Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered.
Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them.
While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!)
Sound familiar?
Um, no, it doesn't sound familiar. What in the world are you talking about? (Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement. Then it all makes sense.)
Sorry, you are still missing my point. Subtract what I said about sabotage, you are STILL left with failure modes caused by incompetence and greed. If you think those wonderful designs cannot be compromised by either of those, then you are living in a dream world. Doesn't matter if it's *PASSIVE* safety or not.
You're the one in a dream world if you think humanity is going to continue to flourish and prosper -without- nuclear power. We simply will not be a happy species without an abundance of power. This is the answer. Without it, the loss of life from wars over the dwindling resources will far exceed anything imaginable by nuclear power generation.
I never said I was against nuclear power. In fact, I agree that we need it. I also think that as a species we will have to live with the occasional nuclear "oops". Accidents, sabotage, rogue attacks with weapons made from filched material. Part of the deal.
But you continue to miss my point, because you were looking for someone to berate for not holding the exact same opinion as you.
Keep at it, but play with yourself. I'm not going to correct you again, it's a waste of time.
Please tell me you didn't just claim "OMG TERRORISM" as a reason to abandon a source of power.
I didn't do anything of the kind. You need to clean your glasses. Or up the amperage in your circuits. Read it again.
What I said was that claims of perfection make people distrustful. Leave out terrorism. Incompetence and greed can easily cause the safest possible design to fail. And... AND... my point was that claiming they absolutely cannot fail makes people suspect you're full of shit.
I think he meant, new reactor designs do not fail catastrophically. The built in *PASSIVE* safety of these new designs would mean it take a deliberate act (sabotage) to cause a reactor to fail in a way that involves the release of radioactive materials.
You can't put fail and sabotage together and say the reactor is unsafe. *ANYTHING* is unsafe if it's sabotaged correctly.
Sorry, you are still missing my point. Subtract what I said about sabotage, you are STILL left with failure modes caused by incompetence and greed. If you think those wonderful designs cannot be compromised by either of those, then you are living in a dream world. Doesn't matter if it's *PASSIVE* safety or not.
This. Right here. This is the attitude that makes so many people distrustful of nuclear proponents.
I know you said we don't actually build "modern" reactors, but ANY design of reactor can fail, because people run them, boards that demand profit oversee management, and sometimes people fly airplanes into buildings.
Indeed. This makes little difference in the actual outcome. The accounting will take a little longer to set up correctly, but the costs will not change. Argue that as long as you like, I'll judge it in a year or so.
But this plan, to manually estimate the payments and do the complete reconciliation later? I'm shocked, shocked... except no, yawn, this is how it's done with most of the health insurance industry. I know, I do this for a living.
Ah, okay, you answered my question. You were talking out of your ass. You claimed "Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos."
Yet you can't cite even a single instance. Thanks for clearing that up.
Anyway I don't assume that the other poster knows what the word stochastic means either (you yourself think it just means 'random'), so between using those three descriptors, maybe something will be communicated, assuming the other poster isn't looking for quick and easy ways to be snide aka 'did you think it would be more convincing?'
I don't believe it means *just* random, but I do still believe you piled up a word sandwich to be more convincing.:-)
Bloomberg is a hypocrite, not a hero. He's all for disarming the general populace since he has the money to live in a secure home and hire armed guards for personal protection. The rest of us don't have that luxury and must fend for ourselves.
If you "fend for yourself" with a gun, you're more likely to be murdered by it than to save the life of you or someone you love.
Citations please.
Never mind the chance your young child will blow off his head, or that of a friend.
That's what locks and safes are for. It's not rocket science and yet the hordes of idiots that live among the anti-gun crowd (and the idiots who own guns without a lock) seem too stupid to grasp this very simple concept.
Do your own research. I have, many times.
And there are far too many of those idiots who own guns and don't use locks. In fact, many of them say that locks defeat the purpose of owning a gun, since it's not ready at any time to blow away an intruder. (Or your own son who wanders into your bedroom.)
Anyway, most of the "anti-gun" crowd aren't anti-gun, they're, like me, pro-safety, and are well aware of the value of safes and locks.
Bloomberg is a hypocrite, not a hero. He's all for disarming the general populace since he has the money to live in a secure home and hire armed guards for personal protection. The rest of us don't have that luxury and must fend for ourselves.
If you "fend for yourself" with a gun, you're more likely to be murdered by it than to save the life of you or someone you love. Never mind the chance your young child will blow off his head, or that of a friend.
By your example, we have NO good example of how people should behave. All humans are critically flawed, and therefore we should not act in any way other than how we want. Selfishness is the end result of your argumentative point. There is no perfection in the human condition. Period.
Yes, except... no. The GP did NOT say that. He pointed out a lot of horrible stories of human actions mandated by this fictional god character.
There are plenty of moral people who treat other people humanely, give their time and money, and who believe in no gods.
It's possible to get some reasonable rules of morality from a religion, but most of their books, like the Bible, are polluted with execrable stories of no moral value.
Sorry to give you a thoughtful rejoinder to your thoughtless post. I'm afraid I've wasted your time, because there's no chance you'll actually think about it.
Science can't explain everything. In this particular case, the falling iPhones would not be explainable.
Sorry, I think you were standing up for science, but your lost your nerve at the last minute.
How in the world can you say the falling iPhones would not be explainable? In that situation, people who use science would observe, make hypotheses, and attempt to test them. They might find an explanation other than "god did it". Why do you give up so easily?
So we see evidence of a seeming Miraculous event in the universe. One that seems to defy logic. And you use it as a time to get angry at people who believe in God.
You fundamentally misunderstand the article. If true, it PROVIDES a logical explanation for the spontaneous creation of the universe. Logic remains undefied. No miracle required.
Those pesky, goddam words! They actually mean what they mean! Inconvenient, I know.
I've always seen it as just a different way of addressing the same problem. How can you really know what exists outside the universe? It could be God, it could be a programmer...
Um, I understand why all the geeks on/. keep saying God or a *programmer*, but in nearly every instance in this world, the *programmer* is nothing but a couple of hands with a moderate amount of skill. If you're positing that we live in a simulation, then the being that really matters is the End User. Or perhaps the Executive Sponsor. They're the prime mover in the creation of the simulation. Not the code monkey.
For example if someone produced an indestructible toast with the face of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha, I and many other atheists would be lining up outside whichever church, mosque or temple we were lead to.
Really? You are so completely lacking in imagination and devoid of intellectual rigor that you would give up your beliefs when exposed to a single anomaly?
How in the world could you decide that an indestructible piece of toast with the face of Jesus on it meant that some god wanted you to go to church? Maybe He meant that you should *destroy* all churches. How would you know?
All that aside, I'd *love* to see what happened if an utterly indestructible piece of toast appeared with a face on it, and a note, "Hey humans, here's a picture of Mohammed. Love, Allah." I would need BAGS of popcorn to enjoy that show!
Slashdot Mirror
Private citizens were limited to long guns (rifles and shotguns), and they had to register them. But they were generally available to almost anyone that wanted one. The idea that all dictatorships ban private weapons, or conversely, that an armed citizenry always prevents tyranny, is clearly false.
You don't need total confiscation. When you need to crack down on citizens, all you need is [A] that they don't own handguns (because those are primarily defensive weapons), and [B] that all other weapons are registered. Then you're home free. When you know who has the weapons and who doesn't, you pretty much control them. While I agree that "not all dictatorships ban private weapons", they don't have to. All they have to do is control who has them and who doesn't. Example: while it has often been denied, the Nazis did in fact grab guns... from the Jews. I recently read an article that had a picture of the original Nazi decree that Jews could not have guns or bank accounts. (!!!) Sound familiar?
Um, no, it doesn't sound familiar. What in the world are you talking about? (Unless you have one of those Obama as Hitler posters in your basement. Then it all makes sense.)
Sorry, you are still missing my point. Subtract what I said about sabotage, you are STILL left with failure modes caused by incompetence and greed. If you think those wonderful designs cannot be compromised by either of those, then you are living in a dream world. Doesn't matter if it's *PASSIVE* safety or not.
You're the one in a dream world if you think humanity is going to continue to flourish and prosper -without- nuclear power. We simply will not be a happy species without an abundance of power. This is the answer. Without it, the loss of life from wars over the dwindling resources will far exceed anything imaginable by nuclear power generation.
I never said I was against nuclear power. In fact, I agree that we need it. I also think that as a species we will have to live with the occasional nuclear "oops". Accidents, sabotage, rogue attacks with weapons made from filched material. Part of the deal.
But you continue to miss my point, because you were looking for someone to berate for not holding the exact same opinion as you.
Keep at it, but play with yourself. I'm not going to correct you again, it's a waste of time.
Please tell me you didn't just claim "OMG TERRORISM" as a reason to abandon a source of power.
I didn't do anything of the kind. You need to clean your glasses. Or up the amperage in your circuits. Read it again.
What I said was that claims of perfection make people distrustful. Leave out terrorism. Incompetence and greed can easily cause the safest possible design to fail. And... AND... my point was that claiming they absolutely cannot fail makes people suspect you're full of shit.
Is that really so hard for you to understand?
I think he meant, new reactor designs do not fail catastrophically. The built in *PASSIVE* safety of these new designs would mean it take a deliberate act (sabotage) to cause a reactor to fail in a way that involves the release of radioactive materials.
You can't put fail and sabotage together and say the reactor is unsafe. *ANYTHING* is unsafe if it's sabotaged correctly.
Sorry, you are still missing my point. Subtract what I said about sabotage, you are STILL left with failure modes caused by incompetence and greed. If you think those wonderful designs cannot be compromised by either of those, then you are living in a dream world. Doesn't matter if it's *PASSIVE* safety or not.
Modern reactors can't fail.
This. Right here. This is the attitude that makes so many people distrustful of nuclear proponents.
I know you said we don't actually build "modern" reactors, but ANY design of reactor can fail, because people run them, boards that demand profit oversee management, and sometimes people fly airplanes into buildings.
It is no longer edgy to call fast food and other low-nutrition products "poison".
Indeed. This makes little difference in the actual outcome. The accounting will take a little longer to set up correctly, but the costs will not change. Argue that as long as you like, I'll judge it in a year or so.
But this plan, to manually estimate the payments and do the complete reconciliation later? I'm shocked, shocked... except no, yawn, this is how it's done with most of the health insurance industry. I know, I do this for a living.
anything OVER 9000 is probably out of control :)
"Three people can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." - Benjamin Franklin
That's why he always killed the two French whores after a threesome.
I'd rather have a free pizza.
Sorry, free pizza is only provided to towns as compensation after a well explodes. http://www.salon.com/2014/02/1...
Ah, okay, you answered my question. You were talking out of your ass. You claimed "Sometimes a judge will be so egregiously corrupt that the higher courts will discipline them, but it's quite infrequent, and I've never heard of it happening when he was acting to support the local politicos."
Yet you can't cite even a single instance. Thanks for clearing that up.
Anyway I don't assume that the other poster knows what the word stochastic means either (you yourself think it just means 'random'), so between using those three descriptors, maybe something will be communicated, assuming the other poster isn't looking for quick and easy ways to be snide aka 'did you think it would be more convincing?'
I don't believe it means *just* random, but I do still believe you piled up a word sandwich to be more convincing. :-)
Bloomberg is a hypocrite, not a hero. He's all for disarming the general populace since he has the money to live in a secure home and hire armed guards for personal protection. The rest of us don't have that luxury and must fend for ourselves.
If you "fend for yourself" with a gun, you're more likely to be murdered by it than to save the life of you or someone you love.
Citations please.
Never mind the chance your young child will blow off his head, or that of a friend.
That's what locks and safes are for. It's not rocket science and yet the hordes of idiots that live among the anti-gun crowd (and the idiots who own guns without a lock) seem too stupid to grasp this very simple concept.
Do your own research. I have, many times.
And there are far too many of those idiots who own guns and don't use locks. In fact, many of them say that locks defeat the purpose of owning a gun, since it's not ready at any time to blow away an intruder. (Or your own son who wanders into your bedroom.)
Anyway, most of the "anti-gun" crowd aren't anti-gun, they're, like me, pro-safety, and are well aware of the value of safes and locks.
Bloomberg is a hypocrite, not a hero. He's all for disarming the general populace since he has the money to live in a secure home and hire armed guards for personal protection. The rest of us don't have that luxury and must fend for ourselves.
If you "fend for yourself" with a gun, you're more likely to be murdered by it than to save the life of you or someone you love. Never mind the chance your young child will blow off his head, or that of a friend.
Sorry, I'm not buying it: "...others that look like YOU HUMANS..."
Your cover is blown! Return to the mothership and await further instructions.
By your example, we have NO good example of how people should behave. All humans are critically flawed, and therefore we should not act in any way other than how we want. Selfishness is the end result of your argumentative point. There is no perfection in the human condition. Period.
Yes, except... no. The GP did NOT say that. He pointed out a lot of horrible stories of human actions mandated by this fictional god character.
There are plenty of moral people who treat other people humanely, give their time and money, and who believe in no gods.
It's possible to get some reasonable rules of morality from a religion, but most of their books, like the Bible, are polluted with execrable stories of no moral value.
Sorry to give you a thoughtful rejoinder to your thoughtless post. I'm afraid I've wasted your time, because there's no chance you'll actually think about it.
Science can't explain everything. In this particular case, the falling iPhones would not be explainable.
Sorry, I think you were standing up for science, but your lost your nerve at the last minute.
How in the world can you say the falling iPhones would not be explainable? In that situation, people who use science would observe, make hypotheses, and attempt to test them. They might find an explanation other than "god did it". Why do you give up so easily?
So we see evidence of a seeming Miraculous event in the universe. One that seems to defy logic. And you use it as a time to get angry at people who believe in God.
You fundamentally misunderstand the article. If true, it PROVIDES a logical explanation for the spontaneous creation of the universe. Logic remains undefied. No miracle required.
Those pesky, goddam words! They actually mean what they mean! Inconvenient, I know.
I'm not sure how good a Catholic you are. Part of the bliss of heaven is knowing that many people are suffering in hell.
If you think that's not right, read the history of your own church.
I've always seen it as just a different way of addressing the same problem. How can you really know what exists outside the universe? It could be God, it could be a programmer...
Um, I understand why all the geeks on /. keep saying God or a *programmer*, but in nearly every instance in this world, the *programmer* is nothing but a couple of hands with a moderate amount of skill. If you're positing that we live in a simulation, then the being that really matters is the End User. Or perhaps the Executive Sponsor. They're the prime mover in the creation of the simulation. Not the code monkey.
For example if someone produced an indestructible toast with the face of Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha, I and many other atheists would be lining up outside whichever church, mosque or temple we were lead to.
Really? You are so completely lacking in imagination and devoid of intellectual rigor that you would give up your beliefs when exposed to a single anomaly?
How in the world could you decide that an indestructible piece of toast with the face of Jesus on it meant that some god wanted you to go to church? Maybe He meant that you should *destroy* all churches. How would you know?
All that aside, I'd *love* to see what happened if an utterly indestructible piece of toast appeared with a face on it, and a note, "Hey humans, here's a picture of Mohammed. Love, Allah." I would need BAGS of popcorn to enjoy that show!
A simulation can employ stochastic, random, indeterminate processes...
Doesn't stochastic mean random? Also, the way you used it, I think indeterminate does as well.
Did you think it would be more convincing if you used three different words to mean the same thing?
Well you convinced me! You can't be wrong - you dipped into your emergency supply of o's to put *8* of them in one word.
I'm thinking Claritin overdose. Am I right?
Oh lord, I attracted one of the premiere trolls on Slashdot. I take that as a sign that I'm not too far off the track.
I don't have the time to read your response, but don't let that stop you from posting more nonsense.
That would have been funny if the law hadn't eliminated that insurance company scam.
Um, this is the worst use of the word "fascism" that I've seen in a year.
Go look it up.