> The nuclear power industry is just another bunch of subsidy whores, sucking money out of the government and at the same time begging for impunity for the damage they cause to the environment and to their workforce.
Compared to any other power industry...? Same thing there. I don't like the gov giving free money to any company, but the power infrastructure is important enough that they need it up at all times. Subsidies should be short-term things to help get past rough times, not a source of income for these greedy companies. In almost any other industry, if a business produces a net loss, they need to increase the cost of the end product or go out of business, not get handed billions of dollars to fuck the rest of the people.
> The problem is not regulation: it's nuclear power itself.
No, the problem is ignorant luddites. Nuclear power is NOT inherently bad, nor is it unsafe if used in a well-controlled manner. Chernobyl was quite a while ago, and with current technology would not have happened, or at least would have been contained. What the fuck do you want us to do, go back to living in caves? Keep burning coal? Use other expensive technology that does not work well enough to be viable, let alone profitable?
However, you are correct that the idea of launching it into space is extremely idiotic.
How easy do you think it would be to make a door & doorframe that will block radioactivity for a hundred years while still being used, in an uncontrolled environment? Inside a power plant is one thing: you can control what comes into contact with it, but what if you have it exposed to "the elements?"
> Its like saying that because most car accidents are caused by driver error then ALL accidents have the same cause simply because the car ends up dented at the end.
Except for manufacturer defect (which is pretty rare), what kind of car accident isn't caused by driver error or irresponsibility? Responsibility includes making sure your car is in good-enough condition to not fall apart on the highway.
Animal jumped in front of your car causing you to swerve & lose control? You should have been paying better attention to your surroundings or not driving so fast. Maybe you should have held tight to the wheel & just drove over the raccoon. Just because it is a fairly reasonable reaction does not mean it wasn't your fault to begin with.
> will the loss of mass cause the earths orbit to change?
Technically, I suppose it might, but even if you took all the rockets in the world, fully-loaded & shot them off from one small area, I doubt it would be enough to change the Earth's orbit in any measurable way. Just a guess, but the Earth is really, really big...
> I would be chewing at the bit to represent this guy. It is a lawyer's dream.
Okay, maybe it's the jury's nightmare. But really, he would have to stretch the law pretty thin (that's their job, though) to not find this guy guilty of negligence or something like it, if something is shot that isn't "supposed to be shot."
Well, not exactly. I think it's funny, but it's not in "good taste." I don't know the exact word I'm looking for... maybe it just makes me uncomfortable to think that people do that sort of thing.
> In the near future the only thing left could be a rifle,
You still need a triggering mechanism. Like a servo that spins to pull the trigger. Then a wireless receiver, but most of this could be stored inside a hollowed-out stock & the trigger pulled by wire... It would still be obvious how it worked. Then, if you wanted any kind of accuracy, you'd need a remote camera. In general, the more complex your setup, the easier it is to catch you. More places to slip up, like fingerprints on the battery you put in that camera three months ago. Or a receipt from the trip to Radio Shack to buy all the stuff you needed.
> Who takes the flak, when [...] something thats not licensed [is shot].
That's a very good point, and is probably an argument raised by the Fish & Wildlife Agency, although admittedly I didn't RTFA. I imagine that the guy who set it up would be responsible for it.
This guy is a lawyer's worst nightmare. Hopefully we can get some lawyers herded into view...
> . There's nothing heroic, earthy or beautiful about that.
There's nothing heroic, earthy or beautiful about telling them they are wrong, either.
Many of the animal lovers who oppose hunting also complain about how our force-fed, abused farm animals are treated -- with good reason, sometimes. If by chance they actually eat meat, they also complain about chemicals that are fed to the animals. If I want to eat meat and be sure there are no chemicals, steroids in the meat, I have to go & get it myself. If you are a good-enough shot, you'll take it down in one hit. That's not inhumane.
Actually, hunting IS earthy. We hunted before "civilization," so it's more "earthy" than having a slaughtered pig's ass delivered ho you at the supermarket. That's as disconnected from the reality of Earth as you can get!
As for beauty, well no, it ain't pretty. Life isn't pretty, whether you work in the woods or in the deli section.
There's nothing heroic about killing captive animals either. I'm not trying to be a hero, I'm trying to eat natural food.
I've never hunted, BTW, but I will stand up for those who support reasonable hunting practices. Automatic weapons? No, there's no reason for that unless you're hunting something that weighs two tons & you are near starving.
While not sporting, every new type of hunters is looked down upon by previous ones.
Hunting from a PC isn't sport! -- Gun hunters Using a gun isn't fair at all. -- Bow hunters It's not hunting unless you chase it. -- Spear hunters I wish I had a gun & a PC with good aim. -- Hungry mammoth stranglers
> And 200 people who read what he said will think twice, too.
Think Twice?
First thought: This guy's a fucking idiot! Second thought: Yup, still an idiot
If someone gets pissed off at a company BECAUSE THEY FOLLOWED THE PRESTATED STORE POLICIES THAT WERE PRINTED ON HIS FUCKING RECEIPT, then most of those 200 people won't hold that against BB. If they do, they're idiots and have no interest in fairness, they just want everything their way. The whole world isn't Burger King.
Sure, if they HAD taken it back after 30 days and I heard about it, I might be more likely to shop there, but this case does not affect my shopping preference.
----- Wasn't this same thing posted like a year ago? I remember something similar, but don't feel like searching.
I was looking for one of those, but I don't think it's very accurate. Some of those things are near-impossible to sort, and some of them are basically the same or don't apply at all.
And more importantly, it said my Attitude Index was "50 - 53..... Very Well Developed (dynamic, positive)."
Geez, I'm one of the most cynical/negative, passive-aggressive people I know.
Some of the others were closer, but everything it Part I was rated between Above-Average Development and Very Well-Developed. Certainly not true, when reading the descriptions.
Just about everything in part II was "needs significant development," which may be true. It goes on to tell me I have bad internal conflicts and problems with my internal concentration. Basically that my view of 'self' is pretty fucked up, which is true. Then in classic psychiatrist form, it totally contradictl itself:
AI: 50 - 53..... Very Well Developed (dynamic, positive)
It just told me I was negative and introverted in 10 points, but I'm positive and dynamic.
> Why else would there be so much money pumped into research on both human and animal behaviour?
Umm... because when there is a buck (or a billion) to be made, many people are willing to do whatever they can to get it.
Do you honestly think the pharmaceutical companies really care if you actually need their product or not? Most of the time, no, (there are responsible companies out there) they just want to move as much product as possible. For instance, there is no proof that any of those penis enlargement pills work, but the pushers keep spouting great claims anyway, regardless of the truth.
He didn't say he agreed with prisoners being sent to Guantanamo. If he has a problem with gow regulating thought, he probably has a problem with government wrongly imprisoning & torturing people.
> I have never seen this before, explain how using only the throttle and brake you can stter a car?
I don't think (or at least hope) he meant with no steering, but more like with controlled sliding (drafting), etc. That means there is less steering done by the driver and you can take turns much faster that way.
> Obscuring of identity throws the whole "legitimate use" argument into a shaky gray area.
I don't agree with this at all. Anonimity isn't the "problem," it's the fact that people are sharing copyrighted material. Sharing sermons anonymously is no less legitimate than sharing them under a screen name or even a real name.
Aside from that, I pretty much agree with what you posted.
> can't you all see that's what caused September 11 to begin with?
I can, but according to the latest election, 51% of Americans think we should push the world around and that we don't need justification for anything we do, even if it is a flat-out lie.
I would blame that bastard's reelection on Deibold if I wasn't so sure that half of Americans really are that stupid and don't pay any attention to ANYTHING they don't want to hear (or they make a law against it).
> on Sept 11, France quoted "We are all americans". I challenge you to find a frenchman who still thinks that way
causation != corrolation
It could also mean that the French were just saying that to not look like pricks -- which I believe the case. HOWEVER, I don't blame them for it. If they hadn't said something to that effect they would look uncaring.
Seriously, be honest: do you think the French & Americans were close friends 3 years prior? Hell no, Americans (rightly) thought the French were arrogant, self-righteous bastards. The French (again, rightly) considered Americans arrogant, ignorant bastards.
And when I say "rightly," I mean as a general concept in their respective POVs, not as in "correct."
Slashdot Mirror
> The nuclear power industry is just another bunch of subsidy whores, sucking money out of the government and at the same time begging for impunity for the damage they cause to the environment and to their workforce.
Compared to any other power industry...? Same thing there. I don't like the gov giving free money to any company, but the power infrastructure is important enough that they need it up at all times. Subsidies should be short-term things to help get past rough times, not a source of income for these greedy companies. In almost any other industry, if a business produces a net loss, they need to increase the cost of the end product or go out of business, not get handed billions of dollars to fuck the rest of the people.
> The problem is not regulation: it's nuclear power itself.
No, the problem is ignorant luddites. Nuclear power is NOT inherently bad, nor is it unsafe if used in a well-controlled manner. Chernobyl was quite a while ago, and with current technology would not have happened, or at least would have been contained. What the fuck do you want us to do, go back to living in caves? Keep burning coal? Use other expensive technology that does not work well enough to be viable, let alone profitable?
However, you are correct that the idea of launching it into space is extremely idiotic.
> A door! That's the word I'm looking for
How easy do you think it would be to make a door & doorframe that will block radioactivity for a hundred years while still being used, in an uncontrolled environment? Inside a power plant is one thing: you can control what comes into contact with it, but what if you have it exposed to "the elements?"
> Its like saying that because most car accidents are caused by driver error then ALL accidents have the same cause simply because the car ends up dented at the end.
Except for manufacturer defect (which is pretty rare), what kind of car accident isn't caused by driver error or irresponsibility? Responsibility includes making sure your car is in good-enough condition to not fall apart on the highway.
Animal jumped in front of your car causing you to swerve & lose control? You should have been paying better attention to your surroundings or not driving so fast. Maybe you should have held tight to the wheel & just drove over the raccoon. Just because it is a fairly reasonable reaction does not mean it wasn't your fault to begin with.
Maybe I just don't understand what you meant.
> will the loss of mass cause the earths orbit to change?
Technically, I suppose it might, but even if you took all the rockets in the world, fully-loaded & shot them off from one small area, I doubt it would be enough to change the Earth's orbit in any measurable way. Just a guess, but the Earth is really, really big...
> I would be chewing at the bit to represent this guy. It is a lawyer's dream.
Okay, maybe it's the jury's nightmare. But really, he would have to stretch the law pretty thin (that's their job, though) to not find this guy guilty of negligence or something like it, if something is shot that isn't "supposed to be shot."
AFAIK, IANAL, IHA (I Hate Acronyms)
> So you'd be really upset at this guy
Well, not exactly. I think it's funny, but it's not in "good taste." I don't know the exact word I'm looking for... maybe it just makes me uncomfortable to think that people do that sort of thing.
> In the near future the only thing left could be a rifle,
You still need a triggering mechanism. Like a servo that spins to pull the trigger. Then a wireless receiver, but most of this could be stored inside a hollowed-out stock & the trigger pulled by wire... It would still be obvious how it worked. Then, if you wanted any kind of accuracy, you'd need a remote camera. In general, the more complex your setup, the easier it is to catch you. More places to slip up, like fingerprints on the battery you put in that camera three months ago. Or a receipt from the trip to Radio Shack to buy all the stuff you needed.
> Do you have a source on that?
Liberal BS artists. In other words, no.
> Posting anonymously so as to not be noted as the one advocating the death of the disabled.
Free speech, brother! Don't hide the opinion it is your right to hold!
Kill 'em all! Clean up the gene pool. Step two involves "Ark B."
> So is it that you don't know any married women
He didn't say anything that would exclude adultery.
> Who takes the flak, when [...] something thats not licensed [is shot].
That's a very good point, and is probably an argument raised by the Fish & Wildlife Agency, although admittedly I didn't RTFA. I imagine that the guy who set it up would be responsible for it.
This guy is a lawyer's worst nightmare. Hopefully we can get some lawyers herded into view...
> There's a "feel" to holding a gun that a mouse simply cannot replicate.
We'll have to send the guy instructions on gunverting an NES lightgun to USB, then!
("gunverting" was a typo, but I liked it.)
> . There's nothing heroic, earthy or beautiful about that.
There's nothing heroic, earthy or beautiful about telling them they are wrong, either.
Many of the animal lovers who oppose hunting also complain about how our force-fed, abused farm animals are treated -- with good reason, sometimes. If by chance they actually eat meat, they also complain about chemicals that are fed to the animals. If I want to eat meat and be sure there are no chemicals, steroids in the meat, I have to go & get it myself. If you are a good-enough shot, you'll take it down in one hit. That's not inhumane.
Actually, hunting IS earthy. We hunted before "civilization," so it's more "earthy" than having a slaughtered pig's ass delivered ho you at the supermarket. That's as disconnected from the reality of Earth as you can get!
As for beauty, well no, it ain't pretty. Life isn't pretty, whether you work in the woods or in the deli section.
There's nothing heroic about killing captive animals either. I'm not trying to be a hero, I'm trying to eat natural food.
I've never hunted, BTW, but I will stand up for those who support reasonable hunting practices. Automatic weapons? No, there's no reason for that unless you're hunting something that weighs two tons & you are near starving.
While not sporting, every new type of hunters is looked down upon by previous ones.
Hunting from a PC isn't sport! -- Gun hunters
Using a gun isn't fair at all. -- Bow hunters
It's not hunting unless you chase it. -- Spear hunters
I wish I had a gun & a PC with good aim. -- Hungry mammoth stranglers
> kilograms are a measurement of mass, dumbarse, not weight
Mass doesn't change when you go through reentry, dumbarse.
> If I can't edit my posts, then let me post a correction sooner than 2 fucking minutes after the mistake.
If you can't be bothered to use preview, then don't fucking complain about posting.
> And 200 people who read what he said will think twice, too.
Think Twice?
First thought: This guy's a fucking idiot!
Second thought: Yup, still an idiot
If someone gets pissed off at a company BECAUSE THEY FOLLOWED THE PRESTATED STORE POLICIES THAT WERE PRINTED ON HIS FUCKING RECEIPT, then most of those 200 people won't hold that against BB. If they do, they're idiots and have no interest in fairness, they just want everything their way. The whole world isn't Burger King.
Sure, if they HAD taken it back after 30 days and I heard about it, I might be more likely to shop there, but this case does not affect my shopping preference.
-----
Wasn't this same thing posted like a year ago? I remember something similar, but don't feel like searching.
I was looking for one of those, but I don't think it's very accurate. Some of those things are near-impossible to sort, and some of them are basically the same or don't apply at all.
..... Very Well Developed (dynamic, positive)."
..... Very Well Developed (dynamic, positive)
And more importantly, it said my Attitude Index was "50 - 53
Geez, I'm one of the most cynical/negative, passive-aggressive people I know.
Some of the others were closer, but everything it Part I was rated between Above-Average Development and Very Well-Developed. Certainly not true, when reading the descriptions.
Just about everything in part II was "needs significant development," which may be true. It goes on to tell me I have bad internal conflicts and problems with my internal concentration. Basically that my view of 'self' is pretty fucked up, which is true. Then in classic psychiatrist form, it totally contradictl itself:
AI: 50 - 53
It just told me I was negative and introverted in 10 points, but I'm positive and dynamic.
Crazy...
> The plan was dropped after Nixon tried the test himself, and flunked.
Are you joking? I ask because it's funny, but I wouldn't doubt it was the truth.
> Why else would there be so much money pumped into research on both human and animal behaviour?
Umm... because when there is a buck (or a billion) to be made, many people are willing to do whatever they can to get it.
Do you honestly think the pharmaceutical companies really care if you actually need their product or not? Most of the time, no, (there are responsible companies out there) they just want to move as much product as possible. For instance, there is no proof that any of those penis enlargement pills work, but the pushers keep spouting great claims anyway, regardless of the truth.
He didn't say he agreed with prisoners being sent to Guantanamo. If he has a problem with gow regulating thought, he probably has a problem with government wrongly imprisoning & torturing people.
> I have never seen this before, explain how using only the throttle and brake you can stter a car?
I don't think (or at least hope) he meant with no steering, but more like with controlled sliding (drafting), etc. That means there is less steering done by the driver and you can take turns much faster that way.
> Obscuring of identity throws the whole "legitimate use" argument into a shaky gray area.
I don't agree with this at all. Anonimity isn't the "problem," it's the fact that people are sharing copyrighted material. Sharing sermons anonymously is no less legitimate than sharing them under a screen name or even a real name.
Aside from that, I pretty much agree with what you posted.
> can't you all see that's what caused September 11 to begin with?
I can, but according to the latest election, 51% of Americans think we should push the world around and that we don't need justification for anything we do, even if it is a flat-out lie.
I would blame that bastard's reelection on Deibold if I wasn't so sure that half of Americans really are that stupid and don't pay any attention to ANYTHING they don't want to hear (or they make a law against it).
> on Sept 11, France quoted "We are all americans". I challenge you to find a frenchman who still thinks that way
causation != corrolation
It could also mean that the French were just saying that to not look like pricks -- which I believe the case. HOWEVER, I don't blame them for it. If they hadn't said something to that effect they would look uncaring.
Seriously, be honest: do you think the French & Americans were close friends 3 years prior? Hell no, Americans (rightly) thought the French were arrogant, self-righteous bastards. The French (again, rightly) considered Americans arrogant, ignorant bastards.
And when I say "rightly," I mean as a general concept in their respective POVs, not as in "correct."