What kind of "pragmatic" society blocks simple statements that are obviously and scientifically true from being said in any form?
What kind of rational public is influenced in their purchasing decisions by such "obviously redundant" information? Or what kind of rational shareholders allow their companies to waste money on this if it does not influence the public?
Not that is about "any form", it's the specific form that implies medical benefits.
Putting a simple true fact on something may not make much sense to you but why not let people say what they want?
You specifically asserted that the public shouldn't be believed to be "stupid" (though one needn't be stupid to be manipulated), why don't you demonstrate how people aren't readily deceived instead? Anyway, by your logic the government has no business telling anyone what is and isn't true, so "cures cancer" should be as fine as "re-hydrates", after all only an Orwellian government would presume to dictate what is true and can be said.
But then I guess that leads to dangerous things like independent thought, far better to have the state say explicitly what you can or cannot say in public about anything.
There is no independent though in water bottles, get over yourself, this is marketing, not political speech. It's about how you can and can't sell your crap, an area that is already heavily regulated in many different ways. Personally, I'd let them do it as long as they also list the side effects in the same location and font, half truths can be as deceptive as lies after all.
Putting things that "everyone knows to be true" is stupid, no? How about putting on things that are just as, if not more, true and not commonly known? Surely warning people that excess consumption of water can be deadly wouldn't affect the rational decisions of average people, indeed, such honesty could only increase customer trust and drive sales. If the public doesn't need protection, than companies don't need to "waste money" on marketing, given that it holds no persuasive power over a public such as you assert it to be.
Governments provide insurance for nuclear industry, governments have the power to make plants this old illegal.
They could. They would probably wind up with the bill in some form or fashion too.
Also, as far as power plants running past their expiry date, you may want to check the data on US dams, over half of them is requiring thorough renovation, something that companies are not doing fast enough.
Companies running critical infrastructure tend to suck, no question about that (it's one of the rational reasons to be concerned about nuclear, profits don't go hand in hard with safety). So what's the cost difference between a thorough renovation of a dam and closing an old and building a new nuclear power plant? And are there efficient fail-safe designs that have been properly field tested yet?
This assumes that you SECRETLY immunize your population ahead of time.
Possible. Not easy, but possible.
My assumption has always been that IF there was an outbreak, I would contact every dairy farmer I could till I found a cow with cowpox, and do an old-school vaccination.
If you happen to hear of it well ahead of time it might actually work, assuming it's reasonably easy to make it (I have no idea).
Nobody in the family is immune-compromised, and the odds of safety are pretty good (crossed a street lately?)
People deploying strategic weapons generally don't care about individual families.
That does make for a good excuse, but the reality is that it's cheaper (or, rather, profitable) to keep them running. Shutting down is not just turning of the lights and going home.
While it is difficult to establish the total economic cost of the disaster, in Belarus the total cost over 30 years is estimated at US$235 billion (in 2005 dollars).[109] The on-going costs are, however, better defined; in their 2003–2005 report, The Chernobyl Forum stated that between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine still related to Chernobyl, while in Belarus over $13 billion is thought to have been spent between 1991 and 2003, with 22% of national budget having been Chernobyl-related in 1991, falling to 6% by 2002.[109] Much of the current cost related to the payment of Chernobyl-related social benefits to some 7 million people across the 3 countries.[109]
A significant economic impact at the time was the removal of 784,320 ha (1,938,100 acres) of agricultural land and 694,200 ha (1,715,000 acres) of forest from production. While much of this has been returned to use, agricultural production costs have risen due to the need for special cultivation techniques, fertilizers and additives.[109]
Billions. Ongoing. And they don't have a permanent solution (also the reason why plants are run well past expiry, exit strategies suck).
In particular, you DON'T want it to be significantly contagious - and smallpox is one of the most horribly contagious diseases known to Man.
It sound like an outstanding property of a strategic weapon, you can easily immunize your population ahead of time and suffer few losses yourself. It sucks for tactical purposes, but so do MIRVs.
You don't remember asymmetric crypto keys, they are too big already. Your password/passphrase is used to symmetrically encrypt your key. So that part is not a problem.
It made for an interesting thought, in that if the gov't did not insure any of the holdings you can be sure people would only put their money in a bank with an absolutely solid reputation and no tolerance for risk.
Solid reputation won't get your money back when it goes down in flames. I mean, wouldn't shareholders only invest in banks with an absolutely solid reputation and no tolerance for risk? Wouldn't companies only hire CEO's with an absolutely solid reputation and no tolerance for risk? So... not only doesn't it protect them, they are unlikely to do it anyway considering how people tend to act.
There is a difference between a keyboard dock and a keyboard dock that turns your tablet into a full featured (hardware wise) netbook and recharges the tablet almost doubling battery life. The later is an obvious feature for anyone (whether it's one they care about or not), the former makes the experience smooth as silk. The setup is marginal (snap in place), there is no teardown until you decide to disconnect. If you need to go you just close your netbook and leave. If you plan to write on your tablet and generally have more of a computer replacement the Transfomer line us the best choice out there. If all you want is a web appliance/media consumption device it is still highly competitive, due to the IPS screen if nothing else.
Well, enlighten me, how do ports not pull new versions of software. Where does one specify to use security backports? Oh, hell, just post something besides accusations!
Either way, the post isn't about Al gore, its about the way the green movement is uncritical of its own beliefs.
It's nothing but a giant strawman built on him. It's cute how you pretend to dislike the kind of emotional argumentation that you use as an attack vector.
Physics as a somewhat rigorous scientific field is how much older than GR now? Not that it's a valid argument to begin with, but at least have some historical perspective.
The only one screaming about "the end of the world" and "everyone dying" is YOU.
Of course, he's also not covering the rather considerable issue that high-energy-driven intensive farming is doing a lot of long term damage to arable lands all over the world, and actively reducing their productive capacity.
No worries, a good chunk of that land won't be arable once the climate shift really gets going!
Slashdot Mirror
Designs are. New reactors might be. Nuclear reactors? They are the same as they were last year.
No, in a perfect world having the statement on water bottles would be a waste of money too.
I don't think I can seriously discus anything in regards to hydration with someone who calls electrolytes bullshit.
What kind of rational public is influenced in their purchasing decisions by such "obviously redundant" information? Or what kind of rational shareholders allow their companies to waste money on this if it does not influence the public?
Not that is about "any form", it's the specific form that implies medical benefits.
You specifically asserted that the public shouldn't be believed to be "stupid" (though one needn't be stupid to be manipulated), why don't you demonstrate how people aren't readily deceived instead? Anyway, by your logic the government has no business telling anyone what is and isn't true, so "cures cancer" should be as fine as "re-hydrates", after all only an Orwellian government would presume to dictate what is true and can be said.
There is no independent though in water bottles, get over yourself, this is marketing, not political speech. It's about how you can and can't sell your crap, an area that is already heavily regulated in many different ways. Personally, I'd let them do it as long as they also list the side effects in the same location and font, half truths can be as deceptive as lies after all.
Putting things that "everyone knows to be true" is stupid, no? How about putting on things that are just as, if not more, true and not commonly known? Surely warning people that excess consumption of water can be deadly wouldn't affect the rational decisions of average people, indeed, such honesty could only increase customer trust and drive sales. If the public doesn't need protection, than companies don't need to "waste money" on marketing, given that it holds no persuasive power over a public such as you assert it to be.
Anyone that seriously believes [pyramid schemes, 419 scams, etc.], deserves the resultant stupid-tax that results?
They could. They would probably wind up with the bill in some form or fashion too.
Companies running critical infrastructure tend to suck, no question about that (it's one of the rational reasons to be concerned about nuclear, profits don't go hand in hard with safety). So what's the cost difference between a thorough renovation of a dam and closing an old and building a new nuclear power plant? And are there efficient fail-safe designs that have been properly field tested yet?
Possible. Not easy, but possible.
If you happen to hear of it well ahead of time it might actually work, assuming it's reasonably easy to make it (I have no idea).
People deploying strategic weapons generally don't care about individual families.
That does make for a good excuse, but the reality is that it's cheaper (or, rather, profitable) to keep them running. Shutting down is not just turning of the lights and going home.
Billions. Ongoing. And they don't have a permanent solution (also the reason why plants are run well past expiry, exit strategies suck).
It sound like an outstanding property of a strategic weapon, you can easily immunize your population ahead of time and suffer few losses yourself. It sucks for tactical purposes, but so do MIRVs.
For the same reason that the Boston strangler should be allowed access to women alone at home a.k.a. because you should stuff your stupid analogies right back where they came from.
You don't remember asymmetric crypto keys, they are too big already. Your password/passphrase is used to symmetrically encrypt your key. So that part is not a problem.
See more patients translates directly to: spend less time with any given patient.
Solid reputation won't get your money back when it goes down in flames. I mean, wouldn't shareholders only invest in banks with an absolutely solid reputation and no tolerance for risk? Wouldn't companies only hire CEO's with an absolutely solid reputation and no tolerance for risk? So... not only doesn't it protect them, they are unlikely to do it anyway considering how people tend to act.
It's not Guy, not directly, their's is anarchist.
"It didn't last forever, that means it wasn't sustained. That renders any problems during the 'unstained' period irrelevant."
There is a difference between a keyboard dock and a keyboard dock that turns your tablet into a full featured (hardware wise) netbook and recharges the tablet almost doubling battery life. The later is an obvious feature for anyone (whether it's one they care about or not), the former makes the experience smooth as silk. The setup is marginal (snap in place), there is no teardown until you decide to disconnect. If you need to go you just close your netbook and leave. If you plan to write on your tablet and generally have more of a computer replacement the Transfomer line us the best choice out there. If all you want is a web appliance/media consumption device it is still highly competitive, due to the IPS screen if nothing else.
And if you want to run a stable, full featured, system that doesn't upgrade half of the system then... and so on.
Well, enlighten me, how do ports not pull new versions of software. Where does one specify to use security backports? Oh, hell, just post something besides accusations!
Better, Debian has actual security upgrades instead of just pulling the latest version, incompatible changes and all.
It's nothing but a giant strawman built on him. It's cute how you pretend to dislike the kind of emotional argumentation that you use as an attack vector.
Physics as a somewhat rigorous scientific field is how much older than GR now? Not that it's a valid argument to begin with, but at least have some historical perspective.
The only one screaming about "the end of the world" and "everyone dying" is YOU.
I can't believe personal attacks on Al Gore count as "arguments" with some mods.
No worries, a good chunk of that land won't be arable once the climate shift really gets going!