I know about many teens that celebrate each time that the media asserts that cannabis is safe.
I know about many adults that do the same! To us, it suggests a time when we might collectively agree to re-prioritise the energies spent on policing the substance.
So in this group *I* may very well be a drop-kick but the other people I'm referring to are not. None are under 40 years in age, several of them own and manage businesses and are doing very nicely for themselves. All are good people leading productive, healthy lives. All happen to enjoy Mary Jane.
I will admit one of my friends in this group did give up marijuana but apparently it was purely to do with her quit-smoking campaign; reportedly it wasn't helpful to smoke anything at all when trying to give up cigarettes. Incidentally it took her several years to fully chase the need for nicotine out of her system but she never seemed to miss the MJ.
.
They kids that I'm talking about are a special case (each one have a mental disorder diagnosis, in addition to their substance abuse problems)
Eek. I hope you don't think that's the only type of person who wants to see some intelligent marijuana law reform!:)
It takes tens of pounds of cannabis to obtain enough THC to overdose.
Just curious, can you provide a cite for that? I've only ever heard that LD50 has never actually been established for THC even in lab conditions, only estimated.
Actually, given that I misinterpreted your joke and the reaction of a number of Slashdotters that have posted on the matter, I think I owe you an apology.
I am sorry. At the time your comment appeared very black-and-white; this alone should have been warning enough for me to take a deep breath and a moment to think about the need to post a response in the first place.
Says the guy calling himself "Sardaukar86". Genius.
Well, I'll take a karma hit if I attack someone and the group feels it was inappropriate or unnecessary. As well I should. Just look above - my original post defending phantomfive seems to have met the criteria, even though it wasn't intended to upset the named/. crowd such as yourself.
It wasn't intended as a troll but I clearly pissed a few people off and have been punished accordingly. Merely sniping at someone as the AC did seems less useful to the community than me.
Interesting that suggesting taking some measure of responsibility for one's actions is such a contentious idea.
Or it's just rabble rousing, hard to tell intent with so little of the submission.
The trouble with the Slashdot rabble is that we are all so jolly easy to rouse!
Seriously, we're total clickbait-whores, even if it only amounts to a "this crap insults my intelligence" or "what the hell is this doing on/." post. Trouble is, every time we do that, Dice wins at trolling Slashdot.
Yeah, that's worth repeating. If people tried to understand what was being said before attacking........half the news stories on the internet would disappear.
Whilst everyone else may be out making sure the Sirius Cybernetics' Marketing Division are the first bunch of jerks up against the wall when the revolution comes, I'll be working on making sure the media and associated lazy journalists come a very close second..
Cowardly troll. If you're going to stoop so low as to kick someone while they're making a self-deprecating, comedic remark then at least have the guts to put your name to it.
Sorry for the delayed response, had something crop up that demanded my attention.
Thanks for your recollections, the history is quite fascinating. I often wonder about the managers that 'everyone knows about', the ones that seem to invariably fail upwards no matter where they go or what they do.
There were a lot of people who were very pleased when he suffered his heart attack. Kiwis can be very kind but they can also be very childish and quite cruel. I never saw the need for him to pay for his mistake with his life - that's the domain of China or NK.
Perhaps the religious among us would consider that even for his last great challenge Mr. Gilbert still managed to fail upwards?;-)
I'm probably a bit too cynical, bitter and twisted on the topic as a reaction to such contact.
I have a theory that anyone who isn't cynical, bitter and twisted by now hasn't been paying attention.
I second Wisnoskij, this was the most succinct (at 6.5 mins) piece I've seen on the topic, many thanks for the link.
Also a good incentive to read up on Richard Muller's other work. Apparently he was somewhat sceptical so he went out and did his own research; he's not terribly sceptical any more.
If moderately addicting and inebriating, like alcohol: legal. If easily addicting but not inebriating, like nicotine: legal (you can still hold a job/ relationship). If inebriating but not easily addictive, like marijuana: legal (you can use the drug, then choose not to later).
Only when you combine addictiveness and inebriation, like meth, coke, heroin, do you have a problem.
I quite like this idea of yours. What struck me about your comment was how clearly alcohol made your point for you.
If - as you suggest - addictiveness intersecting inebriation equals problems, then alcohol (at only 'moderately addictive' on your scale) should actually be thought a lot more dangerous than it currently is. So it follows that as alcohol inebriates alongside even a mild amount of addictiveness, the drug should be giving us significant societal problems.
Oh wait.. alcohol is causing us real issues. I wonder how it would compare with meth in terms of its societal damage due to the very familiar, widespread nature of the drug. I think alcohol punches above its weight when compared with harder drugs with high marks in both columns.
I say this as someone who favours prohibition only for the drugs you mention: meth, coke, heroin and any others that fit the profile of those three. That said, as a drinker, I would find it hard to raise a cogent argue against someone who wanted alcohol on that shortlist.
Do we need to have a frank conversation with ourselves as to the perceived difference between the social drugs we consider normal and safe and their taboo counterparts?
It was all pre-slashdot apart from external contracting, in fact one of the truly odd things was we had only a single computer with unblocked web access in the entire scientific services section as late as 1996 - so a restrictive government owned utility full of knee-jerk reactions. We used ftpmail a lot to read stuff on the net tunnelled via email.
Heh, I can relate to that; about '99 I was working on a helldesk for an insurance company with a sizeable IT dept. They permitted only one stand-alone PC that was Internetted via ISDN and management behaved as if the Internet terrified them. I doubt they've permitted web access for their staff even now.
Other people have a lot more interesting stuff than I could provide from before I moved to plant inspection, academia, coal and oil, then the small end of cluster computing.
That's pretty diverse. The compute cluster sounds like interesting work.
It's an interesting industry with a very mobile workforce so among others I got to work with a Russian with nuclear experience.
There's a lot of idiots that industry and a shift to "crisis maintanance" where things are only fixed after they catastrophically go wrong. You may have heard of my former boss that later went on to black out Auckland for something like a month, I can't recall his name at this point.
Oh my, yes indeed, however despite my hunting I don't know his name either. That was another example of NZ putting itself on the world stage in the most embarrassing way. Very interesting that you worked with the chap!
By the way, you mention your involvement in the electrical generation/supply industry. I'm keen to hear your thoughts on the experience and was wondering if you might perhaps have an existing post or journal entry I could review? Thank you.
I'll see if I can find some link, a quick googling failed, but I was referring to the Clinton era thorium reactor project that was heavily lobbied against by Westinghouse etc.
Thanks, that'll get me started.:)
we have to look at India, Russia etc for any advancement.
A very sorry situation indeed for the nation that brought us nuclear technology in the first place.
Mostly it was about your kick the harmless dog comment of blaming those with almost zero political power for a mostly greed induced fuckup of a formerly promising industry - remember those guys lobbied against thorium reactors because it implied the uranium ones were not safe enough?
I think we might be coming from different perspectives here, because (as you are no doubt well aware) where I'm at in NZ so-called environmentalists terminated our nuclear power program before it got started, then banned the US - our ally at the time - from visiting here in nuclear powered vessels. This was, for me, our crowning moment of stupid and a supremely embarrassing display of Kiwi reason-be-damned pig-headedness for all the world to see.
That was an act of writing naive on your forehead, whether for a joke or in reality I really couldn't tell hence the advice aimed at noise reduction above.
Well, I'm still at odds with you over this one regarding our interpretation of the original argument, but I'm certainly prepared to go educate myself further regarding the anti-thorium lobbying you mention and may yet owe you an apology.
Yes I was far too rude in response to baggage from so many other clueless posters that also use the kick the harmless dog approach.
As was I and I do apologise. Thank you for same.
The nuclear "debate" starts off at such a childish and ignorant level by default so I over-reacted.
Again, as did I. Perhaps to be expected as a feature of an issue that has many of us wound rather tightly. I may need to relax a little(!)
It's funny how often I get labelled as an "environmentalist arsehole" by merely suggesting pilot plants of new reactor designs first instead of building 100 units as fast as possible, or the even worse approach of 1970s dinosaurs.
Another example, I think, of us somehow managing to argue orthogonally to one another, because I completely agree with you.
The nuclear industry retains a less-than-stellar reputation with regard to nuclear safety, however we just don't have the 'luxury' of stalling nuclear technology any longer. We have the responsibility to do everything possible to ensure progress is made safely. As far as I can tell, that involves very careful trials and lots of them and the sooner we start the better.
BTW has the relationship change registered for you yet? You're back to friend-of-friend at my end.
Bit thin skinned there with a "foe" designation aren't you?
Actually you're right - it was meant to be an unfriending rather than an active change to foe status. I mistakenly conflated 'friend' with my account's 'friend of a friend' designation for you, it has been corrected.
I can't get why you are so upset at a post that merely replies in your own style so as to aid in communication. If you don't want a blunt conversation I suggest not starting one.
There's a gulf of difference between a blunt post and a direct personal attack. Specifically you cited me as ignorant and naive, two pretty hot-button accusations to level at a nerd. Your use of a strawman argument as the basis of your attack is low and leaves you well-deserving of being called a prick and a disingenuous arsehole. I stand by those statements, especially so given your continued prosecution of this false argument in your reply.
Also if you do not wish to be treated as ignorant I suggest not dumbing down your posts to the extent where you appear to suggest that solar and wind are in the same low base load niche as nuclear.
What the hell is it with this specious argument of yours? For goodness sake! You think I don't know this? Jesus wept, you wonder why I'm annoyed with you!
If you're so damn certain that this nonsense over peak/base load is the crux of my argument, please illustrate in my original post where it was that I commented on the equivalence (or otherwise) of ANY of those technologies.
Well?
What the hell does the intricacies of base load versus peak load have to do with my original post? I was talking about public opposition to any kind of power technology. It's a completely different conversation. Somehow you then use this as evidence for why I ought to be considered ignorant and naive. Well go have that conversation with someone else, it's a nice conversation, I'm sure there's plenty to be gained by discussing it. It's just that it's nothing to do with anything I was writing about, it's a cynical method that people like you use attack other people without just cause.
Don't you damnwell call me naive because I won't play strawman with you.
Hippies with almost zero political power didn't kill nukes - bankers and insurance types with vast amounts of political power
Bullshit.
Step 1 - stop being naive and kicking harmless dogs instead knowing where the problem really lies.
To that I could suggest you stop behaving like a rude, obtuse prick and instead engage me in conversation. You know damn well the power these 'harmless dogs' have and you are being deliberately disingenuous by painting them as 'Hippies': you know they are 'normal' citizens and not ideologically-driven. They have no agenda beside their own selfish desires.
Step 2 - learn enough about the topic you like to be able to argue for it on it's own merits.
When you direct your energies into insulting me instead of reasoned debate I simply assume you haven't really anything worthwhile to say. In this case, you have less than nothing to contribute and you've destroyed my respect for you.
Solar and wind don't even fill the same energy supply niche so should be irrelevant when you advocate nuclear power. Railing against them will just make you look ignorant.
OH REALLY? Well thanks mate, we would I be without your educated self to save me?
It may surprise you to know that you're not the only intelligent or educated one here. I'm pretty clear on where nuclear power fits in the great scheme of things, but thanks for your condescension anyway. If you weren't trying to hard to barb me, you might have noticed that I didn't make any suggestions about nuclear power, the appropriate balance of nuclear with renewables or anything of that nature.
No, the point of my post was to illustrate the stupidity of our collective decision-making. You chose to counter with a feeble straw-man and by doing so you identify yourself as a waste of time to debate with.
Yes, I *could* talk to you all day long about pebble-bed technologies, liquid-sodium, fast breeder, thorium reactors.. because, despite what you assume about me, I do actually understand the place that these and other technologies have. We could have a merry chat about re-processing and the nuclear fuel cycle, the risks of proliferation and the accompanying risks of choosing to instead store high-level waste underground.
But I'm not addressing these points here or in my original comments, because ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVANT and you know it. 'Misunderstanding' this is clearly the cornerstone of your post, you disingenuous arsehole.
Thanks for your 'contribution'; I wash my hands of you.
Well then, I suggest you turn in all your modern technology and go back to living in a fucking mud hut.
The scientific method you are emptying your bowels on with your comment is the same that put you in a nice warm house with electricity and Internet.
If you can't find it within yourself to see the value that science and the scientific method had brought us (in spite of the tireless stupidity of religion I might add) then you're nothing but a hypocrite.
Tell me I've gotten you wrong, please. You've never struck me as this type and I often enjoy your posts.
Slashdot Mirror
I know about many teens that celebrate each time that the media asserts that cannabis is safe.
I know about many adults that do the same! To us, it suggests a time when we might collectively agree to re-prioritise the energies spent on policing the substance.
So in this group *I* may very well be a drop-kick but the other people I'm referring to are not. None are under 40 years in age, several of them own and manage businesses and are doing very nicely for themselves. All are good people leading productive, healthy lives. All happen to enjoy Mary Jane.
I will admit one of my friends in this group did give up marijuana but apparently it was purely to do with her quit-smoking campaign; reportedly it wasn't helpful to smoke anything at all when trying to give up cigarettes. Incidentally it took her several years to fully chase the need for nicotine out of her system but she never seemed to miss the MJ.
.
They kids that I'm talking about are a special case (each one have a mental disorder diagnosis, in addition to their substance abuse problems)
Eek. I hope you don't think that's the only type of person who wants to see some intelligent marijuana law reform! :)
It takes tens of pounds of cannabis to obtain enough THC to overdose.
Just curious, can you provide a cite for that? I've only ever heard that LD50 has never actually been established for THC even in lab conditions, only estimated.
According to the DEA in 1988 in docket 86-22;
Admittedly that's not a terribly recent report so I was wondering if you knew of a more recent study.
Just what we all need, children being chased by walking shooting landmines.
That's just ageism, pure bloody discrimination if you ask me.
I for one expect, nay, demand my own equal opportunity to be chased by a walking, shooting landmine.
Actually, given that I misinterpreted your joke and the reaction of a number of Slashdotters that have posted on the matter, I think I owe you an apology.
I am sorry. At the time your comment appeared very black-and-white; this alone should have been warning enough for me to take a deep breath and a moment to think about the need to post a response in the first place.
AC posts a joke. Sardaukar86 disses AC for not 'hav[ing] the guts' to put his name to it.
Oops, that was an embarrassing Whoosh on my part as it didn't occur to me that the AC might have been joking.
seems less useful to the community than me
Bah, sorry, "seems less useful to the community to me"
Says the guy calling himself "Sardaukar86". Genius.
Well, I'll take a karma hit if I attack someone and the group feels it was inappropriate or unnecessary. As well I should. Just look above - my original post defending phantomfive seems to have met the criteria, even though it wasn't intended to upset the named /. crowd such as yourself.
It wasn't intended as a troll but I clearly pissed a few people off and have been punished accordingly. Merely sniping at someone as the AC did seems less useful to the community than me.
Interesting that suggesting taking some measure of responsibility for one's actions is such a contentious idea.
If someone is attacking you, you should use it.
Just like nukes then, eh?
Forgot password in 1999 while partying like it was 1999 because it was. E-mail account died before that R.I.P.
Sure, I'll buy that.
So, it's 2015, at least 15 years later. Anyone care to chime in with the average shelf-life of the garden-variety limp excuse?
Or it's just rabble rousing, hard to tell intent with so little of the submission.
The trouble with the Slashdot rabble is that we are all so jolly easy to rouse!
Seriously, we're total clickbait-whores, even if it only amounts to a "this crap insults my intelligence" or "what the hell is this doing on /." post. Trouble is, every time we do that, Dice wins at trolling Slashdot.
Yeah, I'm guilty too.
Yeah, that's worth repeating. If people tried to understand what was being said before attacking........half the news stories on the internet would disappear.
Whilst everyone else may be out making sure the Sirius Cybernetics' Marketing Division are the first bunch of jerks up against the wall when the revolution comes, I'll be working on making sure the media and associated lazy journalists come a very close second..
Cowardly troll. If you're going to stoop so low as to kick someone while they're making a self-deprecating, comedic remark then at least have the guts to put your name to it.
Sorry for the delayed response, had something crop up that demanded my attention.
Thanks for your recollections, the history is quite fascinating. I often wonder about the managers that 'everyone knows about', the ones that seem to invariably fail upwards no matter where they go or what they do.
There were a lot of people who were very pleased when he suffered his heart attack. Kiwis can be very kind but they can also be very childish and quite cruel. I never saw the need for him to pay for his mistake with his life - that's the domain of China or NK.
Perhaps the religious among us would consider that even for his last great challenge Mr. Gilbert still managed to fail upwards? ;-)
I'm probably a bit too cynical, bitter and twisted on the topic as a reaction to such contact.
I have a theory that anyone who isn't cynical, bitter and twisted by now hasn't been paying attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I second Wisnoskij, this was the most succinct (at 6.5 mins) piece I've seen on the topic, many thanks for the link.
Also a good incentive to read up on Richard Muller's other work. Apparently he was somewhat sceptical so he went out and did his own research; he's not terribly sceptical any more.
Watch the movie Serenity if you are too dense to see the downside of inducing passivity into a population.
The Whoosh is strong with this one.
If moderately addicting and inebriating, like alcohol: legal. If easily addicting but not inebriating, like nicotine: legal (you can still hold a job/ relationship). If inebriating but not easily addictive, like marijuana: legal (you can use the drug, then choose not to later).
Only when you combine addictiveness and inebriation, like meth, coke, heroin, do you have a problem.
I quite like this idea of yours. What struck me about your comment was how clearly alcohol made your point for you.
If - as you suggest - addictiveness intersecting inebriation equals problems, then alcohol (at only 'moderately addictive' on your scale) should actually be thought a lot more dangerous than it currently is. So it follows that as alcohol inebriates alongside even a mild amount of addictiveness, the drug should be giving us significant societal problems.
Oh wait.. alcohol is causing us real issues. I wonder how it would compare with meth in terms of its societal damage due to the very familiar, widespread nature of the drug. I think alcohol punches above its weight when compared with harder drugs with high marks in both columns.
I say this as someone who favours prohibition only for the drugs you mention: meth, coke, heroin and any others that fit the profile of those three. That said, as a drinker, I would find it hard to raise a cogent argue against someone who wanted alcohol on that shortlist.
Do we need to have a frank conversation with ourselves as to the perceived difference between the social drugs we consider normal and safe and their taboo counterparts?
It was all pre-slashdot apart from external contracting, in fact one of the truly odd things was we had only a single computer with unblocked web access in the entire scientific services section as late as 1996 - so a restrictive government owned utility full of knee-jerk reactions. We used ftpmail a lot to read stuff on the net tunnelled via email.
Heh, I can relate to that; about '99 I was working on a helldesk for an insurance company with a sizeable IT dept. They permitted only one stand-alone PC that was Internetted via ISDN and management behaved as if the Internet terrified them. I doubt they've permitted web access for their staff even now.
Other people have a lot more interesting stuff than I could provide from before I moved to plant inspection, academia, coal and oil, then the small end of cluster computing.
That's pretty diverse. The compute cluster sounds like interesting work.
It's an interesting industry with a very mobile workforce so among others I got to work with a Russian with nuclear experience. There's a lot of idiots that industry and a shift to "crisis maintanance" where things are only fixed after they catastrophically go wrong. You may have heard of my former boss that later went on to black out Auckland for something like a month, I can't recall his name at this point.
Oh my, yes indeed, however despite my hunting I don't know his name either. That was another example of NZ putting itself on the world stage in the most embarrassing way. Very interesting that you worked with the chap!
By the way, you mention your involvement in the electrical generation/supply industry. I'm keen to hear your thoughts on the experience and was wondering if you might perhaps have an existing post or journal entry I could review? Thank you.
I'll see if I can find some link, a quick googling failed, but I was referring to the Clinton era thorium reactor project that was heavily lobbied against by Westinghouse etc.
Thanks, that'll get me started. :)
we have to look at India, Russia etc for any advancement.
A very sorry situation indeed for the nation that brought us nuclear technology in the first place.
Mostly it was about your kick the harmless dog comment of blaming those with almost zero political power for a mostly greed induced fuckup of a formerly promising industry - remember those guys lobbied against thorium reactors because it implied the uranium ones were not safe enough?
I think we might be coming from different perspectives here, because (as you are no doubt well aware) where I'm at in NZ so-called environmentalists terminated our nuclear power program before it got started, then banned the US - our ally at the time - from visiting here in nuclear powered vessels. This was, for me, our crowning moment of stupid and a supremely embarrassing display of Kiwi reason-be-damned pig-headedness for all the world to see.
That was an act of writing naive on your forehead, whether for a joke or in reality I really couldn't tell hence the advice aimed at noise reduction above.
Well, I'm still at odds with you over this one regarding our interpretation of the original argument, but I'm certainly prepared to go educate myself further regarding the anti-thorium lobbying you mention and may yet owe you an apology.
Yes I was far too rude in response to baggage from so many other clueless posters that also use the kick the harmless dog approach.
As was I and I do apologise. Thank you for same.
The nuclear "debate" starts off at such a childish and ignorant level by default so I over-reacted.
Again, as did I. Perhaps to be expected as a feature of an issue that has many of us wound rather tightly. I may need to relax a little(!)
It's funny how often I get labelled as an "environmentalist arsehole" by merely suggesting pilot plants of new reactor designs first instead of building 100 units as fast as possible, or the even worse approach of 1970s dinosaurs.
Another example, I think, of us somehow managing to argue orthogonally to one another, because I completely agree with you.
The nuclear industry retains a less-than-stellar reputation with regard to nuclear safety, however we just don't have the 'luxury' of stalling nuclear technology any longer. We have the responsibility to do everything possible to ensure progress is made safely. As far as I can tell, that involves very careful trials and lots of them and the sooner we start the better.
BTW has the relationship change registered for you yet? You're back to friend-of-friend at my end.
Bit thin skinned there with a "foe" designation aren't you?
Actually you're right - it was meant to be an unfriending rather than an active change to foe status. I mistakenly conflated 'friend' with my account's 'friend of a friend' designation for you, it has been corrected.
I can't get why you are so upset at a post that merely replies in your own style so as to aid in communication. If you don't want a blunt conversation I suggest not starting one.
There's a gulf of difference between a blunt post and a direct personal attack. Specifically you cited me as ignorant and naive, two pretty hot-button accusations to level at a nerd. Your use of a strawman argument as the basis of your attack is low and leaves you well-deserving of being called a prick and a disingenuous arsehole. I stand by those statements, especially so given your continued prosecution of this false argument in your reply.
Also if you do not wish to be treated as ignorant I suggest not dumbing down your posts to the extent where you appear to suggest that solar and wind are in the same low base load niche as nuclear.
What the hell is it with this specious argument of yours? For goodness sake! You think I don't know this? Jesus wept, you wonder why I'm annoyed with you!
If you're so damn certain that this nonsense over peak/base load is the crux of my argument, please illustrate in my original post where it was that I commented on the equivalence (or otherwise) of ANY of those technologies.
Well?
What the hell does the intricacies of base load versus peak load have to do with my original post? I was talking about public opposition to any kind of power technology. It's a completely different conversation. Somehow you then use this as evidence for why I ought to be considered ignorant and naive. Well go have that conversation with someone else, it's a nice conversation, I'm sure there's plenty to be gained by discussing it. It's just that it's nothing to do with anything I was writing about, it's a cynical method that people like you use attack other people without just cause.
Don't you damnwell call me naive because I won't play strawman with you.
cheesybagel: Obscuring measurements by lying with statistics
cheesybagel: It's not a global conspiracy.
Clearly even you don't seem to know what the fuck it is you are trying to say.
Hippies with almost zero political power didn't kill nukes - bankers and insurance types with vast amounts of political power
Bullshit.
Step 1 - stop being naive and kicking harmless dogs instead knowing where the problem really lies.
To that I could suggest you stop behaving like a rude, obtuse prick and instead engage me in conversation. You know damn well the power these 'harmless dogs' have and you are being deliberately disingenuous by painting them as 'Hippies': you know they are 'normal' citizens and not ideologically-driven. They have no agenda beside their own selfish desires.
Step 2 - learn enough about the topic you like to be able to argue for it on it's own merits.
When you direct your energies into insulting me instead of reasoned debate I simply assume you haven't really anything worthwhile to say. In this case, you have less than nothing to contribute and you've destroyed my respect for you.
Solar and wind don't even fill the same energy supply niche so should be irrelevant when you advocate nuclear power. Railing against them will just make you look ignorant.
OH REALLY? Well thanks mate, we would I be without your educated self to save me?
It may surprise you to know that you're not the only intelligent or educated one here. I'm pretty clear on where nuclear power fits in the great scheme of things, but thanks for your condescension anyway. If you weren't trying to hard to barb me, you might have noticed that I didn't make any suggestions about nuclear power, the appropriate balance of nuclear with renewables or anything of that nature.
No, the point of my post was to illustrate the stupidity of our collective decision-making. You chose to counter with a feeble straw-man and by doing so you identify yourself as a waste of time to debate with.
Yes, I *could* talk to you all day long about pebble-bed technologies, liquid-sodium, fast breeder, thorium reactors.. because, despite what you assume about me, I do actually understand the place that these and other technologies have. We could have a merry chat about re-processing and the nuclear fuel cycle, the risks of proliferation and the accompanying risks of choosing to instead store high-level waste underground.
But I'm not addressing these points here or in my original comments, because ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVANT and you know it. 'Misunderstanding' this is clearly the cornerstone of your post, you disingenuous arsehole.
Thanks for your 'contribution'; I wash my hands of you.
not by much
Well then, I suggest you turn in all your modern technology and go back to living in a fucking mud hut.
The scientific method you are emptying your bowels on with your comment is the same that put you in a nice warm house with electricity and Internet.
If you can't find it within yourself to see the value that science and the scientific method had brought us (in spite of the tireless stupidity of religion I might add) then you're nothing but a hypocrite.
Tell me I've gotten you wrong, please. You've never struck me as this type and I often enjoy your posts.