a case that was thrown out by first the court and then the appeals court since the Monsanto pledge is valid as evidence if Monsanto ever would try that route.
As I said this is taken "As Truth" by the court and is irrelevant now that Bayer has bought the intellectual property assets.
You talk about deliberate violations and now you talk about accidental contamination. I've offered a test to detect deliberate violations and screen accidental contamination where you can set the thresholds as I don't care about either parties.
And no, boards does not have a profit responsibility to shareholders. I don't know where this myth comes from
It comes from US case law Dodge vs. Ford and whilst there has been some calls to stop teaching it, it was cited in 1983 in Dirks v. SEC and as recently in a whole set of cases in 2016, so it is very real.
What you are arguing is referred to as "Improper Altruism", which are the findings of the court that reflect what you are advocating.
Now this is of course a different kind of case but it shows that when a company buys another company it also buys that company:s legal obligations.
You are arguing "Improper Altruism", Bayers legal obligation is to protect their patent portfolio. Effectively Bayer has bought the intellectual property of Monsanto and nothing else. I understand what you are getting at however it is based in a assumption of idealism and to support your argument can you show me case law that supports your point?
Can link to some case law that shows a company has to up hold another companies promises?
They never wrote that "we promise not to defend our patents", they only wrote that they will only defend them if farmers are deliberately violating them.
All of which is irrelevant now. The Monsanto brand is crap.
The whole issue there is that the anti-GMO movement are spreading FUD among farmers that Monsanto some day in the future _might_ file lawsuits on farmers whose fields where inadvertently contaminated by Monsanto seeds.
And Monsanto would be in their rights to do so, so they are actually pointing out reality? Why is that FUD? because it's true? that doesn't make a lot of sense to me? Will Bayer take that strategy? maybe, can they? yes.
This is why they preemptively sued Monsanto which both the court and the appeals court threw out.
So what you're pointing out here is that they used tactics to counter Monsanto's tactics. What's the big deal? It's ok for Monsanto to protect their interests, but not for these farmers to protect theirs? That's not how this all works.
Which wiki? I don't remember having linked to any wiki (which does not mean that it didn't happen, I just have no recollection of it).
And btw, even if we play with the idea that this is somehow true then that is a problem with the patent system and not with GMO:s or Monsanto.
There is nothing wrong with protecting your intellectual property, so the patent system may have issues with trolls however that is not what we are talking about. The issue is the way Monsanto is using their patent portfolio.
Every seed company that produces seeds with new abilities regardless of it's via GMO or via cross breeding is patenting their seeds since that is how the US patent system works.
Well, that's how business works, you don't have to patent what you've invested in however that would be dumb.
It's just that the anti-GMO lobby focused on Monsanto in order to have a common enemy.
So basically what you are saying is that they sued Monsanto because they object to the idea of a compound based GMO paired product used as a business strategy. It's an interesting perspective. If the business practice is monopolistic then that would create government intervention because the practice is anti-capitalistic. Wow, you just punched 10-20 billion dollar hole into that product portfolio. Nice work, I'm sure someone is going to figure the same thing out sooner or later. I doubt that Bayer would welcome that.
But they are not just farmers, they are farmers that make a living selling non-GMO crops together with anti-GMO/Big-Organic lobby groups.
First of all I think we need to examine your verbage here: non-GMO crops are crops, they are the product of the genetic source code of this planet. The seed inventory of our planet is a valuable commodity because it is the source of food on our planet, I'm sure we're both intelligent enough to recognise that.
and: anti-GMO/Big-Organic lobby groups
You mean farmers that are using seeds that are not genetically modified. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against GMO's as long as it is in the right context. This might include to improve the existing natural product, like introducing Vitamin A in rice to help nations who have problems with eyesight in large segments of their population. Or to improve wheats resistance to drought.
I also get it that Monsanto would invent a weed killer to help those farmers. I'm just not sold on the idea of creating a proprietary genetic seed property without fully thinking out the ramifications of introducing Glyphosates into the environment. Glyphosate does look like a good technology to control weeds however in the past Human behavior around these products has been fraught with errors of judgment causing very nasty environmental consequences because we didn't examine long term consequences.
Specifically, I think a concern that the Big-Organic lobby groups is they use different farming methods and whilst they maybe protecting their interests, so is Monsanto. The only difference is they way they are executing it as a part of their business strategy. I get it that you are pointing to some potential political position however I think you would need to look to their motivation and decide where your interests lie.
I get it if your interests align with Monsanto and how they are trying to help farmers prepared to license the use of their product. However you cannot deny the sheer size of that market and that significant intellectual effort was put into constructing a product that would allow Monsanto to secure access to it.
So the only way to really determine a reasonable position on this matter is to apply some logic and reason. First glyphosateresistant weeds mean that what ever round about of genetic modification has occurred to produce the resistance that will have to continue. In the meantime the Glyphosate compounds are likely going to require modification again. At best it is a medium term strategy for food supply.
So basically I think it is a technology of only limited utility and that genetically modifiying crops to be more resistant to weeds an pests is a better way than making them weaker. However even that is not relevant in this way because many of the grain products are in surplus and end up being dumped. So you have to ask why we actually need the extra production.
That only leaves you with business strategy and securing control of the market and in that respect Bayer got a real bargain.
A board have no such responsibility to shareholders.
I beg to differ friend. All boards have a legal responsibility to deliver a profit to their shareholders. The reason you have a patent is to protect your interests in your investment and market it and secure access to the profits from that endeavor. You were saying somewhere before that you weren't an expert on law so you are possibly unaware of this obligation under company law.
But even if that where the case there must also exist a legal way for a company to be able to sue a farmer when the farmers crops have been "infected" by said company,
That put the onus and work effort onto the farmer for something they did not willingly want or do. I can see your point and I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be if a certain percentage of their crop was a Monsanto licensed product, say %10, th
I did read that article. It defies rationality that so many farmers have a problem with Monsanto if they weren't doing things to agitate the community. I'm not saying your wrong about hippies, however farmers aren't, they run a business. Collectively they see a threat because people don't take class actions and organize to do so for no reason, it is a difficult, time consuming and expensive undertaking with a lot of risk.
Second I think you miss the point about patent protection, Monsanto are obliged to do it as a function of the board's responsibility to shareholders.
Third:
Monsanto officials specifically refused to sign a covenant stating it would not sue the growers, but the court said the website statement was sufficient and would be binding.
What this means is that Monsanto reserved the right to protect its patents and that the website premise for this is taken "as truth" i.e. they are taken at their word that they won't bring such an action. However now that Bayer owns the portfolio they won't be held to this and no appeal is necessary, effectively increasing the value of the patents.
As I said your sources are all from Monsanto's web site which is effectively irrelevant compared to protecting their investment in their patent portfolio. Business is obliged to look for sources of revenue, to think otherwise is naive. Companies can tell you all sorts of things about their policy and values however at the end of the day the board has a legal obligation to return a profit to shareholders because the bottom line is the bottom line which trumps all other concerns.
I'm only interested in the patent protection action they took as the things you wrote from their web site is counter to those goals. We promise not to defend our patents is what it boils down to which does not make a lot of sense.
Michael White admitted to the court that
He also contacted Monsanto to tell them exactly what he was doing before he did it, according to the wiki you posted earlier.
Monsanto name is gone, however their genetically modified crops that only grow with their products remains.
Their patents on both glyphosate (Roundup) and RR crops expired long ago.
So does that mean no one uses it any more or has it been re-branded like Posilac when they sold it to Eli Lilly? Like anything they did that got bad press.
I wonder what other goodies are in their $63 Billion portfolio? Such lovely chaps to invent a seed like that and then sue the farmers whose fields it infects. Monsanto, loved by all, how we will miss them.
They deserve a meme, I suggest:The Brand is gone butt the assholes remain.
Yes, so stop stealing my porn collection and masturbating with it.
'Ideology', my ass. The only 'ideology' I have is that we stop burning fossil fuels before it's too gods-be-damned late to reverse the damage we're doing with it.
Wind and solar are fine but they're not dependable. Building huge battery banks to store off-peak capacity is only practical up to a point, beyond which it starts creating more carbon footprint than it prevents. Other storage techniques aren't necessarily that great either. Nuclear of any design isn't pefect either and has drawbacks but it's better than continuing to burn fossil fuels and will tide us over until there's an even better alternative than any of the above. Fusion power may be closer than anyone thinks. For all we know physicists might make a discovery in the forseeable future that opens the door to something better. In the meantime we have to keep things going without trashing the entire ecosphere. How is keeping an open mind a bad thing? How is having a closed mind a good thing? Are you a God? Omniscent? Prescient? Or are you just giving in to hardwired caveman instincts?
Hahahahaha - spoken like a true Nuclear Ideologist, get back to me when you can tell me what a BDI or LER is in relation to a nuclear reactor and we can talk.
Not even intended as an insult, just trying to get you to think.
Ok, I think what you're saying is nuclear idealism.
The presentation I saw showed a design that literally recycles it's own so-called waste products.
not pu239 or u238 though, so no.
I'm not a physicist and certainly not a nuclear physicist but the nuclear physicist presenting this was allegedly an expert in his field so there has to be a certain amount of 'belief' (as much as I hate that word) in what was being presented.
Belief is the whole problem with Nuclear Ideologists, so no.
What I'm saying is that it's all still worth being open-minded about. Why is that so wrong? Closed-mindedness never benefits anyone.
Yeah Open mindedness is good, until your brain falls out, so no.
You can drop the whole exasperated genius routine, we're not buying it.
It's more like an ideology, Nuclear idealists who transpose their imaginary view of nuclear power onto the real world and confuse all of the problems with it onto the people pointing out that ain't such a good idea.
and potentially better technologies (e.g. thorium)
No, thorium isn;t a solution because it introduces a new waste stream (Thallium 233, IIRC) and does not address the existing stocks of pu-239 and u238. I haven't seen a thorium reactor design that burns those isotopes, can you point one out?
I agree that Thorium reactors are better than Uranium however that is not the platform that was selected. Consequently we have a large stockpiles of fuel that have already been mined and a large amount of energy invested into its production. Realistically any new reactor design put forward has to address this.
Which modern designs absolutely are. Even older nuclear plants didn't depend on "everyone doing their jobs perfectly", they only depended on people not doing incredibly stupid things in large numbers at the same time.
Look you've got a point about that and I agree with the part where you are saying is Nuclear isn't viable because people have to run it. It's good that you've realized why Nuclear is failing and that there is no way around this.
With modern designs you don't even have that possibility.
Another good point because the design that did work was shut down by oil and coal who have now lobbied for funding to have it demolished. It's really good that you have an understanding of what operational reactor experience is, what BDIs are and how that factors into why these reactors won't be built preventing the possibility of a meltdown. Best safety feature ever.
It's good that you've found two fundamental pragmatic reasons why Nuclear can't work, I'm impressed with your insights, thanks for sharing.
What are you talking about? There are female road workers and landscapers and other shit job do-ers where I live. Where do YOU live that you don't see them?
That's exactly what those "girls who code" initiatives are supposed to address and part of why the gender gap is a problem in the first place - if programming isn't cool to women, and there are women who would code if not for society telling them at a vulnerable age that they shouldn't code, don't you think that's a problem?
Where is the evidence for people telling girls they shouldn't code? What I am saying is there is more evidence available that women don't code because they have other priorities. If they are not interested in coding why should society try to mold them into something they just aren't interested in doing.
The entire rationale of this argument presumes some campaign to stop women coding when in reality anti-discrimination laws have been in place for decades that allows women to do pretty much anything they put their mind to. What we are seeing is people jumping up and down pointing fingers at men because they think they should be accommodated instead of proving themselves. Last I check the men in information technology aren't involved in hiring decisions and HR is mostly occupied by women and I remember one HR women specifically *excluding* other women from employment opportunities when they were qualified.
I also remember one young lady I worked with who was talented and had the capacity to work well with the team, have a campaign run on her by three other "ladies" to make her life a misery while she worked there because she also happened to be attractive. The only place this is negated is in larger shops where anti-discrimination weed out such machinations. Women being mean to other women is a stereotype in our culture - so I guess that's men's fault too.
A more constructive question to ask would be What is it about Information Technology that women *are* interested in and what is stopping them from participating?. What we see is finger pointing, no objectivity, no evidence and a lack of any willingness to seek that and evaluate it whilst ignoring the very real world priorities and decisions women have to make. In the meantime those of us who get sick of working in a sausage shop all the time get fingers pointed at them after observing what has been going on.
So no, as a man, I won't accept the blame. I worked my ass off to be in IT and I get sick of being asked to just wait by the finish line and let people less capable of running the race go by. No I don't see it as a problem I see it as a nuanced issue that a lot of selfish entitled people think that someone should just come along and make a space for them when all the sane women who do the work and put in the time to be good at IT receive social stigma for doing so from other women for the same reasons men do.
However I think they have other more pressing priorities than coding. Last time I checked men can't have babies and for women who want to figure out if they want kids they have to have everything in place before they're 35 at the very latest before it becomes dangerous for them to give birth.
So I'm gonna suggest that maybe, at the time of peak neuroplasticity when men can take their time to master IT, women have to answer a fundamental question and factor if their career path is compatible with having children. Let's work the numbers. Young woman completes degree by 21-22 years old, get's entry level jobs, has no set backs works for 8 years getting good, in demand OH OH 30. Do you want to continue your IT career or have children? Not impossible, just really really hard work and the women that I have met with both are married to guys in IT who understand how to support them because they are cool women, not demanding entitled brats.
For the women I've met in IT who could get past that and do IT work, they were exceptional, great to work with because they were good at what they do and committed. When gender, sexuality, ethnicity and all the rest of the bullshit falls away you get to meet exceptional people which is the thing I liked about IT for a along time until someone came and told me there was a problem because no one was expecting the nerds to take over the world.
So to those seeking equal representation for women in IT let's see you push equal representation for women in mining, logging, riggers, sewer workers, road workers, roofers, builders or many of the other shitty crappy physically demanding fucked up dangerous jobs that men do and get paid more for because they are jobs that truly SUCK. I'm told women can do anything men can so let's get some equality there too!
Seriously, someone please tell me what female is going to be interested in coding, operating systems and databases when they are 15, 25, 35, 45? Tell me how her peers will treat her? Doesn't mean they can't or won't but let's nip down to Sephora with the latest copy of "Programming Python" and explain to them just how cool it would be to program in python and see how that goes down.
Slashdot Mirror
a case that was thrown out by first the court and then the appeals court since the Monsanto pledge is valid as evidence if Monsanto ever would try that route.
As I said this is taken "As Truth" by the court and is irrelevant now that Bayer has bought the intellectual property assets.
You talk about deliberate violations and now you talk about accidental contamination. I've offered a test to detect deliberate violations and screen accidental contamination where you can set the thresholds as I don't care about either parties.
And no, boards does not have a profit responsibility to shareholders. I don't know where this myth comes from
It comes from US case law Dodge vs. Ford and whilst there has been some calls to stop teaching it, it was cited in 1983 in Dirks v. SEC and as recently in a whole set of cases in 2016, so it is very real.
What you are arguing is referred to as "Improper Altruism", which are the findings of the court that reflect what you are advocating.
Now this is of course a different kind of case but it shows that when a company buys another company it also buys that company:s legal obligations.
You are arguing "Improper Altruism", Bayers legal obligation is to protect their patent portfolio. Effectively Bayer has bought the intellectual property of Monsanto and nothing else. I understand what you are getting at however it is based in a assumption of idealism and to support your argument can you show me case law that supports your point?
Can link to some case law that shows a company has to up hold another companies promises?
They never wrote that "we promise not to defend our patents", they only wrote that they will only defend them if farmers are deliberately violating them.
All of which is irrelevant now. The Monsanto brand is crap.
The whole issue there is that the anti-GMO movement are spreading FUD among farmers that Monsanto some day in the future _might_ file lawsuits on farmers whose fields where inadvertently contaminated by Monsanto seeds.
And Monsanto would be in their rights to do so, so they are actually pointing out reality? Why is that FUD? because it's true? that doesn't make a lot of sense to me? Will Bayer take that strategy? maybe, can they? yes.
This is why they preemptively sued Monsanto which both the court and the appeals court threw out.
So what you're pointing out here is that they used tactics to counter Monsanto's tactics. What's the big deal? It's ok for Monsanto to protect their interests, but not for these farmers to protect theirs? That's not how this all works.
Which wiki? I don't remember having linked to any wiki (which does not mean that it didn't happen, I just have no recollection of it).
Wikipedia.
And btw, even if we play with the idea that this is somehow true then that is a problem with the patent system and not with GMO:s or Monsanto.
There is nothing wrong with protecting your intellectual property, so the patent system may have issues with trolls however that is not what we are talking about. The issue is the way Monsanto is using their patent portfolio.
Every seed company that produces seeds with new abilities regardless of it's via GMO or via cross breeding is patenting their seeds since that is how the US patent system works.
Well, that's how business works, you don't have to patent what you've invested in however that would be dumb.
It's just that the anti-GMO lobby focused on Monsanto in order to have a common enemy.
So basically what you are saying is that they sued Monsanto because they object to the idea of a compound based GMO paired product used as a business strategy. It's an interesting perspective. If the business practice is monopolistic then that would create government intervention because the practice is anti-capitalistic. Wow, you just punched 10-20 billion dollar hole into that product portfolio. Nice work, I'm sure someone is going to figure the same thing out sooner or later. I doubt that Bayer would welcome that.
But they are not just farmers, they are farmers that make a living selling non-GMO crops together with anti-GMO/Big-Organic lobby groups.
First of all I think we need to examine your verbage here: non-GMO crops are crops, they are the product of the genetic source code of this planet. The seed inventory of our planet is a valuable commodity because it is the source of food on our planet, I'm sure we're both intelligent enough to recognise that.
and: anti-GMO/Big-Organic lobby groups You mean farmers that are using seeds that are not genetically modified. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against GMO's as long as it is in the right context. This might include to improve the existing natural product, like introducing Vitamin A in rice to help nations who have problems with eyesight in large segments of their population. Or to improve wheats resistance to drought.
I also get it that Monsanto would invent a weed killer to help those farmers. I'm just not sold on the idea of creating a proprietary genetic seed property without fully thinking out the ramifications of introducing Glyphosates into the environment. Glyphosate does look like a good technology to control weeds however in the past Human behavior around these products has been fraught with errors of judgment causing very nasty environmental consequences because we didn't examine long term consequences.
Specifically, I think a concern that the Big-Organic lobby groups is they use different farming methods and whilst they maybe protecting their interests, so is Monsanto. The only difference is they way they are executing it as a part of their business strategy. I get it that you are pointing to some potential political position however I think you would need to look to their motivation and decide where your interests lie.
I get it if your interests align with Monsanto and how they are trying to help farmers prepared to license the use of their product. However you cannot deny the sheer size of that market and that significant intellectual effort was put into constructing a product that would allow Monsanto to secure access to it.
So the only way to really determine a reasonable position on this matter is to apply some logic and reason. First glyphosateresistant weeds mean that what ever round about of genetic modification has occurred to produce the resistance that will have to continue. In the meantime the Glyphosate compounds are likely going to require modification again. At best it is a medium term strategy for food supply.
So basically I think it is a technology of only limited utility and that genetically modifiying crops to be more resistant to weeds an pests is a better way than making them weaker. However even that is not relevant in this way because many of the grain products are in surplus and end up being dumped. So you have to ask why we actually need the extra production.
That only leaves you with business strategy and securing control of the market and in that respect Bayer got a real bargain.
A board have no such responsibility to shareholders.
I beg to differ friend. All boards have a legal responsibility to deliver a profit to their shareholders. The reason you have a patent is to protect your interests in your investment and market it and secure access to the profits from that endeavor. You were saying somewhere before that you weren't an expert on law so you are possibly unaware of this obligation under company law.
But even if that where the case there must also exist a legal way for a company to be able to sue a farmer when the farmers crops have been "infected" by said company,
That put the onus and work effort onto the farmer for something they did not willingly want or do. I can see your point and I would suggest that a reasonable compromise would be if a certain percentage of their crop was a Monsanto licensed product, say %10, th
Cool.
I did read that article. It defies rationality that so many farmers have a problem with Monsanto if they weren't doing things to agitate the community. I'm not saying your wrong about hippies, however farmers aren't, they run a business. Collectively they see a threat because people don't take class actions and organize to do so for no reason, it is a difficult, time consuming and expensive undertaking with a lot of risk.
Second I think you miss the point about patent protection, Monsanto are obliged to do it as a function of the board's responsibility to shareholders.
Third:
What this means is that Monsanto reserved the right to protect its patents and that the website premise for this is taken "as truth" i.e. they are taken at their word that they won't bring such an action. However now that Bayer owns the portfolio they won't be held to this and no appeal is necessary, effectively increasing the value of the patents.
As I said your sources are all from Monsanto's web site which is effectively irrelevant compared to protecting their investment in their patent portfolio. Business is obliged to look for sources of revenue, to think otherwise is naive. Companies can tell you all sorts of things about their policy and values however at the end of the day the board has a legal obligation to return a profit to shareholders because the bottom line is the bottom line which trumps all other concerns.
Have you actually read these articles?
I'm only interested in the patent protection action they took as the things you wrote from their web site is counter to those goals. We promise not to defend our patents is what it boils down to which does not make a lot of sense.
Michael White admitted to the court that
He also contacted Monsanto to tell them exactly what he was doing before he did it, according to the wiki you posted earlier.
The problem I have with your argument is that all of your sources are from monsanto.
A 2 second web search provided tens of articles, here is six:
monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents
monsanto-sued-farmers-16-years-gmos-never-lost
monsanto-patents-sue-farmers
the-enemy-of-family-farmers
monsanto-wins-lawsuit
seeding-fear-the-story-of-a-farmer-who-took-on-monsanto
All of which tell a different story.
Kind of like look at the silly monkey,,LOOK AT THE SILLY MONKEY!
Monsanto name is gone, however their genetically modified crops that only grow with their products remains.
Their patents on both glyphosate (Roundup) and RR crops expired long ago.
So does that mean no one uses it any more or has it been re-branded like Posilac when they sold it to Eli Lilly? Like anything they did that got bad press. I wonder what other goodies are in their $63 Billion portfolio? Such lovely chaps to invent a seed like that and then sue the farmers whose fields it infects. Monsanto, loved by all, how we will miss them.
They deserve a meme, I suggest:The Brand is gone butt the assholes remain.
Of course I would, you know that second place is for the first loser.
Mr. Kaos
Kevin, is that you?
Yes, so stop stealing my porn collection and masturbating with it.
'Ideology', my ass. The only 'ideology' I have is that we stop burning fossil fuels before it's too gods-be-damned late to reverse the damage we're doing with it. Wind and solar are fine but they're not dependable. Building huge battery banks to store off-peak capacity is only practical up to a point, beyond which it starts creating more carbon footprint than it prevents. Other storage techniques aren't necessarily that great either. Nuclear of any design isn't pefect either and has drawbacks but it's better than continuing to burn fossil fuels and will tide us over until there's an even better alternative than any of the above. Fusion power may be closer than anyone thinks. For all we know physicists might make a discovery in the forseeable future that opens the door to something better. In the meantime we have to keep things going without trashing the entire ecosphere. How is keeping an open mind a bad thing? How is having a closed mind a good thing? Are you a God? Omniscent? Prescient? Or are you just giving in to hardwired caveman instincts?
Hahahahaha - spoken like a true Nuclear Ideologist, get back to me when you can tell me what a BDI or LER is in relation to a nuclear reactor and we can talk.
Not even intended as an insult, just trying to get you to think.
Ok, I think what you're saying is nuclear idealism.
The presentation I saw showed a design that literally recycles it's own so-called waste products.
not pu239 or u238 though, so no.
I'm not a physicist and certainly not a nuclear physicist but the nuclear physicist presenting this was allegedly an expert in his field so there has to be a certain amount of 'belief' (as much as I hate that word) in what was being presented.
Belief is the whole problem with Nuclear Ideologists, so no.
What I'm saying is that it's all still worth being open-minded about. Why is that so wrong? Closed-mindedness never benefits anyone.
Yeah Open mindedness is good, until your brain falls out, so no.
Monsanto name is gone, however their genetically modified crops that only grow with their products remains.
i.e. nothing has changed.
You can drop the whole exasperated genius routine, we're not buying it.
It's more like an ideology, Nuclear idealists who transpose their imaginary view of nuclear power onto the real world and confuse all of the problems with it onto the people pointing out that ain't such a good idea.
and potentially better technologies (e.g. thorium)
No, thorium isn;t a solution because it introduces a new waste stream (Thallium 233, IIRC) and does not address the existing stocks of pu-239 and u238. I haven't seen a thorium reactor design that burns those isotopes, can you point one out?
I agree that Thorium reactors are better than Uranium however that is not the platform that was selected. Consequently we have a large stockpiles of fuel that have already been mined and a large amount of energy invested into its production. Realistically any new reactor design put forward has to address this.
Which modern designs absolutely are. Even older nuclear plants didn't depend on "everyone doing their jobs perfectly", they only depended on people not doing incredibly stupid things in large numbers at the same time.
Look you've got a point about that and I agree with the part where you are saying is Nuclear isn't viable because people have to run it. It's good that you've realized why Nuclear is failing and that there is no way around this.
With modern designs you don't even have that possibility.
Another good point because the design that did work was shut down by oil and coal who have now lobbied for funding to have it demolished. It's really good that you have an understanding of what operational reactor experience is, what BDIs are and how that factors into why these reactors won't be built preventing the possibility of a meltdown. Best safety feature ever.
It's good that you've found two fundamental pragmatic reasons why Nuclear can't work, I'm impressed with your insights, thanks for sharing.
Corporatists, not Capitalists.
Propping up the fragile parts of our society that should be allowed to fall away before they do any more damage.
There is no reason for an armed man to submit to an unarmed man.
There is an enabler.
What are you talking about? There are female road workers and landscapers and other shit job do-ers where I live. Where do YOU live that you don't see them?
I live on Earth and your statement is not reflected in the available data.
That's exactly what those "girls who code" initiatives are supposed to address and part of why the gender gap is a problem in the first place - if programming isn't cool to women, and there are women who would code if not for society telling them at a vulnerable age that they shouldn't code, don't you think that's a problem?
Where is the evidence for people telling girls they shouldn't code? What I am saying is there is more evidence available that women don't code because they have other priorities. If they are not interested in coding why should society try to mold them into something they just aren't interested in doing.
The entire rationale of this argument presumes some campaign to stop women coding when in reality anti-discrimination laws have been in place for decades that allows women to do pretty much anything they put their mind to. What we are seeing is people jumping up and down pointing fingers at men because they think they should be accommodated instead of proving themselves. Last I check the men in information technology aren't involved in hiring decisions and HR is mostly occupied by women and I remember one HR women specifically *excluding* other women from employment opportunities when they were qualified.
I also remember one young lady I worked with who was talented and had the capacity to work well with the team, have a campaign run on her by three other "ladies" to make her life a misery while she worked there because she also happened to be attractive. The only place this is negated is in larger shops where anti-discrimination weed out such machinations. Women being mean to other women is a stereotype in our culture - so I guess that's men's fault too.
A more constructive question to ask would be What is it about Information Technology that women *are* interested in and what is stopping them from participating?. What we see is finger pointing, no objectivity, no evidence and a lack of any willingness to seek that and evaluate it whilst ignoring the very real world priorities and decisions women have to make. In the meantime those of us who get sick of working in a sausage shop all the time get fingers pointed at them after observing what has been going on.
So no, as a man, I won't accept the blame. I worked my ass off to be in IT and I get sick of being asked to just wait by the finish line and let people less capable of running the race go by. No I don't see it as a problem I see it as a nuanced issue that a lot of selfish entitled people think that someone should just come along and make a space for them when all the sane women who do the work and put in the time to be good at IT receive social stigma for doing so from other women for the same reasons men do.
However I think they have other more pressing priorities than coding. Last time I checked men can't have babies and for women who want to figure out if they want kids they have to have everything in place before they're 35 at the very latest before it becomes dangerous for them to give birth.
So I'm gonna suggest that maybe, at the time of peak neuroplasticity when men can take their time to master IT, women have to answer a fundamental question and factor if their career path is compatible with having children. Let's work the numbers. Young woman completes degree by 21-22 years old, get's entry level jobs, has no set backs works for 8 years getting good, in demand OH OH 30. Do you want to continue your IT career or have children? Not impossible, just really really hard work and the women that I have met with both are married to guys in IT who understand how to support them because they are cool women, not demanding entitled brats.
For the women I've met in IT who could get past that and do IT work, they were exceptional, great to work with because they were good at what they do and committed. When gender, sexuality, ethnicity and all the rest of the bullshit falls away you get to meet exceptional people which is the thing I liked about IT for a along time until someone came and told me there was a problem because no one was expecting the nerds to take over the world.
So to those seeking equal representation for women in IT let's see you push equal representation for women in mining, logging, riggers, sewer workers, road workers, roofers, builders or many of the other shitty crappy physically demanding fucked up dangerous jobs that men do and get paid more for because they are jobs that truly SUCK. I'm told women can do anything men can so let's get some equality there too!
Seriously, someone please tell me what female is going to be interested in coding, operating systems and databases when they are 15, 25, 35, 45? Tell me how her peers will treat her? Doesn't mean they can't or won't but let's nip down to Sephora with the latest copy of "Programming Python" and explain to them just how cool it would be to program in python and see how that goes down.
Yep - mod me troll for pointing out reality.