People who don't understand and don't want to will view it as ample reason to oppose every new nuclear plant for *another* 40 years.
Never mind that Fukushima, as a BWR-type reactor, was designed in 1955 and that a new reactor would have practically nothing in common but the presence of uranium and steam. Never mind that a pebble bed reactor could, as far as I understand it, be left completely un-managed for months at a time or suffer a complete core breach and still be incapable of reaching the level of contamination caused by Fukushima.
No, nuclear power is bad. We need to wait for biological engineering or material physics or fuzzy starshine power to advance to the point where we can construct new capacity for $0.05/watt with no environmental impact and no space requirements. Huzzah!
Apologist: A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial
I haven't defended jamming your fingers up someone's vagina (or any other kind of sexual assault) in any way. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I'm apologizing for anyone.
I said I didn't agree that this constituted rape and that I preferred to restrict the word to those who've suffered more traumatic acts; I never implied any tolerance for rape in any way. In fact, I explicitly pointed out that using the word rape in cases like this makes it easy for those who do apologize for rapists or doubt the seriousness of sex crime to put up plausible sounding arguments. 'After all, if a rough security screening by some sadistic TSA chick is rape, how bad can this epidemic of rapings and gropings really be?' A vast number of people think this about sexual crime.
That we apparently disagree on the definition of rape or on the appropriateness of using the word here doesn't mean I've defended rapists. Now stop hurling meaningless labels and trying to shame me into backing down by falsely associating me with a despised class of people.
Or is the label just something you're clinging to to vilify me and avoid a real conversation? Because two separate one-line responses that hinged on calling me an apologist, without elaboration, makes me think you're either not that bright or not that certain of what you're saying.
Yes, I do think that intent matters when assigning blame and punishment. It's true that it doesn't matter to the victim in many cases and never changes the way they experienced the act.
Rape isn't solely a legal term, so don't paint me as some sort of delusional apologist.
What happened is not what I or the vast majority of other people would consider rape; that's all I'm talking about. I'm objecting to the word's use compared to its definition in common usage, not its legal definition.
And it's self-righteous and disingenuous in the extreme to interpret what I said otherwise.
All I was talking about is the use of the word rape. It wasn't saying that it was appropriate in any way whatsoever, nor that it wasn't traumatic, frustrating, etc. You yourself said that no, it doesn't seem like rape to you. So why are you treating me like some sort of asshole who thinks nothing of sexual crime?
I love how diminishing ANY incident involving the crotch in ANY way makes a person an 'apologist' who doesn't take the issue at hand seriously. Jesus Christ.
Your sarcasm isn't appreciated. I'm sorry that my opinion does not match the letter of the law; that does not make me a future rapist. Not by the law, by my opinion of the definition of the word, and not by *your* opinion of the definition. Now fuck off.
I understand that what this woman experienced was, if described accurately, very unpleasant and physically similar to a moderately traumatic and invasive sexual assault.
Nevertheless, I wish people would stop demeaning the experiences of actual rape victims by throwing out the word for every possible unpleasant physical experience involving the groin or breasts. It only makes the kind of people who dismiss the seriousness of sexual assault in the first place that much more insulated from the gravity of real sex crimes. In my opinion rape requires an intent to invade, control, and discomfort for sexual reasons, and (also in my opinion) the fact that the crotch was involved doesn't automatically make something sexual. There's nothing inherently sexual about a security screening, no matter how roughly or ignorantly done and no matter the body parts checked, so please stop calling it rape based solely on the physical characteristics.
I don't think it's just a cynical stealth-focus group; I think they actually intend to lower to barriers and cost of education in the long run.
Then again, what with schools like Stanford raising money ten times faster than even the best public schools and supporting less than half as many students on that cushion of raw cash I like to imagine that they're somehow more philanthropic. To keep me from sending letter bombs.
Ok, I honestly want an explanation as to why my original post was "trolling".
Seriously, I'm all ears. Damn near everything I post gets modded troll by *someone*, and I'm seriously starting to wonder if I have a personal stalker.
It's only trolling or flaming if someone said it *exclusively* to piss people off. Just saying something you disagree with, or something controversial, or something dead wrong, or something just plain crazy is *NEVER EVER TROLLING*.
Now get that through your heads before you spend any more mod points.
...and they want their invention back. It's the same principle behind the battery charging a Prius does when it brakes.
I'm not trying to piss all over this with standard slashdot armchair-technologist elitism; it's wonderful that someone is implementing the "long-standing need" (as it would be called in a patent application) for this obvious but unexploited idea. I'm just pointing out that flywheel gizmos in transportation are a *very* old idea, and there's no need for anyone to get psyched up as if this is a revolutionary invention.
and many publishers are coming up with similar system
But that's a bad thing. Steam itself isn't too bad, but it's still prohibits resale without lowering prices and causes a lot of other irritation.
The appropriate reaction to multiple publishers all trying to make their own Steam-type platform is disgust and terror. More proprietary bullshit, more integrated systems to figure out when one (Steam) was enough from the consumer perspective (and that's ignoring those who hate Steam already), and more opportunities for situations like Sony's nightmarish mismanagement of game credentials and account information.
Digital delivery platforms don't presently look like a good future; they're generally ways of inconveniencing and restricting customers, not better catering their needs.
Oh good lord not this again...you really need to look into what doctor's *actually* make. Just because a small subset of surgical specialists can make $1 million a year and cardiologists $375 thousand does *not* mean that a medical degree amounts to an absurd gravy train.
It's only interventionist specialties, the people who keep you alive after you've already fucked up your life or been born with a nearly lethal defect, that make a lot of money; the guy who tries to keep you healthy and prevent you from getting to that point doesn't make shit for his worries and the reimbursement system is specifically modeled to make sure he doesn't have time to truly care for you without literally going broke for his troubles.
Look at what gerontologists, pediatricians, attending internists, and general practitioners make and you'll realize that, for the education and the stress, the *average* doctor still doesn't make *enough* money. The people who help you stay healthy and care about your daily quality of life make absolute *shit* for money.
No shit it can be amended...what we're concerned about is it being ignored or radically changed by hyper-active judges.
Amendments are great, but short of that there should be *no* changing or ignoring the constitution outright. Interpretation for modern times is one thing; ass-rape is another.
Some of [the U.S.'s] best engineers are not doing engineering, and some of its best potential engineers are not even studying engineering, leaving us short-changed in solving the important problems of the day.
So...we're not short on engineers...except that we are. At least we're short of excellent engineers and short of willing candidates to be tomorrow's excellent engineers. He whines that China labels sub-par losers and mere technicians as engineers, but then admits we're not putting out our best either. And still contends we're not short.
I'm really not sure how Wadhwa thinks he's disproving or even strongly contrasting Obama's postulate. He's certainly not coming within a thousand miles of justifying his title.
There's a difference between what we grow and how we process it. We do, in fact, grow enough calories and enough nutrition. Destroying the value of something after you grow it doesn't mean it wasn't good for you in the first place. Even corn and sugar cane contribute micronutrients, if not ripped apart.
It's a crappy straw man to throw out a generalization like "the last 100 years". I'm speaking of today, not some random time between 1911 and 2011.
Today we actually grow more calories worldwide than we need to feed all of humanity; we just waste too much of it. I'm not saying that was true in 1941, and it's complete obfuscation to suggest that I was.
Today we have vaccines for all but a half-dozen epidemic diseases, and reasonable means of controlling or severely reducing most of that remaining handful (if those means were fully practiced). We've even completely eradicated two infections diseases (the second was recent, and IIRC not infectious to humans but to horses, but it still demonstrates progress). I'm not saying that was true in 1941, either.
Don't dismiss me as some sort of rosy-eyed Luddite; I'm only saying that better social cooperation and "best practices" implementation can be of much more value in improving life right now than further research, not that further research is pointless or that we never should have done the science of the last 100 years.
I know we're supposed to love all technological solutions for our energy problems, but I'm just not convinced anymore.
When I look at how badly most things are managed, at the ignorance and greed that rule the world, I'm quite convinced that properly implementing what we already know could solve more problems than inventing further methods and discovering new things. In everything from energy policy to urban planning to human health we could achieve an almost paradisaical state if we just chose to do those things correctly that we already know how to do correctly and assisted the entire human race in doing the same.
I'm not advocating cultural imperialism here, I'm just there's plenty of universal ground on which to share with any persons or cultures easily implemented, universally agreeable methods.
Heat is bad for batteries, and fast charging makes batteries hot.
I understand that sometimes charging quickly is better than waiting 6 hours to drive somewhere, but if you want those batteries to last then ideally drivers would plan for and prefer the slower charging solution whenever possible.
Just a few months ago I read this post on a different "help us Google!" thread:
Sigh....Can't we solve problems anymore without pining for a benevolent Google dictatorship?
I'm not sure I can say it any better myself. You have municipal broadband, you have playing hardball with your current provider (which isn't actually that difficult; you just never find county commissioners with the knowledge and spine to do so), you have broadband cooperatives. You have a half-dozen options that are simpler and more palatable than holding out the naive hope that a *different* multinational corporation will ride in to save you from the one you presently do business with.
Slashdot Mirror
I see you still don't care that it's primarily about the definition that we disagree.
Perhaps I'll just say that I'm glad you're not a part of my judiciary system and leave it at that.
People who don't understand and don't want to will view it as ample reason to oppose every new nuclear plant for *another* 40 years.
Never mind that Fukushima, as a BWR-type reactor, was designed in 1955 and that a new reactor would have practically nothing in common but the presence of uranium and steam. Never mind that a pebble bed reactor could, as far as I understand it, be left completely un-managed for months at a time or suffer a complete core breach and still be incapable of reaching the level of contamination caused by Fukushima.
No, nuclear power is bad. We need to wait for biological engineering or material physics or fuzzy starshine power to advance to the point where we can construct new capacity for $0.05/watt with no environmental impact and no space requirements. Huzzah!
Apologist: A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial
I haven't defended jamming your fingers up someone's vagina (or any other kind of sexual assault) in any way. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean that I'm apologizing for anyone.
I said I didn't agree that this constituted rape and that I preferred to restrict the word to those who've suffered more traumatic acts; I never implied any tolerance for rape in any way. In fact, I explicitly pointed out that using the word rape in cases like this makes it easy for those who do apologize for rapists or doubt the seriousness of sex crime to put up plausible sounding arguments. 'After all, if a rough security screening by some sadistic TSA chick is rape, how bad can this epidemic of rapings and gropings really be?' A vast number of people think this about sexual crime.
That we apparently disagree on the definition of rape or on the appropriateness of using the word here doesn't mean I've defended rapists. Now stop hurling meaningless labels and trying to shame me into backing down by falsely associating me with a despised class of people.
Or is the label just something you're clinging to to vilify me and avoid a real conversation? Because two separate one-line responses that hinged on calling me an apologist, without elaboration, makes me think you're either not that bright or not that certain of what you're saying.
Yes, I do think that intent matters when assigning blame and punishment. It's true that it doesn't matter to the victim in many cases and never changes the way they experienced the act.
Rape is wrong even if you don't enjoy it.
Only a categorical idiot could believe that I've said rape isn't wrong. I'm clearly wasting my time talking to you.
Rape isn't solely a legal term, so don't paint me as some sort of delusional apologist.
What happened is not what I or the vast majority of other people would consider rape; that's all I'm talking about. I'm objecting to the word's use compared to its definition in common usage, not its legal definition.
And it's self-righteous and disingenuous in the extreme to interpret what I said otherwise.
All I was talking about is the use of the word rape. It wasn't saying that it was appropriate in any way whatsoever, nor that it wasn't traumatic, frustrating, etc. You yourself said that no, it doesn't seem like rape to you. So why are you treating me like some sort of asshole who thinks nothing of sexual crime?
You have *got* to be kidding me.
I love how diminishing ANY incident involving the crotch in ANY way makes a person an 'apologist' who doesn't take the issue at hand seriously. Jesus Christ.
Your sarcasm isn't appreciated. I'm sorry that my opinion does not match the letter of the law; that does not make me a future rapist. Not by the law, by my opinion of the definition of the word, and not by *your* opinion of the definition. Now fuck off.
I understand that what this woman experienced was, if described accurately, very unpleasant and physically similar to a moderately traumatic and invasive sexual assault.
Nevertheless, I wish people would stop demeaning the experiences of actual rape victims by throwing out the word for every possible unpleasant physical experience involving the groin or breasts. It only makes the kind of people who dismiss the seriousness of sexual assault in the first place that much more insulated from the gravity of real sex crimes. In my opinion rape requires an intent to invade, control, and discomfort for sexual reasons, and (also in my opinion) the fact that the crotch was involved doesn't automatically make something sexual. There's nothing inherently sexual about a security screening, no matter how roughly or ignorantly done and no matter the body parts checked, so please stop calling it rape based solely on the physical characteristics.
I don't think it's just a cynical stealth-focus group; I think they actually intend to lower to barriers and cost of education in the long run.
Then again, what with schools like Stanford raising money ten times faster than even the best public schools and supporting less than half as many students on that cushion of raw cash I like to imagine that they're somehow more philanthropic. To keep me from sending letter bombs.
Major props to this guy.
I just hope they return to making movies that look half as good as the building.
Although, what I really mean is writing and acting half as good as the building looks. But that wouldn't have been as smooth an opening line.
Ok, I honestly want an explanation as to why my original post was "trolling".
Seriously, I'm all ears. Damn near everything I post gets modded troll by *someone*, and I'm seriously starting to wonder if I have a personal stalker.
It's only trolling or flaming if someone said it *exclusively* to piss people off. Just saying something you disagree with, or something controversial, or something dead wrong, or something just plain crazy is *NEVER EVER TROLLING*.
Now get that through your heads before you spend any more mod points.
...and they want their invention back. It's the same principle behind the battery charging a Prius does when it brakes.
I'm not trying to piss all over this with standard slashdot armchair-technologist elitism; it's wonderful that someone is implementing the "long-standing need" (as it would be called in a patent application) for this obvious but unexploited idea. I'm just pointing out that flywheel gizmos in transportation are a *very* old idea, and there's no need for anyone to get psyched up as if this is a revolutionary invention.
and many publishers are coming up with similar system
But that's a bad thing. Steam itself isn't too bad, but it's still prohibits resale without lowering prices and causes a lot of other irritation.
The appropriate reaction to multiple publishers all trying to make their own Steam-type platform is disgust and terror. More proprietary bullshit, more integrated systems to figure out when one (Steam) was enough from the consumer perspective (and that's ignoring those who hate Steam already), and more opportunities for situations like Sony's nightmarish mismanagement of game credentials and account information.
Digital delivery platforms don't presently look like a good future; they're generally ways of inconveniencing and restricting customers, not better catering their needs.
Oh good lord not this again...you really need to look into what doctor's *actually* make. Just because a small subset of surgical specialists can make $1 million a year and cardiologists $375 thousand does *not* mean that a medical degree amounts to an absurd gravy train.
It's only interventionist specialties, the people who keep you alive after you've already fucked up your life or been born with a nearly lethal defect, that make a lot of money; the guy who tries to keep you healthy and prevent you from getting to that point doesn't make shit for his worries and the reimbursement system is specifically modeled to make sure he doesn't have time to truly care for you without literally going broke for his troubles.
Look at what gerontologists, pediatricians, attending internists, and general practitioners make and you'll realize that, for the education and the stress, the *average* doctor still doesn't make *enough* money. The people who help you stay healthy and care about your daily quality of life make absolute *shit* for money.
I hope you didn't spell it like that....
No shit it can be amended...what we're concerned about is it being ignored or radically changed by hyper-active judges.
Amendments are great, but short of that there should be *no* changing or ignoring the constitution outright. Interpretation for modern times is one thing; ass-rape is another.
Some of [the U.S.'s] best engineers are not doing engineering, and some of its best potential engineers are not even studying engineering, leaving us short-changed in solving the important problems of the day.
So...we're not short on engineers...except that we are. At least we're short of excellent engineers and short of willing candidates to be tomorrow's excellent engineers. He whines that China labels sub-par losers and mere technicians as engineers, but then admits we're not putting out our best either. And still contends we're not short.
I'm really not sure how Wadhwa thinks he's disproving or even strongly contrasting Obama's postulate. He's certainly not coming within a thousand miles of justifying his title.
There's a difference between what we grow and how we process it. We do, in fact, grow enough calories and enough nutrition. Destroying the value of something after you grow it doesn't mean it wasn't good for you in the first place. Even corn and sugar cane contribute micronutrients, if not ripped apart.
In the last 100 years crop yields have dramatical increased. If we had used your argument at any time in the last 100 years, we would have massive famine in a decade. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_cer_yie_kg_per_hec-cereal-yield-kg-per-hectare http://www.gapminder.org/labs/gapminder-agriculture/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=3.31483870967742;ti=2005$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=r67I2b0XlvDxkRoC1Jspz1A;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=20;iid=rlnTLt1ZGHEMuq0-l2DPfAA;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=273;dataMax=95395$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=63;dataMax=9789$map_s;sma=50;smi=1$cd;bd=0$inds=
It's a crappy straw man to throw out a generalization like "the last 100 years". I'm speaking of today, not some random time between 1911 and 2011.
Today we actually grow more calories worldwide than we need to feed all of humanity; we just waste too much of it. I'm not saying that was true in 1941, and it's complete obfuscation to suggest that I was.
Today we have vaccines for all but a half-dozen epidemic diseases, and reasonable means of controlling or severely reducing most of that remaining handful (if those means were fully practiced). We've even completely eradicated two infections diseases (the second was recent, and IIRC not infectious to humans but to horses, but it still demonstrates progress). I'm not saying that was true in 1941, either.
Don't dismiss me as some sort of rosy-eyed Luddite; I'm only saying that better social cooperation and "best practices" implementation can be of much more value in improving life right now than further research, not that further research is pointless or that we never should have done the science of the last 100 years.
Imagine you're stuck in the desert with a bottle of water... you have to take a pick whether you drink your water or pour it in your car
Is that a real question? Of course you pick the car. It provides mobile shade in which to search for more water.
I know we're supposed to love all technological solutions for our energy problems, but I'm just not convinced anymore.
When I look at how badly most things are managed, at the ignorance and greed that rule the world, I'm quite convinced that properly implementing what we already know could solve more problems than inventing further methods and discovering new things. In everything from energy policy to urban planning to human health we could achieve an almost paradisaical state if we just chose to do those things correctly that we already know how to do correctly and assisted the entire human race in doing the same.
I'm not advocating cultural imperialism here, I'm just there's plenty of universal ground on which to share with any persons or cultures easily implemented, universally agreeable methods.
Heat is bad for batteries, and fast charging makes batteries hot.
I understand that sometimes charging quickly is better than waiting 6 hours to drive somewhere, but if you want those batteries to last then ideally drivers would plan for and prefer the slower charging solution whenever possible.
Sigh....Can't we solve problems anymore without pining for a benevolent Google dictatorship?
I'm not sure I can say it any better myself. You have municipal broadband, you have playing hardball with your current provider (which isn't actually that difficult; you just never find county commissioners with the knowledge and spine to do so), you have broadband cooperatives. You have a half-dozen options that are simpler and more palatable than holding out the naive hope that a *different* multinational corporation will ride in to save you from the one you presently do business with.