The feminist dream will be realized: Men will no longer judge women by their bodies. And that's going to destroy the only leverage women ever had over men.
The reason you're incel is not because you have no game or an asymmetric jaw or the wrong slope of eyes, it's because you despise all women simply because they're women. You probably think you're good at hiding that from the world, but trust me, you're not.
One of the more obvious ones was the sapphire manufacturer that tooled up to be a phone glass supplier, and was driven out of business when they only got a fraction of the expected business. Many more cases of critically wounded companies abound without the same headlines.
I was thinking the same thing. No way I or the owners of that screw company are going to get new machines on finance with the shit Apple pull.
No. It's people making a risk assessment that is meaningful to them. The math works a little bit like this: "if I am personally involved in a nuclear disaster, it might cause me to rapidly fall apart from the inside out, with blood coming out of every orifice, while another type of power is either totally safe to be near (PV, or wind so long as you aren't literally under the turbine) or will kill me suddenly." It doesn't matter how large the chance of a disaster is, so long as it's nonzero and there's precedent for it happening.
Yeah and that's people getting it way wrong. The absolute worst accident was Chernobyl and reactors with a void coefficient like that have never, ever been legal outside of the Soviet Union.
Those accidents have simply never happened in anywhere else.
But the particulates from coal can and do cause lung cancer and heart attacks, which much more follow the mould of you falling apart from the inside out. Lung cancer is barely detectable until it's far gone and a non fatal heart attack can leave you barely mobile. But people just sort of cope with the idea of coal even though we all agree it's a good idea to phase it out.
To reiterate: coal has cause far more nasty deaths than nuclear even including Chernobyl and yet it receives a small fraction of the concern.
...? You're the one expressing concern! Why can't you even tell me what level causes you concern?
Yes, nearby. So what? Basically every coastal region is suitable for some type of wind power. For those few which aren't, you ship in power on - get this - WIRES.
You're oscillating between high level details, low level details and pedantry without coherence. Let me repeat:
The UK does not have enough renewable resources to meet its energy needs. Here's my citation (an entire website and book on that precise topic):
If you disagree, provide some kind of counter argument.
Most people will mostly follow the law. If you set laws to encourage same, then yes. But really, I expect humanity to fail here.
Same. I think we're as likely to set the right laws as we are to adopt nuclear power in a sensible manner.
The only people who didn't shit up their home bigly were the "natives" (actually the second wave of migrants) of the North American continent. They had over 10,000 years of relative peace and stewardship before white people showed up to cut everything down and turn it into luxury hotels
Not entirely. I know the natives around New Mexico (Bandelier National Monument) developed some spectacularly destructive farming techniques given their tech level and died out/abandoned the area well before the Spanish turned up. They did leave behing some cool rock houses though.
Uh oh! I think I've found an idiot. Yep, I mean who else would reelentlessly drag aggreivance politics into a thread about science...
Its not like when a mother says her child is supposedly tranny [...]
Aw you're trying to be offensive! It's cute!
[...]they put the kid under a battery of genetic tests.
Whoever said that list was exhaustive?
No, they start dressing them in different clothes
Clothes are genetically determined. True story. That's why no true scotsMAN wears a skirt.
Besides, going by biology, the gender spectrum is actually a set of sex bins
Almost nothing in biology is a discrete set of bins, with the exception of gross anatomy and single genes.
So your "actually" is not a fact, it's something you simply made up because you want it to be true. That's not science my man, that's closer to religion.
You got modded down because you are siding with google even after they fired him.
Precisely: I think google did the right thing but there are a lot of exceptionally delicate snowflakes here who cannot abide by dissenting opions.
You are ok with hurting people because of their beliefs and that is NOT OK.
His actions got him fired, not his beliefs. Spelling out your beliefs in a manifesto and relentlessly plugging it until people take notice is an action not a belief.
And what politics do you think those are. I just got thoroughly downmodded for disagreeing with the Holy prophet Damore. There's a lot of very sensitive people here who just can't abide differing opinions of any sort it seems.
No my post was not a troll because I'm not trying ot get a rise. Bias in statistics is a thing. Any alorithm that implements statistics risks bias. Algorithms are not perfect just because they're run on a computer.
Yes they certainly have a. culture of "taking care" of employees now. Just ask Damore...
Indeed, if one employee desides to take an ill thoughtout and very poorly reasoned and heavily cherry picked swing at a hornets nest google are going to look after those who prefer if people don't do such things rather than the ones that do. Google can't look after everyone when there's a binary choice.
Hey lgw if you're reading: watch this post get modded down for wrongthink. See, we're all victims of politics here.
A real scientist doesn't even give a shit about "experts".
What if the true scientist is also a Scotsman?
No scientist should "believe" any other scientist.
Very typical black-and-white thinking. Degrees of belief go with degrees of credibility.
Show me the EXPERIMENT, show me the DATA, and let me reproduce it for myself.
No one has time to reproduce everything everyone has done. A lot of scientists believe those who have gone before them to some degree. Whether or not they believe them depends on a variety of factors. If they don't believe them at all they won't even try to replicate their work. If they do believe them then they try to build on the work.
Sometimes building on the work reveals the underlying theory to be unsound. The more credibility the oriignla scientst has, the more someone will assume the flaw lies elsewhere and the longer they will go before looking at the underlying assumptions.
anything on the cutting edge is generally regarded as dubious. Newton's laws are not. And there's a whole scale inbetween.
They care because in the astronomically unlikely case that it happens to them, it could be fucking horrible.
No, it's people just getting the risks wrong. Lots of fatal and non fatal accidents can be fucking horrible.
They dropped a whole core into seawater,
And yet you STILL are ignoring my question. Until you are prepared to tell me what you think a safe threshold is, the discussion is meaningless.
You don't know as much as you think you do. Not all tidal power schemes require tidal pools.
You still need a tidal pool even if you don't dam the thing up. There's thoughts about covering the bottom of the North Sea (a fine tidal pool) in turbines. It would do a lot but not be enough.
Sigh.
And yet from the very article you quoted:
Three suction cup anchors hold each turbine
So no matter how deep and long-sufferig your sighs you still need accessible sea floor to anchor the turbines. **SSSIIIGGGGHHH**
You can talk about human nature all day, but ultimately if we don't get it together, we'll fail.
This... I don't even. The entire discussion is about human nature and how bad humans are at assessing risks which is why humans won't put up with nuclear power. And now you expect them to change their ways that dramatically? Why not expect them to start evaluating risks properly?
People need to get this. If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, consensus is irrelevant. The model is predictive or it's not, popularity doesn't enter into to.
That's technically true while managing to be mostly wrong in practice.
Yes, it is true that predictiveness is the only thing that matters at a fundamental level. On the other hand most non experts do not have anything like sound reasons for disagreeing with a consensus of experts. Sure you might be more like the plate tectonics guy, but there's a much higher chance you're more like the timecube guy instead.
As the saying goes, they laughed at Einstein. They also laughed at Bozo The Clown. The mere act of disagreeing makes you no more likely to be the former than the latter and statistically you're gonna be the latter.
So many people preening and bray that they have the popular opinions, so they must be smart!
Don't worry, there a small but ardent contribution from those that preen and bray over how having contrarian opinions makes them smart.
Uh, yeah. That's because while coal plant emissions are most immediately hazardous to people downwind, the CO2 is hazardous to everyone on the planet.
I was thinking of mining deaths but yes there's that too. But the last bit doesn't make sense. Nuclear plant accidents are also only hazardous locally. But people care way more about that than carbon.
No, it couldn't. It literally couldn't.
You're ignoring the question: what do you think the minimum safe threshold is. Throwing a bananna a day into the sea is measurably above zero, since bannanas are measurably radioactive. Clearly however that's harmless.
You're not specifying a threshold for harmlessness which sounds like double standards to me.
Or they fall back on bullshit about bananas, if they're proponents.
Do you deny banannas are radioactive? If not, then how radioactive does something have to be before you start to worry about it?
1) Reduce your consumption, we are using more resources every year than can be replenished anyway.
um, have you met... people? I could not begin to enumerate the number of ways that's not going to happen.
2) Tidal and offshore wind don't use land area. If you get near a point, let us know.
When you engage in pointless pedantry all it means is you have no actual argument and so are presumably yielding the point to me.
We both know that they also require area for tidal pools in the case of tidal and accessible sea floor in windy areas for offshore wind. We also both know neither of those resources are anything like infinte.
It's also true that if we max out both we still won't match out energy consumption. We make a huge dent in it, but we won't match it.
Does this qualify as "not even wrong"? It's not wrong but it's certainly barking utterly up the wrong tree.
'consensus' has no place in science. [...] Even fundamental scientific 'facts' need to be reevaluated and questioned all the time with no emotion or attachment either way.
That's functionally incorrect. I mean it sounds nice but it's a way to ensure no progress. There is no need to keep evaluating the correctness of Mawell's equations or Newton's Laws (at low velocities).
You can't make progress if you keep trying to work out everything from scratch every time.
the 'scientific' consensus is that biological sex is now known as gender and is an illusion that doesn't matter
The scientific consensus on sex/gender is that it is way, way, waaayyyy more complicated than ill-educated slashdotters with an axe to grind on the internet think.
I mean there's repeated sex chromosomes, androgen insensitivity, chimerism for a start. If you step out the narrow confines of humans you get things which can switch their gender completely or are straight up hemaphoritides.
are definitely 59 of them at least and you better believe in them to be a tolerant person otherwise we'll destroy your livelihood?
Oh I see. At this point the scientific consensus is that you're an idiot. There were too nature papers on it last year and a followup in "cell".
Rooftop solar is one of the worst, but also hard to estimate because how many lives were saved by extending the lifetime of the roof before it needs maintenance? Also a lot of solar is being installed during build now, or as part of the roof refurb.
I guess that depends what kind of roof. A good quality tile or slate roof can go 100 years between replacements (mine was about that age when I had to have it replaced). I doubt solar cells last that long.
You can't get insurance for nuclear accidents. That's just how the world works, and any plan to build lots of new nuclear has to somehow deal with that.
Sure. That's tangential to the point of the actual number of deaths.
Maybe it is unfair or costs more lives, but you still need a plan to change it.
I don't have a plan. It's just a shame that people are bad at estimating risks when comparing large numbers of small accidents to small numbers of large ones.
Yes, you just summed up there why nuclear is unacceptable. It only has big accidents which put land out of action, among other effects.
Yes, and it doesn't matter how infrequent they are. Apparently putting land out of action is much worse than killing people. Coal is a slaughterhoue compared to nuclear and it pust land out of action, and yet the main thing people worry about is carbon.
The reason nuclear is unacceptable is people are terribly bad at understanding risks and proababilities.
Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that Fukushima is still leaking into the sea.
Without some sort of threshold, that's a meaningless concern. It could be no worse than smeone throwing a bannana a day into the sea. But that's exactly what I mean: with nuclear people switch off to the usual risk/reward tradeoffs and simply say that anything is unacceptably bad.
Speaking of, people got all hot and bothered about detecting the radation in seawater off the US coast. What they didn't realise is that it says more about the phenomenal sensitivity of the instruments than it did about danger. The radioactivit was a few atomic disintegrations per second per cubic meter of seawater, vastly vastly smaller than the background radation.
What? It takes way more resources to build and maintain a nuke plant, counting fueling, but not even counting decommissioning (which literally always costs more and takes longer than estimated.)
Who said anything about cost? No matter how much we pay, the land area of the UK is not going to increase. There are not enough renewable energy resources to cover our energy consumption.
If we max out solar, wind and tidal we won't manage.
You can keep telling us that honestly, this time nuclear really is safe,
It is: you hear about every single incident at great lengths. When was the last time you heard about a PV installer die from a fall off a roof?
Nuclear basically only has big, rare accidents. It also puts land out of action so you keep on hearing about it forever. Other forms have smaller but much more numerous accidents, so you never hear about them.
Humans are bad, really really bad at large, rare events versus small common ones. Hell, 1.25 million people die per year on the roads worldwide and it barely gets a mention. We're still hearing about Chernobyl (maybe 4000 indirect deaths and 270,000 displaced) 30 years later.
Even looking at people displaced not killed, roads are like 5 Chernobyls each year every year regular as clockwork but it barely gets a mention. That is how bad people are with risks.
we really have made it meltdown-proof now,
No one should ever claim anything is perfectly safe, but we certainly ought to be much better at building them now than 40 years ago. The thing is people are so against building new ones that they'd rather keep the old ones running way past their service life than build a newer one.
but the people holding the purse strings are not buying it.
They are also beholden to public opinion no matter how misplaced it is. Now, a lot of things about renewables are a lot more convinient even if more people have to die to deliver it. Fundamentally it can be done with short term planning.
But renewables are only a complete solution in conutries with enough resources. For somewhere like the UK the population density is just too high. Any solution will be partly renewable, and the rest will be either carbon based or nuclear.
Perhaps some do hold religious or moral objections to vaccinations.
That doesn't make it any better. Freedom of religion doesn't include the right of human sacrafice. In general personal freedom does not extend to causing harm to others.
Well and good. But there should be consequences associated with behavior that affects society in general. Think of drunk driving laws. If a child who has not been vaccinated contracts a disease the vaccine could prevent, the parent(s) should be prosecuted for criminal endangerment. In fact, it should be as automatic as failing a sobriety test.
That would be a start but it doesn't cover all the cases where the idiots infect some poor sod and it's impossible to figure out who was the particular vector.
It's illegal to shoot into a crowd even if you manage ot not hit anyone, after all. I don't think religios or moral values should get people off the hook of reckless endangerment even if you can't prove a specific instance of harm beyond reasonable doubt.
Both "Leave" and "Remain" campaigns have been fined for lying during the campaign.
That just strengthens my argument. When it comes to election fraud, two wrongs do not make a right. A binding referendum would have to be rerun due to the fraud. Claiming a mandate from a non binding one is trying to subvert referendum rules that are there for a really good reason.
There's quite a few people that have died since, they're also not happy
They're not human any more either. Non humans don't generally get a say in democracies.
there's also a growing number of people that have grown up beyond age 26 and find out that once the EU starts taking more than it gives
No there are none. Literaly none, because the EU doesn't take more than it gives. Maybe some people have grown up beyond 26 and started believing that.
it isn't all that it's cut out to be, they're also not happy, you will never make everyone happy and people will change their mind.
Not all it's cut out to be? I mean yes. People get weird ideas about wnat it's supposed to be get angry that it isn't and vote for something worse. What's good about that?
Trying to change the rules after the game didn't turn out the way you wanted isn't fair.
The rules on binding referendums are clear and well established. I'm quoting the rules as they are. You are trying to change and weaken them by treating a nonbinding referendum as binding.
Brexit in the end is a "no confidence" vote for both Brussels/Merkel and Cameron/May.
Well that's incredibly stupid then. Why on earth are we deciding to leave the EU based on a local no confidence vote?
the EU insisted on it's continued "members have no sovereignty" platform.
That's an outright falsehood and always has been. The EU members have always have absolute sovereignty as Article 50 proves. For every EU law there is always the choice: adopt the law or leave the EU. Alabama (etc) by contrast is not a sovereign state. When they decided to leave, people from the government started shooting at them until they stopped.
It's just like any other club. You can pay the dues and abide by the rules or you can leave. If the club is so increadibly amazing that leaving is really shit that doesn't make you less free to leave.
he fact that major political voices in The Netherlands, Belgium, France etc are getting more steam with like "leave"
Were. Not are, were. It has been said that David Cameron single handedly saved the EU. Even Front National has had second thought about leaving after seeing quite how much benefit from the EU that we're having to give up.
that the people are sick of EU transferring wealth and power at the cost of its middle class.
Well that just goes to show how fucking stupid people are. That's a global problem right now in every country in the EU or out. Leaving the EU isn't going to magically solve it.
It's the same illogic that makes people hate on gay marriage.
Life appear worse now than it was. Between then and now thing X also happened. Therefore it we make thing X unhappen, then life will get better.
In this case X is the EU. Except it doesn't work like that. Globalisation and the destruction of the middle class is a separate problem. It's certainly there in the EU and it's definitely there outside the EU. Little Britain is not going to somehow magically find a way to reverse the trend all on its own OR have the will to do so if that means putting a crimp on growth and the economy.
Even Macron conceded recently that if the French were proposed with the question, they would vote to leave (polls show 61% in France and 59% in Netherlands vs UK's 48%).
Well that shows his wisdom in not running the referendum then. Why would a sane politician ask the country if they want to hurt themselves severely when they'd vote differently in a few years time but be unable to nudo the hurt?
Slashdot Mirror
The feminist dream will be realized: Men will no longer judge women by their bodies. And that's going to destroy the only leverage women ever had over men.
The reason you're incel is not because you have no game or an asymmetric jaw or the wrong slope of eyes, it's because you despise all women simply because they're women. You probably think you're good at hiding that from the world, but trust me, you're not.
I'm 40 and never once in my lifetime has it been illegal for a woman to do a job in my lifetime.
But if you were 47 that wouldn't be true.
Stop pretending it's 1950.
Stop pretending that after centuries of discrimination, flipping a legal switch made everything equal instantly overnight.
One of the more obvious ones was the sapphire manufacturer that tooled up to be a phone glass supplier, and was driven out of business when they only got a fraction of the expected business. Many more cases of critically wounded companies abound without the same headlines.
I was thinking the same thing. No way I or the owners of that screw company are going to get new machines on finance with the shit Apple pull.
No. It's people making a risk assessment that is meaningful to them. The math works a little bit like this: "if I am personally involved in a nuclear disaster, it might cause me to rapidly fall apart from the inside out, with blood coming out of every orifice, while another type of power is either totally safe to be near (PV, or wind so long as you aren't literally under the turbine) or will kill me suddenly." It doesn't matter how large the chance of a disaster is, so long as it's nonzero and there's precedent for it happening.
Yeah and that's people getting it way wrong. The absolute worst accident was Chernobyl and reactors with a void coefficient like that have never, ever been legal outside of the Soviet Union.
Those accidents have simply never happened in anywhere else.
But the particulates from coal can and do cause lung cancer and heart attacks, which much more follow the mould of you falling apart from the inside out. Lung cancer is barely detectable until it's far gone and a non fatal heart attack can leave you barely mobile. But people just sort of cope with the idea of coal even though we all agree it's a good idea to phase it out.
To reiterate: coal has cause far more nasty deaths than nuclear even including Chernobyl and yet it receives a small fraction of the concern.
Yes, nearby. So what? Basically every coastal region is suitable for some type of wind power. For those few which aren't, you ship in power on - get this - WIRES.
You're oscillating between high level details, low level details and pedantry without coherence. Let me repeat:
The UK does not have enough renewable resources to meet its energy needs. Here's my citation (an entire website and book on that precise topic):
https://www.withouthotair.com/
If you disagree, provide some kind of counter argument.
Most people will mostly follow the law. If you set laws to encourage same, then yes. But really, I expect humanity to fail here.
Same. I think we're as likely to set the right laws as we are to adopt nuclear power in a sensible manner.
The only people who didn't shit up their home bigly were the "natives" (actually the second wave of migrants) of the North American continent. They had over 10,000 years of relative peace and stewardship before white people showed up to cut everything down and turn it into luxury hotels
Not entirely. I know the natives around New Mexico (Bandelier National Monument) developed some spectacularly destructive farming techniques given their tech level and died out/abandoned the area well before the Spanish turned up. They did leave behing some cool rock houses though.
Which leftists
Uh oh! I think I've found an idiot. Yep, I mean who else would reelentlessly drag aggreivance politics into a thread about science...
Its not like when a mother says her child is supposedly tranny [...]
Aw you're trying to be offensive! It's cute!
[...]they put the kid under a battery of genetic tests.
Whoever said that list was exhaustive?
No, they start dressing them in different clothes
Clothes are genetically determined. True story. That's why no true scotsMAN wears a skirt.
Besides, going by biology, the gender spectrum is actually a set of sex bins
Almost nothing in biology is a discrete set of bins, with the exception of gross anatomy and single genes.
So your "actually" is not a fact, it's something you simply made up because you want it to be true. That's not science my man, that's closer to religion.
You got modded down because you are siding with google even after they fired him.
Precisely: I think google did the right thing but there are a lot of exceptionally delicate snowflakes here who cannot abide by dissenting opions.
You are ok with hurting people because of their beliefs and that is NOT OK.
His actions got him fired, not his beliefs. Spelling out your beliefs in a manifesto and relentlessly plugging it until people take notice is an action not a belief.
And what politics do you think those are. I just got thoroughly downmodded for disagreeing with the Holy prophet Damore. There's a lot of very sensitive people here who just can't abide differing opinions of any sort it seems.
Wow being modded down for wrongthink.
No my post was not a troll because I'm not trying ot get a rise. Bias in statistics is a thing. Any alorithm that implements statistics risks bias. Algorithms are not perfect just because they're run on a computer.
Yes they certainly have a. culture of "taking care" of employees now. Just ask Damore...
Indeed, if one employee desides to take an ill thoughtout and very poorly reasoned and heavily cherry picked swing at a hornets nest google are going to look after those who prefer if people don't do such things rather than the ones that do. Google can't look after everyone when there's a binary choice.
Hey lgw if you're reading: watch this post get modded down for wrongthink. See, we're all victims of politics here.
I'd be honest, that leaves a massive loop hole that allows the police to murder 90% of the population because we've all done something at some point.
That's a fair point. I certainly don't want the polics to be street judges.
A real scientist doesn't even give a shit about "experts".
What if the true scientist is also a Scotsman?
No scientist should "believe" any other scientist.
Very typical black-and-white thinking. Degrees of belief go with degrees of credibility.
Show me the EXPERIMENT, show me the DATA, and let me reproduce it for myself.
No one has time to reproduce everything everyone has done. A lot of scientists believe those who have gone before them to some degree. Whether or not they believe them depends on a variety of factors. If they don't believe them at all they won't even try to replicate their work. If they do believe them then they try to build on the work.
Sometimes building on the work reveals the underlying theory to be unsound. The more credibility the oriignla scientst has, the more someone will assume the flaw lies elsewhere and the longer they will go before looking at the underlying assumptions.
anything on the cutting edge is generally regarded as dubious. Newton's laws are not. And there's a whole scale inbetween.
Software can be inaccurate. It can't be biased.
This idiotic point comes up every time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Maths is right. You are wrong. Deal with it.
They care because in the astronomically unlikely case that it happens to them, it could be fucking horrible.
No, it's people just getting the risks wrong. Lots of fatal and non fatal accidents can be fucking horrible.
They dropped a whole core into seawater,
And yet you STILL are ignoring my question. Until you are prepared to tell me what you think a safe threshold is, the discussion is meaningless.
You don't know as much as you think you do. Not all tidal power schemes require tidal pools.
You still need a tidal pool even if you don't dam the thing up. There's thoughts about covering the bottom of the North Sea (a fine tidal pool) in turbines. It would do a lot but not be enough.
Sigh.
And yet from the very article you quoted:
So no matter how deep and long-sufferig your sighs you still need accessible sea floor to anchor the turbines. **SSSIIIGGGGHHH**
You can talk about human nature all day, but ultimately if we don't get it together, we'll fail.
This... I don't even. The entire discussion is about human nature and how bad humans are at assessing risks which is why humans won't put up with nuclear power. And now you expect them to change their ways that dramatically? Why not expect them to start evaluating risks properly?
People need to get this. If it's consensus, it's not science. If it's science, consensus is irrelevant. The model is predictive or it's not, popularity doesn't enter into to.
That's technically true while managing to be mostly wrong in practice.
Yes, it is true that predictiveness is the only thing that matters at a fundamental level. On the other hand most non experts do not have anything like sound reasons for disagreeing with a consensus of experts. Sure you might be more like the plate tectonics guy, but there's a much higher chance you're more like the timecube guy instead.
As the saying goes, they laughed at Einstein. They also laughed at Bozo The Clown. The mere act of disagreeing makes you no more likely to be the former than the latter and statistically you're gonna be the latter.
So many people preening and bray that they have the popular opinions, so they must be smart!
Don't worry, there a small but ardent contribution from those that preen and bray over how having contrarian opinions makes them smart.
That's not how any of this works.
Quite so.
Uh, yeah. That's because while coal plant emissions are most immediately hazardous to people downwind, the CO2 is hazardous to everyone on the planet.
I was thinking of mining deaths but yes there's that too. But the last bit doesn't make sense. Nuclear plant accidents are also only hazardous locally. But people care way more about that than carbon.
No, it couldn't. It literally couldn't.
You're ignoring the question: what do you think the minimum safe threshold is. Throwing a bananna a day into the sea is measurably above zero, since bannanas are measurably radioactive. Clearly however that's harmless.
You're not specifying a threshold for harmlessness which sounds like double standards to me.
Or they fall back on bullshit about bananas, if they're proponents.
Do you deny banannas are radioactive? If not, then how radioactive does something have to be before you start to worry about it?
1) Reduce your consumption, we are using more resources every year than can be replenished anyway.
um, have you met... people? I could not begin to enumerate the number of ways that's not going to happen.
2) Tidal and offshore wind don't use land area. If you get near a point, let us know.
When you engage in pointless pedantry all it means is you have no actual argument and so are presumably yielding the point to me.
We both know that they also require area for tidal pools in the case of tidal and accessible sea floor in windy areas for offshore wind. We also both know neither of those resources are anything like infinte.
It's also true that if we max out both we still won't match out energy consumption. We make a huge dent in it, but we won't match it.
Does this qualify as "not even wrong"? It's not wrong but it's certainly barking utterly up the wrong tree.
'consensus' has no place in science. [...] Even fundamental scientific 'facts' need to be reevaluated and questioned all the time with no emotion or attachment either way.
That's functionally incorrect. I mean it sounds nice but it's a way to ensure no progress. There is no need to keep evaluating the correctness of Mawell's equations or Newton's Laws (at low velocities).
You can't make progress if you keep trying to work out everything from scratch every time.
the 'scientific' consensus is that biological sex is now known as gender and is an illusion that doesn't matter
The scientific consensus on sex/gender is that it is way, way, waaayyyy more complicated than ill-educated slashdotters with an axe to grind on the internet think.
I mean there's repeated sex chromosomes, androgen insensitivity, chimerism for a start. If you step out the narrow confines of humans you get things which can switch their gender completely or are straight up hemaphoritides.
are definitely 59 of them at least and you better believe in them to be a tolerant person otherwise we'll destroy your livelihood?
Oh I see. At this point the scientific consensus is that you're an idiot. There were too nature papers on it last year and a followup in "cell".
This guy needs to read the essay "the relativity of wrong".
Science is the only way of knowing we have. It's far from perfect but it's much less wrong than everything else.
Ths attitude of "scientits have been wrong so you should believe someone with a much worse record" is utterly facile.
Rooftop solar is one of the worst, but also hard to estimate because how many lives were saved by extending the lifetime of the roof before it needs maintenance? Also a lot of solar is being installed during build now, or as part of the roof refurb.
I guess that depends what kind of roof. A good quality tile or slate roof can go 100 years between replacements (mine was about that age when I had to have it replaced). I doubt solar cells last that long.
You can't get insurance for nuclear accidents. That's just how the world works, and any plan to build lots of new nuclear has to somehow deal with that.
Sure. That's tangential to the point of the actual number of deaths.
Maybe it is unfair or costs more lives, but you still need a plan to change it.
I don't have a plan. It's just a shame that people are bad at estimating risks when comparing large numbers of small accidents to small numbers of large ones.
Yes, you just summed up there why nuclear is unacceptable. It only has big accidents which put land out of action, among other effects.
Yes, and it doesn't matter how infrequent they are. Apparently putting land out of action is much worse than killing people. Coal is a slaughterhoue compared to nuclear and it pust land out of action, and yet the main thing people worry about is carbon.
The reason nuclear is unacceptable is people are terribly bad at understanding risks and proababilities.
Unless I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that Fukushima is still leaking into the sea.
Without some sort of threshold, that's a meaningless concern. It could be no worse than smeone throwing a bannana a day into the sea. But that's exactly what I mean: with nuclear people switch off to the usual risk/reward tradeoffs and simply say that anything is unacceptably bad.
Speaking of, people got all hot and bothered about detecting the radation in seawater off the US coast. What they didn't realise is that it says more about the phenomenal sensitivity of the instruments than it did about danger. The radioactivit was a few atomic disintegrations per second per cubic meter of seawater, vastly vastly smaller than the background radation.
What? It takes way more resources to build and maintain a nuke plant, counting fueling, but not even counting decommissioning (which literally always costs more and takes longer than estimated.)
Who said anything about cost? No matter how much we pay, the land area of the UK is not going to increase. There are not enough renewable energy resources to cover our energy consumption.
If we max out solar, wind and tidal we won't manage.
You can keep telling us that honestly, this time nuclear really is safe,
It is: you hear about every single incident at great lengths. When was the last time you heard about a PV installer die from a fall off a roof?
Nuclear basically only has big, rare accidents. It also puts land out of action so you keep on hearing about it forever. Other forms have smaller but much more numerous accidents, so you never hear about them.
Humans are bad, really really bad at large, rare events versus small common ones. Hell, 1.25 million people die per year on the roads worldwide and it barely gets a mention. We're still hearing about Chernobyl (maybe 4000 indirect deaths and 270,000 displaced) 30 years later.
Even looking at people displaced not killed, roads are like 5 Chernobyls each year every year regular as clockwork but it barely gets a mention. That is how bad people are with risks.
we really have made it meltdown-proof now,
No one should ever claim anything is perfectly safe, but we certainly ought to be much better at building them now than 40 years ago. The thing is people are so against building new ones that they'd rather keep the old ones running way past their service life than build a newer one.
but the people holding the purse strings are not buying it.
They are also beholden to public opinion no matter how misplaced it is. Now, a lot of things about renewables are a lot more convinient even if more people have to die to deliver it. Fundamentally it can be done with short term planning.
But renewables are only a complete solution in conutries with enough resources. For somewhere like the UK the population density is just too high. Any solution will be partly renewable, and the rest will be either carbon based or nuclear.
Migration across that boarder has not been this low since 1971.
Well there's your problem. Mexicans have a higher immunisation rate then Americans, so mexicans coming in increase the average immunisation rate.
Perhaps some do hold religious or moral objections to vaccinations.
That doesn't make it any better. Freedom of religion doesn't include the right of human sacrafice. In general personal freedom does not extend to causing harm to others.
Well and good. But there should be consequences associated with behavior that affects society in general. Think of drunk driving laws. If a child who has not been vaccinated contracts a disease the vaccine could prevent, the parent(s) should be prosecuted for criminal endangerment. In fact, it should be as automatic as failing a sobriety test.
That would be a start but it doesn't cover all the cases where the idiots infect some poor sod and it's impossible to figure out who was the particular vector.
It's illegal to shoot into a crowd even if you manage ot not hit anyone, after all. I don't think religios or moral values should get people off the hook of reckless endangerment even if you can't prove a specific instance of harm beyond reasonable doubt.
Hey Google, Evil much?
Why do you think that'll bothere them? They dropped that motto about not being evil a while back.
one vote for not being in it compared to 0 to be in it.
That's one of the most inane distortions of reality I've seen today. Well done!
Both "Leave" and "Remain" campaigns have been fined for lying during the campaign.
That just strengthens my argument. When it comes to election fraud, two wrongs do not make a right. A binding referendum would have to be rerun due to the fraud. Claiming a mandate from a non binding one is trying to subvert referendum rules that are there for a really good reason.
There's quite a few people that have died since, they're also not happy
They're not human any more either. Non humans don't generally get a say in democracies.
there's also a growing number of people that have grown up beyond age 26 and find out that once the EU starts taking more than it gives
No there are none. Literaly none, because the EU doesn't take more than it gives. Maybe some people have grown up beyond 26 and started believing that.
it isn't all that it's cut out to be, they're also not happy, you will never make everyone happy and people will change their mind.
Not all it's cut out to be? I mean yes. People get weird ideas about wnat it's supposed to be get angry that it isn't and vote for something worse. What's good about that?
Trying to change the rules after the game didn't turn out the way you wanted isn't fair.
The rules on binding referendums are clear and well established. I'm quoting the rules as they are. You are trying to change and weaken them by treating a nonbinding referendum as binding.
Brexit in the end is a "no confidence" vote for both Brussels/Merkel and Cameron/May.
Well that's incredibly stupid then. Why on earth are we deciding to leave the EU based on a local no confidence vote?
the EU insisted on it's continued "members have no sovereignty" platform.
That's an outright falsehood and always has been. The EU members have always have absolute sovereignty as Article 50 proves. For every EU law there is always the choice: adopt the law or leave the EU. Alabama (etc) by contrast is not a sovereign state. When they decided to leave, people from the government started shooting at them until they stopped.
It's just like any other club. You can pay the dues and abide by the rules or you can leave. If the club is so increadibly amazing that leaving is really shit that doesn't make you less free to leave.
he fact that major political voices in The Netherlands, Belgium, France etc are getting more steam with like "leave"
Were. Not are, were. It has been said that David Cameron single handedly saved the EU. Even Front National has had second thought about leaving after seeing quite how much benefit from the EU that we're having to give up.
that the people are sick of EU transferring wealth and power at the cost of its middle class.
Well that just goes to show how fucking stupid people are. That's a global problem right now in every country in the EU or out. Leaving the EU isn't going to magically solve it.
It's the same illogic that makes people hate on gay marriage.
Life appear worse now than it was. Between then and now thing X also happened. Therefore it we make thing X unhappen, then life will get better.
In this case X is the EU. Except it doesn't work like that. Globalisation and the destruction of the middle class is a separate problem. It's certainly there in the EU and it's definitely there outside the EU. Little Britain is not going to somehow magically find a way to reverse the trend all on its own OR have the will to do so if that means putting a crimp on growth and the economy.
Even Macron conceded recently that if the French were proposed with the question, they would vote to leave (polls show 61% in France and 59% in Netherlands vs UK's 48%).
Well that shows his wisdom in not running the referendum then. Why would a sane politician ask the country if they want to hurt themselves severely when they'd vote differently in a few years time but be unable to nudo the hurt?