NO, you present FUD with no real world implication, risk, probability, or any relevant comparison to anything. That is what FUD mongers/followers do. You either buy into it due to ignorance, or willingly distribute it due to an agenda.
The only thing driven by PR is your fear of radiation. So much that you think being displaced from one's home temporarily is a greater tragedy than the death of family members and losing one's possession's entirely.
That you would even make the argument is quite telling.
My points are not made at the expense of anyone. You blame me for appealing to emotions, then proceed to cite a story about a man whose family & home was lost due to the tsunami, but place blame on the nuclear event. That is exactly my point, and you made it well. For every hardship story as a result of the nuclear event, there are 20 loss of life and devastating stories due to the tsunami. You probably never even read on of those and took interest. I have.
Physically it's no LESS convenient to pay by phone than it is with a card, which is the most important aspect (people would not use it if less convenient).
You state it is no less convenient, but fail to provide a good basis. But regardless, people don't feel compelled to make a big switch in their habits unless they see a benefit. The convenience of credit cards over cash is indisputable, and it took a long time for may just to make that move. I contend the road to phone payments, particularly in the US, will be a longer and rockier one than the hype indicates.
But, while maybe a higher proportion of slashdot readers think about the level of security, the general populace is quite happy with what they have, so the push from the consumer side just isn't there. Consumer demand drives adoption. And, to some extent, there is even a distrust of new technologies among a good portion of the market, regardless of the security benefit that they may not fully understand.
That is why my point was regarding ease of use and not security. Smart cards are more secure than the magnetic strip cards we use, and can provide authentication benefits & a big security increase, but the US population hasn't demanded it, and where they are adopted it was more due to regulatory drivers.
I think it is a bit easier to pull out my credit card and swipe it than to pull out my phone, select the payment app, & perform whatever authentication task is needed. But even if there isn't much difference, or if someone wanted to argue using a phone was a tad easier, there isn't a marked difference and its not something consumers feel is a problem area.
Pay by phone is not really any more convenient than pay by card. In fact, it may be less convenient. I've never understood the appeal from a consumer point of view. I do understand why many companies want it to take hold, its another place to insert yourself in the money stream.
OTOH, I think they should have a separate ratings for personal interaction and also hygiene. Stinky drivers and passengers can then still get together.
The conservative LNT model works OK for risk management, but it is known to be inaccurate for risk assessment. There just has been no real impetus to develop an accurate model adn it is quite a difficulat thing to accomplish as the real rates of negative health impact are so low they have a hard time getting a statistical basis, and the conservative model served the purpose when it comes to exposure guidelines. But when that is used to spread fear, there is a need for better assessment.
Folks that understand this are not at all surprised when there are stories of teh many people living in the Chernobyl region that are perfectly fine, or that statistical real world evidence of actual cancer cases attributable to CT scans is non-existent. Not in line with any of the so called 'predictions' based on the old model.
The article has no comparison of overall efficiency as compared to evaporative coolers. It looks like a very costly construction technique even if it were refined significantly.
In a small area, that is true, but many more people will never be able to 'go home' because they can't rebuild in the tsunami zone, that includes areas in the Fukushima precinct. The number of people that will not be able to return to un-damaged homes has yet to be determined, but it appears to be a pretty small number. And even if they can't return, they can keep practically all of their belongings after routine scans for contamination.
It is a very small impact scale compared to the greater tragedy of the tsunami that gets totally ignored.
What you don't realize is that those all base their 'predicted' cancer rates on a data model that was only validated for very high acute exposures, with an assumption of proportional rates for lower doses. Those models stem from post war Japan bomb research, but all physical evidence to date shows those models NEVER stand up and rates are ALWAYS much lower than predicted.
So, citing a bunch of studies that based prediction on the old, inaccurate model is really of no help.
The private sector isn't using my money unless I voluntarily provide it to them, and from my experience the internal checks and balances are actually more effective in the private industry side.
Slashdot Mirror
NO, you present FUD with no real world implication, risk, probability, or any relevant comparison to anything. That is what FUD mongers/followers do. You either buy into it due to ignorance, or willingly distribute it due to an agenda.
You certainly love your FUD.
Its because they don't have internet, so don't know they should be scared of vaccinations.
The only thing driven by PR is your fear of radiation. So much that you think being displaced from one's home temporarily is a greater tragedy than the death of family members and losing one's possession's entirely.
That you would even make the argument is quite telling.
ZhangWei278554
Great, now they'll have an easier path to authority to censor content & discourage competition. WHOO HOO!
My points are not made at the expense of anyone. You blame me for appealing to emotions, then proceed to cite a story about a man whose family & home was lost due to the tsunami, but place blame on the nuclear event. That is exactly my point, and you made it well. For every hardship story as a result of the nuclear event, there are 20 loss of life and devastating stories due to the tsunami. You probably never even read on of those and took interest. I have.
Thanks for providing a clear example of my point.
Physically it's no LESS convenient to pay by phone than it is with a card, which is the most important aspect (people would not use it if less convenient).
You state it is no less convenient, but fail to provide a good basis. But regardless, people don't feel compelled to make a big switch in their habits unless they see a benefit. The convenience of credit cards over cash is indisputable, and it took a long time for may just to make that move. I contend the road to phone payments, particularly in the US, will be a longer and rockier one than the hype indicates.
But, while maybe a higher proportion of slashdot readers think about the level of security, the general populace is quite happy with what they have, so the push from the consumer side just isn't there. Consumer demand drives adoption. And, to some extent, there is even a distrust of new technologies among a good portion of the market, regardless of the security benefit that they may not fully understand.
That is why my point was regarding ease of use and not security. Smart cards are more secure than the magnetic strip cards we use, and can provide authentication benefits & a big security increase, but the US population hasn't demanded it, and where they are adopted it was more due to regulatory drivers.
I think it is a bit easier to pull out my credit card and swipe it than to pull out my phone, select the payment app, & perform whatever authentication task is needed. But even if there isn't much difference, or if someone wanted to argue using a phone was a tad easier, there isn't a marked difference and its not something consumers feel is a problem area.
Pay by phone is not really any more convenient than pay by card. In fact, it may be less convenient. I've never understood the appeal from a consumer point of view. I do understand why many companies want it to take hold, its another place to insert yourself in the money stream.
Maybe bad ratings should cancel each other out.
OTOH, I think they should have a separate ratings for personal interaction and also hygiene. Stinky drivers and passengers can then still get together.
That's an indicative precedent, It will be interesting to see if they go through that same evolution.
Only,,there are not 160K forced out by the nuclear event. Thanks for complementing my point.
The evidence from Chernobyl indicates that fears are way overblown.
But unfortunately, all those are all estimations based on a model that was never validated. There is a good summary here.
http://nuclearradiophobia.blog...
The conservative LNT model works OK for risk management, but it is known to be inaccurate for risk assessment. There just has been no real impetus to develop an accurate model adn it is quite a difficulat thing to accomplish as the real rates of negative health impact are so low they have a hard time getting a statistical basis, and the conservative model served the purpose when it comes to exposure guidelines. But when that is used to spread fear, there is a need for better assessment.
Folks that understand this are not at all surprised when there are stories of teh many people living in the Chernobyl region that are perfectly fine, or that statistical real world evidence of actual cancer cases attributable to CT scans is non-existent. Not in line with any of the so called 'predictions' based on the old model.
A commercial product.... based on Windows?......funny guy.
The article has no comparison of overall efficiency as compared to evaporative coolers. It looks like a very costly construction technique even if it were refined significantly.
In a small area, that is true, but many more people will never be able to 'go home' because they can't rebuild in the tsunami zone, that includes areas in the Fukushima precinct. The number of people that will not be able to return to un-damaged homes has yet to be determined, but it appears to be a pretty small number. And even if they can't return, they can keep practically all of their belongings after routine scans for contamination.
It is a very small impact scale compared to the greater tragedy of the tsunami that gets totally ignored.
What you don't realize is that those all base their 'predicted' cancer rates on a data model that was only validated for very high acute exposures, with an assumption of proportional rates for lower doses. Those models stem from post war Japan bomb research, but all physical evidence to date shows those models NEVER stand up and rates are ALWAYS much lower than predicted.
So, citing a bunch of studies that based prediction on the old, inaccurate model is really of no help.
Try looking for real perspective than repeating FUD and misreading facts;
http://link.springer.com/artic...
http://www.reuters.com/article...
http://blogs.scientificamerica...
http://news.discovery.com/eart...
http://www.insidescience.org/c...
Yeah, the truth is hard to swallow, so mod it down instead. There are readily available sources to help in perspective. Here just a start....
http://news.discovery.com/eart...
I see you buy into the FUD. Real world radiation risk is always proved to be much less than worst case prognostications.
Not always, certainly. Just a significant majority of the time, IMHO.
Have a private company buy a new building, and a government agency buy a new building. Which one would you expect to get more for their money?
The private sector isn't using my money unless I voluntarily provide it to them, and from my experience the internal checks and balances are actually more effective in the private industry side.