How can someone argue with that? Obviously you are right.
The company can afford that (they got increased profits), so it is just that they do not want. Maybe you like it when you get a deal and later the other side wants to change it in its own favour, only because they are more powerful than you. Perhaps you would not fight back at that, and you would just meekly say "Yes sir, thanks for not abusing me more (by the moment)". I mean, for many people, it looks like what the real world is for them.
That does not change the fact that now you know why this fight is about. Unfortunately, it seems some people want to stay misinformed so they just can "opine" out of his prejudices. Sorry for spoiling that for you.
I do note that you haven't responded to my point really. In any case, they aren't changing a deal, they are in the process of contract negotiations not trying to just randomly change it. As to the assertion that the employees are being "abused" because they may have to pay for their health care I just don't see it as abuse. Admittedly that is probably because I'm not an overpaid union worker making unreasonable demands. Yes, Verizon as a whole is making more money but the part of the company where these workers they are making less and less money and like fairly typical union workers their response to this is "we don't care, give us more money anyway".
The business is making less money, they are trying to save it and improve it by reducing costs. Is that somehow irrational and evil on their part? Would you prefer them to simply give in to the demands and then go out of business? The only reason union actions didn't contribute to the death of the automakers was the government bailed them out and then handed the ownership in large part to the unions. Not to say that the automakers didn't make some bonehead decisions, but you cannot ignore the impact of decades of unreasonable demands by the unions. It reminds me of the unreasonable and unrealistic demands of other similar political groups.
The employees have always paid 100% of their healthcare and their pensions, and 100% of the corporations' profits. Everything the shareholders and the management have ever taken has been the fruits of the employees' work.
How very socialist of you. I'm sure the company has done absolutely nothing in that regard and does nothing but suck away the valuable and noble labor of those poor poor Union members.
As to your implication that what the company is doing is morally wrong, on what basis do you have such a belief?
Here are the details: The company was paying the healthcare and now they want to cut it out from salaries.
For example, you get contracted with an offer that says that you will be paid X in cash and another Y in health care insurance (paid directly by the company).
Now the company says that you have to accept receiving X-Y because "you are not contributing to your health care premium" (thats false, you were earning it before even if it didn't go through your paycheck).
Typical example of corporate newspeak.
And to that I would still have to say wahhhhhhh. Because they weren't contributing to their health care premium and to say they were simply because the company was paying for it before and now they aren't doesn't really act as some kind of double pay cut or something. The company was paying for it and now they no longer can afford to or don't want to. I stand by my previous "Welcome to the real world" statement.
How dare they let their petty concerns over whether they get a pittance or a laughable pittance from Verizon's bloated coffers interfere with my right to vapid chatter?
I thought about feeling bad for poor little union people getting screwed over by the big bad company until I got to this line in the article:
"The company said union employees contribute nothing to their health care premiums."
At that point my thoughts switched from "maybe there's a good reason for them striking?" to "Oh, silly me. Union. Fuck them."
Oh darn, they may have to contribute to their health care premiums? Oh noes!!11!!!
Welcome to the real world.
Admittedly the article is light on other details. That being said, I am a little tired of Union employees acting like they're getting totally screwed over when they're benefits are so high to begin with.
yes, what i'm saying that the "gay" part is pure muckraking. flamebait. the article would've been thin and unconvincing without that "speculation"/lie. if you let it influence your feelings, you are being manipulated.
consider that, if you had just bought the comic sight-unseen, your reaction would have been different.
True, that alone could be a bit of attention whoring as it were. That said, I rather wish they were just honest about it. It would have been better if they wanted to create a new spiderman of type/class X simply so it would of type/class X just say that and not pussyfoot around it by trying to say that they're not trying to make a point when clearly they are.
Of course, it goes without saying that in the grand scheme of things this is all of little consequence and will likely be unremembered by anyone aside from the most hardcore fans.:)
it says "the creators haven't ruled out that he's gay." well, okay, i'm sure they haven't ruled out a lot of things, so we drop that obvious bit of sensationalism.
which leaves half-black/half-latino. i don't see why this counts as two instances of PCness. if he were quarter-asian, quarter-native american, quarter-black, quarter-white, would that count as three instances, or four? or maybe it grows exponentially, and it's eight?
seriously, he's just of non-white mixed race. that's it. big fucking deal.
Who said anything about multiple instances of being PC? Hell, it would probably have been less an obvious political statement if he was just X vice mix of X and Y. I also never said anything about him being mixed being a big deal, in and of itself. However, when you do put in that "he just might be gay" plus the seemingly out of thin air nature of the character it does seem as if they just decided to replace the white spidey with non-white spidey because he's a non-white spidey as opposed to some other reason that has nothing to do with race/sex/whatever. As I said in another comment, if spidey had a friend of category X which was an established character and they decided to make him the new spidey that would be fine and not PC. But to seemingly pull a character out of the grab gag of PC types with little history or logic behind it makes it seem like they did it simply to make a statement. Which is fine, it's their character. They could make him a gay/lesbian/black/white/asian/indian/whatevercomestomind for all I really care as long as they didn't do it because it was gay/lesbian/black/white/asian/indian/whatevercomestomind. Does that make sense?
Side note, I honestly don't care what they do with spiderman as I'm not really a fan of comics in the first place. I'm merely trying to explain a point of view.
I suspect it's being called PC because it seems they reached into the grab bag of classic PC definitions, swirled their hand around, and pulled out something that fit. They even did it in a parallel universe and then tried to claim it wasn't a publicity stunt. Now, if a half black half latino possibly gay character that they seemed to pull out of the ether isn't PC, what is?
What's more, it seems that they went in with the idea of "we'll make him not a white guy" and worked backward from there.
Is it a problem to have a super hero who is X where X is not "a white male"? Of course not. But in this case, it does look like they set out to create that and then tried to make it make sense. That's what makes it PC, not just what the character is.
On the other hand, if this new character had been an established friend/ally/confidant of Parker's and then took up the mantle when Parker fell, that wouldn't have been PC as it would have been a logical outgrowth of the story that just happened to flow that way.
It looks that way to you. Does it look that way to the rest of us?
Do you think it would look that way to mixed race comic fans?
"PC" is a code word for "things that I'm sensitive about". There is no objective definition possible.
No idea. I speak only for myself and wouldn't presume to speak for others of any race/sex/whatever. We're all individuals, right? Maybe they don't view it that way or maybe they may view it as pandering.
What if the new Spidey was white but still not an established friend/ally/confidant? Would you still be on/. arguing that Marvel "pulled him out of the ether" for the sake of being "politically correct"?
It depends on the make up of the universe in question. I will admit I've never read the issue, or any of them for that matter. However, you kinda just proved my point. Unless there is more back story to be had it looks exactly like what I said. They pulled a person of type X out of the ether to make a statement. It seems more like the character, from the way it is being presented, exists because of what they are vice who they are and that is where it becomes PC. Someone else said you can't come up with an objective definition of "PC" and I disagree. If you're doing something for or against someone because of what they are as opposed to who they are, then there is a good chance you're doing it for PC type reasons.
Would I be arguing the same if the new spidey was white? Might depend on the introduction method. I admit I probably wouldn't. The reason would be that PC motivations towards white males seem to be extremely rare.
A non-comic example of PC in action would be where person A is promoted over B even if B is more qualified simply because A is type/class X. "A" was promoted for what they are not who they are. Do you disagree?
All of that said, I can't say I really care either way what color/sex/orientation spidey or anyone else is.
I suspect it's being called PC because it seems they reached into the grab bag of classic PC definitions, swirled their hand around, and pulled out something that fit. They even did it in a parallel universe and then tried to claim it wasn't a publicity stunt. Now, if a half black half latino possibly gay character that they seemed to pull out of the ether isn't PC, what is?
What's more, it seems that they went in with the idea of "we'll make him not a white guy" and worked backward from there.
Is it a problem to have a super hero who is X where X is not "a white male"? Of course not. But in this case, it does look like they set out to create that and then tried to make it make sense. That's what makes it PC, not just what the character is.
On the other hand, if this new character had been an established friend/ally/confidant of Parker's and then took up the mantle when Parker fell, that wouldn't have been PC as it would have been a logical outgrowth of the story that just happened to flow that way.
How about instead of increasing the debt limit they A) Stop pissing away money and B) Find a way to MAKE money. Making money doesn't mean in curring more debt. What US the is doing is what most people do in college, they discover credit cards, take out 10 of them, max them out and have to get more credit cards to pay off the one's they've always maxed out. This is EXACTLY what increasing the debt limit is, it's increasing your credit limit or taking out a credit cards because you can't pay them off. At one point stop spending and put money into your bills.
Where was I going with that? Well they can now strike a coin thats worth N dollars, so how is this any better. I'm going to increase my credit limit by N to save me? That is a horrible idea for a consumer let alone a country.
As an analogy that is true. Something else I find interesting is that no one much is point out that the trillions of dollars in "cuts" they're talking about making are over a decade or more and still don't equal the amount of debt the current administration has piled up over just the last three years, never mind the previous administrations far less but still bad damage.
It's not that much different than just creating virtual "account" money, as it's had been done so far.
In fact you're right but in action there is a difference in that this would be something everyone could easily identify with as being a fraud, just like the rest of the fiat monetary system. It's one thing to have the abstract concept of money created by debt, it's another thing to be able to point directly at the absurdity of a 5 Trillion Dollar coin. A psychological difference, but a real one.
Given that the governments would rather that AGW didn't exist, and the scientists state otherwise, it would seem they are reasonably immune.
Hardly... it depends on whether or not you believe that some governments would love the idea of AGW since AGW would justify massive control of economic and other systems by said governments. It could also be used to justify increased investment in nuclear power, for those governments who want that, and probably a few other things I haven't thought of yet. So, why would governments want to argue on whole that AGW doesn't exist? I would think it is in their interests.
Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter Scenario B) The you who steps in the machine is deconstructed to the lowest level of existence, transmuted into energy, the energy is transmitted to the other end and reconstituted. No one dies and nothing is lost. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
If you are the sum total of your conscious mind, experiences, thoughts and feelings then the matter that holds that "you" is entirely irrelevant beyond the degree that it is necessary to support that mind. Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot. If instead "you" are the sum total of your physical existence then that has been perfectly duplicated/transmitted and the situation is the same. You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
QED is a little strong for conjecture don't you think?
Let's look at scenario B - what if we record the pattern, put in a whole new load of energy and replay it twice. There are now two of me. Do I have some sort of double consciousness?
Probably not IMHO. Instead there are now as many copies of me as wanted. Clearly they are distinguishable from each other, by being in different positions in space if nothing else.
Why, in your opinion, is my current continuous conscious experience carried only to the first of these copies?
I agree that the 'me' that steps out of a transporter is in every measurable way, both by the outside world and by the inside consciousness, the same one that stepped in. However if I consider myself to be be an entirely physical being, no 'soul' to transfer etc etc, what has been created at the other end of the transporter is just a copy, with the original dead.
It's why the idea of copying my consciousness to a machine substrata via any potential scheme I've heard also carries limited appeal. It is a copy that is made, not the original transferred. *I* as I experience myself, would not be within the machine. Something akin to a clone/child would be. It would give me pleasure to see that, but it would be a new entity.
Not being trained in philosophy I find it somewhat difficult to come up with the proper words and descriptions for these concepts, I hope they are coming across.
The primary difficulty with any of these scenarios is what is the true definition of "you". If you are truly nothing more than the sum of your molecular parts than ultimately copy or transportation doesn't matter so long as the relationship is one in and one out. If on the other hand you are more than the sum of your molecular parts than there can only be one "you" and anything different would be something else. Though I'm curious as to why people think it would be a copy. The process as I understand it is to transform the matter that constitutes you into energy which can be transmitted, which is then transformed back into the original matter at the other end. Further, if matter is merely energy moving slowly (as one could say) then you're really energy already just simply at a lower energy state. Thus the transformation process would bring you to a higher energy state suitable for transmission and then reduce your energy state in the proper order at the other end. No copying should be required for this. As such, why would there be any reason to believe a new person or copy was created? I think I'm rambling now so I hope I'm making sense.:)
As such, at this point and as far as I know there is no one on the planet who can truly answer the question of what steps out of the transporter from a philosophical point of view.
Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot.
Let's modify your scenario A:
(C) You step into the machine, get scanned and every atom of your body, every minute electrical charge, and whatever else constitutes "you" is transported somewhere and rebuilt there. The new "you" walks out of the chamber and goes to wherever he needs.
The old "you", however, is still standing in the scanner booth. After the signal comes from the destination you will be led into the termination chamber where your unwanted body will be thrown into a large shredder and the ground meat will be later used as fertilizer.
Do you like this scenario? But then what's the difference between (A) and (C)? The only difference is the period of time between scanning and destruction of the body. But if you are going to die in 1 minute after scanning and it is bad, how would it be OK to die one millisecond after scanning? One microsecond? We have already established that "you" will die; making it almost imperceptible is not going to change this fundamental issue.
Note that ST transporters are built on scenario (B) where your consciousness is retained throughout the entire transport, with even an ability to see things while being transported (which was a plot of one episode.) Also if the discorporated matrix is lost the person dies for real.
The key here is the continuity of consciousness. No forking allowed. Once you fork one branch doesn't get any happier from a promise that the other branch will live happily ever after - every branch thinks for itself.
You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
If this were to be true, it would be perfectly moral to replicate one person into three. One will walk out of the "official" transporter booth, whereas two other copies will be sent into other booths and covertly sold into slavery to most deprived tyrants, to be used as sex toys and torture objects. But hey, one person walked in and one person walked out - as far as I can see - this must be perfectly OK, isn't it?
Er, don't you think there is a pretty large difference between transmutation of matter to energy and transmission there of and creating a molecular copy? A and C aren't anything at all alike in form and function. The device in case A is a transporter and the device in C is a duplicator where you throw away the duplicate. They tried to claim a similar device was a transporter on a show about sci-fi tech made real and I would raise the same objection to that as I would here. It isn't a transporter but a long distance duplicator. A and B are the only scenarios that would truly be transporters and that rules out any form of duplication.
And no, simply because one can construct a scenario that looks the same as another one doesn't allow one to say that the result of the new scenario would be perfectly moral simply because it superficially resembles the first scenario. That sort of logic would say that rape is moral because after all, as far as it looks from an outside observer it could just be rough sex, right? Clearly not.
Except that Private Pilots' licenses aren't expensive. When I got mine it was about $50 / hour to rent the plane and $20 / hour to pay the instructor, I assume those numbers have gone up, but I haven't flown in a few years. The minimum requirements were 20 hours dual, and 20 hours solo, but it usually takes longer than that to learn the skills. The flight requirements are aimed at making sure you can control the plane, navigate, and recover if something goes wrong. None of the requirements are onerous or bureaucratic, none of the costs are outrageous. -- JimFive
Very well, I stand corrected with the proviso that one man's "not expensive" is another man's "holy crap!" Though one could argue that if you can't afford those numbers you can't afford to fly privately in the first place.
Really that is just one problem. If energy were a lot cheaper then flying would be a lot cheaper and far more people would have pilot's licenses because it would be a lot cheaper to get one and to own a plane.
Pilot's licenses are expensive because of government bureaucracy. Whether one thinks that all that oversight and such is a good thing or not is a separate question but that is the reason it costs so much.
Someone else gets it! I have had a hard time explaining my objection to possible transport technologies in the past. It's precisely this.
Any outside observer would never be able to tell, anyone who had been through would never be able to tell. Everything would carry on as before but there's the distinct possibility that you die as you are deconstructed, and someone else, identical in every way, is rebuilt.
I'd be compelled to ask what the difference is.
Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter Scenario B) The you who steps in the machine is deconstructed to the lowest level of existence, transmuted into energy, the energy is transmitted to the other end and reconstituted. No one dies and nothing is lost. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
If you are the sum total of your conscious mind, experiences, thoughts and feelings then the matter that holds that "you" is entirely irrelevant beyond the degree that it is necessary to support that mind. Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot. If instead "you" are the sum total of your physical existence then that has been perfectly duplicated/transmitted and the situation is the same. You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
I'm a firm believer in using the tax code to influence behavior. Tax the snot out of them. Considering that my house is entirely lit by canned lighting on dimmer switches, an incandescent ban means I basically have to rewire my house - fluorescent dimmables just don't work. If they were heavily taxed - to the point of being slightly more expensive that the fluorescents - then I would have an alternative, while the majority of the market will still make the choice you want them to. Everybody wins.
Since we're speaking of the US government here, exactly where does the government derive the power to influence behavior through the tax code. Do you believe the government knows best and should just run our poor little lives? If you want to switch technologies fine, feel free. Leave the rest of us alone.
Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?
Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply in this case. If I shiver in the dark the power plant down the road will still create nearly the same pollution as if I didn't. What's more, I'm paying for using that extra power. But it's cool, we can just shift from pollution at the power plant to mercury and other pollution in different places. Unless you think those CFLs grow on trees.:)
What did it take to get that final incident? Just a 9.0 earthquake and a 43 foot tsunami. But yeah, totally unsafe and blow up all the time. Even the POS of Chernobyl was running fine until they started to muck about with it.
The problem in Fukushima was loss of mains power together with generalized chaos from the monster tsunami. A sputtering cesna together with political unrest or mild underregulation of the nuclear companies can have the same effect. The monster tsunami is a nice cover, but is still a distraction.
I am with those who insist that the main technical problem with nuclear energy is a sound regulatory framework. I don't see it. And without it, it is unsafe technology.
A similar incident (you don't need a tsunami) in any German reactor would almost certainly trigger a collapse of its economy. In fact, had the reactor been closer to Tokyo, that would have been it, too. When you weight the small risk against the ridiculously huge consequences, I obtain a clear no. I can, however, imagine circumstances where it would be a clear yes: for example: build it underground in a remote area. And, as with the military, don't let a private company run it. Interestingly, none of this options are ever considered by the fanbois.
You may not need a monster tsunami but you do need something pretty damn severe. These plants don't just randomly blow up one day for no real reason. Even Fukushima was fine, post quake, until the aforementioned monster tsunami wiped out its backup generators. Nuclear energy is regulated up one way and down the other, some would say over regulated. Why do you think there have been no new plants built in the US in around 30 years? Think that comes from a lack of regulation?
That tsunami killed 20,000 odd people and the plant failure killed exactly no one. That doesn't make it not bad, but it does make one issue much smaller than the other. At the end of the day what is doing more damage to the Japanese economy, direct impact of the reactor failure or constant FUD and media coverage over what isn't the real main event of the disaster in the first place.
You speak of the ridiculously huge consequences but what are they really? Some pollution, albeit pretty bad. Were thousands killed? Hundreds? Tens? One?
As to not letting a private company run it, who ran Chernobyl again? Just because it is run by the government doesn't by any means make it automatically better or safer. If a company screws you over you can sue it. If the government screws you over, you can do what exactly?
The hardcore pro-nuclear power fanatics love trotting this one out.
Yes, theoretically nuclear can be completely safe. Unfortunately the reactors are run by companies whose primary motive is profit and by human beings who are naturally fallible.
Now, I am aware that the amount of radiation leaked from Fukushima isn't dangerous to most people in Japan, certainly not in Tokyo where I was when it happened. The damage it has done to Japan's economy is very real though, particularly for farmers.
So, given that we have a choice between say solar thermal collectors which do not require fuel or produce any waste and nuclear I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that we should be pursuing the former rather than directing funds towards the latter. Obviously we can't just turn all reactors off today but doing so in the next 10 to 20 years is not an unreasonable goal for most developed countries.
The fear is statistically irrational. There have been two "serious" accidents in 60 odd years. Only one of which directly killed anyone and the other of which will likely turn out to have directly killed no one. Stack that against the hundreds to thousands directly killed every year, depending on whether you count world wide or not, in coal mines and such and the comparison is worse. Solar thermal collectors are a nice idea and there is nothing wrong with pursuing them. However, they are currently unproven and pretty damned expensive. The logical thing would be to, at the least, replace the current aging reactors with newer and safer designs while also researching alternatives.
As far as the reactors being run by companies who primary motive is profit isn't it logically cheaper to build a safe reactor than to skimp and build an unsafe one and deal with the problems of a failure? Isn't that pretty much always true for most industries?
As to turning off the reactors in 10 or 20 years, I very much doubt that. As such, we need something to replace the current aging ones and that has to be either more nuclear plants or fossil fuel plants until realistic alternatives can be found. Which shall it be?
So the fact that other countries are more oppressive is an excuse for governments to take away liberties? Fine, I'm not rotting in jail or anything like that, but I find myself unable to make even the most basic living under these wartime conditions. Jail is not much worse than my current situation.
No, and I don't believe I said anything close to that. What I did say is that the current conditions in this country, even factoring in your unfortunate ones, are not even close to real oppression and that there very much is a difference. You mentioned rotting in jail. If you go out on the street and declare that Obama is a dick, will you go to jail? Are you posting freely and openly on the Internet with little to no fear of a knock in the night? If you were homosexual and told the world, are you likely to be stoned to death by the state? Do you live in constant fear that what you think, say or do will get you shot or make you disappear in the night? That's real oppression. You're inability to make "even the most basic living", though unfortunate, is not in any way "oppression".
It's far worse than that. It's about irrational fear on one hand and unknowledgeable hardcore anti-nuclear power fanatics on the other.
Fair and balanced, heh?
It is between irresponsible nuclear energy fanbois on one hand and political and financial/technical reality on the other hand. Nuclear is not going anywhere, and it's time for the nuclear energy advocates to stop pretending. Things don't get anymore true because you repeat them over and over. When you weight the probability of something going wrong with the consequences it comes out that nuclear is not for most places on this planet.
It is simply not true that coal (for example) is worse than nuclear. It might be so on a an average day, but if shit hits the fan, nuclear can recover all the distance in a single day, and then make some the next day. And given the corruption and incompetence of the nuclear industry, we'll see another blow to its image within a decade. I'd bet it will be a Thorium reactor by the chinese, who are going to fuck up as surely as the sun gets up tomorrow.
Go ahead, claim it's impossible, so you are on the record when it does.
"Ban all nuclear power! Power everything with rainbow farts from Unicorns!"
How's that called. Nuclear strawman? Hahaha.
You want me to claim that there will never be another nuclear accident? You're right, that would be silly. It will likely happen again. But here's the thing. In the 60 odd years since the first commercial nuclear power plant came online we've had what, three accidents of note in commercial plants? One of which has never been proven to have harmed a single person and the last of which the consequences are admittedly unknown. What did it take to get that final incident? Just a 9.0 earthquake and a 43 foot tsunami. But yeah, totally unsafe and blow up all the time. Even the POS of Chernobyl was running fine until they started to muck about with it.
During those same 60 odd years, how many people were killed and injured in coal mining operations? A back of the napkin figure would be at least 15,000 dead. How many were directly killed by any nuclear disaster?
How many were injured by coal pollution? How much soot and related by products were released? You can't say that coal isn't worse than nuclear without taking into consideration the entire picture. Production to consumption. I tried to find evidence of uranium mine disasters or widescale environmental damage from uranium mines and was unable to find them. That isn't to say it is perfect and without fault, but it sure as hell didn't kill as many people.
All power production technologies currently known by mankind create pollution either at the point of production or construction. All power production technologies have risks. No exceptions.
You seem to be anti-nuclear. Fine. What's the alternative? I don't have a workable one and that is the only reason I would put it forth. Research should continue on alternatives, but for now everything else is either worse on some level or a pipe dream. If you say that you're totally against nuclear power then you're saying that you're okay with all the coal miners killed and the pollution released by that. You can't have it both ways.
You're right about one thing, politics is one of the primary limiting factors on safe nuclear power. People always have Chernobyl in mind when you talk nukes. Never mind that the risk of a Chernobyl style disaster is practically zero in a modernish non-Soviet junk reactor. Even Fukishima didn't just pop its top one day, did it? While keeping in mind that the risk of a serious disaster is extremely low, should we not at the very least replace the current reactors with even safer ones? Or would you rather we just shut them all off and blast out even more coal and gas pollution and let even more miners die. Would that be cool?
This is what happens when a government oppresses its people for too long -- anarchy. Obama wants people to believe he can control the Internet, but he can't. "The more you tighten your grasp, Tarkan, the more the galaxies slip through your fingers."
Er... what oppression are you referring to? Or is this another case of someone who has little idea what real oppression is like trying to say that he US is sooooo evil and oppressive because... oh.. I don't know.. something or other.. Not saying it is perfect and hasn't gotten less free over time.. just saying that if you think living in the US is living under oppression then you don't know what oppression really is.
Slashdot Mirror
How can someone argue with that? Obviously you are right.
The company can afford that (they got increased profits), so it is just that they do not want. Maybe you like it when you get a deal and later the other side wants to change it in its own favour, only because they are more powerful than you. Perhaps you would not fight back at that, and you would just meekly say "Yes sir, thanks for not abusing me more (by the moment)". I mean, for many people, it looks like what the real world is for them.
That does not change the fact that now you know why this fight is about. Unfortunately, it seems some people want to stay misinformed so they just can "opine" out of his prejudices. Sorry for spoiling that for you.
I do note that you haven't responded to my point really. In any case, they aren't changing a deal, they are in the process of contract negotiations not trying to just randomly change it. As to the assertion that the employees are being "abused" because they may have to pay for their health care I just don't see it as abuse. Admittedly that is probably because I'm not an overpaid union worker making unreasonable demands. Yes, Verizon as a whole is making more money but the part of the company where these workers they are making less and less money and like fairly typical union workers their response to this is "we don't care, give us more money anyway".
The business is making less money, they are trying to save it and improve it by reducing costs. Is that somehow irrational and evil on their part? Would you prefer them to simply give in to the demands and then go out of business? The only reason union actions didn't contribute to the death of the automakers was the government bailed them out and then handed the ownership in large part to the unions. Not to say that the automakers didn't make some bonehead decisions, but you cannot ignore the impact of decades of unreasonable demands by the unions. It reminds me of the unreasonable and unrealistic demands of other similar political groups.
The employees have always paid 100% of their healthcare and their pensions, and 100% of the corporations' profits. Everything the shareholders and the management have ever taken has been the fruits of the employees' work.
How very socialist of you. I'm sure the company has done absolutely nothing in that regard and does nothing but suck away the valuable and noble labor of those poor poor Union members.
As to your implication that what the company is doing is morally wrong, on what basis do you have such a belief?
Here are the details: The company was paying the healthcare and now they want to cut it out from salaries.
For example, you get contracted with an offer that says that you will be paid X in cash and another Y in health care insurance (paid directly by the company).
Now the company says that you have to accept receiving X-Y because "you are not contributing to your health care premium" (thats false, you were earning it before even if it didn't go through your paycheck).
Typical example of corporate newspeak.
And to that I would still have to say wahhhhhhh. Because they weren't contributing to their health care premium and to say they were simply because the company was paying for it before and now they aren't doesn't really act as some kind of double pay cut or something. The company was paying for it and now they no longer can afford to or don't want to. I stand by my previous "Welcome to the real world" statement.
How dare they let their petty concerns over whether they get a pittance or a laughable pittance from Verizon's bloated coffers interfere with my right to vapid chatter?
I thought about feeling bad for poor little union people getting screwed over by the big bad company until I got to this line in the article:
"The company said union employees contribute nothing to their health care premiums."
At that point my thoughts switched from "maybe there's a good reason for them striking?" to "Oh, silly me. Union. Fuck them."
Oh darn, they may have to contribute to their health care premiums? Oh noes!!11!!!
Welcome to the real world.
Admittedly the article is light on other details. That being said, I am a little tired of Union employees acting like they're getting totally screwed over when they're benefits are so high to begin with.
yes, what i'm saying that the "gay" part is pure muckraking. flamebait. the article would've been thin and unconvincing without that "speculation"/lie. if you let it influence your feelings, you are being manipulated.
consider that, if you had just bought the comic sight-unseen, your reaction would have been different.
True, that alone could be a bit of attention whoring as it were. That said, I rather wish they were just honest about it. It would have been better if they wanted to create a new spiderman of type/class X simply so it would of type/class X just say that and not pussyfoot around it by trying to say that they're not trying to make a point when clearly they are.
Of course, it goes without saying that in the grand scheme of things this is all of little consequence and will likely be unremembered by anyone aside from the most hardcore fans. :)
it says "the creators haven't ruled out that he's gay." well, okay, i'm sure they haven't ruled out a lot of things, so we drop that obvious bit of sensationalism.
which leaves half-black/half-latino. i don't see why this counts as two instances of PCness. if he were quarter-asian, quarter-native american, quarter-black, quarter-white, would that count as three instances, or four? or maybe it grows exponentially, and it's eight?
seriously, he's just of non-white mixed race. that's it. big fucking deal.
Who said anything about multiple instances of being PC? Hell, it would probably have been less an obvious political statement if he was just X vice mix of X and Y. I also never said anything about him being mixed being a big deal, in and of itself. However, when you do put in that "he just might be gay" plus the seemingly out of thin air nature of the character it does seem as if they just decided to replace the white spidey with non-white spidey because he's a non-white spidey as opposed to some other reason that has nothing to do with race/sex/whatever. As I said in another comment, if spidey had a friend of category X which was an established character and they decided to make him the new spidey that would be fine and not PC. But to seemingly pull a character out of the grab gag of PC types with little history or logic behind it makes it seem like they did it simply to make a statement. Which is fine, it's their character. They could make him a gay/lesbian/black/white/asian/indian/whatevercomestomind for all I really care as long as they didn't do it because it was gay/lesbian/black/white/asian/indian/whatevercomestomind. Does that make sense?
Side note, I honestly don't care what they do with spiderman as I'm not really a fan of comics in the first place. I'm merely trying to explain a point of view.
I suspect it's being called PC because it seems they reached into the grab bag of classic PC definitions, swirled their hand around, and pulled out something that fit. They even did it in a parallel universe and then tried to claim it wasn't a publicity stunt. Now, if a half black half latino possibly gay character that they seemed to pull out of the ether isn't PC, what is?
What's more, it seems that they went in with the idea of "we'll make him not a white guy" and worked backward from there.
Is it a problem to have a super hero who is X where X is not "a white male"? Of course not. But in this case, it does look like they set out to create that and then tried to make it make sense. That's what makes it PC, not just what the character is.
On the other hand, if this new character had been an established friend/ally/confidant of Parker's and then took up the mantle when Parker fell, that wouldn't have been PC as it would have been a logical outgrowth of the story that just happened to flow that way.
It looks that way to you. Does it look that way to the rest of us?
Do you think it would look that way to mixed race comic fans?
"PC" is a code word for "things that I'm sensitive about". There is no objective definition possible.
No idea. I speak only for myself and wouldn't presume to speak for others of any race/sex/whatever. We're all individuals, right? Maybe they don't view it that way or maybe they may view it as pandering.
What if the new Spidey was white but still not an established friend/ally/confidant? Would you still be on /. arguing that Marvel "pulled him out of the ether" for the sake of being "politically correct"?
It depends on the make up of the universe in question. I will admit I've never read the issue, or any of them for that matter. However, you kinda just proved my point. Unless there is more back story to be had it looks exactly like what I said. They pulled a person of type X out of the ether to make a statement. It seems more like the character, from the way it is being presented, exists because of what they are vice who they are and that is where it becomes PC. Someone else said you can't come up with an objective definition of "PC" and I disagree. If you're doing something for or against someone because of what they are as opposed to who they are, then there is a good chance you're doing it for PC type reasons.
Would I be arguing the same if the new spidey was white? Might depend on the introduction method. I admit I probably wouldn't. The reason would be that PC motivations towards white males seem to be extremely rare.
A non-comic example of PC in action would be where person A is promoted over B even if B is more qualified simply because A is type/class X. "A" was promoted for what they are not who they are. Do you disagree?
All of that said, I can't say I really care either way what color/sex/orientation spidey or anyone else is.
I suspect it's being called PC because it seems they reached into the grab bag of classic PC definitions, swirled their hand around, and pulled out something that fit. They even did it in a parallel universe and then tried to claim it wasn't a publicity stunt. Now, if a half black half latino possibly gay character that they seemed to pull out of the ether isn't PC, what is?
What's more, it seems that they went in with the idea of "we'll make him not a white guy" and worked backward from there.
Is it a problem to have a super hero who is X where X is not "a white male"? Of course not. But in this case, it does look like they set out to create that and then tried to make it make sense. That's what makes it PC, not just what the character is.
On the other hand, if this new character had been an established friend/ally/confidant of Parker's and then took up the mantle when Parker fell, that wouldn't have been PC as it would have been a logical outgrowth of the story that just happened to flow that way.
How about instead of increasing the debt limit they A) Stop pissing away money and B) Find a way to MAKE money. Making money doesn't mean in curring more debt. What US the is doing is what most people do in college, they discover credit cards, take out 10 of them, max them out and have to get more credit cards to pay off the one's they've always maxed out. This is EXACTLY what increasing the debt limit is, it's increasing your credit limit or taking out a credit cards because you can't pay them off. At one point stop spending and put money into your bills.
Where was I going with that? Well they can now strike a coin thats worth N dollars, so how is this any better. I'm going to increase my credit limit by N to save me? That is a horrible idea for a consumer let alone a country.
As an analogy that is true. Something else I find interesting is that no one much is point out that the trillions of dollars in "cuts" they're talking about making are over a decade or more and still don't equal the amount of debt the current administration has piled up over just the last three years, never mind the previous administrations far less but still bad damage.
It's not that much different than just creating virtual "account" money, as it's had been done so far.
In fact you're right but in action there is a difference in that this would be something everyone could easily identify with as being a fraud, just like the rest of the fiat monetary system. It's one thing to have the abstract concept of money created by debt, it's another thing to be able to point directly at the absurdity of a 5 Trillion Dollar coin. A psychological difference, but a real one.
Given that the governments would rather that AGW didn't exist, and the scientists state otherwise, it would seem they are reasonably immune.
Hardly... it depends on whether or not you believe that some governments would love the idea of AGW since AGW would justify massive control of economic and other systems by said governments. It could also be used to justify increased investment in nuclear power, for those governments who want that, and probably a few other things I haven't thought of yet. So, why would governments want to argue on whole that AGW doesn't exist? I would think it is in their interests.
QED is a little strong for conjecture don't you think?
Let's look at scenario B - what if we record the pattern, put in a whole new load of energy and replay it twice. There are now two of me. Do I have some sort of double consciousness?
Probably not IMHO. Instead there are now as many copies of me as wanted. Clearly they are distinguishable from each other, by being in different positions in space if nothing else.
Why, in your opinion, is my current continuous conscious experience carried only to the first of these copies?
I agree that the 'me' that steps out of a transporter is in every measurable way, both by the outside world and by the inside consciousness, the same one that stepped in. However if I consider myself to be be an entirely physical being, no 'soul' to transfer etc etc, what has been created at the other end of the transporter is just a copy, with the original dead.
It's why the idea of copying my consciousness to a machine substrata via any potential scheme I've heard also carries limited appeal. It is a copy that is made, not the original transferred. *I* as I experience myself, would not be within the machine. Something akin to a clone/child would be. It would give me pleasure to see that, but it would be a new entity.
Not being trained in philosophy I find it somewhat difficult to come up with the proper words and descriptions for these concepts, I hope they are coming across.
The primary difficulty with any of these scenarios is what is the true definition of "you". If you are truly nothing more than the sum of your molecular parts than ultimately copy or transportation doesn't matter so long as the relationship is one in and one out. If on the other hand you are more than the sum of your molecular parts than there can only be one "you" and anything different would be something else. Though I'm curious as to why people think it would be a copy. The process as I understand it is to transform the matter that constitutes you into energy which can be transmitted, which is then transformed back into the original matter at the other end. Further, if matter is merely energy moving slowly (as one could say) then you're really energy already just simply at a lower energy state. Thus the transformation process would bring you to a higher energy state suitable for transmission and then reduce your energy state in the proper order at the other end. No copying should be required for this. As such, why would there be any reason to believe a new person or copy was created? I think I'm rambling now so I hope I'm making sense. :)
As such, at this point and as far as I know there is no one on the planet who can truly answer the question of what steps out of the transporter from a philosophical point of view.
Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot.
Let's modify your scenario A:
(C) You step into the machine, get scanned and every atom of your body, every minute electrical charge, and whatever else constitutes "you" is transported somewhere and rebuilt there. The new "you" walks out of the chamber and goes to wherever he needs.
The old "you", however, is still standing in the scanner booth. After the signal comes from the destination you will be led into the termination chamber where your unwanted body will be thrown into a large shredder and the ground meat will be later used as fertilizer.
Do you like this scenario? But then what's the difference between (A) and (C)? The only difference is the period of time between scanning and destruction of the body. But if you are going to die in 1 minute after scanning and it is bad, how would it be OK to die one millisecond after scanning? One microsecond? We have already established that "you" will die; making it almost imperceptible is not going to change this fundamental issue.
Note that ST transporters are built on scenario (B) where your consciousness is retained throughout the entire transport, with even an ability to see things while being transported (which was a plot of one episode.) Also if the discorporated matrix is lost the person dies for real.
The key here is the continuity of consciousness. No forking allowed. Once you fork one branch doesn't get any happier from a promise that the other branch will live happily ever after - every branch thinks for itself.
You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
If this were to be true, it would be perfectly moral to replicate one person into three. One will walk out of the "official" transporter booth, whereas two other copies will be sent into other booths and covertly sold into slavery to most deprived tyrants, to be used as sex toys and torture objects. But hey, one person walked in and one person walked out - as far as I can see - this must be perfectly OK, isn't it?
Er, don't you think there is a pretty large difference between transmutation of matter to energy and transmission there of and creating a molecular copy? A and C aren't anything at all alike in form and function. The device in case A is a transporter and the device in C is a duplicator where you throw away the duplicate. They tried to claim a similar device was a transporter on a show about sci-fi tech made real and I would raise the same objection to that as I would here. It isn't a transporter but a long distance duplicator. A and B are the only scenarios that would truly be transporters and that rules out any form of duplication.
And no, simply because one can construct a scenario that looks the same as another one doesn't allow one to say that the result of the new scenario would be perfectly moral simply because it superficially resembles the first scenario. That sort of logic would say that rape is moral because after all, as far as it looks from an outside observer it could just be rough sex, right? Clearly not.
Except that Private Pilots' licenses aren't expensive. When I got mine it was about $50 / hour to rent the plane and $20 / hour to pay the instructor, I assume those numbers have gone up, but I haven't flown in a few years. The minimum requirements were 20 hours dual, and 20 hours solo, but it usually takes longer than that to learn the skills. The flight requirements are aimed at making sure you can control the plane, navigate, and recover if something goes wrong. None of the requirements are onerous or bureaucratic, none of the costs are outrageous.
--
JimFive
Very well, I stand corrected with the proviso that one man's "not expensive" is another man's "holy crap!" Though one could argue that if you can't afford those numbers you can't afford to fly privately in the first place.
Really that is just one problem. If energy were a lot cheaper then flying would be a lot cheaper and far more people would have pilot's licenses because it would be a lot cheaper to get one and to own a plane.
Pilot's licenses are expensive because of government bureaucracy. Whether one thinks that all that oversight and such is a good thing or not is a separate question but that is the reason it costs so much.
Hooray!
Someone else gets it! I have had a hard time explaining my objection to possible transport technologies in the past. It's precisely this.
Any outside observer would never be able to tell, anyone who had been through would never be able to tell. Everything would carry on as before but there's the distinct possibility that you die as you are deconstructed, and someone else, identical in every way, is rebuilt.
I'd be compelled to ask what the difference is.
Scenario A) The you who steps in the machine "dies" and a "you" that is identical down to the last atom and thought steps out the other side. Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
Scenario B) The you who steps in the machine is deconstructed to the lowest level of existence, transmuted into energy, the energy is transmitted to the other end and reconstituted. No one dies and nothing is lost.
Result: The "you" which went in the transporter, in every internally and externally measurable and determinable way, steps out of the transporter
If you are the sum total of your conscious mind, experiences, thoughts and feelings then the matter that holds that "you" is entirely irrelevant beyond the degree that it is necessary to support that mind. Thus, both scenarios are equivalent in all meaningful ways and the question is moot. If instead "you" are the sum total of your physical existence then that has been perfectly duplicated/transmitted and the situation is the same. You step in the transporter, you step out. QED.
I'm a firm believer in using the tax code to influence behavior. Tax the snot out of them. Considering that my house is entirely lit by canned lighting on dimmer switches, an incandescent ban means I basically have to rewire my house - fluorescent dimmables just don't work. If they were heavily taxed - to the point of being slightly more expensive that the fluorescents - then I would have an alternative, while the majority of the market will still make the choice you want them to. Everybody wins.
Since we're speaking of the US government here, exactly where does the government derive the power to influence behavior through the tax code. Do you believe the government knows best and should just run our poor little lives? If you want to switch technologies fine, feel free. Leave the rest of us alone.
Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?
Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply in this case. If I shiver in the dark the power plant down the road will still create nearly the same pollution as if I didn't. What's more, I'm paying for using that extra power. But it's cool, we can just shift from pollution at the power plant to mercury and other pollution in different places. Unless you think those CFLs grow on trees. :)
The problem in Fukushima was loss of mains power together with generalized chaos from the monster tsunami. A sputtering cesna together with political unrest or mild underregulation of the nuclear companies can have the same effect. The monster tsunami is a nice cover, but is still a distraction.
I am with those who insist that the main technical problem with nuclear energy is a sound regulatory framework. I don't see it. And without it, it is unsafe technology.
A similar incident (you don't need a tsunami) in any German reactor would almost certainly trigger a collapse of its economy. In fact, had the reactor been closer to Tokyo, that would have been it, too. When you weight the small risk against the ridiculously huge consequences, I obtain a clear no. I can, however, imagine circumstances where it would be a clear yes: for example: build it underground in a remote area. And, as with the military, don't let a private company run it. Interestingly, none of this options are ever considered by the fanbois.
You may not need a monster tsunami but you do need something pretty damn severe. These plants don't just randomly blow up one day for no real reason. Even Fukushima was fine, post quake, until the aforementioned monster tsunami wiped out its backup generators. Nuclear energy is regulated up one way and down the other, some would say over regulated. Why do you think there have been no new plants built in the US in around 30 years? Think that comes from a lack of regulation?
That tsunami killed 20,000 odd people and the plant failure killed exactly no one. That doesn't make it not bad, but it does make one issue much smaller than the other. At the end of the day what is doing more damage to the Japanese economy, direct impact of the reactor failure or constant FUD and media coverage over what isn't the real main event of the disaster in the first place.
You speak of the ridiculously huge consequences but what are they really? Some pollution, albeit pretty bad. Were thousands killed? Hundreds? Tens? One?
As to not letting a private company run it, who ran Chernobyl again? Just because it is run by the government doesn't by any means make it automatically better or safer. If a company screws you over you can sue it. If the government screws you over, you can do what exactly?
It's about irrational fear
The hardcore pro-nuclear power fanatics love trotting this one out.
Yes, theoretically nuclear can be completely safe. Unfortunately the reactors are run by companies whose primary motive is profit and by human beings who are naturally fallible.
Accidents do happen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
Now, I am aware that the amount of radiation leaked from Fukushima isn't dangerous to most people in Japan, certainly not in Tokyo where I was when it happened. The damage it has done to Japan's economy is very real though, particularly for farmers.
So, given that we have a choice between say solar thermal collectors which do not require fuel or produce any waste and nuclear I don't think it is unreasonable to argue that we should be pursuing the former rather than directing funds towards the latter. Obviously we can't just turn all reactors off today but doing so in the next 10 to 20 years is not an unreasonable goal for most developed countries.
The fear is statistically irrational. There have been two "serious" accidents in 60 odd years. Only one of which directly killed anyone and the other of which will likely turn out to have directly killed no one. Stack that against the hundreds to thousands directly killed every year, depending on whether you count world wide or not, in coal mines and such and the comparison is worse. Solar thermal collectors are a nice idea and there is nothing wrong with pursuing them. However, they are currently unproven and pretty damned expensive. The logical thing would be to, at the least, replace the current aging reactors with newer and safer designs while also researching alternatives.
As far as the reactors being run by companies who primary motive is profit isn't it logically cheaper to build a safe reactor than to skimp and build an unsafe one and deal with the problems of a failure? Isn't that pretty much always true for most industries?
As to turning off the reactors in 10 or 20 years, I very much doubt that. As such, we need something to replace the current aging ones and that has to be either more nuclear plants or fossil fuel plants until realistic alternatives can be found. Which shall it be?
It's actually about Nevada residences say store your own fucking waste we don't want it.
I suppose. Though I don't think anyone is really living out near Yucca, are they?
So the fact that other countries are more oppressive is an excuse for governments to take away liberties? Fine, I'm not rotting in jail or anything like that, but I find myself unable to make even the most basic living under these wartime conditions. Jail is not much worse than my current situation.
No, and I don't believe I said anything close to that. What I did say is that the current conditions in this country, even factoring in your unfortunate ones, are not even close to real oppression and that there very much is a difference. You mentioned rotting in jail. If you go out on the street and declare that Obama is a dick, will you go to jail? Are you posting freely and openly on the Internet with little to no fear of a knock in the night? If you were homosexual and told the world, are you likely to be stoned to death by the state? Do you live in constant fear that what you think, say or do will get you shot or make you disappear in the night? That's real oppression. You're inability to make "even the most basic living", though unfortunate, is not in any way "oppression".
Fair and balanced, heh?
It is between irresponsible nuclear energy fanbois on one hand and political and financial/technical reality on the other hand. Nuclear is not going anywhere, and it's time for the nuclear energy advocates to stop pretending. Things don't get anymore true because you repeat them over and over. When you weight the probability of something going wrong with the consequences it comes out that nuclear is not for most places on this planet.
It is simply not true that coal (for example) is worse than nuclear. It might be so on a an average day, but if shit hits the fan, nuclear can recover all the distance in a single day, and then make some the next day. And given the corruption and incompetence of the nuclear industry, we'll see another blow to its image within a decade. I'd bet it will be a Thorium reactor by the chinese, who are going to fuck up as surely as the sun gets up tomorrow.
Go ahead, claim it's impossible, so you are on the record when it does.
How's that called. Nuclear strawman? Hahaha.
You want me to claim that there will never be another nuclear accident? You're right, that would be silly. It will likely happen again. But here's the thing. In the 60 odd years since the first commercial nuclear power plant came online we've had what, three accidents of note in commercial plants? One of which has never been proven to have harmed a single person and the last of which the consequences are admittedly unknown. What did it take to get that final incident? Just a 9.0 earthquake and a 43 foot tsunami. But yeah, totally unsafe and blow up all the time. Even the POS of Chernobyl was running fine until they started to muck about with it.
During those same 60 odd years, how many people were killed and injured in coal mining operations? A back of the napkin figure would be at least 15,000 dead. How many were directly killed by any nuclear disaster?
How many were injured by coal pollution? How much soot and related by products were released? You can't say that coal isn't worse than nuclear without taking into consideration the entire picture. Production to consumption. I tried to find evidence of uranium mine disasters or widescale environmental damage from uranium mines and was unable to find them. That isn't to say it is perfect and without fault, but it sure as hell didn't kill as many people.
All power production technologies currently known by mankind create pollution either at the point of production or construction. All power production technologies have risks. No exceptions.
You seem to be anti-nuclear. Fine. What's the alternative? I don't have a workable one and that is the only reason I would put it forth. Research should continue on alternatives, but for now everything else is either worse on some level or a pipe dream. If you say that you're totally against nuclear power then you're saying that you're okay with all the coal miners killed and the pollution released by that. You can't have it both ways.
You're right about one thing, politics is one of the primary limiting factors on safe nuclear power. People always have Chernobyl in mind when you talk nukes. Never mind that the risk of a Chernobyl style disaster is practically zero in a modernish non-Soviet junk reactor. Even Fukishima didn't just pop its top one day, did it? While keeping in mind that the risk of a serious disaster is extremely low, should we not at the very least replace the current reactors with even safer ones? Or would you rather we just shut them all off and blast out even more coal and gas pollution and let even more miners die. Would that be cool?
This is what happens when a government oppresses its people for too long -- anarchy. Obama wants people to believe he can control the Internet, but he can't. "The more you tighten your grasp, Tarkan, the more the galaxies slip through your fingers."
Er... what oppression are you referring to? Or is this another case of someone who has little idea what real oppression is like trying to say that he US is sooooo evil and oppressive because... oh.. I don't know.. something or other.. Not saying it is perfect and hasn't gotten less free over time.. just saying that if you think living in the US is living under oppression then you don't know what oppression really is.