I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.
Fuck dude, stay away from razorblades and balconies on tall buildings.
I think you'll find that nothing is safe. Have you seen the various things that go into making batteries and solar panels? (Wind is pretty good but still not perfect.)
Sure, the OP made a claim that Nuclear power is 'zero emission' I was answering that point because it is not.
The energy required to make a new EV and the energy required to use it as well as the environmental damage done in the process makes me wonder where the tipping point is. When is it no longer beneficial to buy a new EV as compared to just keeping your current vehicle maintained properly? (With externalities taken into account.)
It's an interesting question. Remember the debate about the Compact Fluorescent Bulbs? It's kind of the same thing. They would say CF lasted 1000 times longer with less energy, the tradeoff being that light globes had less toxic elements in them, sort of like that.
I've never found those numbers. I've been curious about 'em for a while. I've found some bits and pieces and have had others link me to some other bits and pieces but no real conclusions had been drawn as to what is better, overall, and where the tipping point is with all the externalities included.
Indeed! You can make an effort to look for source data, i.e. the things the EPA and others measure, then you to look for other things and find that doesn't exist because governments aren't tracking or releasing that data.
Never said shit about safe, just zero emissions. I'm assuming they mean 'greenhouse gasses' in particular.
CFC114 used in the enrichment process is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. The EPA listed Nuclear refinement facilities as the top emitters of these gasses for many years. You can find the reports on their website.
19% is nuclear, technically zero emissions apart from the waste.
Completely clean and safe, except for the radioactive waste. That's like saying falling off a cliff is perfectly harmless, except for the landing.
It's not emissions free either. Carbon inputs from concrete during construction, oil/coal are the main energetic inputs during mining uranium. Coal is/was burnt to power the enrichment process to get the fuel. So there is also a large carbon input to Nuclear Power.
CFC114 used during enrichment is also a potent greenhouse gas so Nuclear power isn't zero emission in many respects.
People make mistakes in an informal forum such as this. Some of them aren't even native English speakers.
I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't work out if it was sarcasm, making a point, a joke, subtle or, stupid. Perhaps they were tired or, as you say, not native English speakers.
Being pedantic doesn't prove anyone's intelligence. It just proves that they nitpick informal communications and make assumptions as to the OP's language skills.
Jumping to conclusions and being overly sensitive about someone asking a question doesn't help build understanding either.
I reject your accusation that imposes your value system onto me. Asking a question is not being pedantic, it's giving someone an opportunity to clarify their point because the onus of delivering understanding about a message is on those with the message, not the people trying to interpret it.
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
In Australia we had the right to access to firearms, legally, until 1996 and the Port Arthur massacre. Since then we have had a very progressive, but noticable, whittling down of citizen rights and increased amount of surveilance. Whilst this sort of interference from the state is unconstitutional in the US, we have no such protections here and whilst the police are generally quite professional it doesn't change the fact that, in Australia our armed forces can be deployed against and fire on our own citizens with the protection of the law.
Whilst I recognise the situation in the US is insane I think you have to find a solution other than giving up your rights. Once the populous' access to force is gone our experience here is that both sides of politics will progressively remove any remaining rights.
We have to exclude enriched radionuclides from Nuclear Power plants as an environmental factor causing cancer or any form of genetic disease because Nuclear power is not part of the environment and anything that gets out is not part of 'normal' operations. Even if it did it wouldn't be that bad anyway, our generation should not be concerned, it's NIMG.
The (un)enriched radionuclides from coal are really bad though. Even knowing they are there will cause generations of cancer so it's better to not know.
I find the opposite to your view on government to be persuasive. This is attributed to Ralph Nader's sister by my mother: nuclear power begets a permanent security state to deal with the waste and is thus one of the most pernicious enemies of Liberty ever.
Few of the Nuclear Fanbois here would ever reach the level of education about the nuclear industry to recognize this as an issue.
These nuclear shills here are so lost in their own ineptitude that things like the 'net energy return' of the nuclear industry is met with a 'huh?', they think 'breeder' reactors burn up transuranics and *somehow* the unenriched uranium from coal fly ash is not as much as a problem as using DU as weapons mass and payload.
The thing that entertains me is that their shilling draws the end of the nuclear industry closer every day. The government report into Fukushima revealed it is the very mindset we see demonstrated here led to the culture of collusion that prevented any safety enhancements for the plant receiving any budget. Of course that is blamed on NIMBYS who are excluded from interfering by acts of law.
What disturbs me is that when the nuclear industry is done we will still have a lot of toxic radionuclides persisting in the environment.
I hadn't seen you post an article for a while, so thank you for the articles you post.
Please feel free to fight these laws and any kind of movement into other countries. But co-opting unrelated events is not the right way.
That is not my intention, the density of how many of these laws are being passed means I have been writing so many of these letters lately, I have confused two legislations. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
The Dallas Buyers Club LLC vs iiNet case was lodged in October 2014, the data retention laws were passed in March of 2015 and came in to force in October of 2015. None of the evidence put forward by DBC was provided by the ISPs involved or was in any way retained, accessed, or otherwise related to the metadata laws.
I have unintentionally linked the two by remembering what I saw in the Data retention law under Section 187K "The Communications Access Co-ordinator may grant exemptions or variations", 187G "Consultation with agencies and the ACMA" (Australian Media and Communications Authority) with when the National Security Legislation was passed around the same time as this case.
Specifically, I'm referring to the provisions under 187K enable the collection of this data from "service providers" by "enforcement agencies" and passing it on to entities like ACMA are the mechanism through which we expect these case to be brought and, *how* information is collected on Internet users.
It's interesting to ponder what a media authority may have to do with the provision of anti terrorism laws? Especially when you see provisions like this in the legislation:
187KA (5) The ACMA may take into account any other matter it considers relevant.
Apologies, for confusing the context.
The first thing to be aware of is that none of this comment is accurate.
Indeed, I have made a mistake posting about this stuff when I am tired. CISA is more comparable with the Australian National Security Legislation with regards to information sharing, which was worse than the data retention bill for US citizens but not the context of this case.
The first thing to be aware of is that this case was bought under the allowances in Australia's Metadata retention Act, passed under the guises of protecting Australian citizens from terrorist actions and investigating serious crimes.
The second thing to be aware of is that this Australian Legislation (passed earlier this year) and the CISA Act passed in the U.S Congress are the same thing, with the same intent, more than likely being sold to the U.S Congress on the same grounds. It follows the pattern of introducing the laws in Australia, then making them as constitutionally compatible with U.S laws to minimize obstruction before passing them in the US.
The basic operation of the Bill is it provides a legal framework to track down internet users for dubious reasons. The downside is that it looks like the US version of the Australian legislation does not make it mandatory for those systems to encrypt the metadata either, which must look like a juicy target to organized crime. Worse still, under the Australian version, any 'service provider' can be compelled to collect meta-data so I'm sure there is a similar provision in the US version.
Next up, the TPP will remove any remaining legal obstructions in place to protect Australian citizens, and more than likely any other signatories to this pending 'Trade Agreement', so I can assure any perceived 'sanity' on this issue is purely temporary.
That's why it is important that constituents read the bills so that they can write to their representatives and make their will known. There is no reason that the "many eyes" philosophy applied to open source software can't be applied to reading what laws are being proposed. If you can read and write, you are qualified.
Read them instead of watching the commercials during whatever show you watch.
The system is designed so that Reps and Senators don't actually know what they are voting on, and really don't care.
I think there are people there who are trying you just have to reach them so they understand what the issues are. Treat them honorably and many of them will act that way.
We have everything to loose by not trying and you might make a difference if you do try.
Put appropriate oversight in place that a warrant can be issued against to access the keys required to access whatever meta data the law enforcement or intelligence needs access to. This means appropriate use of decryption and key mechanisms is legal and inappropriate use is not legal.
This is what it looks like when the state doesn't want to give up the power to abuse the powers that it should not have.
Baseless extrapolations from one data point? You must be an average American. Grats! We'll hot drop a pretty flag to your location.
Indeed the availability of education, healthcare, a pervasive unbiased independent press and, job security makes most Americans well informed participants of democracy capable of making voting choices that are in the people's national interest. It's a country by the people, for the people - and nothing can corrupt that.
So you're saying that current elections are going to have any effect?
I think he is saying is that the dumb ignorant people are easily manipulated and that any "progress" will be limited to anything vested interests want the dumb people to believe.
One big one would be enough: Just sprinkle some iron sulfate on the surface of the ocean. The plankton bloom would not only suck up all the excess CO2, but would also cause a surge in fish stocks that could meet the world's need for protein.
Any idea where I can find more information about this? Perhaps a paper that's publicly available?
You can look to the large dust storms in Australia that blow iron dust out to sea as a starting point. Iremember that being talked about mainly because the ocean is iron poor and that oceanic metabolisms still use iron for living things to move oxtgen around. Sorry I don't have any more detail than that.
There is an effective, low cost technical solution to this issue. First some context. I had neigbours with *two* loud dogs that would bark all night and wake me up when I was falling back to sleep. It was becoming a problem because their barking went through the night and they slept during the day. The police had asked them to keep the dogs quiet however they didn't have the power to enforce it.
Having been in the situation before with unreasonable reactions from neighbours I was reticent to create conflict by directly confronting them so I also tried just throwing the dogs bones to chew. I was becoming so fatigued and exhausted from the barking that I got to the point of nearly having car accidents from driver fatigue so I was desperate for a solution.
The answer came in the form of a high frequency sine wave oscillator with a frequency randomly varying between 19khz and 23khz, two 8 ohm high frequency drivers and 70watt rms amplifier. I also distorted the source signal randomly. The signal was above human hearing but well within dog hearing. When the dogs were barking I applied the signal until they were quiet and then shut it off to train them to relate the sound to annoying barking.
It was extremely effective, silencing not only my neighbours dogs but a lot of other noisy dogs on the street. Ironically it also helped with security as the dogs would only bark if something was *really* going on, which usually meant people lingering outside for whatever reason. We'd had some car break ins before, so the dogs actually became good security guards again. I didn't use the device in those circumstances.
Fortunately, the dogs learned very quickly and I didn't need to use it very often and no one, except me, knew when it was operating so it also avoided confrontations with neighbours.
No, RTFA, too much sleep (more than nine hours) is seen as unhealthy too.
Or maybe sick people sleep a lot. It is likely the causation is the other way around. While TFA is quick to say that the sleeping causes the deaths, the study itself only says they are "associated".
As for those who enjoy hearing the screams of tortured dying kittens, let them./sarcasm
There was a video of some people sawing up a whale shark they had dragged in. I saw they had already cut off it's fins when they started sawing it's tail of *while it was still alive, 'A real cunt act'. The animal gasped from pain as they just kept sawing through it, made me fucking angry. What wrong with killing something first before chopping it to bits?
Why do we have to be cunts to animals just because we can and are going to eat them?
Theres almost no support in australia at all. Hell one of our previous conservative parlimentarians was on the board of Sea Shephard.
Ok, what I am wondering here is why can't the sea shepherd boats have underwater sirens that scare the whales and dolphins away, if it works for navy sonar, surely it can work for sea shepherd.
Slashdot Mirror
I always wondered what is the purpose of spreading the disease, that the humanity is, further and further - there is none except our need to keep alive and for some to reproduce as much as the available vaginas hold.
Fuck dude, stay away from razorblades and balconies on tall buildings.
I wonder how many the music industry has made to enforce their will?
I think you'll find that nothing is safe. Have you seen the various things that go into making batteries and solar panels? (Wind is pretty good but still not perfect.)
Sure, the OP made a claim that Nuclear power is 'zero emission' I was answering that point because it is not.
The energy required to make a new EV and the energy required to use it as well as the environmental damage done in the process makes me wonder where the tipping point is. When is it no longer beneficial to buy a new EV as compared to just keeping your current vehicle maintained properly? (With externalities taken into account.)
It's an interesting question. Remember the debate about the Compact Fluorescent Bulbs? It's kind of the same thing. They would say CF lasted 1000 times longer with less energy, the tradeoff being that light globes had less toxic elements in them, sort of like that.
I've never found those numbers. I've been curious about 'em for a while. I've found some bits and pieces and have had others link me to some other bits and pieces but no real conclusions had been drawn as to what is better, overall, and where the tipping point is with all the externalities included.
Indeed! You can make an effort to look for source data, i.e. the things the EPA and others measure, then you to look for other things and find that doesn't exist because governments aren't tracking or releasing that data.
Never said shit about safe, just zero emissions. I'm assuming they mean 'greenhouse gasses' in particular.
CFC114 used in the enrichment process is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. The EPA listed Nuclear refinement facilities as the top emitters of these gasses for many years. You can find the reports on their website.
Completely clean and safe, except for the radioactive waste. That's like saying falling off a cliff is perfectly harmless, except for the landing.
It's not emissions free either. Carbon inputs from concrete during construction, oil/coal are the main energetic inputs during mining uranium. Coal is/was burnt to power the enrichment process to get the fuel. So there is also a large carbon input to Nuclear Power.
CFC114 used during enrichment is also a potent greenhouse gas so Nuclear power isn't zero emission in many respects.
People make mistakes in an informal forum such as this. Some of them aren't even native English speakers.
I was giving the poster the benefit of the doubt because I couldn't work out if it was sarcasm, making a point, a joke, subtle or, stupid. Perhaps they were tired or, as you say, not native English speakers.
Being pedantic doesn't prove anyone's intelligence. It just proves that they nitpick informal communications and make assumptions as to the OP's language skills.
Jumping to conclusions and being overly sensitive about someone asking a question doesn't help build understanding either.
I reject your accusation that imposes your value system onto me. Asking a question is not being pedantic, it's giving someone an opportunity to clarify their point because the onus of delivering understanding about a message is on those with the message, not the people trying to interpret it.
Let them keep the money, then our government.
I don't understand, are you saying that VW should keep our government? Or do you mean 'the government should keep their money'.
Many eyes!!!
So, I figure that not having guns all around us is better for our freedom overall.
In Australia we had the right to access to firearms, legally, until 1996 and the Port Arthur massacre. Since then we have had a very progressive, but noticable, whittling down of citizen rights and increased amount of surveilance. Whilst this sort of interference from the state is unconstitutional in the US, we have no such protections here and whilst the police are generally quite professional it doesn't change the fact that, in Australia our armed forces can be deployed against and fire on our own citizens with the protection of the law.
Whilst I recognise the situation in the US is insane I think you have to find a solution other than giving up your rights. Once the populous' access to force is gone our experience here is that both sides of politics will progressively remove any remaining rights.
We have to exclude enriched radionuclides from Nuclear Power plants as an environmental factor causing cancer or any form of genetic disease because Nuclear power is not part of the environment and anything that gets out is not part of 'normal' operations. Even if it did it wouldn't be that bad anyway, our generation should not be concerned, it's NIMG.
The (un)enriched radionuclides from coal are really bad though. Even knowing they are there will cause generations of cancer so it's better to not know.
Just coming into our warm season, well over 1Kw per square metre, I suspect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I find the opposite to your view on government to be persuasive. This is attributed to Ralph Nader's sister by my mother: nuclear power begets a permanent security state to deal with the waste and is thus one of the most pernicious enemies of Liberty ever.
Few of the Nuclear Fanbois here would ever reach the level of education about the nuclear industry to recognize this as an issue.
These nuclear shills here are so lost in their own ineptitude that things like the 'net energy return' of the nuclear industry is met with a 'huh?', they think 'breeder' reactors burn up transuranics and *somehow* the unenriched uranium from coal fly ash is not as much as a problem as using DU as weapons mass and payload.
The thing that entertains me is that their shilling draws the end of the nuclear industry closer every day. The government report into Fukushima revealed it is the very mindset we see demonstrated here led to the culture of collusion that prevented any safety enhancements for the plant receiving any budget. Of course that is blamed on NIMBYS who are excluded from interfering by acts of law.
What disturbs me is that when the nuclear industry is done we will still have a lot of toxic radionuclides persisting in the environment.
I hadn't seen you post an article for a while, so thank you for the articles you post.
Please feel free to fight these laws and any kind of movement into other countries. But co-opting unrelated events is not the right way.
That is not my intention, the density of how many of these laws are being passed means I have been writing so many of these letters lately, I have confused two legislations. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
The Dallas Buyers Club LLC vs iiNet case was lodged in October 2014, the data retention laws were passed in March of 2015 and came in to force in October of 2015. None of the evidence put forward by DBC was provided by the ISPs involved or was in any way retained, accessed, or otherwise related to the metadata laws.
I have unintentionally linked the two by remembering what I saw in the Data retention law under Section 187K "The Communications Access Co-ordinator may grant exemptions or variations", 187G "Consultation with agencies and the ACMA" (Australian Media and Communications Authority) with when the National Security Legislation was passed around the same time as this case.
Specifically, I'm referring to the provisions under 187K enable the collection of this data from "service providers" by "enforcement agencies" and passing it on to entities like ACMA are the mechanism through which we expect these case to be brought and, *how* information is collected on Internet users.
It's interesting to ponder what a media authority may have to do with the provision of anti terrorism laws? Especially when you see provisions like this in the legislation:
187KA (5) The ACMA may take into account any other matter it considers relevant.
Apologies, for confusing the context.
The first thing to be aware of is that none of this comment is accurate.
Indeed, I have made a mistake posting about this stuff when I am tired. CISA is more comparable with the Australian National Security Legislation with regards to information sharing, which was worse than the data retention bill for US citizens but not the context of this case.
The first thing to be aware of is that this case was bought under the allowances in Australia's Metadata retention Act, passed under the guises of protecting Australian citizens from terrorist actions and investigating serious crimes.
The second thing to be aware of is that this Australian Legislation (passed earlier this year) and the CISA Act passed in the U.S Congress are the same thing, with the same intent, more than likely being sold to the U.S Congress on the same grounds. It follows the pattern of introducing the laws in Australia, then making them as constitutionally compatible with U.S laws to minimize obstruction before passing them in the US.
The basic operation of the Bill is it provides a legal framework to track down internet users for dubious reasons. The downside is that it looks like the US version of the Australian legislation does not make it mandatory for those systems to encrypt the metadata either, which must look like a juicy target to organized crime. Worse still, under the Australian version, any 'service provider' can be compelled to collect meta-data so I'm sure there is a similar provision in the US version.
Next up, the TPP will remove any remaining legal obstructions in place to protect Australian citizens, and more than likely any other signatories to this pending 'Trade Agreement', so I can assure any perceived 'sanity' on this issue is purely temporary.
Between meetings with constituents,
That's why it is important that constituents read the bills so that they can write to their representatives and make their will known. There is no reason that the "many eyes" philosophy applied to open source software can't be applied to reading what laws are being proposed. If you can read and write, you are qualified.
Read them instead of watching the commercials during whatever show you watch.
The system is designed so that Reps and Senators don't actually know what they are voting on, and really don't care.
I think there are people there who are trying you just have to reach them so they understand what the issues are. Treat them honorably and many of them will act that way.
We have everything to loose by not trying and you might make a difference if you do try.
Put appropriate oversight in place that a warrant can be issued against to access the keys required to access whatever meta data the law enforcement or intelligence needs access to. This means appropriate use of decryption and key mechanisms is legal and inappropriate use is not legal.
This is what it looks like when the state doesn't want to give up the power to abuse the powers that it should not have.
Baseless extrapolations from one data point? You must be an average American. Grats! We'll hot drop a pretty flag to your location.
Indeed the availability of education, healthcare, a pervasive unbiased independent press and, job security makes most Americans well informed participants of democracy capable of making voting choices that are in the people's national interest. It's a country by the people, for the people - and nothing can corrupt that.
So you're saying that current elections are going to have any effect?
I think he is saying is that the dumb ignorant people are easily manipulated and that any "progress" will be limited to anything vested interests want the dumb people to believe.
One big one would be enough: Just sprinkle some iron sulfate on the surface of the ocean. The plankton bloom would not only suck up all the excess CO2, but would also cause a surge in fish stocks that could meet the world's need for protein.
Any idea where I can find more information about this? Perhaps a paper that's publicly available?
You can look to the large dust storms in Australia that blow iron dust out to sea as a starting point. Iremember that being talked about mainly because the ocean is iron poor and that oceanic metabolisms still use iron for living things to move oxtgen around. Sorry I don't have any more detail than that.
There is an effective, low cost technical solution to this issue. First some context. I had neigbours with *two* loud dogs that would bark all night and wake me up when I was falling back to sleep. It was becoming a problem because their barking went through the night and they slept during the day. The police had asked them to keep the dogs quiet however they didn't have the power to enforce it.
Having been in the situation before with unreasonable reactions from neighbours I was reticent to create conflict by directly confronting them so I also tried just throwing the dogs bones to chew. I was becoming so fatigued and exhausted from the barking that I got to the point of nearly having car accidents from driver fatigue so I was desperate for a solution.
The answer came in the form of a high frequency sine wave oscillator with a frequency randomly varying between 19khz and 23khz, two 8 ohm high frequency drivers and 70watt rms amplifier. I also distorted the source signal randomly. The signal was above human hearing but well within dog hearing. When the dogs were barking I applied the signal until they were quiet and then shut it off to train them to relate the sound to annoying barking.
It was extremely effective, silencing not only my neighbours dogs but a lot of other noisy dogs on the street. Ironically it also helped with security as the dogs would only bark if something was *really* going on, which usually meant people lingering outside for whatever reason. We'd had some car break ins before, so the dogs actually became good security guards again. I didn't use the device in those circumstances.
Fortunately, the dogs learned very quickly and I didn't need to use it very often and no one, except me, knew when it was operating so it also avoided confrontations with neighbours.
whoa, tough crowd
No, RTFA, too much sleep (more than nine hours) is seen as unhealthy too.
Or maybe sick people sleep a lot. It is likely the causation is the other way around. While TFA is quick to say that the sleeping causes the deaths, the study itself only says they are "associated".
I sit myself when I read the study.
As for those who enjoy hearing the screams of tortured dying kittens, let them. /sarcasm
There was a video of some people sawing up a whale shark they had dragged in. I saw they had already cut off it's fins when they started sawing it's tail of *while it was still alive, 'A real cunt act'. The animal gasped from pain as they just kept sawing through it, made me fucking angry. What wrong with killing something first before chopping it to bits?
Why do we have to be cunts to animals just because we can and are going to eat them?
Theres almost no support in australia at all. Hell one of our previous conservative parlimentarians was on the board of Sea Shephard.
Ok, what I am wondering here is why can't the sea shepherd boats have underwater sirens that scare the whales and dolphins away, if it works for navy sonar, surely it can work for sea shepherd.