Seriously in the process of spending half a billion how much is 500 manufacturing jobs?
If you're unemployed, it keeps you employed for years. If you run a grocery store, 500 families shopping is what keeps your doors open for years. If you run a local restaurant, 500 families occasionally eating keeps your wait and kitchen staff employed. Same with furniture stores, local shops, plumbers, charities, and various others. You have 500 vacationing families, 500 tax payers. 500 families living a decent life (for various levels of "decent").
The 500 million was an investment, which (possibly) pays off and increases production over time. Unless the investment is moved off-shore. Sure it's good for people in Finland, just like it would have been for people in Delaware. Which shows you can't just divide 500 million by 500 jobs and think you have a meaningful answer. Seriously.
Counter-examples of "humanity is 'wired'" to serve the 99%":
Bolivia (during Morales), Venezuela (during Chavez), Haiti (during Aristide), Cuba (during Castro), Chile (during Allende). Not perfect examples, obviously, since there are and were power structures already in place, much exchange and influence with and from other countries, and a whole bunch of individual quirks; but perhaps enough to show that people are not "wired" for 1% rule. You could make a pretty strong case that the 1% want the 99% to believe this is biological fact and will always be so, but that's a different discussion. Much like how governments and their corporate bosses will market the ACTA as a benefit for the 99%.
It's mostly a problem of identification. The real power-brokers love to be behind the scenes. They aren't the ones who are out there, on TV, participating in campaigns, issuing press releases, etc. That's all a puppet show for public consumption, to put it simply.
So the real power-brokers are smaller in number and less in the public eye, maybe they are the top 0.1% or 0.01%? I will infer from this (possible strawman) that supporting activities against the top 0.01% is useful but anything more inclusive is a waste of time. Which suggests that being 99% in agreement not enough, only 99.99% will do.
I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing.
What this attitude misses is that the top 1% includes the power-brokers you mention and the 0.99% buffer people between the top 0.01% and the 99%. The corporate media, economists, bankers, corporate board members and CEOs, corporate representatives in government, and such that make the system possible. Go purely after the top 0.01% and the next 0.99% are very ready to take their place. The 99% gathering sees the systemic problems in addition to the handful of extremely rich families. That is the sophisticated brilliance of the very aware 99% movement.
Simple statement: If there is going to be a war -- which there is -- I prefer that fewer of our people die than theirs. Quite rational.
Not so simple. If there is going to be a war, there had better be justification. Proof and overabundance of evidence for the necessity of invasion, even.
You conveniently leave off the next sentence, "As to whether the war was a good idea from the beginning, that's a different issue and quite debatable."
Left off because it could only be supportive or tangential to the point, and your use of the shifting standards fallacy is frequent. But hey, maybe your support, opposition, or mixed-feelings neutrality on the Iraqi invasion somehow makes calling the killing of 600 000+ innocent civilians "efficient" is something other than an indoctrinated abstraction.
Those who have undergone successful government indoctrination do not question the validity of their leaders' wars. However, those who have undergone successful liberal indoctrination do unerringly question the validity of any military action, although there are exceptions for when the liberals are in power.
This presumes people are government indoctrinated or liberal indoctrinated, a false dichotomy since many people are not indoctrinated. (Your skill with fallacies is strong, Winston!) If you want to try baby steps, how about this: Those who have undergone successful indoctrination do not question the validity of their leader's military actions. Those who have not undergone indoctrination always question the validity of any military action. (See how that second one leaves out "leaders," which avoids the "appeal to authority" fallacy?)
No one from Iraq attacked the US. From 2003 to 2006 the US military killed some 600 000+ people in Iraq, mostly civilians. During which time Iraqis killed some 3000 US and UK soldiers. A reasonable interpretation of the sequence of events is that the US started the killing. This leads to the view that the Iraqis defended themselves against aggressors. A typical ethical position would be for the US to stop killing Iraqis, with the result that Iraqis would probably stop killing their attackers.
I am glad we are much more effective than they are.
Your indoctrination is complete, Winston, you are free to go.
Because we're talking about mines in context of the Ottawa Treaty, not UXO.
You keep bringing up the Ottawa Treaty, which bans land mines. Your support of clever designs in land mines violates the treaty you keep mentioning. Do you know the the US has not signed the Ottawa Treaty?
Killing people automatically is the problem.
Then we have no problem, because we don't do that.
Good point. Convince those people to stop trying to kill us, and we'll stop killing them.
Let's take Iraq as an example. No one from Iraq attacked the US. From 2003 to 2006 the US military killed some 600 000+ people in Iraq, mostly civilians. During which time Iraqis killed some 3000 US and UK soldiers. A reasonable interpretation of the sequence of events is that the US started the killing. This leads to the view that the Iraqis defended themselves against aggressors. A typical ethical position would be for the US to stop killing Iraqis, with the result that Iraqis would probably stop killing their attackers.
The policy is post-Vietnam. More recent policy is post-Desert Storm after we had experience with scatterable mines. Even then, policy says to not use them indiscriminately as in Vietnam, but for specific targets with specific tactical goals just as we would use artillery. We only shot about a thousand groups of these in Desert Storm, and none since.
So the US attacked Vietnam and used a huge number land mines, similar with some kind of policy modifications in 1990s Iraq, and "only shot about a thousand groups of these" during the 2003 invasion of Iraq (emphasis added). Therefore, by your own admission, the US kills people indiscriminately, automatically. The opposite of what you say above.
And the above would put the US is in violation of the Ottawa Treaty, which you and I agree is a pretty good treaty, if the US were a signer.
But I have a feeling all of these facts will fall on deaf ears/blind eyes. You've made up your mind that all of this is EEEEEEVILLLLL! and no facts will get in the way of that.
Comments like this show an emotional attachment to your position. Such attachments make you vulnerable to selecting data, misinformation, and opinions that agree with your position. Facts which disagree with your position make you feel even stronger that you're right. You would like me to consider your views, and reassess mine. I have done so and learned about mine history and policies, and am a little less ignorant thanks to you. Are you willing to do the same?
But even back then, many of our mines were chemically self-deactivating.
If the mines were self-deactivating, Vietnam would not have 300 years and $10 billion dollars in clean up costs. And a lot of dead and dismembered people. Which continues as we type.
You mention Yugoslavia, where we didn't use mines. Don't let the facts get in your way. What's the difference to the enemy between a drone and an airstrike? Nothing....But thanks for trying to drag it in.
What's the difference between unexploded ordnance and a mine to a child playing on the ground? Do your rationalizations apply to your own arguments?
The mine issue is related to cluster munitions, but drones don't use those. Drones use missiles, which are not a problem in the way old-style mines and cluster munitions are.
Killing people automatically is the problem. Whether it's missiles or cluster bombs. Well, really the problem is killing people.
After a specified time (a few hours or two days) the mine explodes on its own. If the mine finds its battery power dropping below a set level for proper operation, it explodes. Should both safety mechanisms fail, the mine becomes inert when the battery eventually dies after several days (no power to trigger the battery-activated fuse).
And the measured, not theoretical, MTBF of these devices is? Anyone ever killed by a mine say 1 week or after its deployment? The phrase "what could go wrong" comes to mind. And the bigger issue, by what moral, humane, and legal right are these mines and drones being used? And the bigger picture, why is the US invading, attacking, and occupying these countries.
And that's aside from the fact that policy dictates the mapping and recovery of ALL mines.
So that's the policy. What's the independent observer actual measurement versus the proposed 100% clean up? If Vietnam is an example of policy, the policy is a lie.
As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Of course, and that's why the link to the broken window fallacy. Though now that you mention it, the suppliers may have trouble enforcing a contract for the sale of illegal goods. However, the main point was to question how illegal wood becomes legal at an auction.
The feds already raided Gibson once, back in 2009. They took a lot of ebony, but never filed charges. Gibson is still fighting the asset forfeiture case, and the burden of proof is exactly wrong: Gibson must prove their innocence of any wrong-doing. The feds want to keep the stuff; it would be auctioned off, and they would get to keep the proceeds.
So the feds seize Gibson's ebony.
The feds auction off the ebony.
And Gibson buys the ebony at the fed auction.
Problem solved, everyone wins!
Thanks for creating such a +1 informative, +1 insightful, +1 interesting, +1 funny, and broad-spectrum forum. Your good-bye brought nerdy tears to my eyes.
Quibble: "mitigated by best practices." Is this an accurate or PR term? When the choice is between best practices and higher profits, which will a business choose when its sole obligation is shareholder profits? What about an EPA lawsuit to help fund clean up? That will result in maybe a $500,000 fine in 10 years, which is just a minor cost of doing business when you're making billions from environmental damage; and can scatter that fine among bankrupt subcontractors.
Until you restore the.amz backup to your ereader and Amazon deletes it again, before you can read it.
Does Amazon's ereader software for PCs also delete.amz files from your hard drive, or in some other way not allow you to read it? If so, and even if not, perhaps the problem of remote deletions becomes apparent.
Get a domain with a reputable registrar, possibly not from your ISP. If you ever change ISP you want to be able to change your DNS information without having to wait for a transfer.
And you register that new domain with the reputable registrar using what email addresses for the new domain's contacts?
You're aware the USPS shipping costs have increased about 25 percent in the time Netflix has been in business, aren't you? That makes a huge difference in profits, especially when you're trying to expand your market.
Rent 4 discs from Netflix: 1999: $15.95
2011: $21.99 (no streaming)
increase: 37%
Netflix price increases are more than keeping up with shipping costs.
Torture has been outlawed in Israel since 1999, and any evidence gathered through torture would be inadmissable, since it would be considered gathered illegally.
The way they all got so pulled into the experiment is just crazy. Luckily, Zimbardo's grad student girlfriend came around.
This is one of the most fascinating insights: it's not crazy but typical. These were students who tested average on psychological exams (to the extent you can measure average), and still did these atrocious acts on people just like themselves. On fellow students whose only crime was the flip of a coin. Want further evidence? See the Milgram experiment, where 2/3rds of people were willing to kill another person because an authority figure told them to. Not bad apples, not racists, not evil doers, not terrorists, just people--you and me and our neighbors.
The experiments are no longer allowed in psychiatric studies, but are allowed in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Egypt (under Mubarak, not sure about now), Romania, Israel (where torture testimony is admissible), Afghanistan, and others. Where is Zimbardo's girlfriend now? You, me, our neighbors?
But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.
Megacorporations are presenting a message alright, but it's not one of information. Rather it's delivering messages that make them either look good or confuse the issue, or both. Ever read How to Lie with Statistics? Megacorporations are not filled with dumb marketing people, they are almost certainly acquainted with such techniques. Are they lying to themselves as well as us? I don't know and I don't care. Fry's visualizations, and now McCandless's artsy ones, were chosen for good reason. They work. Even a person who is interested in factual information is diverted to blame the graphic designer instead of exploring the issue. My opinion is that people like Fry and McCandless, and especially the corporations who hire them, are trolling experts.
Another source of anti-polygraph info. 60 Minutes did an anecdotally interesting test. In addition, let's look at this from a (politically motivated?) prosecutor's perspective. We can presume the prosecutor is politically motivated, not truth or justice inclined, because of the insistence on using a scientifically unreliable instrument. Say the accused is:
Innocent: polygrapher says innocent, accused is released or plea bargains to lesser charge, convictions stay the same
Innocent: polygrapher says guilty, plea bargain agreement, convictions go up
Guilty: polygrapher says innocent, plea bargain still likely*, convictions stay the same
Guilty: polygrapher says guilty, plea bargain agreement, convictions go up
*Since the prosecutor will now take the position that polygraphs are unreliable and use other evidence to convict.
Presuming you're not just generalizing that all people have things in common, you raise a good point. How to talk about politics when nearly all the popular terms are biased or peculiarly interpreted. The arguments become too abstract to be useful and are thus more appropriate for a Wikipedia "talk" page, Oxford dictionary meeting, or/. discussion. Instead, pick an issue. Are there facts? Are there actions and consequences that are fair to all participants?
Libertarians believe in necessary regulation. Those which don't simply don't know they aren't libertarians but anarchists. We DO have names for these things; you are hereby invited to use the proper ones.
And you are hereby invited to educate yourself on the various meanings of this particular term.
Anarchy (from Greek: anarchí, "without ruler") may refer to any of several political states, and has been variously defined by sources. Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism.
Source: Wikipedia; emphasis added. Some libertarians may be surprised to find some like-minded people among the anarchists. You are also invited to realize that many political terms are used differently by different people in different circumstances, for example: "national security." This double meaning is a source of endless confusion, often purposeful.
Also, the Price-Anderson Act which you refer to is a pooling of funds, a form of self-insurance, which isn't the same as complete coverage insurance through a third-party private insurer. Though it's still a form of (partial) insurance, so make of that what you will. The main point being that taxpayers, the ones who benefit from electricity but don't receive profits from its sale, are the main party responsible for the consequences of accidents.
The fear outshines the facts. A picture of Godzilla will outweigh a hundred statistics saying how dangerous other methods of energy generation are. The only downside to nuclear power is the fact that contractors can get away with failing to do their part. If there are laws placed to hold people culpable (perhaps something that the company would be immediately nationalized if serious misconduct was found), this would be minimized.
The 2nd only downside is the fact that no insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant. Not because of Godzilla fears, but because of nuclear accident facts (and actuarial tables).
If there are laws placed to hold people culpable (perhaps something that the company would be immediately nationalized if serious misconduct was found), this would be minimized.
Holding corporate executives responsible sounds like a good idea, no one in the US has seen it in practice though. "Immediate nationalized" once a plant is at risk sounds like a great way for a corporation to maximize profits at first, then transfer risks to the public when problems arise.
No pollution to the environment.
Then there's the 3rd only downside of land and water contamination of nuclear fuel mining. And a 4th only downside of miner exposure to radiation, and their family's exposure to the polluted water table. Then there's the 5th only downside of spent fuel storage.
And perhaps we should include a 6th only downside of nuclear being incredibly expensive to build and maintain.
Slashdot Mirror
Also: Blackberry outage made roads safer. The usual arguments apply (correlation, causation, anecdotal).
Seriously in the process of spending half a billion how much is 500 manufacturing jobs?
If you're unemployed, it keeps you employed for years. If you run a grocery store, 500 families shopping is what keeps your doors open for years. If you run a local restaurant, 500 families occasionally eating keeps your wait and kitchen staff employed. Same with furniture stores, local shops, plumbers, charities, and various others. You have 500 vacationing families, 500 tax payers. 500 families living a decent life (for various levels of "decent").
The 500 million was an investment, which (possibly) pays off and increases production over time. Unless the investment is moved off-shore. Sure it's good for people in Finland, just like it would have been for people in Delaware. Which shows you can't just divide 500 million by 500 jobs and think you have a meaningful answer. Seriously.
Counter-examples of "humanity is 'wired'" to serve the 99%": Bolivia (during Morales), Venezuela (during Chavez), Haiti (during Aristide), Cuba (during Castro), Chile (during Allende). Not perfect examples, obviously, since there are and were power structures already in place, much exchange and influence with and from other countries, and a whole bunch of individual quirks; but perhaps enough to show that people are not "wired" for 1% rule. You could make a pretty strong case that the 1% want the 99% to believe this is biological fact and will always be so, but that's a different discussion. Much like how governments and their corporate bosses will market the ACTA as a benefit for the 99%.
It's mostly a problem of identification. The real power-brokers love to be behind the scenes. They aren't the ones who are out there, on TV, participating in campaigns, issuing press releases, etc. That's all a puppet show for public consumption, to put it simply.
So the real power-brokers are smaller in number and less in the public eye, maybe they are the top 0.1% or 0.01%? I will infer from this (possible strawman) that supporting activities against the top 0.01% is useful but anything more inclusive is a waste of time. Which suggests that being 99% in agreement not enough, only 99.99% will do.
I doubt these protestors have the sophistication or the awareness to see through the bullshit and understand what they're actually opposing.
What this attitude misses is that the top 1% includes the power-brokers you mention and the 0.99% buffer people between the top 0.01% and the 99%. The corporate media, economists, bankers, corporate board members and CEOs, corporate representatives in government, and such that make the system possible. Go purely after the top 0.01% and the next 0.99% are very ready to take their place. The 99% gathering sees the systemic problems in addition to the handful of extremely rich families. That is the sophisticated brilliance of the very aware 99% movement.
Simple statement: If there is going to be a war -- which there is -- I prefer that fewer of our people die than theirs. Quite rational.
Not so simple. If there is going to be a war, there had better be justification. Proof and overabundance of evidence for the necessity of invasion, even.
You conveniently leave off the next sentence, "As to whether the war was a good idea from the beginning, that's a different issue and quite debatable."
Left off because it could only be supportive or tangential to the point, and your use of the shifting standards fallacy is frequent. But hey, maybe your support, opposition, or mixed-feelings neutrality on the Iraqi invasion somehow makes calling the killing of 600 000+ innocent civilians "efficient" is something other than an indoctrinated abstraction.
Those who have undergone successful government indoctrination do not question the validity of their leaders' wars. However, those who have undergone successful liberal indoctrination do unerringly question the validity of any military action, although there are exceptions for when the liberals are in power.
This presumes people are government indoctrinated or liberal indoctrinated, a false dichotomy since many people are not indoctrinated. (Your skill with fallacies is strong, Winston!) If you want to try baby steps, how about this: Those who have undergone successful indoctrination do not question the validity of their leader's military actions. Those who have not undergone indoctrination always question the validity of any military action. (See how that second one leaves out "leaders," which avoids the "appeal to authority" fallacy?)
I am glad we are much more effective than they are.
Your indoctrination is complete, Winston, you are free to go.
Because we're talking about mines in context of the Ottawa Treaty, not UXO.
You keep bringing up the Ottawa Treaty, which bans land mines. Your support of clever designs in land mines violates the treaty you keep mentioning. Do you know the the US has not signed the Ottawa Treaty?
Then we have no problem, because we don't do that.
1600-2600 people in Pakistan killed by drones from 2004 to 2011 (for a specific event: NY TImes).
Good point. Convince those people to stop trying to kill us, and we'll stop killing them.
Let's take Iraq as an example. No one from Iraq attacked the US. From 2003 to 2006 the US military killed some 600 000+ people in Iraq, mostly civilians. During which time Iraqis killed some 3000 US and UK soldiers. A reasonable interpretation of the sequence of events is that the US started the killing. This leads to the view that the Iraqis defended themselves against aggressors. A typical ethical position would be for the US to stop killing Iraqis, with the result that Iraqis would probably stop killing their attackers.
So the US attacked Vietnam and used a huge number land mines, similar with some kind of policy modifications in 1990s Iraq, and "only shot about a thousand groups of these" during the 2003 invasion of Iraq (emphasis added). Therefore, by your own admission, the US kills people indiscriminately, automatically. The opposite of what you say above.
And the above would put the US is in violation of the Ottawa Treaty, which you and I agree is a pretty good treaty, if the US were a signer.
But I have a feeling all of these facts will fall on deaf ears/blind eyes. You've made up your mind that all of this is EEEEEEVILLLLL! and no facts will get in the way of that.
Comments like this show an emotional attachment to your position. Such attachments make you vulnerable to selecting data, misinformation, and opinions that agree with your position. Facts which disagree with your position make you feel even stronger that you're right. You would like me to consider your views, and reassess mine. I have done so and learned about mine history and policies, and am a little less ignorant thanks to you. Are you willing to do the same?
But even back then, many of our mines were chemically self-deactivating.
If the mines were self-deactivating, Vietnam would not have 300 years and $10 billion dollars in clean up costs. And a lot of dead and dismembered people. Which continues as we type.
You mention Yugoslavia, where we didn't use mines. Don't let the facts get in your way. What's the difference to the enemy between a drone and an airstrike? Nothing....But thanks for trying to drag it in.
What's the difference between unexploded ordnance and a mine to a child playing on the ground? Do your rationalizations apply to your own arguments?
The mine issue is related to cluster munitions, but drones don't use those. Drones use missiles, which are not a problem in the way old-style mines and cluster munitions are.
Killing people automatically is the problem. Whether it's missiles or cluster bombs. Well, really the problem is killing people.
After a specified time (a few hours or two days) the mine explodes on its own. If the mine finds its battery power dropping below a set level for proper operation, it explodes. Should both safety mechanisms fail, the mine becomes inert when the battery eventually dies after several days (no power to trigger the battery-activated fuse).
And the measured, not theoretical, MTBF of these devices is? Anyone ever killed by a mine say 1 week or after its deployment? The phrase "what could go wrong" comes to mind. And the bigger issue, by what moral, humane, and legal right are these mines and drones being used? And the bigger picture, why is the US invading, attacking, and occupying these countries.
And that's aside from the fact that policy dictates the mapping and recovery of ALL mines.
So that's the policy. What's the independent observer actual measurement versus the proposed 100% clean up? If Vietnam is an example of policy, the policy is a lie.
As usual, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Agreed, facts are important.
The people in countries the US has invaded would disagree with this portrayal. Vietnam alone estimates that removing US mines and unexploded shells will take 300 years and 10+ billion dollars (see also: Hearts and Mines documentary). The automated killing in Vietnam, Cambodia, Indochina, Yugoslavia, Iraq, and the use of murderous drones in Afghanistan/Pakistan, continues.
"...by now they should be converted to self-destructing or self-dearming anyway." is a PR phrase of no value.
Of course, and that's why the link to the broken window fallacy. Though now that you mention it, the suppliers may have trouble enforcing a contract for the sale of illegal goods. However, the main point was to question how illegal wood becomes legal at an auction.
The feds already raided Gibson once, back in 2009. They took a lot of ebony, but never filed charges. Gibson is still fighting the asset forfeiture case, and the burden of proof is exactly wrong: Gibson must prove their innocence of any wrong-doing. The feds want to keep the stuff; it would be auctioned off, and they would get to keep the proceeds.
So the feds seize Gibson's ebony.
The feds auction off the ebony.
And Gibson buys the ebony at the fed auction.
Problem solved, everyone wins!
Thanks for creating such a +1 informative, +1 insightful, +1 interesting, +1 funny, and broad-spectrum forum. Your good-bye brought nerdy tears to my eyes.
Quibble: "mitigated by best practices." Is this an accurate or PR term? When the choice is between best practices and higher profits, which will a business choose when its sole obligation is shareholder profits? What about an EPA lawsuit to help fund clean up? That will result in maybe a $500,000 fine in 10 years, which is just a minor cost of doing business when you're making billions from environmental damage; and can scatter that fine among bankrupt subcontractors.
Until you restore the .amz backup to your ereader and Amazon deletes it again, before you can read it.
Does Amazon's ereader software for PCs also delete .amz files from your hard drive, or in some other way not allow you to read it? If so, and even if not, perhaps the problem of remote deletions becomes apparent.
Get a domain with a reputable registrar, possibly not from your ISP. If you ever change ISP you want to be able to change your DNS information without having to wait for a transfer.
And you register that new domain with the reputable registrar using what email addresses for the new domain's contacts?
You're aware the USPS shipping costs have increased about 25 percent in the time Netflix has been in business, aren't you? That makes a huge difference in profits, especially when you're trying to expand your market.
Rent 4 discs from Netflix:
1999: $15.95
2011: $21.99 (no streaming)
increase: 37%
Netflix price increases are more than keeping up with shipping costs.
Torture has been outlawed in Israel since 1999, and any evidence gathered through torture would be inadmissable, since it would be considered gathered illegally.
According to reliable reports, Israeli torture continues.
Interesting and informative. Sincere thanks for making me sad and less ignorant. (Related.)
The way they all got so pulled into the experiment is just crazy. Luckily, Zimbardo's grad student girlfriend came around.
This is one of the most fascinating insights: it's not crazy but typical. These were students who tested average on psychological exams (to the extent you can measure average), and still did these atrocious acts on people just like themselves. On fellow students whose only crime was the flip of a coin. Want further evidence? See the Milgram experiment, where 2/3rds of people were willing to kill another person because an authority figure told them to. Not bad apples, not racists, not evil doers, not terrorists, just people--you and me and our neighbors.
The experiments are no longer allowed in psychiatric studies, but are allowed in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Egypt (under Mubarak, not sure about now), Romania, Israel (where torture testimony is admissible), Afghanistan, and others. Where is Zimbardo's girlfriend now? You, me, our neighbors?
Informative post, except for this:
But the one thing these all have in common is McCandless, not GE. So let's not fault megacorporations who're trying to communicate a message: let's fault information presentation gurus who care more about appearances than on information presentation.
Megacorporations are presenting a message alright, but it's not one of information. Rather it's delivering messages that make them either look good or confuse the issue, or both. Ever read How to Lie with Statistics? Megacorporations are not filled with dumb marketing people, they are almost certainly acquainted with such techniques. Are they lying to themselves as well as us? I don't know and I don't care. Fry's visualizations, and now McCandless's artsy ones, were chosen for good reason. They work. Even a person who is interested in factual information is diverted to blame the graphic designer instead of exploring the issue. My opinion is that people like Fry and McCandless, and especially the corporations who hire them, are trolling experts.
If interested in informative graphic design, check out Hans Rosling for an engaging presentation on population, or the Knuth of graphic designers Edward Tufte on analytical design and human factors. If you want to know more about fossil fuel problems, check out sources other than fossil fuel profiteers. For example Bartlett's more factual presentation on limited supplies and exponential growth.
"Good displays of data help to reveal knowledge relevant to understanding mechanism, process and dynamics, cause and effect." -- Edward Tufte
Another source of anti-polygraph info. 60 Minutes did an anecdotally interesting test. In addition, let's look at this from a (politically motivated?) prosecutor's perspective. We can presume the prosecutor is politically motivated, not truth or justice inclined, because of the insistence on using a scientifically unreliable instrument. Say the accused is:
*Since the prosecutor will now take the position that polygraphs are unreliable and use other evidence to convict.
Presuming you're not just generalizing that all people have things in common, you raise a good point. How to talk about politics when nearly all the popular terms are biased or peculiarly interpreted. The arguments become too abstract to be useful and are thus more appropriate for a Wikipedia "talk" page, Oxford dictionary meeting, or /. discussion. Instead, pick an issue. Are there facts? Are there actions and consequences that are fair to all participants?
Libertarians believe in necessary regulation. Those which don't simply don't know they aren't libertarians but anarchists. We DO have names for these things; you are hereby invited to use the proper ones.
And you are hereby invited to educate yourself on the various meanings of this particular term.
Source: Wikipedia; emphasis added. Some libertarians may be surprised to find some like-minded people among the anarchists. You are also invited to realize that many political terms are used differently by different people in different circumstances, for example: "national security." This double meaning is a source of endless confusion, often purposeful.
From your source, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/funds-fs.html : Claims resulting from nuclear accidents are covered under Price-Anderson; for that reason, all property and liability insurance policies issued in the U.S. exclude nuclear accidents.
Also, the Price-Anderson Act which you refer to is a pooling of funds, a form of self-insurance, which isn't the same as complete coverage insurance through a third-party private insurer. Though it's still a form of (partial) insurance, so make of that what you will. The main point being that taxpayers, the ones who benefit from electricity but don't receive profits from its sale, are the main party responsible for the consequences of accidents.
Who is paying the superfund clean-up costs (e.g. Hanford or 3-Mile Island)? Hint: it's not ANI, like you imply. Until the mid-1990s, most of the funding came from a tax on the petroleum and chemical industries, reflecting the polluter pays principle, and Congress yielded to corporate pressure. We're both guilty of a little ignorance and perhaps even FUD; and I could certainly become better informed on this topic.
The fear outshines the facts. A picture of Godzilla will outweigh a hundred statistics saying how dangerous other methods of energy generation are. The only downside to nuclear power is the fact that contractors can get away with failing to do their part. If there are laws placed to hold people culpable (perhaps something that the company would be immediately nationalized if serious misconduct was found), this would be minimized.
The 2nd only downside is the fact that no insurance company will insure a nuclear power plant. Not because of Godzilla fears, but because of nuclear accident facts (and actuarial tables).
If there are laws placed to hold people culpable (perhaps something that the company would be immediately nationalized if serious misconduct was found), this would be minimized.
Holding corporate executives responsible sounds like a good idea, no one in the US has seen it in practice though. "Immediate nationalized" once a plant is at risk sounds like a great way for a corporation to maximize profits at first, then transfer risks to the public when problems arise.
No pollution to the environment.
Then there's the 3rd only downside of land and water contamination of nuclear fuel mining. And a 4th only downside of miner exposure to radiation, and their family's exposure to the polluted water table. Then there's the 5th only downside of spent fuel storage.
And perhaps we should include a 6th only downside of nuclear being incredibly expensive to build and maintain.