Notice that "googol" was found in this dictionary as being a word,
but "google" wasn't.
Merriam-Webster Online also offers alternate forms/spellings with word definitions. Such was not the case with "googol"."Google"
was not offered as an alternative spelling of "googol".
Merriam-Webster Online also offers a thesaurus service. Searching on "googol" yields no results.
Searching on "google" yields about 10.....none
of them "googol".
Given all of this I think there is an excellent chance that "googol" and "google" are 2 distinct words.
IMHO, unless some enterprising person digs deeper to find a contradictory reference I would say this person has no case and her lawyer is too lazy to open a dictionary.
Let me get this straight. You claimed that you sided with the anti side because the pro side was composed exclusively of people with personal interests in the issue. I showed you that the stereotype did not hold, and you came up with a host of other objections. Are you really being honest here?
I could ask you the same question as you seem to be either misunderstanding what I wrote or putting words in my mouth intentionally.
1) I never claimed to be "anti". I AM not in favor of using nuclear power because I don't think it is safe. That is not the same thing as saying that I would always be against using nuclear power regardless of the details.
2) I never used the label "pro nuke" with all that implies..., and I certainly never said that people who dismissed claims of nuclear power not being safe were "exclusively" nuclear professionals. I did write that the ones I have met ( as in met in real life ) over the last 20 years have almost always been nuclear professionals. That is not the same as "exclusive".
3) Personal interests can also mean interests other then financial interests, hence the term "enthusiasts".
the major alternative for electric generation, which is coal:
Its a matter of controversy, but there are claims for "clean burning" coal technology. I am not in favor of a switch to coal exclusively either.
I've got facts to back up my opinions, and data from the real world enemies of anti-proliferation to support me. Yet the anti-nukes persist with their anti-factual claims. Am I justified in calling them liars, or are they just stupid?
Before I could answer that I would need details.
Who made what claims
about which situations? You haven't given me enough information to look up even one situation so I can't give you an opinion about your grievances.
Until I can do that your argument is just one person "painting with a big brush" complaining about other unnamed people "painting with a big brush".
I don't doubt that some people who you may label "anti nukes" are getting some things wrong, but it is a rather large movement so I am supicious of the implied conclusion that there is no justification for not wanting to use nuclear power.
The pebble reactor idea sound neat, in fact, I have plans to read more about it, but the bottom line is that is vaporware right now as the project site for it claims on their home page.
- a massive budget deficit
- a huge national debt
- a huge bill for the Viet..oops Iraqi war
- domestic needs going unmet for education,
child welfare, job retraining, and a number
of other serious issues
- tax cuts that have diminished the government's
ability to pay for any of these things
Yesterday, I bought gas for more then $2 a gallon for the first time in my life ( I'm in the North East corridor of the USA ).
I cost me almost $25 to gas up my Civic.
It must be really nasty for minivan and SUV drivers.
Steve
Maybe I mentioned it in a reply to someone else, but I try to take the opinions of enthusiasts with a grain of salt.
If you care to understand why just think about the last time you evaluated a marginalized technology and sought opinions about those issues from enthusiasts for that technology.
Regarding
"anti-nukes mindlessly opposing everything that the industry tried to do"
IMHO such types of generalizations are less effective for convincing people of your views.
The question comes to mind that if all of the important nuances of an issue are painted over with such a broad brush by this person then how much attention to the important details of the issue did this person look at in forming their opinion?
Such statements also come off as the emotional reactions of a crank.
I learned some interesting things in this thread that will be factors in the future reformation of my opinions.
I didn't learn anything form
"anti-nukes mindlessly opposing everything that the industry tried to do"
Is it any wonder that I think the whole radwaste problem has been shamelessly overhyped by the political left?
I think it is just more then a few hippies.
There have been a variety of experts who have been anti-nuke.
The only people I have met in the last 20 years who have been very enthusiastic about nuclear power are people who have studied nuclear engineering and who have had their career opportunities curtailed by the anti-nuke movement.
Until you can point out to me where your mythical hydrogen mines are located perhaps you are the one who should save the flip answers for the ignorant rubes who believe your FUD.
I don't believe I ever mentioned hydrogen specifically.
If I seem to hesitant to accept answers like yours blindly maybe my faith is shaken by someone who argues against a point I didn't make.
Why would I want to trust my decisions on information gained from that quality of argument?
Any responsible engineer or scientist will tell you that implenting any kind of highly technological solution is a highly complex endeavor.
Much more complex then the pro-nuke hobbyist enthusiasts present it.
We are talking about our economy, our healthy and our enrivonment -- our home.
An energy solution is not a quick and dirty perl script that if it fails there is no harm done.
However, the project web site said no one has been able to make it work yet so it is not yet an option.
I have also read estimates that the US may have 500 years worth of nuclear fuel.
Nuclear power usage hasn't been that much so far.
Before I would answer your last question I would want to read studies about what would happen if you had MANY of these kinds of plants operating for YEARS AND YEARS doing what you described to a large degree.
As others have correctly pointed out there is a price for everything.
I would want to know what the price is down the road after years of using such plants in quantity.
That is what people would get if nuclear power became widley used and that "low-level" stuff got pumped into the environment in quantity.
That sort of thing does happen.
Polar fish and animals have been found to have DDT in their tissues.......as well as most people tested.
Before you gratuitiously accuse people of spreading FUD take a moment to contemplate whether or not you are being overly dismissive because you might be a nuclear power enthusiast.
Not to bicker ( really ) but fossil fuel use does lead to destruction wildlife habitats ( strip mining ) and maybe catalclysmic flooding ( global warming, ice caps melting ).
You can also add the bird slaughter in with the oil spills.
I agree with you that every form of energy has it drawbacks, but the differences in various forms of energy is significant.
I would rather take the drawbacks with options other then nucelear.
I ( and I think most people ) don't want coal either.
Since we are going to have to redo our infrastructure for a new form of energy and other options exist why choose nuclear energy when it has significant problems?
Steve
* No destruction of wildlife habitat * No random slaugher of birds * No acid rain * No potential for cataclysmic flooding * No particulate pollution * No oil spills * No greenhouse gases
Those are all problems of fossil fuels.
There are options for alternative energy that don't have those problems or the ones associated with nuclear energy.
No nuclear waste, no potential for meltdowns, no potential for dirty bombs, etc ec
If we ignore the nuclear-weapon and dirty-bomb issues
We can't. We shouldn't
Of course, there ARE other forms of energy. But, in all honesty, stronger nuclear power plants is inevitable. We just need to spend the money to make sure that they're SAFE.
We can also spend the money on other stratedgies that will yield safer results nearer in the future so nuclear energy is not inevitable.
Look at all the bombs that miss all of the tin pot dictators and all of the bombs that miss all of the terrorist clerics.
Military technology is a great aide but at some point you will always need well trained, well equipped manpower to actually walk into the battle zone, leaders with good plans, and informed foriegn relation policies.
I read the article and like other assurances it lacks details.
When people buy a car they want to specifics. How much will it cost? What do I get? When do I get it?
With outsourcing we should not accept general assurances "that it will all workout somehow"
The only point the article had to make was that American Engineering is known for being innovative.
Will there be enough American Engineers in the future to generate that innovation?
What would motivate college students to major in fields that get outsourced?
If America did continue innovating how would that help if all the work of bringing the innovation to market is done overseas?
If you care about your future and the future of the country please don't accept vauge reassurances.
If you care about your future and the future of the country please don't accept the word of CEOs, politicians, or economists who have their self interested motivations that all of this is necessary.
If you care about your future and the future of the country please do pay attention to which politicians are promising to help Americans with this issue and follow those politicians to make sure they keep their promises.
They don't "find out what your interests are". The software scans, attaches ads, then forgets the content of your email. There's no cummulative build up of information about you and no human ever sees the email.
So they tell you.
<adjusting tin foil hat>
Its there, its coalated, on record waiting for people who want it.
</adjusting tin foil hat>
The sad thing is it is totally unnecessary.
They could force you to fill out an interests checklist in exchange for an email account.
You could choose what they (software or human ) knows about you. You don't have that option with their software scanning your email looking for keywords.
I can choose to omit "whip cream" from a checklist, but if my girlfriend sends me an email about the other night google's software will be scanning over it, pulling it out of my email and putting it on file.
Slashdot Mirror
A search on "Google" at Merriam-Webster Onlinen ary&va=google&x=0&y=0
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictio
yields no definitions, but only suggestions for possible correct spellings:
- goggle
- guggle
- googol
- gaggle
- Gogol
- goggled
- gulag
- goggle-eye
- guggled
- goggler
Notice that "googol" was found in this dictionary as being a word, but "google" wasn't.Merriam-Webster Online also offers alternate forms/spellings with word definitions. Such was not the case with "googol". "Google" was not offered as an alternative spelling of "googol".
Merriam-Webster Online also offers a thesaurus service. Searching on "googol" yields no results. Searching on "google" yields about 10.....none of them "googol".
Given all of this I think there is an excellent chance that "googol" and "google" are 2 distinct words.
IMHO, unless some enterprising person digs deeper to find a contradictory reference I would say this person has no case and her lawyer is too lazy to open a dictionary.
Steve
Steve
Yesterday, I bought gas for more then $2 a gallon for the first time in my life ( I'm in the North East corridor of the USA ). I cost me almost $25 to gas up my Civic. It must be really nasty for minivan and SUV drivers. Steve
She didn't get these US Military secrects off of a BDSM site with pictures of women dragging men around on a leash did she?
Ooops, never mind
Steve
Not quite.
Maybe I mentioned it in a reply to someone else, but I try to take the opinions of enthusiasts with a grain of salt.
If you care to understand why just think about the last time you evaluated a marginalized technology and sought opinions about those issues from enthusiasts for that technology.
Regarding
"anti-nukes mindlessly opposing everything that the industry tried to do"
IMHO such types of generalizations are less effective for convincing people of your views.
The question comes to mind that if all of the important nuances of an issue are painted over
with such a broad brush by this person then how much attention to the important details of the issue did this person look at in forming their opinion?
Such statements also come off as the emotional reactions of a crank.
I learned some interesting things in this thread that will be factors in the future reformation of my opinions.
I didn't learn anything form
"anti-nukes mindlessly opposing everything that the industry tried to do"
I enjoyed your posts in this thread
Steve
I think someone actually published that as Rumsfeld's
:).
"existential poetry".
Makes more sense then some of the sarte I read in college
Steve
I think it is just more then a few hippies.
There have been a variety of experts who have been anti-nuke.
The only people I have met in the last 20 years who have been very enthusiastic about nuclear power are people who have studied nuclear engineering and who have had their career opportunities curtailed by the anti-nuke movement.
Steve
I don't believe I ever mentioned hydrogen specifically.
If I seem to hesitant to accept answers like yours blindly maybe my faith is shaken by someone who argues against a point I didn't make.
Why would I want to trust my decisions on information gained from that quality of argument?
Any responsible engineer or scientist will tell you that implenting any kind of highly technological solution is a highly complex endeavor.
Much more complex then the pro-nuke hobbyist enthusiasts present it.
We are talking about our economy, our healthy and our enrivonment -- our home.
An energy solution is not a quick and dirty perl script that if it fails there is no harm done.
Steve
Sounds cool.
However, the project web site said no one has been able to make it work yet so it is not yet an option.
I have also read estimates that the US may have 500 years worth of nuclear fuel.
Nuclear power usage hasn't been that much so far.
Before I would answer your last question I would want to read studies about what would happen if you had MANY of these kinds of plants operating for YEARS AND YEARS doing what you described to a large degree.
As others have correctly pointed out there is a price for everything.
I would want to know what the price is down the road after years of using such plants in quantity.
Steve
But I don't get an X-Ray everyday.
That is what people would get if nuclear power became widley used and that "low-level" stuff got pumped into the environment in quantity.
That sort of thing does happen.
Polar fish and animals have been found to have DDT in their tissues.......as well as most people tested.
Before you gratuitiously accuse people of spreading FUD take a moment to contemplate whether or not you are being overly dismissive because you might be a nuclear power enthusiast.
Thanks for the clarification ( really ).
Not to bicker ( really ) but fossil fuel use does lead to destruction wildlife habitats ( strip mining ) and maybe catalclysmic flooding ( global warming, ice caps melting ).
You can also add the bird slaughter in with the oil spills.
I agree with you that every form of energy has it drawbacks, but the differences in various forms of energy is significant.
I would rather take the drawbacks with options other then nucelear.
Steve
I ( and I think most people ) don't want coal either. Since we are going to have to redo our infrastructure for a new form of energy and other options exist why choose nuclear energy when it has significant problems? Steve
Those are all problems of fossil fuels.
There are options for alternative energy that don't have those problems or the ones associated with nuclear energy.
Steve
Well "heck" hydrogen atoms don't generate nuclear waste that lasts for 10,000 years.
If you have a concrete point to make I will read it, otherwise please save the gratiuitious insults.
Steve
Steve
Why does this look promising?
Does it still generate nuclear waste?
Steve
Look at all the bombs that miss all of the tin pot dictators and all of the bombs that miss all of the terrorist clerics.
Military technology is a great aide but at some point you will always need well trained, well equipped manpower to actually walk into the battle zone, leaders with good plans, and informed foriegn relation policies.
Steve
I read the article and like other assurances it lacks details.
When people buy a car they want to specifics. How much will it cost? What do I get? When do I get it?
With outsourcing we should not accept general assurances "that it will all workout somehow"
The only point the article had to make was that American Engineering is known for being innovative.
Will there be enough American Engineers in the future to generate that innovation?
What would motivate college students to major in fields that get outsourced?
If America did continue innovating how would that help if all the work of bringing the innovation to market is done overseas?
If you care about your future and the future of the country please don't accept vauge reassurances.
If you care about your future and the future of the country please don't accept the word of CEOs, politicians, or economists who have their self interested motivations that all of this is necessary.
If you care about your future and the future of the country please do pay attention to which politicians are promising to help Americans with this issue and follow those politicians to make sure they keep their promises.
Steve
I believe in the film ( the last Mad Max ) pig shit, not cow shit was used. Steve
Nuclear energy is far from being able to be made safe in the immediate future.
There are other alternative forms of energy.
Steve
Yes.
The list of words built up in a spam filter is gathered from email I mark as spam and represents what an advertiser is spamming me with.
The list of words built up from *my* email represents my interests and is gathered from my personal correspondence, not just email I mark as spam.
Thats all ?? Just once is objectionable enough. Quit using gratuitious insults and present a convincing argument. Then I will stop commenting on this issue. Maybe.Steve
<adjusting tin foil hat>
Its there, its coalated, on record waiting for people who want it.
</adjusting tin foil hat>
The sad thing is it is totally unnecessary.
They could force you to fill out an interests checklist in exchange for an email account.
You could choose what they (software or human ) knows about you. You don't have that option with their software scanning your email looking for keywords.
I can choose to omit "whip cream" from a checklist, but if my girlfriend sends me an email about the other night google's software will be scanning over it, pulling it out of my email and putting it on file.
No thanks.
Steve
More like his balls
I still have a problem with them/their software reading your email so they can find what your interestes are.
:)
Some people think I am being too fussy about privacy concerns.
I think those people are biased.
If MS had done this rather then Google ( geek hero ) the ranting would still be going on.
I say this and I hate M$, am a Java programmer, and I am a GNU/Linux user.
Put THAT in your coke can and drink it!
Steve