We're still burning all that coal in power plants because the omni-obstructionists have spent over 40 years blocking the alternative.
The alternatives are (1) coal, (2) nuclear, (3) get rid of most of the population of the planet and condemn the survivors to impoverished squalor. All else is arithmetic denialism.
In my experience, "Shill" is a code word for "Wahhhh, I can't refute your rational words with my shrieking scare-mongering, so I'll just call you names, nyahh nyahh nyahh!!!"
A cool spell doesn't disprove global warming, but at every heat wave, there's a chorus of OMGCO2WEREALLGONNADIE!!! so an occasional "I went camping last weekend, in California, in August, and nearly froze my tucchis off" (true, by the way) scoffing isn't any more out of line.
Yes, weather isn't climate. We all know that.
Me, I've been campaigning to go full speed ahead replacing coal with nukes for over 30 years. The same folks (for the most part) who are the very loudest at the OMGCO2WEREALLGONNADIE!!! crap are also the very loudest at the OMGRADIATIONWEREALLGONNADIE!!!! scare-mongering.
Arithmetic deniers. The options in the near term (several decades) are: 1) Coal. 2) Nuclear. 3) Collapse of industrial/technological civilzation and very rapid very drastic population drop (i.e. gigadeath, not attrition).
No, we don't want to be dumping nearly as much CO2 into the air as we do. But we don't want to kill off 80%+ of the Earth's population either. If nothing else, very few of those people will be inclined to go gentle into that good night just because the energy omni-obstructionists say so, and they'll resist with everything they've got, up to and including hydrogen bombs.
To quote Stuart Brand, "I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic."
This works -- until one of the sites you log in to says "You must change your password, and you can not use your old one." Sure, you can add a new 'something' to the "purpose"... but then you have to remembere that, too, and we're back to the "remembering a bunch of strong passwords" problem.
Actually, even if Chrome or Firefox had absolutely secure password storage, I'd still want LastPass -- it transparently synchronizes all my passwords between every computer I use, including Android phones. And with hundreds of logins all over the place, everyone* is going to be re-using passwords, using insecure passwords, or both, if they don't use some kind of password manager.
* "Everyone" here excludes the one-in-a-million outliers, of course. You may have an editic memory and use a unique 32-character true-random password for each of a hundred sites, and keep them all in your head, but the people who can do that are very rare indeed.
it looks to me like these claims are just more of the same -- any stick with which to beat the Bill of Rights out of us will do. Facts don't even enter into it.
Just the other day, some friends and I went to a local "classic movies" theater and saw "Adam's Rib". It was fun in a way that very, very few movies are these days, in spite of zero explosions (Heresy!) and zero car chases. (Though Katherine Hepburn's driving was plenty scary...)
Plot... Character... acting... craftmanship... rarely seen these days outside of Pixar. (The new Monsters movie is definitely on my list...)
You know, it could be that the author is somewhat biased...
Gee, ya think?:-)
I know that as soon as I see that it's a link to the Bulletin of the "Atomic" "Scientists". It's a "No Nukes Shut 'Em All Down Now" agenda-driven publication.
A major snafu at Chernobyl with the completely-pulled-out control rods was that the first three feet of the rods was a graphite tip, followed by the neutron-absorbing control rod part. When they desperately needed to put the control rods back in RIGHT NOW, the first three feet were adding moderator to a reactor already going out of control, like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Interesting podcast -- https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm look for Episode 408. It's a somewhat speculative discussion about what PRISM probably is, but Steve Gibson is pretty knowledgable, and backs up his theory with facts that seem to support it.
TLDL summary-- It's a tap on the fiber at the ISP just upstream of Google, etc., capturing a copy of all traffic to/from that service. See prior stories about "What is that secret room at AT&T?", etc.
A transcript of the podcast should be up by Friday, according to the web site.
The survival of technological civilization depends vitally on energy supply. Which means that the omni-obstructionists and the arithmetic deniers are, knowingly or by being duped, enemies of technological civilization. The alternative to technological civilization is getting rid of about six billion people on a very short time span.
"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic" -- Stuart Brand, not an arithmetic-denier.
Bullshit. Gun Safety training would gain instant support among the right, as well as any thinking person.
That "any thinking person" part, unfortunately, rules out a good percentage of school administrations.
There's a gun safety program for kids, that does not involve handling guns. Its content is as follows:
If you find a gun: (1) Stop. (2) Don't touch. (3) Leave the area. (4) Tell an adult.
Period.
Most school boards ban this program, because it happens to be the "Eddie Eagle" program published by the NRA. They would far rather that children die than their precious bodily fluids be contaminated by any program the evil NRA had anything to do with.
Google Glass is visible, right there up on the wearer's face. What about all those cell phones that can do video recording, and can do that video recording right there from your shirt pocket, with no visible indication? Cameras are getting pretty small these days. Someone up to something nefarious, the camera lens is going to be one of his shirt buttons.
Where do you draw the line? What constitutes a contribution? If someone wants to independently speak up in favor of a candidate, is that a contribution? If a newspaper or other media outlet wants to endorse a candidate, is that a contribution? If a labor union wants to rally its members to walk precincts and campaign for a candidate, is that a contribution? If you personally pay to create a web page to support one candidate or attack another, is that a contribution? Does the rule change if you happen to be a business owner? If so, why? If you and some friends and other like-minded people get together to pool resources to get the word out for or against particular candidates, is that a contribution? If that's OK... congratulations. You've just re-invented the PAC.
It's a general rule that when people start drawing these lines, the line is quite clearly drawn between "People likely to agree with me can do whatever they want; people likely to disagree with me must be shut down.
If you post a https url in a chat window with login credentials in the url, you might as well be writing it on bathroom walls in bus stations, preceeded by "For a good time, browse to..."
Whether Microsoft should be doing this or not is entirely beside the point.
This is an important point. Any report like this that talks about Hanford and pretends that it applies as an argument against civilian nuclear power is "No nukes" agenda driven propaganda.
Scientific American used to be a respectable publication. Now... not so much. Every couple of years or so, I pick up a copy, and find it's (at best) the same lowest common denominator pop-sci crap that caused me to drop my subscription ages ago.
Scientific American simultaneously beats the "No Nukes" drum and the "No Carbon" drum. (Don't misunderstand me here; I have been arguing for phasing out coal in favor of nuclear for decades. I don't want us burning any more fossil fuels than we have to, and I want us to reduce the "have to" amount as much as possible.) Anyone who is both "No Nukes" and "No Carbon" is someone who, knowingly or not, is arguing for the anihilation of technological civilization. They're Arithmetic Deniers.
We've got an animal liberationist in our lab,
In a cage behind the storage shelves in room one-seventeen.
He helps with our experiments, although he'd rather not,
But think of all the rodents that he's saving from those shots.
His cause was true, his heart was pure. He'd better hope we find the cure.
It seems pretty darn clear to me that Sinclair was originally supposed to be the one who married Delenn; that was getting nicely set up from near the very beginning, at least as early as the episode with the various religious festivals. Unfortunately, O'hare left the series, so that plot line had to be transferred to Sheridan, and had to be sped up.
I would really like to read a novel with the original plot, Sinclair staying around as long as originally planned, and the Babylon 4 station being taken back by Sinclair and Delenn as the finale in "Sleeping in Light". (I pretty strongly suspect that was the original plan, anyway.) And Ivanova staying around; her "telepath" arc getting developed according to the original plan.
Given that BBT is basically geek blackface, and loathed by most that I know
Geek blackface? WTF?
I see where he's coming from. Big Bang Theory is the sort of show I really really want to like. I've tried several times. I've bounced off of it... hard... after about five minutes each time.
I can't say I loathe it, because I haven't watched enough of it to develop a loathing. Many people whose opinions I greatly respect love it. I just find it way too annoying -- too much of the "geeks" in the show come across to me as "what the jocks and 'in crowd' think geeks are like".
Slashdot Mirror
We're still burning all that coal in power plants because the omni-obstructionists have spent over 40 years blocking the alternative.
The alternatives are (1) coal, (2) nuclear, (3) get rid of most of the population of the planet and condemn the survivors to impoverished squalor. All else is arithmetic denialism.
Those aren't noodles, they're tentacles.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is really Cthulhu!
Pasta fthagan, Ia! Ia!
"MoFo", I suspect, is Morrison & Foerster, mofo.com, an actual law firm that deals with intellectual property issues.
In my experience, "Shill" is a code word for "Wahhhh, I can't refute your rational words with my shrieking scare-mongering, so I'll just call you names, nyahh nyahh nyahh!!!"
"Anonymous Coward" is just icing on the cake.
Or, perhaps, the message is "Go underground".
A cool spell doesn't disprove global warming, but at every heat wave, there's a chorus of OMGCO2WEREALLGONNADIE!!! so an occasional "I went camping last weekend, in California, in August, and nearly froze my tucchis off" (true, by the way) scoffing isn't any more out of line.
Yes, weather isn't climate. We all know that.
Me, I've been campaigning to go full speed ahead replacing coal with nukes for over 30 years. The same folks (for the most part) who are the very loudest at the OMGCO2WEREALLGONNADIE!!! crap are also the very loudest at the OMGRADIATIONWEREALLGONNADIE!!!! scare-mongering.
Arithmetic deniers. The options in the near term (several decades) are: 1) Coal. 2) Nuclear. 3) Collapse of industrial/technological civilzation and very rapid very drastic population drop (i.e. gigadeath, not attrition).
No, we don't want to be dumping nearly as much CO2 into the air as we do. But we don't want to kill off 80%+ of the Earth's population either. If nothing else, very few of those people will be inclined to go gentle into that good night just because the energy omni-obstructionists say so, and they'll resist with everything they've got, up to and including hydrogen bombs.
To quote Stuart Brand, "I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic."
This works -- until one of the sites you log in to says "You must change your password, and you can not use your old one." Sure, you can add a new 'something' to the "purpose"... but then you have to remembere that, too, and we're back to the "remembering a bunch of strong passwords" problem.
Actually, even if Chrome or Firefox had absolutely secure password storage, I'd still want LastPass -- it transparently synchronizes all my passwords between every computer I use, including Android phones. And with hundreds of logins all over the place, everyone* is going to be re-using passwords, using insecure passwords, or both, if they don't use some kind of password manager.
* "Everyone" here excludes the one-in-a-million outliers, of course. You may have an editic memory and use a unique 32-character true-random password for each of a hundred sites, and keep them all in your head, but the people who can do that are very rare indeed.
it looks to me like these claims are just more of the same -- any stick with which to beat the Bill of Rights out of us will do. Facts don't even enter into it.
Or not...
Just the other day, some friends and I went to a local "classic movies" theater and saw "Adam's Rib". It was fun in a way that very, very few movies are these days, in spite of zero explosions (Heresy!) and zero car chases. (Though Katherine Hepburn's driving was plenty scary...)
Plot... Character... acting... craftmanship... rarely seen these days outside of Pixar. (The new Monsters movie is definitely on my list...)
Cites, please.
You know, it could be that the author is somewhat biased...
Gee, ya think? :-)
I know that as soon as I see that it's a link to the Bulletin of the "Atomic" "Scientists". It's a "No Nukes Shut 'Em All Down Now" agenda-driven publication.
A major snafu at Chernobyl with the completely-pulled-out control rods was that the first three feet of the rods was a graphite tip, followed by the neutron-absorbing control rod part. When they desperately needed to put the control rods back in RIGHT NOW, the first three feet were adding moderator to a reactor already going out of control, like throwing gasoline on a fire.
Interesting podcast -- https://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm look for Episode 408. It's a somewhat speculative discussion about what PRISM probably is, but Steve Gibson is pretty knowledgable, and backs up his theory with facts that seem to support it.
TLDL summary-- It's a tap on the fiber at the ISP just upstream of Google, etc., capturing a copy of all traffic to/from that service. See prior stories about "What is that secret room at AT&T?", etc.
A transcript of the podcast should be up by Friday, according to the web site.
The survival of technological civilization depends vitally on energy supply. Which means that the omni-obstructionists and the arithmetic deniers are, knowingly or by being duped, enemies of technological civilization. The alternative to technological civilization is getting rid of about six billion people on a very short time span.
"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic" -- Stuart Brand, not an arithmetic-denier.
Bullshit. Gun Safety training would gain instant support among the right, as well as any thinking person.
That "any thinking person" part, unfortunately, rules out a good percentage of school administrations.
There's a gun safety program for kids, that does not involve handling guns. Its content is as follows:
If you find a gun: (1) Stop. (2) Don't touch. (3) Leave the area. (4) Tell an adult.
Period.
Most school boards ban this program, because it happens to be the "Eddie Eagle" program published by the NRA. They would far rather that children die than their precious bodily fluids be contaminated by any program the evil NRA had anything to do with.
That's almost unheard of in any matters that contain the word "radiation".
Google Glass is visible, right there up on the wearer's face. What about all those cell phones that can do video recording, and can do that video recording right there from your shirt pocket, with no visible indication? Cameras are getting pretty small these days. Someone up to something nefarious, the camera lens is going to be one of his shirt buttons.
Or, for a source that doesn't blank the whole screen with a meta refresh and demand you enable javascript before it will let you read the article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/us-judge-in-ore-dismisses-movie-pirating-lawsuit-calling-it-unfair-reverse-class-action/2013/05/14/74ca6946-bcde-11e2-b537-ab47f0325f7c_story.html
Where do you draw the line? What constitutes a contribution? If someone wants to independently speak up in favor of a candidate, is that a contribution? If a newspaper or other media outlet wants to endorse a candidate, is that a contribution? If a labor union wants to rally its members to walk precincts and campaign for a candidate, is that a contribution? If you personally pay to create a web page to support one candidate or attack another, is that a contribution? Does the rule change if you happen to be a business owner? If so, why? If you and some friends and other like-minded people get together to pool resources to get the word out for or against particular candidates, is that a contribution? If that's OK... congratulations. You've just re-invented the PAC.
It's a general rule that when people start drawing these lines, the line is quite clearly drawn between "People likely to agree with me can do whatever they want; people likely to disagree with me must be shut down.
Where do you draw the line?
Seriously? Give me a break
If you post a https url in a chat window with login credentials in the url, you might as well be writing it on bathroom walls in bus stations, preceeded by "For a good time, browse to..."
Whether Microsoft should be doing this or not is entirely beside the point.
This is an important point. Any report like this that talks about Hanford and pretends that it applies as an argument against civilian nuclear power is "No nukes" agenda driven propaganda.
Scientific American used to be a respectable publication. Now... not so much. Every couple of years or so, I pick up a copy, and find it's (at best) the same lowest common denominator pop-sci crap that caused me to drop my subscription ages ago.
Scientific American simultaneously beats the "No Nukes" drum and the "No Carbon" drum. (Don't misunderstand me here; I have been arguing for phasing out coal in favor of nuclear for decades. I don't want us burning any more fossil fuels than we have to, and I want us to reduce the "have to" amount as much as possible.) Anyone who is both "No Nukes" and "No Carbon" is someone who, knowingly or not, is arguing for the anihilation of technological civilization. They're Arithmetic Deniers.
http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=67496
We've got an animal liberationist in our lab,
In a cage behind the storage shelves in room one-seventeen.
He helps with our experiments, although he'd rather not,
But think of all the rodents that he's saving from those shots.
His cause was true, his heart was pure. He'd better hope we find the cure.
It seems pretty darn clear to me that Sinclair was originally supposed to be the one who married Delenn; that was getting nicely set up from near the very beginning, at least as early as the episode with the various religious festivals. Unfortunately, O'hare left the series, so that plot line had to be transferred to Sheridan, and had to be sped up.
I would really like to read a novel with the original plot, Sinclair staying around as long as originally planned, and the Babylon 4 station being taken back by Sinclair and Delenn as the finale in "Sleeping in Light". (I pretty strongly suspect that was the original plan, anyway.) And Ivanova staying around; her "telepath" arc getting developed according to the original plan.
Geek blackface? WTF?
I see where he's coming from. Big Bang Theory is the sort of show I really really want to like. I've tried several times. I've bounced off of it ... hard ... after about five minutes each time.
I can't say I loathe it, because I haven't watched enough of it to develop a loathing. Many people whose opinions I greatly respect love it. I just find it way too annoying -- too much of the "geeks" in the show come across to me as "what the jocks and 'in crowd' think geeks are like".