarian/market flavor, are being proposed in legislatures all over the world at the moment. It is as if the right had found its next target.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/jun/29/guardianweeklytechnologysection5
Vinge was an OPTIMIST. The "SHE" (secure hardware enviornment) is a dangerous and probable prosal but only one of five scenarios.

The article quite clearly states that the government wants *its own* computers to have TPM installed, it doesn't mention anything about home users.

I'm not sure which article you read. The original post links to the one at this address: http://www.guardian.co.uk/government-computing-network/2011/oct/21/cyber-security-strategy-trusted-computing

That one says nothing about putting it on government computers, and has these points implying that they are talking about privately owned computers.

These are making the public safe online and ensuring the country is one of the best in the world for online business;

"Building the most resilient cyber defences in the world will not help if you are suffering from intellectual property theft," he said. "Trusted computing underpins security and can underpin growth,..."

Pengelly added that he is now working with a cyber security team in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to work out what incentives the government could provide to encourage the take-up of the relevant standards.

Working in another field, Stephen McIntyre does have expertise on the application of statistical methods to inflated conclusions and he elucidated flaws in the approach to the tree ring analysis which notable statisticians have commended as very astute.

That statement is a lie.

From:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre

"More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original graph, and almost all agreed that the warmest decade in the last thousand years was probably that at the end of the 20th century"

In fact, Mann's findings have been independently verified by independent teams using alternate methods and alternate data sources.

That statement is a lie. from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/09/hockey-stick-michael-mann-steve-mcintyre Working in another field, Stephen McIntyre does have expertise on the application of statistical methods to inflated conclusions and he elucidated flaws in the approach to the tree ring analysis which notable statisticians have commended as very astute. That statement is a lie. "At the request of Congress, a panel of scientists convened by the National Research Council was set up, which reported in 2006 supporting Mann's findings with some qualifications, including agreeing that there were some statistical failings but these had little effect on the result."

So now we turn to South Park to justify our views? :P

The motive behind a crime is *THE* number one factor used in judging sentencing. What do you think the difference is between first-degree murder and manslaughter? It's all about motive. Did you plan in detail how to kill the person, channelling your hatred toward your carefully plotted ends, or did you unintentionally, spur-of-the-moment end up causing someone's death? You better believe that matters!

Hate crime law is all about *motive*. It's the basic premise that committing a crime because you view their whole "group" (which they have no choice whether or not to belong to) as bad is a particularly vile motive. And you know what? I agree with that premise.

As for the "tyranny of the masses", you can still have delegated voting (I've long wished for such a system) while having a strong judiciary to protect minority views. There's no reason why delegated voting must inherently disempower the judiciary any more than our current crazy system tries to. The judiciary is the of the few against the many. They have to hear in detail the facts of the case instead of relying on broad stereotypes and cursory knowledge like the masses do, and they must make judgements based on broad principles that apply equally to everyone. At least, that's how the judiciary is supposed to work; it will never be perfect, of course.

A neat bit of history: Chile's Allende government, before being overthrown by Pinochet, was working on a project called "Cybersyn", which has been dubbed "The Socialist Internet". This was back in the early 1970s, and they were struggling with the issue of how to manage a planned economy in the modern age. They basically invented their own version of the internet, where terminals all over the country would maintain bidirectional communication with a set of central servers for data exchange. The initial incarnation was designed to provide the government information about what needed to be produced, where, and when it needed to be in other locations (they got it mostly up and running only shortly before Allende was overthrown). The longer term picture, however, was to allow anyone with an ID card to fetch information from the government (speeches, laws, etc) and to vote on the issues of the day (starting with what they wanted produced, but later extending to referendums and the like).

After taking over, Pinochet's people couldn't figure out what to make of the system, and only thinking of it in the context of it being a tool for managing planned economies, destroyed it.

I think the Africans might disagree with you.

No, Bush did not convince Blair to go to war with Biblical stories.

I was refering to Chirac : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

I have some French sources for that as well.

I love how you claim it is overly simplified to say we can turn AS back on but do not wish to discuss the details to prove your claim. Indeed, it is the second time you make a useless ellipsis about physical switches in space, instead of explaining what a physical switch has to do with something that looks like a software flag and why turning it off was easier to turn it back on. I think that indeed we are at the end of the conversation.

Actually, liberals have pretty much been unified in their stance against supporting dictatorship regimes, who murder their citizens and fail to respect basic human rights. Unlike some, other groups. Watch The War On Democracy and then show me a single liberal who supports overthrowing democratic governments. Show me a single liberal who is against basic human rights. In every case I can think of, liberals have opposed supporting these regimes, whilst those on the right-wing have often argued otherwise (though sometimes they do admit they got it wrong)

But what will we do when all the politicians are dead?

There will be much rejoicing.

But what will we do when all the politicians are dead?

The glassy-eyed liberals switched from "Global Warming" to "Klimate Change" to hedge their bets.

Both terms have been around for for over 3 decades, you do realise what the "CC" in IPCC stands for, right? The only people who tried to make political mileage from conflating the terms were in the Bush administration, specifically the PR guru Frank Luntz. But I know I'm wasting my pixels because brown shirts like you will swallow even the most obvious propaganda that your masters put in front of you and still defend their position until your death.

Robert Maxwell also decided peoples' pension funds were his to play with. He's now living in hiding, or fell off a boat, which ever you choose to believe.

Considering his body was found by a fishing boat on the same day he went missing, and that he would now be 88 if he were still alive, the "living in hiding" supposition seems rather far fetched. :)

Nazism was a revolutionary movement that overthrew the Weimar Republic and cleared away the last vestiges of power held by the German aristocracy.

This is a gross oversimplification, to say the least. Nazism as a "populist movement" actually served to remove power from the German people (among other things) and place it into the hands of a select few who were partly comprised of and backed by aristocrats, including the British royalty and our own "aristocrats" on this side of the ocean (wealthy Connecticut and Rhode Islands families, the Rockefellers, etc). Mind you, this involved a transfer of power within the aristocracy but to suggest that Nazism was a grassroots movement that was inherently anti-aristocracy would be to perpetuate the same lie that a lot of German people fell for.

The real goals of Nazism (and WWII) were consolidation of power, population reduction and bringing closer a return to Feudalism:

The Nazi Roots of the House of Windsor

the Bush family & the Nazis

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Documents: Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler

how the Bush family wealth is linked to the holocaust

ROCKEFELLER AND MASS MURDER

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

Rockefeller Associates

Standard Oil Fuels World War II

Have a few numbers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk]

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html [montrealgazette.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister [guardian.co.uk]

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html [blogspot.com]

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html [vaticancrimes.us]

Have a few numbers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk]

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html [montrealgazette.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister [guardian.co.uk]

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html [blogspot.com]

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html [vaticancrimes.us]

The response has been documented to have AGGRAVATED the problem, and continued over decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk]

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html [montrealgazette.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister [guardian.co.uk]

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html [blogspot.com]

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html [vaticancrimes.us]

The response has been documented to have AGGRAVATED the problem, and continued over decades.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout [guardian.co.uk]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/ [msn.com]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html [telegraph.co.uk]

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/ [nationalpost.com]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html [montrealgazette.com]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister [guardian.co.uk]

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html [blogspot.com]

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html [vaticancrimes.us]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/25/christian-brothers-abuse-payout

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23521616/ns/us_news-faith/t/catholic-sex-abuse-payouts-top-million/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1557479/Roman-Catholic-Church-agrees-sexual-abuse-payout.html

http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/08/18/clergy-abuse-payouts-pushing-dublin-archdiocese-toward-bankruptcy/

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Catholic+Church+seeks+limit+abuse+payouts+Germany/3605154/story.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/24/usa.danglaister

http://vivekajyoti.blogspot.com/2011/03/catholic-jesuits-in-166-million-abuse.html

http://www.vaticancrimes.us/2011/01/catholic-abuse-victims-offered-firm.html

Shipping is so dependent on GPS that they follow the exact shipping channels, no matter what's in the way...
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/dec/16/1

What ever came of those oil cleaners that Kevin Costner's company supposedly had. I saw articles and remember about BP buying a few and using them but nothing after that. Were they effective? Better than the article winner? Just a PR move for BP? It says BP wanted about 32 and even had some set sail in July 2010 but after that all I see is a Slashdot article discussing it http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/18/2035238/ieee-looks-at-kevin-costners-oil-cleanup-machines

The only thing I could find close to a follow up in the popular press was from this July reviewing how well it worked and some of the failures (clogging with "peanut butter type" oil and such) http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/12/bp-kevin-costner-deepwater-horizon-spill

You know, the majority of all people ever born has not yet died. Therefore the evidence that everyone eventually dies is not very good. :-)

Rubbish

What proportion of this '60% of their policies' falls into the category of 'stuff the Tories were going to do anyway'?:

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/aposcommon%2Bgroundapos%2Band%2Bconflict%2Bbetween%2Bparties/3641187.html

Allowing David Cameron to honour his own manifesto promises is hardly a 'spectacular' result, just a natural consequence of coalition. The Lib Dems are thrown the occasional bone to keep the rump of their core support happy, but in most of the important areas of disagreement the view of the senior partners has, quite predictably, prevailed.

The tuition fee debacle is something of a special case. This was not just a manifesto promise that might reasonably be taken with a pinch of salt, but a flagship issue that was, uniquely, the subject of a personal pledge made by every candidate to vote in a specific way. Nobody expected the Lib Dems to actually form a government by themselves and implement this policy unilaterally, but quite a lot of people really believed their own MPs would stick to their guns on this issue (which an honourable minority did). In university towns it would have been a significant vote winner. Of course we now know the party leadership had absolutely no intention of keeping this promise if it proved a barrier to power:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg

Even by the standards of UK party politics, this is remarkably cynical.

And then at the deciding, decisive moment, the liberal party decided to throw in with the capital-c Conservatives without consulting its voters or setting out any ground-rules. Great job, guys! I really feel represented!

No, I'm not bitter.

Because Labour refused to enter a coalition with them, and the numbers wouldn't have added up anyway. And where do you get the idea that they didn't set down any ground rules? There's a formal coalition agreement setting down the ground rules.

The Guardian reports that the scheme is only applicable to *new* contracts, and is neither opt-in or opt-out: you choose the service you want when you sign up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-isps

Replying to my own post, but there's clarification here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/11/internet-pornography?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

there was a reply in the letters pages the following week from a boss at tescos saying that there is no such policy...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2011/sep/16/tesco-shopping-supermarket-prices-check-writing?commentpage=4#comment-12473653

and besides they publish all their prices online. the fact that they are different from the prices in the shops and different between individual shops appears to have passed him by. i bet he shops in waitrose...

You think that's bad? Just go into your local Walmart with a pen and paper and start writing prices down and time how long it takes them to stick security on you. I have just discovered that Tesco has the same policy.

A lot of the OWS folks are mad about the college debt. Occupy Wall Street and Student Loans by Josh Barro for The National Review. At Occupy Wall Street protests, student loan frustration by Jenna Johnson for The Washington Post Blog. Here's a demand: forgive student loan debt by Robert Applebaum for The Guardian. You're welcome.

Steve Jobs explains why FireWire is dead [17-Oct-2008]

Yes, because protecting the devices from malware and bad apps...

Or apps that point out the exploitative basis from which all cell phones are produced.

Or comic adaptations of James Joyce's Ulysses because of some extremely minor incidental nudity.

But don't worry, there are still plenty of Bible apps chock full of rape, sodomy, incest, murder...

The stories at the time of arrest indicate that it was Equity Index linked securities that the trader was gambling on, not Swiss Franc like it was widely assumed.
That was also the time when European indices, emerging market stocks and to a lesser extent US stocks crashed. But otherwise you are right - apparently Adoboli had done hidden trades starting as far back as 2008 and they were generally profitable. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/sep/17/kweku-adoboli-ubs-fraud-charges

Was there? Can you cite the details of the case?

There was a case in England in which Simon Singh was sued by the British Chiropractic Association for libel over his claim that they peddled bogus treatments, but I can't think of any case involving homeopathy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/apr/15/simon-singh-libel-case-dropped