I think you've actually suggested another counter-factual here: - It wasn't him, he was already dead, they learned of this now and faked his death to take the credit. I guess that's more plausible than the other counterfactuals. But as you say, the current timing doesn't really seem particularly helpful to the administration. Earlier or later would have been better. To explain the timing, you have to hypothesise further ("they were about to be found out"; "their hand was forced in some other way"). Again, for me, that starts to creak at the seams a bit.
It's Ockham's Razor that's causing me the problems. The conspiracy would have to be pretty wide-ranging and would thus be vulnerable to compromise from anyone who got an attack of conscience or nerves among the conspirators.
The bit I don't understand is the WMD and yellow cake. I get that they are arch references to previous claims made, but not really sure of the relevance here, given the counterfactuals are fairly implausible: - It wasn't him, he was already dead, they knew this and are lying. Why not reap the benefits when he was first killed? - It wasn't him, he's not dead, they knew this and are lying. Pretty risky strategy. - It wasn't him, he was already dead, they have deluded themselves. DNA tests work quite well and I'm sure these ones will have been carried out with extreme care given the crucial importance of getting the right answer.
Um, Israel has also carried out assassinations. The approach chosen depends on many other factors, not least of which is that Eichmann did not have tens of millions of sympathisers around the world who would be motivated to launch repeated terrorist attacks to free him.
There is an issue of morality / legality, I agree. On the issue of practicality (what action is most beneficial?), it's not anywhere near as clear-cut as you say. Alive, he'd have been a continuous security threat from attempts to break him free and acted as a focal point. The trial would have also led to endless accusations about US complicity being made. Some might have been true, others would almost certainly have not, but all would have damaged America's standing further.
You are the first "hardcore liberal" I've ever heard of who thinks that calling someone a spastic is an acceptable insult in this day and age. Go and learn what spasticity is and sort yourself out. Twat.
Can I have some of what you're drinking, because it's clearly excellent stuff?
I know it's really comforting for you to believe that the Democrats are responsible for all economic woes, but the Dems didn't run Lehman or any of the other financial institutions that over-extended themselves, and it was that over-extension that made the mess in the first place.
And of course, there's nothing more to the UI than that. No sir. No swipes with momentum, for example. And of course, you're absolutely right that the concept is all, and implementation is unimportant. Why, the other day my daughter drew a picture of a man that had a head torso and limbs and it was every bit as good as anything Michaelangelo accomplished.
Erm....I just watched the video. At about 48s in, the kid is searching for ColourBook or somesuch, and has to repeatedly make the same gestures to find the app because the OS doesn't do what she intends it to do. Takes her about 30s to find it. So the design is fine, but not amazing. And of course, it is standing on the shoulders of Apple's design.
I'm curious, what are the advantages to end-users of a resistive screen? My satnav has one and it seems pretty obviously shite by comparison with my iPod touch.
whatta dumb fucking comment. he didn't say that there's no difference in intelligence between people: you are an excellent example of one end of the spectrum, and it ain't the flattering end -- I'm not surprised you posted AC. he said read mismeasure of man to learn about why IQ tests don't usefully measure intelligence.
Did you have a little wank while you thought how pleased you were with your retort?
I only ask 'cos it's got that ring of a smug little twat who thinks he wins arguments by making clever-clever points that are in fact wrong about it. And in my experience, smug little twats like that have to wank over their retorts, 'cos no-one else is going to pull their plonker for them.
It's not *the* research arm of the UN, nobber. If it were, then FAO, WHO, IPCC etc would report into it. It's a small institution that does some research which is under the auspices of the UN.
I like how you're too dumb to recognise that he knows precisely what alien means, and was pointing out that using a word that has a precise technical meaning but also has a popular meaning of extra-terrestrial being is a clever bit of propaganda that aims to dehumanise migrants. Fuckwit.
FFS. Of course the *UN* University is *part* of the UN. However, it's not the Official Voice of the UN. It's not the IPCC. It's not the Security Council. It's a quasi-academic institution that does some research.
It's not actually apparent that the damage from the tsunami *is* far more significant. If you think of significant in terms of lives lost or economic cost to rebuild, then sure. But 10 years from now, Japan's population will be materially the same size as it was projected to be pre-disaster and re-building costs are unlikely to have made a material difference to the economy (to the extent they do, it's as likely to be a stimulus effect as anything; economies are weird like that). By contrast, the evacuated cities are quite likely to still be uninhabited. That may be true 40 years from now too. Or even 100. So that's arguably a much more profound effect.
Unless you have some hidden expertise, I don't think you or I have any idea whether the same degree of replacement occurs in aircraft vs nuclear plants. Certainly, I doubt the big metal tube in which passengers sits gets meaningfully replaced in the lifetime of a plane, any more than the big metal containment vessel does.
I don't think what you're saying contradicts what I'm saying. It kind of reminds me of Ross Anderson's work on the economics of security engineering. People think about the world as it ought to be, without facing the harsh facts that economics means that, for example, it is reasonable to expect that plants will be kept going beyond their design life because that delivers economic value and puts off the costs of decommissioning. tbh, it doesn't really matter whether this is driven as economics (as I think), misplaced greenerism (as you contend) or some mixture of the two -- that's a fairly sterile argument about the assignation of blame. Better to accept that it *is* the case and then work with reality.
Hunh? You said "I've not read a single post". But you had read a single post. "Expanding to the proper context" sounds a lot like "exaggerating in a really stupid way for effect". Considering the "context" was that you were complaining about someone overplaying the number of people dismissing Fukushima as no big deal, that's a pretty fucking dumb thing to do.
You've missed the point. The old plants will not go away just because new ones are built. The old ones will be run for as long as possible, because it's economically valuable to do so. BCG invented this famous matrix with the cash cow on it, and old plants are firmly in the cash cow quadrant of any energy generator's portfolio.
No, I don't think shutting them down or replacing them makes sense.
Industrial gear is regularly in operation for many decades, especially when it's expensive. Trains and planes are often kept going for 30+ years, for example. Buildings often have lifespans in the centuries. No-one is going to invest in a nuclear powerplant that has to be ripped down after 20 years because it's outdated, not least because decommissioning costs a bloody fortune due to the large amounts of waste that have to be dealt with. Nuclear plants are routinely expected to operate for 30+ years. It's just unrealistic to expect that we're going to see widescale decommissioning of large numbers of 1970s and 1980s reactors, due to the economics alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Am I the only person who read this and remembered the old Heinlein juvie "Starman Jones"? I loved that book.
I think you've actually suggested another counter-factual here:
- It wasn't him, he was already dead, they learned of this now and faked his death to take the credit. I guess that's more plausible than the other counterfactuals. But as you say, the current timing doesn't really seem particularly helpful to the administration. Earlier or later would have been better. To explain the timing, you have to hypothesise further ("they were about to be found out"; "their hand was forced in some other way"). Again, for me, that starts to creak at the seams a bit.
It's Ockham's Razor that's causing me the problems. The conspiracy would have to be pretty wide-ranging and would thus be vulnerable to compromise from anyone who got an attack of conscience or nerves among the conspirators.
The bit I don't understand is the WMD and yellow cake. I get that they are arch references to previous claims made, but not really sure of the relevance here, given the counterfactuals are fairly implausible:
- It wasn't him, he was already dead, they knew this and are lying. Why not reap the benefits when he was first killed?
- It wasn't him, he's not dead, they knew this and are lying. Pretty risky strategy.
- It wasn't him, he was already dead, they have deluded themselves. DNA tests work quite well and I'm sure these ones will have been carried out with extreme care given the crucial importance of getting the right answer.
Right. I have no idea what this has to do with my post, but never mind.
A photo of someone who's been shot in the face isn't really going to be much use to you in identifying them.
Um, Israel has also carried out assassinations. The approach chosen depends on many other factors, not least of which is that Eichmann did not have tens of millions of sympathisers around the world who would be motivated to launch repeated terrorist attacks to free him.
Perhaps you should do a little more reading then. You could start with Jason Burke's insightful analyses in the Guardian.
That is a fantastic post! congrats!
There is an issue of morality / legality, I agree. On the issue of practicality (what action is most beneficial?), it's not anywhere near as clear-cut as you say. Alive, he'd have been a continuous security threat from attempts to break him free and acted as a focal point. The trial would have also led to endless accusations about US complicity being made. Some might have been true, others would almost certainly have not, but all would have damaged America's standing further.
You are the first "hardcore liberal" I've ever heard of who thinks that calling someone a spastic is an acceptable insult in this day and age. Go and learn what spasticity is and sort yourself out. Twat.
Can I have some of what you're drinking, because it's clearly excellent stuff?
I know it's really comforting for you to believe that the Democrats are responsible for all economic woes, but the Dems didn't run Lehman or any of the other financial institutions that over-extended themselves, and it was that over-extension that made the mess in the first place.
And of course, there's nothing more to the UI than that. No sir. No swipes with momentum, for example. And of course, you're absolutely right that the concept is all, and implementation is unimportant. Why, the other day my daughter drew a picture of a man that had a head torso and limbs and it was every bit as good as anything Michaelangelo accomplished.
Sheesh, some people can be fuckwits.
Erm....I just watched the video. At about 48s in, the kid is searching for ColourBook or somesuch, and has to repeatedly make the same gestures to find the app because the OS doesn't do what she intends it to do. Takes her about 30s to find it. So the design is fine, but not amazing. And of course, it is standing on the shoulders of Apple's design.
I'm curious, what are the advantages to end-users of a resistive screen? My satnav has one and it seems pretty obviously shite by comparison with my iPod touch.
whatta dumb fucking comment. he didn't say that there's no difference in intelligence between people: you are an excellent example of one end of the spectrum, and it ain't the flattering end -- I'm not surprised you posted AC. he said read mismeasure of man to learn about why IQ tests don't usefully measure intelligence.
Did you have a little wank while you thought how pleased you were with your retort?
I only ask 'cos it's got that ring of a smug little twat who thinks he wins arguments by making clever-clever points that are in fact wrong about it. And in my experience, smug little twats like that have to wank over their retorts, 'cos no-one else is going to pull their plonker for them.
It's not *the* research arm of the UN, nobber. If it were, then FAO, WHO, IPCC etc would report into it. It's a small institution that does some research which is under the auspices of the UN.
I like how you're too dumb to recognise that he knows precisely what alien means, and was pointing out that using a word that has a precise technical meaning but also has a popular meaning of extra-terrestrial being is a clever bit of propaganda that aims to dehumanise migrants. Fuckwit.
FFS. Of course the *UN* University is *part* of the UN. However, it's not the Official Voice of the UN. It's not the IPCC. It's not the Security Council. It's a quasi-academic institution that does some research.
It's not actually apparent that the damage from the tsunami *is* far more significant. If you think of significant in terms of lives lost or economic cost to rebuild, then sure. But 10 years from now, Japan's population will be materially the same size as it was projected to be pre-disaster and re-building costs are unlikely to have made a material difference to the economy (to the extent they do, it's as likely to be a stimulus effect as anything; economies are weird like that). By contrast, the evacuated cities are quite likely to still be uninhabited. That may be true 40 years from now too. Or even 100. So that's arguably a much more profound effect.
30+. And in reality, probably more like 40 or 50+.
Unless you have some hidden expertise, I don't think you or I have any idea whether the same degree of replacement occurs in aircraft vs nuclear plants. Certainly, I doubt the big metal tube in which passengers sits gets meaningfully replaced in the lifetime of a plane, any more than the big metal containment vessel does.
I don't think what you're saying contradicts what I'm saying. It kind of reminds me of Ross Anderson's work on the economics of security engineering. People think about the world as it ought to be, without facing the harsh facts that economics means that, for example, it is reasonable to expect that plants will be kept going beyond their design life because that delivers economic value and puts off the costs of decommissioning. tbh, it doesn't really matter whether this is driven as economics (as I think), misplaced greenerism (as you contend) or some mixture of the two -- that's a fairly sterile argument about the assignation of blame. Better to accept that it *is* the case and then work with reality.
Hunh? You said "I've not read a single post". But you had read a single post. "Expanding to the proper context" sounds a lot like "exaggerating in a really stupid way for effect". Considering the "context" was that you were complaining about someone overplaying the number of people dismissing Fukushima as no big deal, that's a pretty fucking dumb thing to do.
You've missed the point. The old plants will not go away just because new ones are built. The old ones will be run for as long as possible, because it's economically valuable to do so. BCG invented this famous matrix with the cash cow on it, and old plants are firmly in the cash cow quadrant of any energy generator's portfolio.
No, I don't think shutting them down or replacing them makes sense.
Industrial gear is regularly in operation for many decades, especially when it's expensive. Trains and planes are often kept going for 30+ years, for example. Buildings often have lifespans in the centuries. No-one is going to invest in a nuclear powerplant that has to be ripped down after 20 years because it's outdated, not least because decommissioning costs a bloody fortune due to the large amounts of waste that have to be dealt with. Nuclear plants are routinely expected to operate for 30+ years. It's just unrealistic to expect that we're going to see widescale decommissioning of large numbers of 1970s and 1980s reactors, due to the economics alone.