Perhaps, the main burden preventing new plants in the US is the unsurmountable amounts of red-tape imposed by the Greenpeace-influenced electorate and politicians?
I'm in agreement with you about the boneheaded reaction of the environmental movement to nuclear. But don't you think the oil and coal industries might not have something to do with anti-nuclear legislation as well? Bush and the Republican congress has had six years to wipe away regulations against new nuclear power plants, yet they still exist. Why is that, you think? They've wiped away a whole lot more, like the governments of two nations and our national surplus. Can't they remove a few regulations that are supposedly only supported by a few wacko left wing environmentalists?
In fact, it's considered a big deal when a long-standing mathematical formula without a proof gets proven or disproven.
Yes, it is, but that's math. Science (empiricism) is different. Sadly, the same word is used for mathematical "proof" and empirical "proof." They are two similar, but different, concepts.
...the Big Bang has not been scientifically proven (hence "theory") and the existence of God has not been scientifically disproved.
This statement is doubly flawed.
1) A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can only be disproven. It gains respect when repeated attempts to disprove it fail, but it's never 100% "true." 2) A religious belief cannot be disproven. It cannot be tested. Thus it's always 100% "true." (Or 0%)
When you have a monopoly, you'll have corruption and laziness.
No, it's more like, "When you have a corrupt administration that thinks it has absolute power, you'll have corruption and laziness."
This is a typical Bush Administration ploy: if you can't get rid of a government agency because it's too popular, gut it from within with incompetent appointees. It's working wonders with FEMA, isn't it?
What is expended - regardless of form, plus what you retain, must always exactly equal what you start off with plus what you add.
And there are so many levels of complexity beyond this assertion as to make it essentially useless. Not to mention that you're making a fundamental error that's common with most people I see quoting the laws: the body is not a closed system.
I also prefer working in low-level terms, as you only have to look at one subject.
Which is exactly why your assertions about what is and isn't true are rather meaningless.
And I know about Penrose, and while I'd love it if my consciousness could be connected with every molecule in the universe through a temporal nonlocality stretching back to the big bang...I ain't gonna bet on it...or try to argue science based on it.
Funny how this virus is so widespread in the United States.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the availability of junk food and the national automobile culture.
Funny how malaria is so widespread in the tropics.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the prevelance of insects that carry the disease.
Funny how sickle cell anemia is so widespread in Africa.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the genetic predisposition of many African populations.
It's not odd for diseases, infectious or otherwise, to have geographical variance. Why are you so dismissive of this possibility for this particular virus?
There are actual biological disorders known to cause obesity, so it is entirely possible that some fraction of those may be caused by a contageous pathogen. That is not impossible. Improbable, as the law of conservation of energy prohibits energy being created out of nothing, but not impossible.
You limit your credibility by citing the laws of thermodynamics when talking about biology. I mean, really. Why not tell me how quantum nonlocality affects consciousness while you're at it?
If you're against the war, you agree with bin Laden: linky If you agree with bin Laden, you're a terrorist. If you're a terrorist, you should be watched. 58% of the public thinks the president lied about WMD, agreeing with bin Laden.
At least half of the public should be under surveillance, Q.E.D.
A true skeptic does not assume that a correlation is proof of causation.
I don't assume that, and I didn't in my post. You're not responding to me. I said, "Causation cannot occur without correlation." Not, "correlation is proof of causation." There's a difference.
It's pointless to reply with such a long post if you're not addressing anything I said...
My point is that when someone grabs a statistic out of the air and holds it up like it is a piece of evidence, it is time to be skeptical...
It's always time to be skeptical. Always. That way you can be more assured that your skepticism is less probably biased. But skepticism doesn't mean you're constantly repeating shouting "correlation is proof of causation!" It means you strive to see reality as accurately as possible, and make assertions that are as true to reality as possible. It also means you try to respond to what people actually say.:)
What is easier... going through life having made a decision about something and sticking to it... or constantly questioning your views and decisions and actions right up to the moment you have to commit to them?
The former is easier, of course, but I strive for the latter. That's why I call my self a Fundamentalist Agnostic.
And, you can repeat this: Causation cannot occur without correlation. Not as catchy, but still true. Try to be a true skeptic, and not one of the arrogant fools who take up the label these days, m'kay? A true skeptic does not dismiss the possibility of causation by waving his hands and saying "but, it might not be true!" Besides, most of your "argument" against the original poster's "statistically speaking" points was to bring up more of your own. That's pretty weak.
As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn.
So, we have a Republican administration arguing that a regulation, signed by a Democratic president they despise, is more effective than the market driven solution?
Do we need any more evidence that the folks in the WHite house aren't really Republicans?
Sure, let the entrepreneurial students outsource all their projects. The wake-up call will be on them when, during their first real-world interview...
That's exactly my attitude towards businesses outsourcing their work. The wake-up call is on them when they try to deploy/maintain the products they outsource.
...then conveniently forget about pollution controls designed to remove even GASSES and assume that all of those heavy metals end up in the atmosphere...
No, all you have to assume is that all of those radioactive heavy metals end up somewhere.
You can safely assume that, right?
And, that somewhere is where it wasn't before, right?
And, where it was before was behind lots of convenient radioactive shielding called "earth" or "dirt and rock." Pretty good shielding, I hear.
And now it's all conveniently filtered out and concentrated, right?
So, now you've go to shield it. What are you going to do with all of that radioactive waste? How are you going to dispose of it?
Do coal producers even consider how to dispose of their radioactive waste?
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, the main burden preventing new plants in the US is the unsurmountable amounts of red-tape imposed by the Greenpeace-influenced electorate and politicians?
I'm in agreement with you about the boneheaded reaction of the environmental movement to nuclear. But don't you think the oil and coal industries might not have something to do with anti-nuclear legislation as well? Bush and the Republican congress has had six years to wipe away regulations against new nuclear power plants, yet they still exist. Why is that, you think? They've wiped away a whole lot more, like the governments of two nations and our national surplus. Can't they remove a few regulations that are supposedly only supported by a few wacko left wing environmentalists?
You may not have a job to drive to, for instance.
In that case having a car which you can use for short trips with essentially zero fuel costs (driving on charge only) becomes rather appealing.
In fact, it's considered a big deal when a long-standing mathematical formula without a proof gets proven or disproven.
Yes, it is, but that's math. Science (empiricism) is different. Sadly, the same word is used for mathematical "proof" and empirical "proof." They are two similar, but different, concepts.
...the Big Bang has not been scientifically proven (hence "theory") and the existence of God has not been scientifically disproved.
This statement is doubly flawed.
1) A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can only be disproven. It gains respect when repeated attempts to disprove it fail, but it's never 100% "true."
2) A religious belief cannot be disproven. It cannot be tested. Thus it's always 100% "true." (Or 0%)
When you have a monopoly, you'll have corruption and laziness.
No, it's more like, "When you have a corrupt administration that thinks it has absolute power, you'll have corruption and laziness."
This is a typical Bush Administration ploy: if you can't get rid of a government agency because it's too popular, gut it from within with incompetent appointees. It's working wonders with FEMA, isn't it?
But I learned years ago how to ignore that fear -- avoid fearing entirely.
Hal?
Hal Jordan, is that you?
I think I would vote for this guy for president, just based on this alone.
Didn't we have the story about political astroturfing last week?
What is expended - regardless of form, plus what you retain, must always exactly equal what you start off with plus what you add.
And there are so many levels of complexity beyond this assertion as to make it essentially useless. Not to mention that you're making a fundamental error that's common with most people I see quoting the laws: the body is not a closed system.
I also prefer working in low-level terms, as you only have to look at one subject.
Which is exactly why your assertions about what is and isn't true are rather meaningless.
And I know about Penrose, and while I'd love it if my consciousness could be connected with every molecule in the universe through a temporal nonlocality stretching back to the big bang...I ain't gonna bet on it...or try to argue science based on it.
Funny how this virus is so widespread in the United States.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the availability of junk food and the national automobile culture.
Funny how malaria is so widespread in the tropics.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the prevelance of insects that carry the disease.
Funny how sickle cell anemia is so widespread in Africa.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the genetic predisposition of many African populations.
It's not odd for diseases, infectious or otherwise, to have geographical variance. Why are you so dismissive of this possibility for this particular virus?
There are actual biological disorders known to cause obesity, so it is entirely possible that some fraction of those may be caused by a contageous pathogen. That is not impossible. Improbable, as the law of conservation of energy prohibits energy being created out of nothing, but not impossible.
You limit your credibility by citing the laws of thermodynamics when talking about biology. I mean, really. Why not tell me how quantum nonlocality affects consciousness while you're at it?
When all cars are as solid as motorcycles, all cars will be as dangerous as motorcycles.
Not true
He's missed nearly a decade of technological development, and he wasn't a technical genius to start with either.
There's far more to security than technical genius. This is why most technical geniuses utterly fail to build secure apps.
Hubris: Security Enemy #1.
That would be more accurate, as the truth is that even according to the original NY Times article, this is what the wiretaps were used for.
And you completely believe the president when he says this?
If so, why?
OK.
If you're against the war, you agree with bin Laden: linky
If you agree with bin Laden, you're a terrorist.
If you're a terrorist, you should be watched.
58% of the public thinks the president lied about WMD, agreeing with bin Laden.
At least half of the public should be under surveillance, Q.E.D.
It's simple, really.
A true skeptic does not assume that a correlation is proof of causation.
:)
I don't assume that, and I didn't in my post. You're not responding to me. I said, "Causation cannot occur without correlation." Not, "correlation is proof of causation." There's a difference.
It's pointless to reply with such a long post if you're not addressing anything I said...
My point is that when someone grabs a statistic out of the air and holds it up like it is a piece of evidence, it is time to be skeptical...
It's always time to be skeptical. Always. That way you can be more assured that your skepticism is less probably biased. But skepticism doesn't mean you're constantly repeating shouting "correlation is proof of causation!" It means you strive to see reality as accurately as possible, and make assertions that are as true to reality as possible. It also means you try to respond to what people actually say.
What is easier... going through life having made a decision about something and sticking to it... or constantly questioning your views and decisions and actions right up to the moment you have to commit to them?
The former is easier, of course, but I strive for the latter. That's why I call my self a Fundamentalist Agnostic.
At least, I call myself that today.
I don't think much of the success of Pixar is due to Steve Jobs.
Rather, the main man over there is John Lasseter...
Don't underestimate the power of letting good people do good work.
Correlation does not imply causation!
And, you can repeat this: Causation cannot occur without correlation. Not as catchy, but still true. Try to be a true skeptic, and not one of the arrogant fools who take up the label these days, m'kay? A true skeptic does not dismiss the possibility of causation by waving his hands and saying "but, it might not be true!" Besides, most of your "argument" against the original poster's "statistically speaking" points was to bring up more of your own. That's pretty weak.
The best and the brightest are not liberal. ...and then...
Arguing that all the smart people are liberals is amazing ignorant.
But, arguing that a liberal can't be "the best and the brightest" is...not arrogant?
As a result, government lawyers said in court papers they are developing a defense of the 1998 law based on the argument that it is far more effective than software filters in protecting children from porn.
So, we have a Republican administration arguing that a regulation, signed by a Democratic president they despise, is more effective than the market driven solution?
Do we need any more evidence that the folks in the WHite house aren't really Republicans?
Sure, let the entrepreneurial students outsource all their projects. The wake-up call will be on them when, during their first real-world interview...
That's exactly my attitude towards businesses outsourcing their work. The wake-up call is on them when they try to deploy/maintain the products they outsource.
This is great if your house has a 12V solar installation. Do all of your computing off the grid. :)
You can call it data mining or information retrieval...
Hmmmm... Information retrieval... I've heard that somewhere before...
Check out this dangerous idea
...then conveniently forget about pollution controls designed to remove even GASSES and assume that all of those heavy metals end up in the atmosphere...
No, all you have to assume is that all of those radioactive heavy metals end up somewhere.
You can safely assume that, right?
And, that somewhere is where it wasn't before, right?
And, where it was before was behind lots of convenient radioactive shielding called "earth" or "dirt and rock." Pretty good shielding, I hear.
And now it's all conveniently filtered out and concentrated, right?
So, now you've go to shield it. What are you going to do with all of that radioactive waste? How are you going to dispose of it?
Do coal producers even consider how to dispose of their radioactive waste?