I do not believe it is fair to say the industry learned nothing from Chernobyl. You can say the lessons learned were not implemented. You can say the wrong lessons were learned.
We can say, from what we know, is that TEPCO willfully ignored known lessons and colluded with the government regulator to prevent regulation being created. Therefore it is charitable to say the nuclear industry learned nothing.
You can say it was criminal negligence and that would be an assessment closer to reality. After all the operators of Davis-Besse were charged with criminal offenses so I believe it's fair the board of TEPCO should too for causing an INES level 7 event.
TEPCO was overconfident in their ability to prevent a meltdown. I have little doubt that they saw additional safety measures that were ordered by the government, but never implemented, as unnecessary.
We can say it's Nonfeasance that accurately describes the nature of TEPCO criminal negligence.
What would have likely saved the plant was to *NOT* shutdown the reactor as they did.
Unfortunately TEPCO also neglected to make improvements to the sea wall precluding that option to themselves and effectively neutering the triple redundancy you speak of.
One lesson I hope the industry has learned is to reduce power in such an event
Unfortunately doing so would reduce nuclear powers capacity factor significantly making nuclear power pointless.
I'm not saying this is certain, only that is what I gathered from the assessments of the reports I've read.
Please share them.
I agree that the process by which we license, regulate, and oversee the nuclear power industry does need improvement, but I'm not sure we would agree in what improvements need to be made.
I'm satisfied that regulators and industry can make the right findings, what is clear is that the nuclear industry is unwilling to apply them and that any attempt to compel a board to comply and produce safety improvements can be subverted. It is human nature.
Let's also make one thing clear, even with the Fukushima and Chernobyl meltdowns nuclear power is the safest energy source we know how to build.
I believe it is INSANE to point at those two reactor facilities and claim nuclear power is safe. What it shows is that the organizational systems that we have created are simply too prone to corruption to be trusted to run nuclear power stations. Maybe we need to step back from nuclear, not permanently, look at the industry as a whole and redesign it. Take a focused look at the waste storage issue, solve that, decommission a bunch of old reactors and figure out what infrastructure is required to operate nuclear sustainably.
Nuclear power is even safer than wind and solar by an order of magnitude.
Alternatively we don't understand the full consequences of the nuclear industry yet.
It's a lot easier to conceptualize a person falling off their solar roof than to conceptualize the long term consequences of large scale industrial releases of radionuclides into the environment. It's fair to say that the nuclear PR machine plays on this which is why people don't trust those sorts of claims, people notice the inconsistencies amongst the motherhood statements and look for the gotcha.
How do you stop the next Fukashima from happening?
First by understanding what went wrong, I'm not sure why.
Let me help you with these parts.
The reactors that were in service there all suffered from design flaws, referred to as a 'Design Basis Issues'. They work around these issues by have operational and implementation processes so that suffering an accident from that flaw can be avoided. This requires strict adherence to the manufactuer and implementing the support systems the reactor requires.
In the case of the Fukushima reactors the American Society of Mechanical Engineers found two flaws, the pressure vessel itself leaked above 70psi and the gate pair seal for the spent fuel cooling pools would start to leak.
The reactor was rated to the ground acceleration it experienced. At issue was that TEPCO did not adhere to the recommendations for operating these reactors that *must* always have power supplied to them so as not to expose these issues.
Without power to run the cooling pumps the water in the reactor started to get hot, then boil.
Loss of power to the backup cooling would initiate these events because a loss of cooling (Accident) would cause the reactor core to heat and begin to produce hydrogen. The pressure would build and thus the reactor start to leak hydrogen above 70 psi. The same thing would happen in the cooling pool because of the leaking gate pair seals, with less water to cool the spent fuel, they too started heat, boil and produce hydrogen outside of the reactor.
Zirconium, when hot enough, will burn in water. This burning water and zirconium releases hydrogen gas.
When the moderator is gone and the fuel rods get thermally and radioactively hot it initiates a thing called a 'plutonium fire'. This was the main motivation for emptying the unit 4 pool as it was unstable and its foundations had sunk an additional 30 inches into the ground. Fortunately this has recently been completed.
When hot enough to melt zirconium and steel the fuel can lose containment, pile up on the bottom of the vessel, and fission can restart. This makes it hotter.
Let us call this what it is: a 'meltdown'.
So, how do we keep this from happening?
We should be concerning ourselves how to ensure improvements to the existing Nuclear Industry are implemented. We have seen examples of the professionals in organizations like the NRC who can indentify and design improvements that manifest in regulation however, as we can see in the official report, TEPCO colluded to *prevent* these improvements from occurring.
Some of TEPCO's board has been charged with negligence because of the criminal negligence of the board of TEPCO. They colluded with the regulator and put everyone's safety at risk. It makes me think of that story about the guy putting the cruise control on the Winnebago and then stepping into the back to make himself a coffee just before the vehicle drove itself off an embankment. It's a close analogy the only difference is that TEPCO understood what the risks were. They read the owners manual, so to speak, they didn't want to spend the money because they believed it wasn't required.
At issue is if human beings are able to operate them safely. Chernobyl and Fukushima both failed because of how they were being managed and it is these types of organizational failures that have caused these disasters. The hubris of the operators caused the destruction of the communities that surround them.
No matter what reactor technology is being used it seems we haven't been able to avoid this characteristic of human nature as Fukushima shows that the nuclear industry learned nothing from Chernobyl.
I bought a ZTE Axon 7 when reading that ZTE was actively working with Cyanogen Inc to get the device on the supported list.
Maybe it will roll over into LineageOS (where Cyanogenmod's corpse is being reanimated)?
Sam
I'm on the learning curve. I would like to see how many phones I can do, so if lineageOS is where the CM community is going, I will go there. If not, it might be time to look at an ubuntu phone.
It's all over the world, a fact of history. That when you die, you'll become something worse than dead, you'll become, a legend.
I bet no one looked at Neil Armstrong and said Hey pal, you only landed on the moon once, you're a one hit wonder. I'm fairly certain that many of them regret being so famous, perhaps a little unexpectedly, and that living a legend is a curse that costs them their freedom. I don't think you would be able to handle the pressure of being so recognizable out of one role.
Then again, perhaps you are jealous you aren't a space princess, I will never know.
I think you're spot on. Anyone who is able to retire from just one role when they are in their early 20's has earned the title 'Iconic', everyone else is jealous. So let us revisit the meaning of the word.
Iconic:of, relating to, or characteristic of an icon.
We are all looking at her career from the end, looking back, however no one knows where their life will lead. People recognized her for her work, I don't give a shit about her coke habit or the rest of whatever, she made a movie, bought aspects of her personality to the role and everyone liked it. So what if she was a shit actor or couldn't get another role because that one was so huge. I don't understand why people are begrudging her what she earned.
Nichelle Nicols is an icon, for one role, so is William Shatner, so is Mark Hamil. Some people only do one thing in their life that becomes their life. I wonder how many times she sat in a restaurant and head someone say 'Look, there's Princess Leia!' - That's what it means to be an icon.
So how would you propose to get the electricity to these remote regions.
The same way we do in Sweden. Build a line.
Then why not build the line to where geothermal areas exist and send the community the electricity generated by that. If you are going to invest billions of dollars in a reactor, why not build a wind farm and the same transmission infrastructure and get direct financial returns. How would an investor find a justification for doing such a thing commercially when an investor can yield direct returns from infrastructure investments that actually generate returns in their lifetime, instead of sometime, maybe?
As for the rest, if you call IPCC biased, I can't help you.
I didn't call the IPCC biased, I called Vattenfal biased. I call the IPCC "deceived". You are not helping me, *I* and helping *you* to understand that the nuclear industry is a failure and the nuclear revival is still born. Nuclear power is a relic of the cold war and, like many of its failing legacies, takes a long time to die.
I get it that you think that nuclear power will save the world, it hasn't been able to. There are a lot of reasons why this is so some energetic, some economic. I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on this matter using non-biased sources.
Nope. It's used by the greens in the European parliament. Big difference.
It has been tabled by the European parliament by the greens then, have the opposition tabled a similar work? No - because Vattenfal's work could not be tabled.
Why, you ask? Because instead of peer review Vattenfals analysis required a *certification*, which lapsed years ago, so any criticisms of the stormsmith work must keep in mind that no equivalent work exists.
To be completely clear on this, Vattenfal's marketing paper to the IPCC is now obsolete, whereas "stormsmith's" work remains. Can you provide a link to the original Vattenfal work?
And "stormsmith" in any of its guises is not without problems and criticism. That it's been "peer reviewed" (and given that it hasn't been published I used that term loosely), doesn't mean "correct", it means "not obviously flawed" (but even that's debatable).
It has been peer reviewed, published and revised four times. Given the level of detail it is clear to see why, it is a large, dynamic work attempting to document the scope of an extremely large and complex industry whose primary externality are radioisotopes that we are yet to figure out how to store properly. These reactors will *all* have to be dismantled eventually and that will be a huge energetic cost, yet to be incurred. Couple these two things and you have an enormous body of knowledge we are still trying to understand for an industry that is large and well funded, so of course it has been criticised.
I think the first criticism was the method of calculating the industrial energetic inputs, until those critics discovered that Vattenfal's analysis used the same method and so on.
Besides, do you expect the supporters of Nuclear power to table a neutral work that shows Nuclear Power's inherrant conceptual flaws? The Stormsmith work was not created with the intent of criticising nuclear power, it was created to explore the energy return of the entire Nuclear industry.
Vattenfal's work is biased and less detailed. You can't accuse stormsmith of being biased, so which other work not funded by the nuclear industry would you suggest?
Witness instead the IPCC figures. They also state that which "stormsmith" doesn't, namely that you don't get much CO2 from nuclear LCAs unless you assume that the mining and especially the enrichment centrifuges run on coal powered electricity.
So you exchange the Carbon externality with in-situ acid leach mining's externality of hundreds of megalitres of radioisotope laden, radioactive sulphuric acid in tailings dams and thier "assumption" that the remains won't leak from uninspectable geological voids and pollute the water table...
then exclude the energetic costs of dismantling the reactor...
then you start to understand why I don't accept the figures in the IPCC figures, because they are from a biased source.
Now, that may be "true" today, depending on the energy mix, but since nuclear power produce electricity, and there's nothing stopping the use of nuclear electricity in either mining or enrichment, that's a bit disingenuous.
So how would you propose to get the electricity to these remote regions. Build thousands of kilometres of powerlines to nowhere - how would you do that in an open cut mine? Why wouldn't you just build the powerlines to geothermal or wind sources? I don't think you have thought that through.
By that token wind and solar emit quite a bit of CO2 as well.
that's a bit disingenuous.
So that's a crap analysis, basing any decisions on that sort of reasoning would preclude increasing nuclear in the energy mix, even though that would substantially decrease the CO2 load from nuclear.
One of my criteria for buying a phone was that it had CM available -- my latest being the OnePlus X. Every Android phone I've owned has run CM.
Dammit, I just bought an S5 for that very same reason, a OnePlus X is a much nicer phone. The later S5 I have seems to have partitioning issues with CM, but I will keep chipping away, have you tried it with the 1+X yet?.
I think the idea behind CM is a really good one, except that the market isn't ready. The market impetus for CM is to have more control over the device. As technologists we are probably more easily frustrated by this as we are supposed to be ahead of developments. However I think more people will become more frustrated and they will start to demand better control over a device they pay for.
Case in point a neighbor of my friend surprised me just a week ago when he told me that he had installed CM on his phone. This guy knows nothing about computers (except for playing games) yet was driven enough to find CM and install it on his phone. That is what tells me that CM is an idea ahead of its time.
Frankly I think that freeing this project from MS is a good idea and that its time back inside a community of people interested in the idea, as opposed to commercializing it, will be a good thing for a CM fork. This recent development has just encouraged me to get more involved.
Irrelevant. The Nazi governments, repealed German Citizens rights, shutdown the constitution with the 'Reichstag Fire Decree' and threatened those who opposed the legislation with the SS and the SA. The Socialist democrats that you are demonizing are the only Germans who stood *against* Hitler. Case in point is that under these regimes left wing opponents like union and community leaders were rounded up and put in concentration camps by right wing fascists who bought us history like the mass murder of Jews.
That you bring up Mussolini, the very template of right wing fascism that believes that any form of liberal democracy should be replaced with totalitarian one party martial government, shows the vapid little thought bubble you have had, has burst. Go and learn some history instead of trying to re-write it.
The correct and original political spectrum looks like this:
Leftist politics supports the populous, Centrists politics is self involved and Right wing politics supports the establishment. It is that simple.
Nazi/fascist/socialists are all cut from the same cloth. They all want totalitarian governments that have massive power and control over your daily life. How someone marked the AC post above informative just shows how effective the propaganda and brainwashing of the main stream media and higher education together are.
The main stream media is *owned* and consolidated by right wing entities in control of the capital that pays for them. The neutering of the education system (starting with ignorance of the constitution) is to make populations more compliant to mainstream media messages of control from the establishment. Your protestations and willful ignorance are illustrations of how successful the brainwashing is. Ever read your own constitution?
The sad truth is that the Aussies and UK for example are both less free than they were 40 years ago, with a bigger nanny state...
dominated by right wing politics over it's implementation. All of the laws in Australia that punctuated decreased civil liberties and increased spying were *all* proposed under conservative right wing governments. The reason I know is because I wrote to those governments protesting the implementation of those laws. I have watched as those same laws have been rolled out in other western countries.
What we have today is what the fascist right wing control of the population looks like, increasing daily. The people who protest it as left wing politics are a manifestation of the same brainwashed cowards that existed in Nazi times manipulated by their fear into not protesting anything the state did to decay the populations freedom.
Money and security is their dogma, selfish apathy their credo. They have never written to a politician about anything that wasn't in their self interest, I doubt you have.
The 'right-washing' of the political landscape you are engaging in paints the progressive slide of western politics to right wing fascism as the intent, rather than the failure of, left wing politics to protect the populous from the conversion of their rights to capital in the overt surveillance state we find ourselves in now.
I may have to put up with all that, however with the last breath of my freedom of speech that even now is probably being gisted by some intelligence service somewhere I will point out that the oxy-moronic alt-white bullshit that you have spouted here is *exactly* what a right wing fascist would say.
To determine whether Nazism was a Leftist or Rightist movement, just look at whether they believed in limiting the size and scope of government. Answer is a huge 'NO'. They were big believers in big government, but since Communists were one of the groups that they decided to persecute, nobody ever recognized them as being Left Wing
Nazi's were Fascists, the epitome of right wing politics. Anyone who has studied any history would recognise that and the parallels in politics today.
The IPCC accepted data on this subject from Vattenfall, a company with heavy investments in Nuclear power.
Yes, it wouldn't make sense to accept data on this subject from someone who didn't run any nuclear power plants, as they then wouldn't have any data to share, now would it?!
Slashdot Mirror
Scientists now searching for equally mysterious WPA or WEP key.
You're welcome.
We can say, from what we know, is that TEPCO willfully ignored known lessons and colluded with the government regulator to prevent regulation being created. Therefore it is charitable to say the nuclear industry learned nothing.
You can say it was criminal negligence and that would be an assessment closer to reality. After all the operators of Davis-Besse were charged with criminal offenses so I believe it's fair the board of TEPCO should too for causing an INES level 7 event.
We can say it's Nonfeasance that accurately describes the nature of TEPCO criminal negligence.
Unfortunately TEPCO also neglected to make improvements to the sea wall precluding that option to themselves and effectively neutering the triple redundancy you speak of.
Unfortunately doing so would reduce nuclear powers capacity factor significantly making nuclear power pointless.
Please share them.
I'm satisfied that regulators and industry can make the right findings, what is clear is that the nuclear industry is unwilling to apply them and that any attempt to compel a board to comply and produce safety improvements can be subverted. It is human nature.
I believe it is INSANE to point at those two reactor facilities and claim nuclear power is safe. What it shows is that the organizational systems that we have created are simply too prone to corruption to be trusted to run nuclear power stations. Maybe we need to step back from nuclear, not permanently, look at the industry as a whole and redesign it. Take a focused look at the waste storage issue, solve that, decommission a bunch of old reactors and figure out what infrastructure is required to operate nuclear sustainably.
Alternatively we don't understand the full consequences of the nuclear industry yet.
It's a lot easier to conceptualize a person falling off their solar roof than to conceptualize the long term consequences of large scale industrial releases of radionuclides into the environment. It's fair to say that the nuclear PR machine plays on this which is why people don't trust those sorts of claims, people notice the inconsistencies amongst the motherhood statements and look for the gotcha.
Let me help you with these parts.
The reactors that were in service there all suffered from design flaws, referred to as a 'Design Basis Issues'. They work around these issues by have operational and implementation processes so that suffering an accident from that flaw can be avoided. This requires strict adherence to the manufactuer and implementing the support systems the reactor requires.
In the case of the Fukushima reactors the American Society of Mechanical Engineers found two flaws, the pressure vessel itself leaked above 70psi and the gate pair seal for the spent fuel cooling pools would start to leak.
The reactor was rated to the ground acceleration it experienced. At issue was that TEPCO did not adhere to the recommendations for operating these reactors that *must* always have power supplied to them so as not to expose these issues.
Loss of power to the backup cooling would initiate these events because a loss of cooling (Accident) would cause the reactor core to heat and begin to produce hydrogen. The pressure would build and thus the reactor start to leak hydrogen above 70 psi. The same thing would happen in the cooling pool because of the leaking gate pair seals, with less water to cool the spent fuel, they too started heat, boil and produce hydrogen outside of the reactor.
When the moderator is gone and the fuel rods get thermally and radioactively hot it initiates a thing called a 'plutonium fire'. This was the main motivation for emptying the unit 4 pool as it was unstable and its foundations had sunk an additional 30 inches into the ground. Fortunately this has recently been completed.
Let us call this what it is: a 'meltdown'.
We should be concerning ourselves how to ensure improvements to the existing Nuclear Industry are implemented. We have seen examples of the professionals in organizations like the NRC who can indentify and design improvements that manifest in regulation however, as we can see in the official report, TEPCO colluded to *prevent* these improvements from occurring.
Some of TEPCO's board has been charged with negligence because of the criminal negligence of the board of TEPCO. They colluded with the regulator and put everyone's safety at risk. It makes me think of that story about the guy putting the cruise control on the Winnebago and then stepping into the back to make himself a coffee just before the vehicle drove itself off an embankment. It's a close analogy the only difference is that TEPCO understood what the risks were. They read the owners manual, so to speak, they didn't want to spend the money because they believed it wasn't required.
At issue is if human beings are able to operate them safely. Chernobyl and Fukushima both failed because of how they were being managed and it is these types of organizational failures that have caused these disasters. The hubris of the operators caused the destruction of the communities that surround them.
No matter what reactor technology is being used it seems we haven't been able to avoid this characteristic of human nature as Fukushima shows that the nuclear industry learned nothing from Chernobyl.
I bought a ZTE Axon 7 when reading that ZTE was actively working with Cyanogen Inc to get the device on the supported list.
Maybe it will roll over into LineageOS (where Cyanogenmod's corpse is being reanimated)?
Sam
I'm on the learning curve. I would like to see how many phones I can do, so if lineageOS is where the CM community is going, I will go there. If not, it might be time to look at an ubuntu phone.
Why not both?
Perhaps we should categorizes this as an upside to nuclear war.
It's an alt-right policy platform, they're targeting swinging voters.
in dvorak, both 'e' and 't' are controlled by the major finger of respectively the left and right hand.
Are you using a dvorak KB?
Are you telling us you can't masturbate while using a dvorak KB? No wonder no one uses them! I can see how difficult it is to use capital letters.
Given that the alternative helps with overpopulation, not really.
Never go the full retard dude.
It's all over the world, a fact of history. That when you die, you'll become something worse than dead, you'll become, a legend.
I bet no one looked at Neil Armstrong and said Hey pal, you only landed on the moon once, you're a one hit wonder. I'm fairly certain that many of them regret being so famous, perhaps a little unexpectedly, and that living a legend is a curse that costs them their freedom. I don't think you would be able to handle the pressure of being so recognizable out of one role.
Then again, perhaps you are jealous you aren't a space princess, I will never know.
I think he's getting her mixed up with Alanis Morissette.
No, no, she's ironic. I think you're getting Alanis mixed up with Lindsay Wagner.
No, no, she's Bionic. I think you're getting Lindsay mixed up with Lynda Carter.
No, no, she's Psionic. I think you're getting Lynda Carter mixed up with Sissy Spacek, in "Carrie".
I think you're spot on. Anyone who is able to retire from just one role when they are in their early 20's has earned the title 'Iconic', everyone else is jealous. So let us revisit the meaning of the word.
Iconic:of, relating to, or characteristic of an icon.
We are all looking at her career from the end, looking back, however no one knows where their life will lead. People recognized her for her work, I don't give a shit about her coke habit or the rest of whatever, she made a movie, bought aspects of her personality to the role and everyone liked it. So what if she was a shit actor or couldn't get another role because that one was so huge. I don't understand why people are begrudging her what she earned.
Nichelle Nicols is an icon, for one role, so is William Shatner, so is Mark Hamil. Some people only do one thing in their life that becomes their life. I wonder how many times she sat in a restaurant and head someone say 'Look, there's Princess Leia!' - That's what it means to be an icon.
Personally, I think it would kind of suck.
Fuck, I must have been as drunk as he was!
We were still getting over Scott Weiland then Lemmy died.
So how would you propose to get the electricity to these remote regions.
The same way we do in Sweden. Build a line.
Then why not build the line to where geothermal areas exist and send the community the electricity generated by that. If you are going to invest billions of dollars in a reactor, why not build a wind farm and the same transmission infrastructure and get direct financial returns. How would an investor find a justification for doing such a thing commercially when an investor can yield direct returns from infrastructure investments that actually generate returns in their lifetime, instead of sometime, maybe?
As for the rest, if you call IPCC biased, I can't help you.
I didn't call the IPCC biased, I called Vattenfal biased. I call the IPCC "deceived". You are not helping me, *I* and helping *you* to understand that the nuclear industry is a failure and the nuclear revival is still born. Nuclear power is a relic of the cold war and, like many of its failing legacies, takes a long time to die.
I get it that you think that nuclear power will save the world, it hasn't been able to. There are a lot of reasons why this is so some energetic, some economic. I respectfully suggest you educate yourself on this matter using non-biased sources.
It has been tabled by the European parliament by the greens then, have the opposition tabled a similar work? No - because Vattenfal's work could not be tabled.
Why, you ask? Because instead of peer review Vattenfals analysis required a *certification*, which lapsed years ago, so any criticisms of the stormsmith work must keep in mind that no equivalent work exists.
To be completely clear on this, Vattenfal's marketing paper to the IPCC is now obsolete, whereas "stormsmith's" work remains. Can you provide a link to the original Vattenfal work?
It has been peer reviewed, published and revised four times. Given the level of detail it is clear to see why, it is a large, dynamic work attempting to document the scope of an extremely large and complex industry whose primary externality are radioisotopes that we are yet to figure out how to store properly. These reactors will *all* have to be dismantled eventually and that will be a huge energetic cost, yet to be incurred. Couple these two things and you have an enormous body of knowledge we are still trying to understand for an industry that is large and well funded, so of course it has been criticised.
I think the first criticism was the method of calculating the industrial energetic inputs, until those critics discovered that Vattenfal's analysis used the same method and so on.
Besides, do you expect the supporters of Nuclear power to table a neutral work that shows Nuclear Power's inherrant conceptual flaws? The Stormsmith work was not created with the intent of criticising nuclear power, it was created to explore the energy return of the entire Nuclear industry.
Vattenfal's work is biased and less detailed. You can't accuse stormsmith of being biased, so which other work not funded by the nuclear industry would you suggest?
So you exchange the Carbon externality with in-situ acid leach mining's externality of hundreds of megalitres of radioisotope laden, radioactive sulphuric acid in tailings dams and thier "assumption" that the remains won't leak from uninspectable geological voids and pollute the water table...
then exclude the energetic costs of dismantling the reactor...
then you start to understand why I don't accept the figures in the IPCC figures, because they are from a biased source.
So how would you propose to get the electricity to these remote regions. Build thousands of kilometres of powerlines to nowhere - how would you do that in an open cut mine? Why wouldn't you just build the powerlines to geothermal or wind sources? I don't think you have thought that through.
that's a bit disingenuous.
If you accept Vatanfal's crap, biased analysis.
One of my criteria for buying a phone was that it had CM available -- my latest being the OnePlus X. Every Android phone I've owned has run CM.
Dammit, I just bought an S5 for that very same reason, a OnePlus X is a much nicer phone. The later S5 I have seems to have partitioning issues with CM, but I will keep chipping away, have you tried it with the 1+X yet?.
I think the idea behind CM is a really good one, except that the market isn't ready. The market impetus for CM is to have more control over the device. As technologists we are probably more easily frustrated by this as we are supposed to be ahead of developments. However I think more people will become more frustrated and they will start to demand better control over a device they pay for.
Case in point a neighbor of my friend surprised me just a week ago when he told me that he had installed CM on his phone. This guy knows nothing about computers (except for playing games) yet was driven enough to find CM and install it on his phone. That is what tells me that CM is an idea ahead of its time.
Frankly I think that freeing this project from MS is a good idea and that its time back inside a community of people interested in the idea, as opposed to commercializing it, will be a good thing for a CM fork. This recent development has just encouraged me to get more involved.
Irrelevant. The Nazi governments, repealed German Citizens rights, shutdown the constitution with the 'Reichstag Fire Decree' and threatened those who opposed the legislation with the SS and the SA. The Socialist democrats that you are demonizing are the only Germans who stood *against* Hitler. Case in point is that under these regimes left wing opponents like union and community leaders were rounded up and put in concentration camps by right wing fascists who bought us history like the mass murder of Jews.
That you bring up Mussolini, the very template of right wing fascism that believes that any form of liberal democracy should be replaced with totalitarian one party martial government, shows the vapid little thought bubble you have had, has burst. Go and learn some history instead of trying to re-write it.
The correct and original political spectrum looks like this:
Leftist politics supports the populous, Centrists politics is self involved and Right wing politics supports the establishment. It is that simple.
Nazi/fascist/socialists are all cut from the same cloth. They all want totalitarian governments that have massive power and control over your daily life. How someone marked the AC post above informative just shows how effective the propaganda and brainwashing of the main stream media and higher education together are.
The main stream media is *owned* and consolidated by right wing entities in control of the capital that pays for them. The neutering of the education system (starting with ignorance of the constitution) is to make populations more compliant to mainstream media messages of control from the establishment. Your protestations and willful ignorance are illustrations of how successful the brainwashing is. Ever read your own constitution?
The sad truth is that the Aussies and UK for example are both less free than they were 40 years ago, with a bigger nanny state...
dominated by right wing politics over it's implementation. All of the laws in Australia that punctuated decreased civil liberties and increased spying were *all* proposed under conservative right wing governments. The reason I know is because I wrote to those governments protesting the implementation of those laws. I have watched as those same laws have been rolled out in other western countries.
What we have today is what the fascist right wing control of the population looks like, increasing daily. The people who protest it as left wing politics are a manifestation of the same brainwashed cowards that existed in Nazi times manipulated by their fear into not protesting anything the state did to decay the populations freedom.
Money and security is their dogma, selfish apathy their credo. They have never written to a politician about anything that wasn't in their self interest, I doubt you have.
The 'right-washing' of the political landscape you are engaging in paints the progressive slide of western politics to right wing fascism as the intent, rather than the failure of, left wing politics to protect the populous from the conversion of their rights to capital in the overt surveillance state we find ourselves in now.
I may have to put up with all that, however with the last breath of my freedom of speech that even now is probably being gisted by some intelligence service somewhere I will point out that the oxy-moronic alt-white bullshit that you have spouted here is *exactly* what a right wing fascist would say.
Only the name has changed.
To determine whether Nazism was a Leftist or Rightist movement, just look at whether they believed in limiting the size and scope of government. Answer is a huge 'NO'. They were big believers in big government, but since Communists were one of the groups that they decided to persecute, nobody ever recognized them as being Left Wing
Nazi's were Fascists, the epitome of right wing politics. Anyone who has studied any history would recognise that and the parallels in politics today.
Seriously editors, what's a "pentaly"?
It's when you count up all the pens you have.
But you don't get sucked in do you? Yes you do.
Yes, I do, that's the point. I work really hard, so when I play I don't let assholes ruin it for me.
Which we know you don't. You are loosing your choice and don't even realize it.
You don't know shit about me.
says the AC with incorrect assuptions
Nuclear powered roads is the solution that NIMBYs won't let us have.
And how much do they slow down the rotation of the earth?
Amount the same out that coal smoke weighs.
The IPCC accepted data on this subject from Vattenfall, a company with heavy investments in Nuclear power.
Yes, it wouldn't make sense to accept data on this subject from someone who didn't run any nuclear power plants, as they then wouldn't have any data to share, now would it?!
This is the peer reviewed study used by the European Parliament.
Time I choose to waste, isn't wasted time.