Well, if I were to entertain the though that from a purely intellectual standpoint, this world is going to hell in a handbasket for whatever reason, your ramblings could be viewed as pretty good evidence. Not being able to form a thought-out sentence, much less an argument and still believing yourself in a position to look down the "worst of us", defined not by intellect, but of course by an economic metric, is somewhat rich.
The guys spouting that tired "fusion is always 40 years away" meme without actually having any clue about what is going on in research are amongst the most annoying people on this site.
I'd very much prefer if we could get rid of the term "social darwinism". It's a shame to besmirch Darwin's name with that kind of crap he never really endorsed, which he actually flat out thought unacceptable. Let's call it Galtonism or Spencerism, after the idiots actually coming up with it.
You are entitled to your opinions. Just debating them does not seem to make much sense, seeing how married you are to them. Also, regarding the drug factor - the only people getting "caffeine addiction" seem to be Americans. Never met anyone around here that would have heard of that, much less ever experienced any caffeine "withdrawal".
Biosphere 2 is still different from a self-sustaining Antarctica colony. Also, quite different from a Mars project. Biosphere 2 was overly reliant on actually getting the whole system running on a largely biological basis. We don't seem to get that now. But that can be overcome by technology. I am not saying that a self-sustaining Mars colony would be easy. Maybe not even possible with current technology, but not generally impossible. I am with you on your point about Mars' habitability. Just had to get that Antarctica comparison out of the way.
I still drink alcohol-free bitter drinks, like bitter lemon. Also, I do like brussels sprouts. It's an acquired taste, but not necessarily connected to drug delivery. Actually, I drank bitter lemon and liked it before I drank alcohol or coffee. New theory, please.
Not necessarily. You will need a certain mutation rate to keep up any evolutionary process - but that doesn't necessarily have to be fueled by solar radiation. Background radioactivity from the rocks would do as well. Besides, it's only a loss of 70something %, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of mutation on that fact in any way.
Oh, so someone who likes the taste of coffee does so because "he is willfully ignoring the dominant flavor for psychological and addictive reasons", while your dislike is based on pure rationality? Actually, I like the bitter flavor. Be it in coffee, be it in beer - preferably a strong, dry IPA. It's part of the whole and not "willfully ignored".
Antarctica is not a good comparison. The reason why we do not have a self-sustaining colony there is not primarily technical, but rather economical. It is way simpler to fly in supplies to the few research stations we have there than to setup a whole economy there. Technically - set up a nuclear reactor, use waste heat to heat some greenhouses and off you go.
I am not American - but yeah, I am using the options I have with my nation's regulatory agencies. Been using those since 10 years, actually. I realize that you are probably not the right target for my wrath, but the sheer amount of unreflecting apologists on/. these days gets me into a righteous nerdrage regularily...
And the activity of coal ash in a heap before you is just the same like that of a heap of soil or fertilizer. Keep spreading your lies, please. At least that way everyone can see where you come from and what your standards regarding rational arguments are. If you seriously want to run the argument that coal is unsafe from a radiological perspective, you are either imbecile or scum. You seem semi-literate, so I think we can safely put you into the propagandist scum category. If you want to bash coal - get a real argument. There are enough of those.
In contrast to "computer scientists" I actually studied science. I am competent enough to look through the transparent lies of the apologists here. You on the other hand, are content with gobbling down the cocks of your chosen "experts".
Did the Ford Pinto permanently displace 70000 people? No? Well, you knew that. You chose to use a false analogy to further your agenda, whatever that might be. A rational mind cannot comprehend what you guys are actually aiming for here.
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no real argument. I basically gave up discussing the problem at hand one month ago. One only runs into retards like you. I just flame now. Here you go - fuck off.
Translation: It should not be, so it can not be. The american way of life - which is defined by burning oil and running nukes - is nonnegotiable. I am so scared of any alternatives that I outright declare them impossible. Researching the facts? That's for socialist pinko faggots, after all.
Isn't the slashdot groupthink these days that scientists do it all for the funding? So, obviously, you are only arguing pro nuke to save your job... I am a trained biochemist, btw, which makes me competent enough to judge other fields of science. And the pro nuclear faction here is so full of shit and so devoid of any reasonable argument that it hurts.
Ah... in every single thread some moron comes up with this shit. You are aware that the activity of coal ash is in the same order of magnitude than the activity of soil, fertilizer and stuff like that, as by EPA numbers?
So, the Mississippi flood and come coal ash spill caused by a retarded manner of ash handling permanently displaced 70000 people, too? Making the "poor people" of the Mississippi spillways a tool of propaganda is quite low.
Dude, the industry is actively lobbying to extend licenses for each and every plant. And that is not because of the dirty hippies making the construction of new plants impossible (didn't know we had that much power, must have missed that memo), this is because the investments in the old plants are written off by now, so extending the lifetime is PURE PROFIT.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if I were to entertain the though that from a purely intellectual standpoint, this world is going to hell in a handbasket for whatever reason, your ramblings could be viewed as pretty good evidence. Not being able to form a thought-out sentence, much less an argument and still believing yourself in a position to look down the "worst of us", defined not by intellect, but of course by an economic metric, is somewhat rich.
Well played, then. It's been fun. :)
The guys spouting that tired "fusion is always 40 years away" meme without actually having any clue about what is going on in research are amongst the most annoying people on this site.
I'd very much prefer if we could get rid of the term "social darwinism". It's a shame to besmirch Darwin's name with that kind of crap he never really endorsed, which he actually flat out thought unacceptable. Let's call it Galtonism or Spencerism, after the idiots actually coming up with it.
That drivel gets "interesting" mods these days? Guys, stick with talking about shell scripts. Biology ain't your strength.
You are entitled to your opinions. Just debating them does not seem to make much sense, seeing how married you are to them. Also, regarding the drug factor - the only people getting "caffeine addiction" seem to be Americans. Never met anyone around here that would have heard of that, much less ever experienced any caffeine "withdrawal".
Biosphere 2 is still different from a self-sustaining Antarctica colony. Also, quite different from a Mars project. Biosphere 2 was overly reliant on actually getting the whole system running on a largely biological basis. We don't seem to get that now. But that can be overcome by technology. I am not saying that a self-sustaining Mars colony would be easy. Maybe not even possible with current technology, but not generally impossible. I am with you on your point about Mars' habitability. Just had to get that Antarctica comparison out of the way.
I still drink alcohol-free bitter drinks, like bitter lemon. Also, I do like brussels sprouts. It's an acquired taste, but not necessarily connected to drug delivery. Actually, I drank bitter lemon and liked it before I drank alcohol or coffee. New theory, please.
Not necessarily. You will need a certain mutation rate to keep up any evolutionary process - but that doesn't necessarily have to be fueled by solar radiation. Background radioactivity from the rocks would do as well. Besides, it's only a loss of 70something %, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of mutation on that fact in any way.
Oh, so someone who likes the taste of coffee does so because "he is willfully ignoring the dominant flavor for psychological and addictive reasons", while your dislike is based on pure rationality? Actually, I like the bitter flavor. Be it in coffee, be it in beer - preferably a strong, dry IPA. It's part of the whole and not "willfully ignored".
Antarctica is not a good comparison. The reason why we do not have a self-sustaining colony there is not primarily technical, but rather economical. It is way simpler to fly in supplies to the few research stations we have there than to setup a whole economy there. Technically - set up a nuclear reactor, use waste heat to heat some greenhouses and off you go.
I am not American - but yeah, I am using the options I have with my nation's regulatory agencies. Been using those since 10 years, actually. I realize that you are probably not the right target for my wrath, but the sheer amount of unreflecting apologists on /. these days gets me into a righteous nerdrage regularily...
And the activity of coal ash in a heap before you is just the same like that of a heap of soil or fertilizer. Keep spreading your lies, please. At least that way everyone can see where you come from and what your standards regarding rational arguments are. If you seriously want to run the argument that coal is unsafe from a radiological perspective, you are either imbecile or scum. You seem semi-literate, so I think we can safely put you into the propagandist scum category. If you want to bash coal - get a real argument. There are enough of those.
In contrast to "computer scientists" I actually studied science. I am competent enough to look through the transparent lies of the apologists here. You on the other hand, are content with gobbling down the cocks of your chosen "experts".
Did the Ford Pinto permanently displace 70000 people? No? Well, you knew that. You chose to use a false analogy to further your agenda, whatever that might be. A rational mind cannot comprehend what you guys are actually aiming for here.
Thanks for demonstrating that you have no real argument. I basically gave up discussing the problem at hand one month ago. One only runs into retards like you. I just flame now. Here you go - fuck off.
Because you pulled the risk assessment out of your ass?
Translation: It should not be, so it can not be. The american way of life - which is defined by burning oil and running nukes - is nonnegotiable. I am so scared of any alternatives that I outright declare them impossible. Researching the facts? That's for socialist pinko faggots, after all.
Isn't the slashdot groupthink these days that scientists do it all for the funding? So, obviously, you are only arguing pro nuke to save your job... I am a trained biochemist, btw, which makes me competent enough to judge other fields of science. And the pro nuclear faction here is so full of shit and so devoid of any reasonable argument that it hurts.
I understand the BW PWR used, I studied the accident and I am a Nuclear Engineer.
So, why would I trust you?
Problem? Yes. Logic fault. False analogy, in particular. But hey, didn't expect anything else.
Ah... in every single thread some moron comes up with this shit. You are aware that the activity of coal ash is in the same order of magnitude than the activity of soil, fertilizer and stuff like that, as by EPA numbers?
So, the Mississippi flood and come coal ash spill caused by a retarded manner of ash handling permanently displaced 70000 people, too? Making the "poor people" of the Mississippi spillways a tool of propaganda is quite low.
Fine "no true scotsman". No accident does count, because something completely different from nuclear power as such failed. Great thinking there.
Dude, the industry is actively lobbying to extend licenses for each and every plant. And that is not because of the dirty hippies making the construction of new plants impossible (didn't know we had that much power, must have missed that memo), this is because the investments in the old plants are written off by now, so extending the lifetime is PURE PROFIT.