Who is going to guarantee the continuing good design of nuclear reactors in the U.S.? The Republican Party? The nuclear industry? The U.S. military? Some secret committee of PhDs? Please. This is precisely the sort of thing that can change at any time for economic or political reasons, especially when the public are not permitted to form opinions on the subject.
The NRC sets stringent regulations. These don't change as wildly as you blindly assume.
Nor is it necessary (obviously) to post a body count to justify my contention that nuclear power is something to fear. The fact that other forms of power also contain a fear factor is beside the point.
You do need to post some actual reason. I have yet to see any.
I don't believe that the anti-nuclear evildoers (wreckers? terrorists?) whom you so menacingly denounce in your original post, exist. I think you simply cannot acknowledge that the public interest has any business interfering with projects in which you are, in all senses of the word (including, no doubt, the financial sense), interested. You alone are important; you alone are entitled: people be damned.
It's more of a pattern of ignorance and stupidity. Greenpeace is one of the centers of this; have you heard that they think fusion power has all the problems of fission? This is, of course, utterly laughable to anyone who has bothered to learn how the two work. And not everybody who likes nuclear energy is financially involved with it and/or a Republican. And there's no "menace", you dumbass and/or troll.
It is reasonable to fear nuclear power. People have the right to be concerned. Those are rational and moderate assertions. It is pure arrogance to argue otherwise--particularly when one is an interested party.
It is reasonable to fear electrical outlets. People have the right to be concerned. Those are rational and moderate assertions. It is pure arrogance to argue otherwise--particularly when one is an interested party.
You have to actually say why people should be concerned, or it'll just look silly. Personally, I'm a bit nervous about electrical outlets when the covers are off ever since I got shocked by one when the power was supposed to be off but it wasn't due to a baroque wiring system. In Chernobyl, the reactor was poorly designed. Specifically, it used graphite as a moderator, which can catch on fire (in the US we use water), its passive safety systems were nonexistant (unlike all modern plants which have lots of systems to make sure that if anything goes wrong, it destroys the conditions necessary for it to keep going wrong, such as having the fuel rods suspended electromagnetically in place while the reactor is functioning normally), the active safety systems were disabled (sheer dumbassery which would never fly in the safety-paranoid nuclear power industry today---this was the old Soviet Union), and the government response to the disaster was way too slow.
Since then, we've improved things a lot. In a heavy water reactor, for example, the reaction is already going at near its peak level. It doesn't have much excess reactivity. There are heavy concrete containment structures which would contain the worst-case scenario. These things are much safer than fossil-fuel power generation.
There are matters of public policy here that should not be left to some Republican star chamber recruited from the nuclear power industry--still less a community of engineers whose jobs are at stake, or of PhDs whose egos are at stake.
And who should it be left to? Somebody who obviously didn't bother to do research on nuclear plant safety before blindly attacking it based on bullshit fearmongering?
Why is it that I see engineers who no longer work for the nuclear power industry come out to defend it? Is there some gigantic wide-ranging conspiracy to fool the people who know the most about how nuclear plants work?
The only one spreading FUD is you. Fortunately, the rest of us are not intimidated by your implicit threats.
I'm spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about... what? Do you even know what the word means? I'm not threatening you, either---how the hell can I threaten some anonymous stranger on the internet? I'm guessing that you're a troll, but with people who spread ignorant misinformation about nuclear power it's often very difficult to tell.
I challenge you to present specific points about nuclear power that we should be concerned with. Put up or shut up.
ever hear of Chernobyl? ever hear of Three Mile Island?
Ever hea the details of those accidents? They both had sucky reactor designs. That just can't happen with modern reactors. Not enough excess reactivity.
Please learn what you're talking about before spreading FUD.
Actually, there is potential here. Is anybody else suddenly struck with an urge to write a program that will automatically reply to any Yelp spam with a random quote generated by Emacs' yow command?
"I just had a MAJOR CONTRACT DISPUTE with SUZANNE SOMERS!!"
"I left my WALLET in the BATHROOM!!"
"I just bought FLATBUSH from MICKEY MANTLE!"
"I love FRUIT PICKERS!!"
"Yow!! 'Janitor trapped in sewer uses ESP to find decayed burger'!!"
If the friend emails me directly and asks nicely, sure, I'd help out that friend. But if the friend spams lots of people with form letters asking stuff and linking to this site, I will get annoyed. This is just an intermediary for spamming with some self-promotion mixed in, and spammers should not be cooperated with.
Anyway, this site looks like it was concieved and implemented by people who learned all their skills reading "HTML and Perl for Dummies" back in 1999. It won't last unless I've overestimated the intelligence of the average internet user.
If you email me and a bunch of other people asking some stupid question that you want me to go to a search engine and answer, I'm going to block email from you. Do not spam me. This is the worst search engine idea ever. Die die die.
And their page uses really sucky JavaScript; have they ever heard of using plain old hyperlinks rather than using javascript to open a popup window? It would make their site much more friendly to---irony coming---search engines. Real search engines.
The difficulty with Condorcet voting is not that it is too hard to vote with, but that the scoring method is too hard for many people to understand. You can vote with a simple ranking of the candidates, and this can be easily translated into the matrix form that the scoring method uses, but the matrix form is necessary for scoring.
Why is a voter in rural Wyoming worth three to five times as much as a voter in rural California? They're both rural, right? The only difference is the arbitrary way people have been packed into regions.
It is an erratic voting system because ranking a candidate higher can actually cause the candidate to lose, and ranking a candidate lower can cause the candidate to win. As if that weren't bad enough, it can also fail to elect a candidate who is preferred over each of the other candidates by a majority of the voters.
Anyway, Condorcet voting has methods for resolving situations like this arising from many people voting. You may be up shit creek, but the system will work pretty well anyway.
Are you holding out for absolute perfection or something?
He does acknowledge that Condorcet voting may be too complicated, so approval voting might be a better choice in the short term. It's almost as good, and check out this one sentence description: "Vote for one or more candidates".
Last time I checked,.exe files didn't run on Linux without Wine or something similar. Are you trolling or misinformed, or did you forget to mention that you're assuming a setup in which exe files are automatically opened in Wine or something similar?
Slashdot Mirror
The NRC sets stringent regulations. These don't change as wildly as you blindly assume.
Nor is it necessary (obviously) to post a body count to justify my contention that nuclear power is something to fear. The fact that other forms of power also contain a fear factor is beside the point.
You do need to post some actual reason. I have yet to see any.
I don't believe that the anti-nuclear evildoers (wreckers? terrorists?) whom you so menacingly denounce in your original post, exist. I think you simply cannot acknowledge that the public interest has any business interfering with projects in which you are, in all senses of the word (including, no doubt, the financial sense), interested. You alone are important; you alone are entitled: people be damned.
It's more of a pattern of ignorance and stupidity. Greenpeace is one of the centers of this; have you heard that they think fusion power has all the problems of fission? This is, of course, utterly laughable to anyone who has bothered to learn how the two work. And not everybody who likes nuclear energy is financially involved with it and/or a Republican. And there's no "menace", you dumbass and/or troll.
It is reasonable to fear electrical outlets. People have the right to be concerned. Those are rational and moderate assertions. It is pure arrogance to argue otherwise--particularly when one is an interested party.
You have to actually say why people should be concerned, or it'll just look silly. Personally, I'm a bit nervous about electrical outlets when the covers are off ever since I got shocked by one when the power was supposed to be off but it wasn't due to a baroque wiring system. In Chernobyl, the reactor was poorly designed. Specifically, it used graphite as a moderator, which can catch on fire (in the US we use water), its passive safety systems were nonexistant (unlike all modern plants which have lots of systems to make sure that if anything goes wrong, it destroys the conditions necessary for it to keep going wrong, such as having the fuel rods suspended electromagnetically in place while the reactor is functioning normally), the active safety systems were disabled (sheer dumbassery which would never fly in the safety-paranoid nuclear power industry today---this was the old Soviet Union), and the government response to the disaster was way too slow.
Since then, we've improved things a lot. In a heavy water reactor, for example, the reaction is already going at near its peak level. It doesn't have much excess reactivity. There are heavy concrete containment structures which would contain the worst-case scenario. These things are much safer than fossil-fuel power generation.
There are matters of public policy here that should not be left to some Republican star chamber recruited from the nuclear power industry--still less a community of engineers whose jobs are at stake, or of PhDs whose egos are at stake.
And who should it be left to? Somebody who obviously didn't bother to do research on nuclear plant safety before blindly attacking it based on bullshit fearmongering?
Why is it that I see engineers who no longer work for the nuclear power industry come out to defend it? Is there some gigantic wide-ranging conspiracy to fool the people who know the most about how nuclear plants work?
The only one spreading FUD is you. Fortunately, the rest of us are not intimidated by your implicit threats.
I'm spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt about... what? Do you even know what the word means? I'm not threatening you, either---how the hell can I threaten some anonymous stranger on the internet? I'm guessing that you're a troll, but with people who spread ignorant misinformation about nuclear power it's often very difficult to tell.
I challenge you to present specific points about nuclear power that we should be concerned with. Put up or shut up.
Ever hea the details of those accidents? They both had sucky reactor designs. That just can't happen with modern reactors. Not enough excess reactivity.
Please learn what you're talking about before spreading FUD.
What sort of person needs 30 days to learn to use Google?
Some people should learn to use a search engine.
Actually, there is potential here. Is anybody else suddenly struck with an urge to write a program that will automatically reply to any Yelp spam with a random quote generated by Emacs' yow command? "I just had a MAJOR CONTRACT DISPUTE with SUZANNE SOMERS!!"
"I left my WALLET in the BATHROOM!!"
"I just bought FLATBUSH from MICKEY MANTLE!"
"I love FRUIT PICKERS!!"
"Yow!! 'Janitor trapped in sewer uses ESP to find decayed burger'!!"
Anyway, this site looks like it was concieved and implemented by people who learned all their skills reading "HTML and Perl for Dummies" back in 1999. It won't last unless I've overestimated the intelligence of the average internet user.
And their page uses really sucky JavaScript; have they ever heard of using plain old hyperlinks rather than using javascript to open a popup window? It would make their site much more friendly to---irony coming---search engines. Real search engines.
Believe it or not, the GOP was once a third party. They formed by splintering off the Whig party.
In the mean time, try DOSBox, a DOS emulator.
Speace tourism, using a modified version of spaceshipone, will soon be a reality.
Wow, two joking articles for the price of one!
With enough people, an election in which A/B, B/C, and C/A all by the exact same amount becomes luducrously unlikely.
With approval voting, you can vote for all candidates except the ones you want to vote "no" against. This has the same effect.
The difficulty with Condorcet voting is not that it is too hard to vote with, but that the scoring method is too hard for many people to understand. You can vote with a simple ranking of the candidates, and this can be easily translated into the matrix form that the scoring method uses, but the matrix form is necessary for scoring.
Why is a voter in rural Wyoming worth three to five times as much as a voter in rural California? They're both rural, right? The only difference is the arbitrary way people have been packed into regions.
It is an erratic voting system because ranking a candidate higher can actually cause the candidate to lose, and ranking a candidate lower can cause the candidate to win. As if that weren't bad enough, it can also fail to elect a candidate who is preferred over each of the other candidates by a majority of the voters.
Anyway, Condorcet voting has methods for resolving situations like this arising from many people voting. You may be up shit creek, but the system will work pretty well anyway.
Are you holding out for absolute perfection or something?
He does acknowledge that Condorcet voting may be too complicated, so approval voting might be a better choice in the short term. It's almost as good, and check out this one sentence description: "Vote for one or more candidates".
An alt.sysadmin.recovery monk. It's an anagram for "scary devil monastary", which is why it's often called the monastary.
Wouldn't China like communists?
We've already got good thermometers. How would this magically be better?
It stops many, but you don't see them. In other words, you're mistakenly drawing conclusions from a skewed sample.
Last time I checked, .exe files didn't run on Linux without Wine or something similar. Are you trolling or misinformed, or did you forget to mention that you're assuming a setup in which exe files are automatically opened in Wine or something similar?
THe slashdot editors don't do anything that has the force of law; the USPTO does. Which would you say is more important? How much more important?