No, I said that if you remove women that have children from the statistics the wage gap vanishes. And with that the only basis of your argument.
Look, we can play little rhetorical games with each other until the sun dies.
Here are the brass tacks. I am not lying with my position. I have been quite frank with it and you know damn well that your position is no where near as well grounded as you have previously represented it.
You know that.
So can we please skip past all the posturing so we can have a rational discussion where in we both acknowledge what the other side is ACTUALLY saying and accept THEIR stated reasons for why. Or do we have NOTHING what so ever of any constructive nature to share with each other thus rendering any further discussion irrelevant? ehm?
I'm game to offer reasonable concessions for common courtesy and the sake of argument if you are as well. If you are not... then *shrugs*... we are wasting each other's time.
Again, any reasonable concession on my part will be made for the sake of argument and common courtesy... assuming you are likewise willing to do the same.
Your choice. But if you're not willing to do it, please don't annoy me further with any further commentary. I do not comment directly to you. I don't think I ever have. You comment on things I say in response to the thread topic itself.
You don't have to comment upon me at all. You can make your own thread and have people comment or not to you there.
I do not feel I am asking for anything unreasonable. To ask for reasonable intercourse is by definition reasonable.:)
Dude... do you want to read literally 200 posts from the same AC that sounded almost exactly like you just did there?
Because that is the shit I have been subjected to lately.
If you don't like being confused with other shithead ACs, then log the fuck in.
No apologies. No remorse.
Login or accept that this will happen to you on occasion. This is YOUR problem. I am dealing with idiots that respond to me as best as anyone could possibly do so. You have anonymized yourself to such an extent that you are indistinguishable from the trolls. So guess what... you're going to take some flak.
As you will, any sort of personal statement on the internet can be cited as puffery... I feel my qualifications are self evident. But you are of course welcome to form your own... I can't after all stop you from being wrong.:)
First, I offered to show you citations. You said you wouldn't accept them so I didn't bother citing them.
Second, my comment about years worked referred to the WAGE GAP. The wage gap DOES vanish in national statistics if you remove all women from the statistics that have had children.
That has been true since the 1970s. And absent any viable statistics on the issue, the burden of proof is on YOU prove that there is a problem.
To this, you offered your second statistic about the research positions in academia. To that, I said it was no conclusive and I'd need to know more about the issue to find it at all meaningful. Given how often statistics are distorted this is not unreasonable. If the study cannot be audited then it can't be taken seriously.
Then we have this latest study which shows that there might actually be a HUGE female bias. Two to one well outstrips the claims of the wage gap. Which would mean if this is valid that men are systematically discriminated against.
I expect that since you're such a big supporter of equality you want to make sure that doesn't happen... right? Or does your interest in such things only flow one way... and therefore have nothing to do with equality?
You stand before the millstone, sir... It grinds and grinds and grinds. Nothing passes its wheels that is not reduced to dust.;)
whatever, dude... I've been getting trolled by the same AC for about two or three weeks. The guy literally follows me around to trash talk. And I see your post, you're an AC, and I see the same bullshit coming out of you... and I assume you're the same douchebag.
Don't log in as AC if you don't want to be confused with other douchebag ACs.
Insane standards? No... my standards are quite reasonable and absent those standards you have bullshit.
The standards I'm talking about are the kind that required typically any serious empirical science.
As to the conclusion I draw from the whole thing?... review the posts from before and you'll see that my statement was that YOUR study was not something you could use to slam dunk your position. That it merely justified further study. Period.
And this? Same thing. Further study. I'll wait for a real study to be done. This study was done by what... the Cornell center for women in stem? What the fuck kind of department is that?
Can you imagine a Cornell center for men in stem?
The problem so often with these departments is that they're run like creationist departments. They start with the premise that the world is 6000 years old and then look for evidence of that. Which is not how science works.
In real science, you examine the data and then try to draw conclusions from the data without lots of stupid preconceptions.
As to how we miraculously got a study that contradicted the first... I find it as baffling as you do because I remain convinced that the whole field of study is hopelessly compromised. It is sort of like Iran taking a break from saying "death to America" to write love letters to the Jews suddenly. So I'm confused... we'll see what happens. I'm sure another study that will contradict this one is forthcoming and it will mean no more to me then the last two because they're not holding to "my standards"... and until they do... I don't really see how anyone can take it seriously. Not with any intellectual integrity.
Well, it would be obvious to an expert but I am just another arm chair speculator... I'd love to see an example of this technology. Are there are any videos or pictures of such machines?
You forgot the bit where I showed you that Issac Newton was a dick to people on a fairly regular basis... and he was one of the greatest minds in human history.
This was already explained to you. And yet you're using the same argument again despite the fact that you have been given evidence that one can be quite intelligent and educated and sophisticated... and yet utterly contemptuous of morons.
*bounces a frozen pea off the AC thick shiny skull*
You're a moron and you are right that I don't respect you... mostly because you're an idiot. You're also dishonest and cowardly. I mean, I'm struggling to think of a redeeming quality you have... *thinks about it*... no... nothing. You are a waste of oxygen. Unfortunate for the biosphere.
Can I suggest you taught large animals? Maybe one of them will eat you... circle of life and all that. Or maybe you'd like to take up a hobby of wild mushroom eating? I'm sure there are some delicious wild mushrooms out there. Try them all. Especially the red ones with white spots. If I remember my super mario brothers, that gives you an extra life... and you could use one of those.:P
No, I do not think I am the only person that has realized it.
However, if everyone knew it was bullshit then it wouldn't be a popular idea either. There have to be large numbers of gullible people that buy into the argument or they wouldn't have any reason to make such an argument in the first place.
In regards to you apparently being addicted to simply calling me an "aspie" without any reason for it... Whatever. I'm going to assume you have some kind of tourettes now... where instead of saying you want to fuck your mother whenever you get a little nervous... you just call people aspies for no reason.
Recognizing that YOU have a problem, I accept and forgive your insults as they're clearly not meaningful.:)
As to being unable to articulate your feelings... that isn't a mark of superiority... that's... kind of sad. I can articulate everything I feel and think. I understand myself. Your statement that you don't understand yourself is in no way an advantage.
As to your statement that color or taste can't be described... you're apparently not a big reader which isn't especially surprising. The better authors can describe such sensations beautifully. You read their works and you can smell the musk of the grass and taste the sweet acid of an orange.
I'm an veteran forum warrior and am utterly indifferent to your boasting. In any case, you're distracting the topic with your silliness. Please refrain from it if you're able to control yourself. If you're not able to to control yourself, then I forgive your condition and will do my best to ignore it out of common courtesy.:)
I wouldn't go that far... I'm sure there are some protesters in other parts of the world that aren't complete jokes... including people in Spain. Just THOSE people with their projector are pointless.
Biomass in general is completely viable. There are some wonderful biogas/syngas generators on the market that range from personal single home models to big municipal power plants.
You can take farm field dross... weeds... anything that burns... pelletize it in a pellet maker, then feed that as well as wood cut into 2 inch by 2 inch chunks into a syngas generator. Boom... biofuel.
People run cars and trucks and trailers on it directly as well. You can produce syngas, pressurize it in a tank just as you would propane or natural gas... and then feed it into an engine.
it is also carbon neutral.
You know all those people trying to come up with algae oil?... well that's dumb because you can take ANY plant matter and turn it into syngas. Any old crap.
The energy infrastructure would be different of course. You'd be farming your fuel. But it would be as sustainable as solar power. And the residue after the biogas process can be removed to either fertilize fields... or the tar that is produced and be used the same way we use tar now... to water proof and seal things. which you might not appreciate as relevant until you realize that pretty much every street is held together with a mixture of tar and gravel. That right, that black stuff that steams out of those pots when they're laying road is mostly tar.
You can also refine traditional hydrocarbon fuels out of biogas. Diesel, gasoline, kerosene, etc.
So yeah... we don't need that shit in the ground. It is of course cheaper to just get it out of the ground then to farm it and produce it in a syngas generator... but we can produce it if we need to do it.
What is more, contrary to what the alarmists would have you believe, we have a LOT of fossil fuels left. Possibly that is bad news for global warming but in so far as the oil industry is concerned... they can pump for a long long time. That fracking innovation is a shot across the bow to anyone that thought they were going to peter out at the existing well count. There is a huge difference between existing reserves and ACTUALLY how much oil is in the ground. And given time they're going to pull it ALL up until that stops becoming profitable.
Underlying a lot of the problems and POLITICS in this issue is that people are cooking a lot of the statistics.
Remember that Rolling Stones article where the writer first came to the conclusion that rape on college was out of control and then scoured the country looking for in her words an "emblematic" case to base her position on. That is how creationists do science. They start with the premise that the world is 6000 years old and then look for evidence to support that position. That is what is going on in a LOT of studies especially the statistical ones. Statistical studies are extremely easy to bias and very hard to audit.
As such, you can't take a statistical study in a politically charged issue at face value. That is with all respect, too trusting. I didn't say naive because that has insulting connotations which I do not intend. I merely mean that many people are not appropriately cynical about political activists or how invasive or pervasive they can become or are already.
To that end, what you want with something like this is multiple independent studies... ideally with some sort of double blind system set up so that the researchers don't actually know. If the teachers and students are all ID numbers in database A and their names and races etc are all in database B then I'd feel better about any conclusions they drew from the data. If the researchers know then they have fudge data analysis to suit preconceived conclusions.
What is more, these studies are almost always CORRELATIVE and not causitive. That is they know that given test scores CORRELATE with certain other parameters but they don't know WHICH of those parameters if ANY of them actually cause the result.
People with sniffles correlate with the cold... do sniffles cause the cold? No. The cold is caused by a virus which also causes the sniffles. However the sniffles correlate with the cold.
Other factors can be in play... age might be an issue for example. A sense of community and administrative acceptance might be an issue. if you're the white guy and you think no one accepts you then you might not be a good teacher because you've been made to feel uncomfortable. JUST an example of something that is possible.
The statistics are unconfirmed, were not conducted in a manner that would make them immune to manipulation, and they are at BEST correlative. Long story short, I do not find the statistics to be authoritative at this time.
So, to answer my question... No... you don't have anything to offer besides reminding me how bitter you remain about getting stomped every time I lay eyes on you.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep checking in case you decide to actually be worth something.:)
Who knows... one day you might not be a douchebag.
Where are the X percentage of race or gender in Y field? Enough with the quotas. Enough with people looking at statistics and saying "we need this ratio".
Even if you're not saying "do this or you're breaking the law" what they're doing is effectively trying to get quotas in through the back door.
There is a mixture of "oh you must be racist if you don't have X percentage" and then a little of "how about if we give you some money if you do X percentage?" and then maybe a bit of "show us how progressive you are by having X percentage".
Fuck your fucking percentages and ratios. That is not how you fix race and gender issues... by mandating BY ANY FUCKING MEANS some sort of ratio.
This doesn't help "people of color" which apparently only applies to black people because asians sure as hell aren't offered any affirmative action. There was that indian guy that wasn't' getting into medical school, then he got a different haircut and lied on his entrance application saying he was black... bam, got right in.
That's fucked up.
This racist bullshit needs to stop. I know what the idiots will say, "it isn't racist if you're biased against people "power""... which just means fuck white people and fuck Asians. It is bullshit and you're not going to make people trust the competence of people if everyone knows that X race or Y gender has to be hired at some ratio for SOME reason other than that they were ACTUALLY considered the best candidate for the job.
Furthermore, there is a lot more to diversity then your fucking skin color or whether or not you have a penis. Not all people with one skin color are the same. You can have ten people of all the same race in the same room and have more diversity in that room of THOUGHT than if you had some rainbow of races in the same room. For all you know those 10 people of the same race could have radically different backgrounds, skill sets, philosophies, etc. To say that they're all the same because they all have the same skin color is incredibly offensive and racist. You might as well just walk around saying "all you people look the same to me so I assume you all are the same"... Are you fucking kidding me. Same thing with dicks and vaginas. You are not your dick or your vagina. If I have a room full of 10 dicks or 10 vaginas they could be more diverse in their thoughts, backgrounds, skill sets, philosophies than if we had some 50 50 split.
What group of idiots out there thought that diversity was getting some mix of races and genders? This is a racist's idea of diversity. A non-racist doesn't see race as being relevant. They view who the person actually IS rather than what their skin color is... but a racist just sees "oh that's X race... and you know what they say about those people". THAT is how racists think. And these quotas arrive at a concept of "diversity" by that same logic. they say, well we have these people with these skin tones so obviously we have diversity. What the the actual fuck?
This is easily one of the most disappointing things about politics in the 21st century. The race, gender, and identity politics are beyond toxic. This shit is going to destroy our society.
We all have to see each other as individuals rather than pairing off into arbitrary meaningless racial groups and assuming that "oh I'm with the X race people which is my race so they've obviously got my back"... I can't speak for anyone else, but there are plenty of people in my own race that are utterly intolerable. Why would I reflexively associate with them when most of them are not people I especially relate... and they can't relate to me. I am as likely to find people I relate to in other races as my own. So where is this diversity through skin tone?
If we were shooting a magazine cover or something... I'd get it. You might want to get some people with one skin tone here and another there and who knows what the photographer is doing. But if you're running a business or an education system... WHO THE FUCK CARES.
Radio stations don't make a lot of money and publishers have been happy for many years with the status quo. I think this is really about hammering internet radio services. Internet radio services point at AM/FM services and say "look at them, they don't pay either"... and as a result, that depresses the bargaining position of publishers with internet radio.
They want more money from internet radio. And that's also silly because that is also a marginal business. They're basically not making money as it is. If they are forced to pay more they have to charge more and asking listeners to pony up more money every month is going to depress subscriptions and possibly drive the entire service into bankruptcy. Leaving the industry with nothing but itunes and piracy.
The music industry is run by idiots. We've known this for years. They were approuched by the founders of napster long before they actually started pushing pirated music. They said "hey, lets set up a music service run by the music industry.". We all know what happened. The music bozos threw them out and said don't come back.
How has that worked out for the music business? They keep thinking they can turn the clock back. They can't. They need to get ahead of the curve or get crushed.
Their cash reserves and social capital/clout are a diminishing resource. The window of opportunity to have any agency in this issue is closing. They can either wake up or become irrelevant.
Murphy's law. Rather than building something that is less likely to catch that stray neutron that punches through that critical component in just the right way... why don't you assume that however you build it, the worst possible thing will happen to it immediately.
Once you accept that, your view will shift from trying to mitigate probabilities and into simply immunizing the technology.
We can build a robot that cannot be destroyed by the sorts of radiation you'll find in a damaged reactor. Literally immune. The radiation can swiss cheese the entire robot all day and all night for years on end and it makes no difference. We can do that.
The idea of using hydraulics and fiber optic sensors was brilliant. We do that and the mechanisms are so robust that they can't really be damaged by some stray neutrons. You're not going to destroy a hydraulic actuator with anything short of radiation that literally melts it. So long as the radiation isn't cooking the robot, it should be able to tolerate the radiation almost indefinitely.
And the fiber optic sensor would likewise be immune to that sort of damage. Add a chemical light on the front of the robot and he can shamble around the reactor while a cable snakes behind it carrying pressure to drive the robot, a bundle of pressure cables to trigger the actuators in series to give robotic motion, and the fiber optic camera that will give the humans piloting the robot knowledge of what is in front of the robot.
Oh look, my AC shadow found me in another topic where he wants to whine about getting serial raped in topic after topic.
*steeples hands*... Tell me you have something useful to add to the discussion besides reminding me that you're still bitter about losing over and over again.
fiber optics? You're going to need a media converter to translate the fiber optic signal into an electrical one at both ends. So I think that would actually make the robot less reliable.
As to hydraulics, that is interesting... you would need actuators on the robot which I'm assuming would still need to be triggered electronically. I suppose you could trigger them with pneumatic pressure. That is, if some pressure comes in on this tube, you trigger this actuator and if this tube then that actuator?
That leaves the sensors. I mean... you could have some sort of fiber optic light pipe for the sensor... is that what you were talking about with fiber optics? If so, great idea assuming that would work. And then you could even use a chemical light source.
Something like that could get pounded with just savage radiation and not give a damn.
Radiation. Our electronics and robotics thrive on miniturization however that is not useful when you're dealing with radiation. You want really thick circuits. You want something that can be swiss cheesed by the radiation all day and all night for years on end and still work.
Here is my first idea: Have as little circuitry in the robot as possible. Instead run most of that stuff to a substation by wire that will get close to but not actually enter the reactor. Ideally, the only thing I'd put in the robot would be the literal sensors, the literal motors, the structure that is the body of the robot, and EVERYTHING else would be remote to the robot and thus largely safe from the radiation.
So whatever controller boards for the servos etc... none of that in the robot. All of it instead at the other end of a wire.
I respond to logic, sound arguments, and evidence. Throwing paint all over the place is infantile. Tying yourself to stuff is infantile. Saying if you won't do what I want I will hurt myself is infantile. Etc.
Projecting crap on a wall if I don't do what you want is both infantile and very easily ignorable.
Does this mean that most of the protests that people feel were famous and important mean nothing to me? Yep. Because what mattered was not that you got a lot of people there or what they did but what you had to say.
THAT is interesting to me. Take Occupy Wallstreet. That they occupied that little square and formed drum circles was a complete waste of time and actually distracted from any real message they might have. What I found interesting was the statement that "hey why are we bailing out banks that fucked up with every one else's money?" That was a sensible discussion to have. But you can't have those when the retards in the square are too busy applauding each other by giving each other jazz hands. They also mutated their issue rather quickly from an issue people give a shit about to "oh and what about feminism, patriarchy, and rape culture?"... which is where everyone just labels them a bunch of crazies and stops listening.
If you want to a have a dialog. Then do that. If you want to tie yourself to things... I will leave you there until you rot in the sun. Maybe you can bribe a passerby to save you. You could even bribe me. But if don't see some of that trust fund money, then I'm not moving a finger for those idiots. Could they be along my commute? Then I'd move them out of the road on to the nearest side walk. Done. I'd happy leave their skeletons to decay in on the street otherwise as a warning to future morons to not make it so inconvenient to remove them that they can't get themselves out if needed. If you want to hand cuff yourself to something, keep the key in your pocket and when people are just ignoring you... you can let yourself out.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I said that if you remove women that have children from the statistics the wage gap vanishes. And with that the only basis of your argument.
Look, we can play little rhetorical games with each other until the sun dies.
Here are the brass tacks. I am not lying with my position. I have been quite frank with it and you know damn well that your position is no where near as well grounded as you have previously represented it.
You know that.
So can we please skip past all the posturing so we can have a rational discussion where in we both acknowledge what the other side is ACTUALLY saying and accept THEIR stated reasons for why. Or do we have NOTHING what so ever of any constructive nature to share with each other thus rendering any further discussion irrelevant? ehm?
I'm game to offer reasonable concessions for common courtesy and the sake of argument if you are as well. If you are not... then *shrugs*... we are wasting each other's time.
Again, any reasonable concession on my part will be made for the sake of argument and common courtesy... assuming you are likewise willing to do the same.
Your choice. But if you're not willing to do it, please don't annoy me further with any further commentary. I do not comment directly to you. I don't think I ever have. You comment on things I say in response to the thread topic itself.
You don't have to comment upon me at all. You can make your own thread and have people comment or not to you there.
I do not feel I am asking for anything unreasonable. To ask for reasonable intercourse is by definition reasonable. :)
Dude... do you want to read literally 200 posts from the same AC that sounded almost exactly like you just did there?
Because that is the shit I have been subjected to lately.
If you don't like being confused with other shithead ACs, then log the fuck in.
No apologies. No remorse.
Login or accept that this will happen to you on occasion. This is YOUR problem. I am dealing with idiots that respond to me as best as anyone could possibly do so. You have anonymized yourself to such an extent that you are indistinguishable from the trolls. So guess what... you're going to take some flak.
https://youtu.be/E7-ILz0YOVE?t...
yep. fuck those guys.
As you will, any sort of personal statement on the internet can be cited as puffery... I feel my qualifications are self evident. But you are of course welcome to form your own... I can't after all stop you from being wrong. :)
Wrong.
First, I offered to show you citations. You said you wouldn't accept them so I didn't bother citing them.
Second, my comment about years worked referred to the WAGE GAP. The wage gap DOES vanish in national statistics if you remove all women from the statistics that have had children.
That has been true since the 1970s. And absent any viable statistics on the issue, the burden of proof is on YOU prove that there is a problem.
To this, you offered your second statistic about the research positions in academia. To that, I said it was no conclusive and I'd need to know more about the issue to find it at all meaningful. Given how often statistics are distorted this is not unreasonable. If the study cannot be audited then it can't be taken seriously.
Then we have this latest study which shows that there might actually be a HUGE female bias. Two to one well outstrips the claims of the wage gap. Which would mean if this is valid that men are systematically discriminated against.
I expect that since you're such a big supporter of equality you want to make sure that doesn't happen... right? Or does your interest in such things only flow one way... and therefore have nothing to do with equality?
You stand before the millstone, sir... It grinds and grinds and grinds. Nothing passes its wheels that is not reduced to dust. ;)
whatever, dude... I've been getting trolled by the same AC for about two or three weeks. The guy literally follows me around to trash talk. And I see your post, you're an AC, and I see the same bullshit coming out of you... and I assume you're the same douchebag.
Don't log in as AC if you don't want to be confused with other douchebag ACs.
End of discussion.
Insane standards? No... my standards are quite reasonable and absent those standards you have bullshit.
The standards I'm talking about are the kind that required typically any serious empirical science.
As to the conclusion I draw from the whole thing?... review the posts from before and you'll see that my statement was that YOUR study was not something you could use to slam dunk your position. That it merely justified further study. Period.
And this? Same thing. Further study. I'll wait for a real study to be done. This study was done by what... the Cornell center for women in stem? What the fuck kind of department is that?
Can you imagine a Cornell center for men in stem?
The problem so often with these departments is that they're run like creationist departments. They start with the premise that the world is 6000 years old and then look for evidence of that. Which is not how science works.
In real science, you examine the data and then try to draw conclusions from the data without lots of stupid preconceptions.
As to how we miraculously got a study that contradicted the first... I find it as baffling as you do because I remain convinced that the whole field of study is hopelessly compromised. It is sort of like Iran taking a break from saying "death to America" to write love letters to the Jews suddenly. So I'm confused... we'll see what happens. I'm sure another study that will contradict this one is forthcoming and it will mean no more to me then the last two because they're not holding to "my standards"... and until they do... I don't really see how anyone can take it seriously. Not with any intellectual integrity.
Sort of funny that we're getting studies that directly contradict each other.
I can't tell you how many morons were quoting that study at me saying "see see women are discriminated against!"... twits.
if I've confused you with another AC, can you blame me?... price of hiding even your fake name, bro.
Log the fuck in and maybe I'd keep you fucks straight.
Well, it would be obvious to an expert but I am just another arm chair speculator... I'd love to see an example of this technology. Are there are any videos or pictures of such machines?
Read my post again... I said any ratio by any means.
If you're attempting to effect your statistical ratio then you are attempting to get a desired ratio by some means.
Logic.
You forgot the bit where I showed you that Issac Newton was a dick to people on a fairly regular basis... and he was one of the greatest minds in human history.
This was already explained to you. And yet you're using the same argument again despite the fact that you have been given evidence that one can be quite intelligent and educated and sophisticated... and yet utterly contemptuous of morons.
*bounces a frozen pea off the AC thick shiny skull*
You're a moron and you are right that I don't respect you... mostly because you're an idiot. You're also dishonest and cowardly. I mean, I'm struggling to think of a redeeming quality you have... *thinks about it*... no... nothing. You are a waste of oxygen. Unfortunate for the biosphere.
Can I suggest you taught large animals? Maybe one of them will eat you... circle of life and all that. Or maybe you'd like to take up a hobby of wild mushroom eating? I'm sure there are some delicious wild mushrooms out there. Try them all. Especially the red ones with white spots. If I remember my super mario brothers, that gives you an extra life... and you could use one of those. :P
No, I do not think I am the only person that has realized it.
However, if everyone knew it was bullshit then it wouldn't be a popular idea either. There have to be large numbers of gullible people that buy into the argument or they wouldn't have any reason to make such an argument in the first place.
In regards to you apparently being addicted to simply calling me an "aspie" without any reason for it... Whatever. I'm going to assume you have some kind of tourettes now... where instead of saying you want to fuck your mother whenever you get a little nervous... you just call people aspies for no reason.
Recognizing that YOU have a problem, I accept and forgive your insults as they're clearly not meaningful. :)
As to being unable to articulate your feelings... that isn't a mark of superiority... that's... kind of sad. I can articulate everything I feel and think. I understand myself. Your statement that you don't understand yourself is in no way an advantage.
As to your statement that color or taste can't be described... you're apparently not a big reader which isn't especially surprising. The better authors can describe such sensations beautifully. You read their works and you can smell the musk of the grass and taste the sweet acid of an orange.
I'm an veteran forum warrior and am utterly indifferent to your boasting. In any case, you're distracting the topic with your silliness. Please refrain from it if you're able to control yourself. If you're not able to to control yourself, then I forgive your condition and will do my best to ignore it out of common courtesy. :)
Good day, sir.
I wouldn't go that far... I'm sure there are some protesters in other parts of the world that aren't complete jokes... including people in Spain. Just THOSE people with their projector are pointless.
Biomass in general is completely viable. There are some wonderful biogas/syngas generators on the market that range from personal single home models to big municipal power plants.
You can take farm field dross... weeds... anything that burns... pelletize it in a pellet maker, then feed that as well as wood cut into 2 inch by 2 inch chunks into a syngas generator. Boom... biofuel.
People run cars and trucks and trailers on it directly as well. You can produce syngas, pressurize it in a tank just as you would propane or natural gas... and then feed it into an engine.
it is also carbon neutral.
You know all those people trying to come up with algae oil?... well that's dumb because you can take ANY plant matter and turn it into syngas. Any old crap.
The energy infrastructure would be different of course. You'd be farming your fuel. But it would be as sustainable as solar power. And the residue after the biogas process can be removed to either fertilize fields... or the tar that is produced and be used the same way we use tar now... to water proof and seal things. which you might not appreciate as relevant until you realize that pretty much every street is held together with a mixture of tar and gravel. That right, that black stuff that steams out of those pots when they're laying road is mostly tar.
You can also refine traditional hydrocarbon fuels out of biogas. Diesel, gasoline, kerosene, etc.
So yeah... we don't need that shit in the ground. It is of course cheaper to just get it out of the ground then to farm it and produce it in a syngas generator... but we can produce it if we need to do it.
What is more, contrary to what the alarmists would have you believe, we have a LOT of fossil fuels left. Possibly that is bad news for global warming but in so far as the oil industry is concerned... they can pump for a long long time. That fracking innovation is a shot across the bow to anyone that thought they were going to peter out at the existing well count. There is a huge difference between existing reserves and ACTUALLY how much oil is in the ground. And given time they're going to pull it ALL up until that stops becoming profitable.
Why are people dicks for no reason? Whatever... I forgive you.
You call me an aspie and then not only agree with me but say that the people pushing this are simply doing it for political pandering.
Which while different from what I said, is hardly more honorable or respectable.
Silly insults aside, we agree that this is bullshit. Which was my central thesis.
Underlying a lot of the problems and POLITICS in this issue is that people are cooking a lot of the statistics.
Remember that Rolling Stones article where the writer first came to the conclusion that rape on college was out of control and then scoured the country looking for in her words an "emblematic" case to base her position on. That is how creationists do science. They start with the premise that the world is 6000 years old and then look for evidence to support that position. That is what is going on in a LOT of studies especially the statistical ones. Statistical studies are extremely easy to bias and very hard to audit.
As such, you can't take a statistical study in a politically charged issue at face value. That is with all respect, too trusting. I didn't say naive because that has insulting connotations which I do not intend. I merely mean that many people are not appropriately cynical about political activists or how invasive or pervasive they can become or are already.
To that end, what you want with something like this is multiple independent studies... ideally with some sort of double blind system set up so that the researchers don't actually know. If the teachers and students are all ID numbers in database A and their names and races etc are all in database B then I'd feel better about any conclusions they drew from the data. If the researchers know then they have fudge data analysis to suit preconceived conclusions.
What is more, these studies are almost always CORRELATIVE and not causitive. That is they know that given test scores CORRELATE with certain other parameters but they don't know WHICH of those parameters if ANY of them actually cause the result.
People with sniffles correlate with the cold... do sniffles cause the cold? No. The cold is caused by a virus which also causes the sniffles. However the sniffles correlate with the cold.
Other factors can be in play... age might be an issue for example. A sense of community and administrative acceptance might be an issue. if you're the white guy and you think no one accepts you then you might not be a good teacher because you've been made to feel uncomfortable. JUST an example of something that is possible.
The statistics are unconfirmed, were not conducted in a manner that would make them immune to manipulation, and they are at BEST correlative. Long story short, I do not find the statistics to be authoritative at this time.
So, to answer my question... No... you don't have anything to offer besides reminding me how bitter you remain about getting stomped every time I lay eyes on you.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'll keep checking in case you decide to actually be worth something. :)
Who knows... one day you might not be a douchebag.
Where are the X percentage of race or gender in Y field? Enough with the quotas. Enough with people looking at statistics and saying "we need this ratio".
Even if you're not saying "do this or you're breaking the law" what they're doing is effectively trying to get quotas in through the back door.
There is a mixture of "oh you must be racist if you don't have X percentage" and then a little of "how about if we give you some money if you do X percentage?" and then maybe a bit of "show us how progressive you are by having X percentage".
Fuck your fucking percentages and ratios. That is not how you fix race and gender issues... by mandating BY ANY FUCKING MEANS some sort of ratio.
This doesn't help "people of color" which apparently only applies to black people because asians sure as hell aren't offered any affirmative action. There was that indian guy that wasn't' getting into medical school, then he got a different haircut and lied on his entrance application saying he was black... bam, got right in.
That's fucked up.
This racist bullshit needs to stop. I know what the idiots will say, "it isn't racist if you're biased against people "power"" ... which just means fuck white people and fuck Asians. It is bullshit and you're not going to make people trust the competence of people if everyone knows that X race or Y gender has to be hired at some ratio for SOME reason other than that they were ACTUALLY considered the best candidate for the job.
Furthermore, there is a lot more to diversity then your fucking skin color or whether or not you have a penis. Not all people with one skin color are the same. You can have ten people of all the same race in the same room and have more diversity in that room of THOUGHT than if you had some rainbow of races in the same room. For all you know those 10 people of the same race could have radically different backgrounds, skill sets, philosophies, etc. To say that they're all the same because they all have the same skin color is incredibly offensive and racist. You might as well just walk around saying "all you people look the same to me so I assume you all are the same"... Are you fucking kidding me. Same thing with dicks and vaginas. You are not your dick or your vagina. If I have a room full of 10 dicks or 10 vaginas they could be more diverse in their thoughts, backgrounds, skill sets, philosophies than if we had some 50 50 split.
What group of idiots out there thought that diversity was getting some mix of races and genders? This is a racist's idea of diversity. A non-racist doesn't see race as being relevant. They view who the person actually IS rather than what their skin color is... but a racist just sees "oh that's X race... and you know what they say about those people". THAT is how racists think. And these quotas arrive at a concept of "diversity" by that same logic. they say, well we have these people with these skin tones so obviously we have diversity. What the the actual fuck?
This is easily one of the most disappointing things about politics in the 21st century. The race, gender, and identity politics are beyond toxic. This shit is going to destroy our society.
We all have to see each other as individuals rather than pairing off into arbitrary meaningless racial groups and assuming that "oh I'm with the X race people which is my race so they've obviously got my back"... I can't speak for anyone else, but there are plenty of people in my own race that are utterly intolerable. Why would I reflexively associate with them when most of them are not people I especially relate... and they can't relate to me. I am as likely to find people I relate to in other races as my own. So where is this diversity through skin tone?
If we were shooting a magazine cover or something... I'd get it. You might want to get some people with one skin tone here and another there and who knows what the photographer is doing. But if you're running a business or an education system... WHO THE FUCK CARES.
The worst
Radio stations don't make a lot of money and publishers have been happy for many years with the status quo. I think this is really about hammering internet radio services. Internet radio services point at AM/FM services and say "look at them, they don't pay either"... and as a result, that depresses the bargaining position of publishers with internet radio.
They want more money from internet radio. And that's also silly because that is also a marginal business. They're basically not making money as it is. If they are forced to pay more they have to charge more and asking listeners to pony up more money every month is going to depress subscriptions and possibly drive the entire service into bankruptcy. Leaving the industry with nothing but itunes and piracy.
The music industry is run by idiots. We've known this for years. They were approuched by the founders of napster long before they actually started pushing pirated music. They said "hey, lets set up a music service run by the music industry.". We all know what happened. The music bozos threw them out and said don't come back.
How has that worked out for the music business? They keep thinking they can turn the clock back. They can't. They need to get ahead of the curve or get crushed.
Their cash reserves and social capital/clout are a diminishing resource. The window of opportunity to have any agency in this issue is closing. They can either wake up or become irrelevant.
Murphy's law. Rather than building something that is less likely to catch that stray neutron that punches through that critical component in just the right way... why don't you assume that however you build it, the worst possible thing will happen to it immediately.
Once you accept that, your view will shift from trying to mitigate probabilities and into simply immunizing the technology.
We can build a robot that cannot be destroyed by the sorts of radiation you'll find in a damaged reactor. Literally immune. The radiation can swiss cheese the entire robot all day and all night for years on end and it makes no difference. We can do that.
The idea of using hydraulics and fiber optic sensors was brilliant. We do that and the mechanisms are so robust that they can't really be damaged by some stray neutrons. You're not going to destroy a hydraulic actuator with anything short of radiation that literally melts it. So long as the radiation isn't cooking the robot, it should be able to tolerate the radiation almost indefinitely.
And the fiber optic sensor would likewise be immune to that sort of damage. Add a chemical light on the front of the robot and he can shamble around the reactor while a cable snakes behind it carrying pressure to drive the robot, a bundle of pressure cables to trigger the actuators in series to give robotic motion, and the fiber optic camera that will give the humans piloting the robot knowledge of what is in front of the robot.
Oh look, my AC shadow found me in another topic where he wants to whine about getting serial raped in topic after topic.
*steeples hands*... Tell me you have something useful to add to the discussion besides reminding me that you're still bitter about losing over and over again.
fiber optics? You're going to need a media converter to translate the fiber optic signal into an electrical one at both ends. So I think that would actually make the robot less reliable.
As to hydraulics, that is interesting... you would need actuators on the robot which I'm assuming would still need to be triggered electronically. I suppose you could trigger them with pneumatic pressure. That is, if some pressure comes in on this tube, you trigger this actuator and if this tube then that actuator?
That leaves the sensors. I mean... you could have some sort of fiber optic light pipe for the sensor... is that what you were talking about with fiber optics? If so, great idea assuming that would work. And then you could even use a chemical light source.
Something like that could get pounded with just savage radiation and not give a damn.
Radiation. Our electronics and robotics thrive on miniturization however that is not useful when you're dealing with radiation. You want really thick circuits. You want something that can be swiss cheesed by the radiation all day and all night for years on end and still work.
Here is my first idea:
Have as little circuitry in the robot as possible. Instead run most of that stuff to a substation by wire that will get close to but not actually enter the reactor. Ideally, the only thing I'd put in the robot would be the literal sensors, the literal motors, the structure that is the body of the robot, and EVERYTHING else would be remote to the robot and thus largely safe from the radiation.
So whatever controller boards for the servos etc... none of that in the robot. All of it instead at the other end of a wire.
Oh but I'm immune to that sort of protesting.
I respond to logic, sound arguments, and evidence. Throwing paint all over the place is infantile. Tying yourself to stuff is infantile. Saying if you won't do what I want I will hurt myself is infantile. Etc.
Projecting crap on a wall if I don't do what you want is both infantile and very easily ignorable.
Does this mean that most of the protests that people feel were famous and important mean nothing to me? Yep. Because what mattered was not that you got a lot of people there or what they did but what you had to say.
THAT is interesting to me. Take Occupy Wallstreet. That they occupied that little square and formed drum circles was a complete waste of time and actually distracted from any real message they might have. What I found interesting was the statement that "hey why are we bailing out banks that fucked up with every one else's money?" That was a sensible discussion to have. But you can't have those when the retards in the square are too busy applauding each other by giving each other jazz hands. They also mutated their issue rather quickly from an issue people give a shit about to "oh and what about feminism, patriarchy, and rape culture?"... which is where everyone just labels them a bunch of crazies and stops listening.
If you want to a have a dialog. Then do that. If you want to tie yourself to things... I will leave you there until you rot in the sun. Maybe you can bribe a passerby to save you. You could even bribe me. But if don't see some of that trust fund money, then I'm not moving a finger for those idiots. Could they be along my commute? Then I'd move them out of the road on to the nearest side walk. Done. I'd happy leave their skeletons to decay in on the street otherwise as a warning to future morons to not make it so inconvenient to remove them that they can't get themselves out if needed. If you want to hand cuff yourself to something, keep the key in your pocket and when people are just ignoring you... you can let yourself out.