There is a difference between explaining logic and rationality, and explaining that something completely unproven exists and wants you to burn in hell... I hope you see that.
Fast-breeder reactors pretty much *are* the second coming of power generation. All the scary waste people are frightened off is fuel for them. If something has more radiation than background, it can be processed as fuel. You can practically eat the spent fuel from a fast-breeder, as all the nasty stuff is no longer in there. You'd get more radiation from eating a banana. I imagine that's why he mentioned them. The only reason they're not used extensively is proliferation fears. France and the UK have them, and they're doing fine so far.
So if the first person who started their own fire scared the other tribe members with it, we shouldn't have fire?? Even though their fears are based on ignorant ideas and notions, well-meaning though they might be? I simply don't get your logic.
It is entirely possible for a nuclear power station to be built which is impossible to go critical. All external power can be cut, and the thing will simply cool down, stop producing power, and automatically deposit any fuel into a storage tank where nothing can get at it. People can do that. It can also be placed in a part of the world without tectonic or hurricane activity. What problem do you have with that? Or should we call those scientists arrogant, hubris-drenched individuals who seek to piss in the eye of the common "ignorant" man? I do not understand you.
You're the one trying to rule by fear! The science behind nuclear power stations is well understood. Modern stations are incredibly safe. You are conjuring up bogey men which simply don't exist, in order to scare people into thinking nuclear power is unsafe. Yes, it's not perfectly safe, but then neither is breathing or going outside. It's a damn-sight safer than coal, gas, or hydroelectricity.
You are arguing against science. You are either purposefully lying about the dangers, or you simply don't know what they are. If there's a third option, please let me know, as I find it bemusing that someone like you - who usually posts rather intelligent missives on various topics, albeit not ones I always agree with - can be so ridiculously scared of such well-proven technologies, and even fail to differentiate between them, lumping them all together as the proverbial destroyers of worlds... You aren't even arguing against nuclear technology, just your own interpretation of it, or the interpretation of others, which is why people who do actually know rather a lot about such endeavours can no longer differentiate between your purported worries and claims, and those of someone who is acting rather irrationally when it comes to assessing the technology, its uses, advantages, disadvantages, the problems experienced in the past, and the plans for the future.
No, when I said "natural background radiation" I meant "natural background radiation". As in the radiation that is naturally occurring through no action of man what-so-ever.
It was not built to withstand a tsunami the size of the one that hit. There is no such thing as being able to "withstand a tsunami", as tsunamis are all different sizes. The problem was in the planning, not the technology.
According to the Department of Energy, the people living in the area will get 1 more cancer case per 500 people. The level of radiation in the area is still lower than the natural background radiation in parts of the world.
Stop crying wolf. When you actually have a point, people simply won't listen.
Not in sane markets. Plenty of networks will give you a second SIM for your account, and don't charge for tethering. This isn't really a big deal. Maybe to USians, but elsewhere people will be fine with this.
There you go again - making stuff up. Brilliant. You seem to think the economic machinations of an entire continent can be summarised in 3 paragraphs, including the formation of the single currency and its eventual demise. Wonderful. History disagrees with what you wrote, and the future will undoubtedly do the same. I have no idea what kind of perverse parallel universe you inhabit, but the fact it keeps leaking onto slashdot is rather annoying.
That's the same logic that got Greece in to this mess. "Oh! I think doing what's right will hurt my family! I don't have any 'evidence' for it, but it sounds kind of like something that might happen! Fuck everyone else's family - I'm going to be greedy and ensure the system gets worse, because fuck you that's why!".
Broun should learn that politicians are representatives first, and people second. His religion shouldn't have any bearing on his political stance. That is a ridiculous joke, and something deplored in other western democracies. How can he represent non-Christian people in his constituency?
That is something I whole-heartedly agree with. They are there to be risked, in order to provide security for everyone else. If they are being wrapped up in cotton wool, and at the same time ensuring more people will die later on, that makes no sense.
The Bible teaches things as fact which clearly didn't happen, or at best for which there is absolutely no evidence. How is that not promoting ignorance?
Science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive if you accept that God has no hand in the running of the world, and no demonstrable hand in the creation of the universe. Then it's all fine. The only problem is, if you accept that, then you've made God as real as Dumbledore.
Yet never does the bible attempt to demonstrate the existence of God to those who don't already believe. Of course it has reference to learning, but the very premise of the veracity of the book's teachings is based on the assumption that God exists, which is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Then it should be trivial for you to show how they're wrong. Surely you've done that before assuming they're wrong simply because they have a financial stake (which you have also not demonstrated), otherwise you are being the very poster-child for the hatred of the scientific method.
Check the data. Check the methodology. This is science - if the Met office is doing something wrong, it should be trivial for a brilliant mind like yours to show how. But what do you do instead? Make a joke which highlights your ignorance, and not even attempt to refute their claims. You're the gullible one. The Met office, if they've fucked up, has given everyone all the tools they need to hang them, yet no-one has managed to do so. Your bias is showing.
There are provisions for independent observers. The US signed the treaty with these guys, so they have to invite the observers. Local law doesn't matter, as the federal government signed the treaty.
Federal observers, by definition, would not be independent. These actual independent observers are not enforcers, but observers - they don't change what happens in the voting process, they merely report what they observed. That's why they're called observers. It would help your argument if you knew what you were talking about. And the constitution states that international treaties supersede local laws, so this guy is talking out his ass. Like you.
Slashdot Mirror
"Distribution of classified information to the public which (potentially or actually) puts lives at deliberate risk is not ... morally defensible."
How about no...
"Fair Tax" is anything but fair.
There is a difference between explaining logic and rationality, and explaining that something completely unproven exists and wants you to burn in hell... I hope you see that.
Poor little Christian being oppressed! It must be terrible for you! Do you want a hug?
It wasn't in the Royal Navy, and it was clearly registered as Bounty...
Fast-breeder reactors pretty much *are* the second coming of power generation. All the scary waste people are frightened off is fuel for them. If something has more radiation than background, it can be processed as fuel. You can practically eat the spent fuel from a fast-breeder, as all the nasty stuff is no longer in there. You'd get more radiation from eating a banana. I imagine that's why he mentioned them. The only reason they're not used extensively is proliferation fears. France and the UK have them, and they're doing fine so far.
So if the first person who started their own fire scared the other tribe members with it, we shouldn't have fire?? Even though their fears are based on ignorant ideas and notions, well-meaning though they might be? I simply don't get your logic.
It is entirely possible for a nuclear power station to be built which is impossible to go critical. All external power can be cut, and the thing will simply cool down, stop producing power, and automatically deposit any fuel into a storage tank where nothing can get at it. People can do that. It can also be placed in a part of the world without tectonic or hurricane activity. What problem do you have with that? Or should we call those scientists arrogant, hubris-drenched individuals who seek to piss in the eye of the common "ignorant" man? I do not understand you.
You're the one trying to rule by fear! The science behind nuclear power stations is well understood. Modern stations are incredibly safe. You are conjuring up bogey men which simply don't exist, in order to scare people into thinking nuclear power is unsafe. Yes, it's not perfectly safe, but then neither is breathing or going outside. It's a damn-sight safer than coal, gas, or hydroelectricity.
You are arguing against science. You are either purposefully lying about the dangers, or you simply don't know what they are. If there's a third option, please let me know, as I find it bemusing that someone like you - who usually posts rather intelligent missives on various topics, albeit not ones I always agree with - can be so ridiculously scared of such well-proven technologies, and even fail to differentiate between them, lumping them all together as the proverbial destroyers of worlds... You aren't even arguing against nuclear technology, just your own interpretation of it, or the interpretation of others, which is why people who do actually know rather a lot about such endeavours can no longer differentiate between your purported worries and claims, and those of someone who is acting rather irrationally when it comes to assessing the technology, its uses, advantages, disadvantages, the problems experienced in the past, and the plans for the future.
No, when I said "natural background radiation" I meant "natural background radiation". As in the radiation that is naturally occurring through no action of man what-so-ever.
It was not built to withstand a tsunami the size of the one that hit. There is no such thing as being able to "withstand a tsunami", as tsunamis are all different sizes. The problem was in the planning, not the technology.
According to the Department of Energy, the people living in the area will get 1 more cancer case per 500 people. The level of radiation in the area is still lower than the natural background radiation in parts of the world.
Stop crying wolf. When you actually have a point, people simply won't listen.
Luckily nuclear power plants are built to withstand things far more powerful than anything a cat 1 can unleash on them, so the point is still moot.
Not in sane markets. Plenty of networks will give you a second SIM for your account, and don't charge for tethering. This isn't really a big deal. Maybe to USians, but elsewhere people will be fine with this.
There you go again - making stuff up. Brilliant. You seem to think the economic machinations of an entire continent can be summarised in 3 paragraphs, including the formation of the single currency and its eventual demise. Wonderful. History disagrees with what you wrote, and the future will undoubtedly do the same. I have no idea what kind of perverse parallel universe you inhabit, but the fact it keeps leaking onto slashdot is rather annoying.
That's the same logic that got Greece in to this mess. "Oh! I think doing what's right will hurt my family! I don't have any 'evidence' for it, but it sounds kind of like something that might happen! Fuck everyone else's family - I'm going to be greedy and ensure the system gets worse, because fuck you that's why!".
Broun should learn that politicians are representatives first, and people second. His religion shouldn't have any bearing on his political stance. That is a ridiculous joke, and something deplored in other western democracies. How can he represent non-Christian people in his constituency?
That is something I whole-heartedly agree with. They are there to be risked, in order to provide security for everyone else. If they are being wrapped up in cotton wool, and at the same time ensuring more people will die later on, that makes no sense.
Saving soldiers now, while guaranteeing that even more will die later on, is not how one protects soldiers.
The Bible teaches things as fact which clearly didn't happen, or at best for which there is absolutely no evidence. How is that not promoting ignorance?
Science and the Bible are not mutually exclusive if you accept that God has no hand in the running of the world, and no demonstrable hand in the creation of the universe. Then it's all fine. The only problem is, if you accept that, then you've made God as real as Dumbledore.
Yet never does the bible attempt to demonstrate the existence of God to those who don't already believe. Of course it has reference to learning, but the very premise of the veracity of the book's teachings is based on the assumption that God exists, which is the antithesis of the scientific method.
Then it should be trivial for you to show how they're wrong. Surely you've done that before assuming they're wrong simply because they have a financial stake (which you have also not demonstrated), otherwise you are being the very poster-child for the hatred of the scientific method.
Check the data. Check the methodology. This is science - if the Met office is doing something wrong, it should be trivial for a brilliant mind like yours to show how. But what do you do instead? Make a joke which highlights your ignorance, and not even attempt to refute their claims. You're the gullible one. The Met office, if they've fucked up, has given everyone all the tools they need to hang them, yet no-one has managed to do so. Your bias is showing.
There are provisions for independent observers. The US signed the treaty with these guys, so they have to invite the observers. Local law doesn't matter, as the federal government signed the treaty.
Federal observers, by definition, would not be independent. These actual independent observers are not enforcers, but observers - they don't change what happens in the voting process, they merely report what they observed. That's why they're called observers. It would help your argument if you knew what you were talking about. And the constitution states that international treaties supersede local laws, so this guy is talking out his ass. Like you.