As opposed to what - the problem is solved, so let's decrease funding? The science is settled, so let's not study this anymore?
I swear, some people sound like they think everything should be funded via unicorn farts and rainbows. Yes, research costs money. Pay up, or end up in the dark ages. Of course, if that does happen, you'll find someone or something else to blame but your own shortsighted smugness that automatically equates every human endeavor with your own base motivation: more money.
Yes, because the US of today is like Libya, Egypt, Yugoslavia and the colonies in America circa 1700. And Obama and Bush are like Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Tito and King George I. *roll eyes* I'm always wildly amused by the type of hyperbole that is coming from some people in the US public. To some extent, it shows exactly how little they know about the world, and even about their own government. On the other hand, it also shows just how frighteningly violent they are.
Good thing that entertainment in the US is highly efficient, and very good at keeping people glued to the couch. And that it really isn't as bad as people make it sound like. It means all this talk will just stay that - talk.
The other problem for the lack of research was that some of the technological requirements for even getting a research reactor up and running ran into the multi-$100M range. At that point, you might as well suck it up and build a commercial one.
Molten salt reactors introduce a new problem though: the material is highly corrosive, and there are few materials that have even been tested that could provide a proper lifespan to the reactor. Furthermore, maintenance on the entire primary loop is like maintenance on the containment vessel for water cooled reactors: you just don't do it. This means that while the system is safer from a human fuck-up perspective, it presents brand-new engineering, construction and maintenance challenges.
I don't know. I seriously think the guy thinks that probability theory is the wrong approach. To some extent, I agree: arguing that there's no need for a seawall of more than 10m because the highest flooding recorded was 10m is.... dangerous, to say the least. A seawall is a cheap structure that is easy to maintain. Make it 15m and call it a day.
However, the decision on where to stop building the seawall IS a decision based on probability theory. Because otherwise, why stop at 15? Why not 20? 100? Or why stop at a LNG and solar plant to provide local electricity? Why not build a battery bank that holds 2 weeks of charge for the entire nuclear complex? The way that he is constructing his argument, his argument is that every failure mode has to be addressed. That's just not possible. The reason why is simple enough: because the cost of those systems is enormous compared to the fractional increase in security you get from it. For anyone keeping track: this is probability theory applied to ROI. How much money do you put into a system, and what's the expected benefit, given a number of scenarios?
I think the lesson to take from the Fukushima meltdown is this: when deciding on safety features, make sure that that the simple stuff is overbuilt. You don't want to have a meltdown occur because you saved a few $100K on cement, rebars and construction labor.
Very true. The point is that everything else points to him not being an effective fighter either. He is underweight by all standards, he is not a trained fighter, he is young, and he is facing someone significantly bigger than him. The odds that he could put a serious hurt on Zimmerman, when Zimmerman was clearly suspicious of him, is very low.
You might be an x-ray tech, but you clearly don't know the protocol that EMTs are under for bringing people in to a CAT scan. They bring people in when there's SUSPICION of brain hemorrhage. Which is automatic for ANY brain injury. Especially impact with a hard surface.
Yeah, now you're really just trying to cling to a preconceived notion, and filling in blanks in your knowledge with ideas that support it. It couldn't possibly be that Martin actually acted in self-defense and punched Zimmerman while Zimmerman was going for his gun. Not to mention that the broken nose is still highly contentious right now.
In short, you're making shit up. Still. And persisting in it. If you want to pretend you're not, stop making assumptions about what happened.
That link has no eye witness account. The only thing in it is that Zimmerman stated that he had been yelling for help. The only thing in it related to witnesses is the list of witnesses, and the fact that statements had been taken. Nothing about what those statements actually were.
So if that's where you got your information from: you're just making shit up. Which is just one step away from lying about it.
There is a big difference between 160 and 168. There's an even bigger difference between 160 and 175. The middleweights you mention are all under 6 feet.
At 6'3 and 160, you're basically unable to do a pull-up, and push-ups stop at about 10. Just working on those pushes you up to 165. At 170, you become actually muscular. And at 175, you're actually able to put that leverage to use, rather than have it used against it you.
I've been at 6'3-6'4 and 160. I know how I got to 185, and I know how martial arts feel at the different weights. It's night and day. To argue that merely being 6'2 automatically means that Martin would overpower Zimmerman is complete hogwash.
To me, this smells more like the OJ case: enough circumstantial evidence to be very suspicious, but thanks to a botched police investigation, we're left with a civil suit conviction.
Where the hell do you get DNA from? And for someone who says "let the facts play out", you seem awfully sure that Zimmerman did indeed act in self-defense.
Here are the only things that are actually known at this point: * Zimmerman identified someone walking in his neighborhood as enough of a risk to call 911. * Zimmerman follows said person. * Zimmerman and Martin get into an altercation. * Zimmerman shoots Martin. * EMT releases Zimmerman after an on-site inspection. * Police does not investigate issue.
Here are the things that point at Martin being suspicious enough to get Zimmerman to make a 911 call and and follow Martin: * He is young * He is black * He is wearing a hoodie * He is walking in a gated community * He is carrying a can.
Here's what the police and the DA didn't deem suspicious enough to investigate the matter further: * Zimmerman shot Martin out in the open, on a semi-private road. The only witness is Zimmerman. There is reason to believe that Zimmerman might have instigated the confrontation.
Yes, please, let the police and the DA do their work - but for god's sake, they need to be doing their work. They're not. That's the real issue here, not whether Zimmerman is an overly aggressive cop-wannabe who thinks shooting black kids is the way to solve his crime problem.
And 160 lbs at 6'3 is so skinny as to be a total non-threat. I know, because I've been there. Furthermore, there was no smashing the head into the pavement. Otherwise, he would have gotten a ride to the ER and a catscan to check for bleeding in the brain.
In the US system, judges are guaranteed to write laws from the bench. That's how judicial precedent works. Either go to a common law based system (the French have that, so that means it's a commie-coward approach to writing law), or suck it up.
Atheists were damn rare. Almost as rare today. Deists were much more common among the landed gentry in the latter stages of the colonization, but not really the reason people left the country (Europe). Anglicans were mostly in the US for economic reasons. Not sure about the rest. But the puritans really came to found a better place. For some reason, their approach to morality stuck. Sad, but true.
Basically, if there are no laws against what you are saying, then the government can't punish you for saying it.
It's a little bit more than that. It means that no legislative body can write a law that can punish someone for saying something that offends someone in government, or that someone in government disagrees with. Porn is weird in that area, but... hey, the US was founded by puritans.
You're mistaking a difference of opinion with bias. Yes, there's a difference. Go look it up.
And this complaining about the slashdot moderation is a really tired meme. The only time it gets brought up is by people who somehow care what their post is sitting at. Yes, it's a popularity contest. That's inherent in any moderation system. No, it doesn't mean that it automatically means that your beautiful snowflakishness is being unjustly trampled. It means that the majority think that what you wrote is dumb, uninformed or stupid. Yes, this is a vague judgment. Get over it.
Let's be very explicit about this: freedom of speech means that the government can't put its resources into harming you because you said something someone in the government didn't like. There are significant exceptions to this, all of which relate to speech indicating imminent or on-going criminal activity. Furthermore, you can't lie about somebody.
What it also means is that private entities - corporations, people, etc - are exempt from laws of Freedom of Speech, because by definition, they are not the government, and your relationship with them is voluntary. A corporation can restrict what you say, either because it is paying you, or because you are using its resources and agreed to abide by its rules when doing so.
The risk in free speech is that it's not a free-for-all, and you CAN run afoul of certain laws limiting speech. Anything else is either governed by contract law or terms of service, or is just someone trying to frighting you into not stating your opinion.
I wonder what would happen if someone would start a Kickstarter project around this: "Save the Earth! Target funding: $1,000,000,000,000. The more you contribute, the greater the chance you will survive."
I guess I should have been more specific - less people are acutely in need in of medical attention than not. But you make a good point: if the majority of a population is in need of some medical attention, some of it over the course of years, what does that mean for the health care system? I think that might be a reason for rising medical care costs right there.
Not surprising. Sick people cost more than healthy people. At any given time, less people are sick than are healthy. Furthermore, there is a small segment of chronically ill people.
Note: the reason why health care needs the biggest pool possible is because at any given time, you cannot tell who will need expensive health care. Our health care isn't good enough to predict who will get what disease and when, or who will get into an expensive accident. This means that unless you want to bankrupt 5% of the US population and keep them permanently in the poor house, you need a national health care system. Otherwise, the health care system will trend to cost+profit+cost to help uninsured people.
Slashdot Mirror
As opposed to what - the problem is solved, so let's decrease funding? The science is settled, so let's not study this anymore?
I swear, some people sound like they think everything should be funded via unicorn farts and rainbows. Yes, research costs money. Pay up, or end up in the dark ages. Of course, if that does happen, you'll find someone or something else to blame but your own shortsighted smugness that automatically equates every human endeavor with your own base motivation: more money.
Insightful my ass.
Yes, because the US of today is like Libya, Egypt, Yugoslavia and the colonies in America circa 1700. And Obama and Bush are like Ghaddafi, Mubarak, Tito and King George I. *roll eyes* I'm always wildly amused by the type of hyperbole that is coming from some people in the US public. To some extent, it shows exactly how little they know about the world, and even about their own government. On the other hand, it also shows just how frighteningly violent they are.
Good thing that entertainment in the US is highly efficient, and very good at keeping people glued to the couch. And that it really isn't as bad as people make it sound like. It means all this talk will just stay that - talk.
The other problem for the lack of research was that some of the technological requirements for even getting a research reactor up and running ran into the multi-$100M range. At that point, you might as well suck it up and build a commercial one.
Molten salt reactors introduce a new problem though: the material is highly corrosive, and there are few materials that have even been tested that could provide a proper lifespan to the reactor. Furthermore, maintenance on the entire primary loop is like maintenance on the containment vessel for water cooled reactors: you just don't do it. This means that while the system is safer from a human fuck-up perspective, it presents brand-new engineering, construction and maintenance challenges.
I don't know. I seriously think the guy thinks that probability theory is the wrong approach. To some extent, I agree: arguing that there's no need for a seawall of more than 10m because the highest flooding recorded was 10m is.... dangerous, to say the least. A seawall is a cheap structure that is easy to maintain. Make it 15m and call it a day.
However, the decision on where to stop building the seawall IS a decision based on probability theory. Because otherwise, why stop at 15? Why not 20? 100? Or why stop at a LNG and solar plant to provide local electricity? Why not build a battery bank that holds 2 weeks of charge for the entire nuclear complex? The way that he is constructing his argument, his argument is that every failure mode has to be addressed. That's just not possible. The reason why is simple enough: because the cost of those systems is enormous compared to the fractional increase in security you get from it. For anyone keeping track: this is probability theory applied to ROI. How much money do you put into a system, and what's the expected benefit, given a number of scenarios?
I think the lesson to take from the Fukushima meltdown is this: when deciding on safety features, make sure that that the simple stuff is overbuilt. You don't want to have a meltdown occur because you saved a few $100K on cement, rebars and construction labor.
When all else fails, start accusing others of what you're guilty of. I'm trying to be surprised, but it's not working.
Very true. The point is that everything else points to him not being an effective fighter either. He is underweight by all standards, he is not a trained fighter, he is young, and he is facing someone significantly bigger than him. The odds that he could put a serious hurt on Zimmerman, when Zimmerman was clearly suspicious of him, is very low.
You might be an x-ray tech, but you clearly don't know the protocol that EMTs are under for bringing people in to a CAT scan. They bring people in when there's SUSPICION of brain hemorrhage. Which is automatic for ANY brain injury. Especially impact with a hard surface.
Yeah, now you're really just trying to cling to a preconceived notion, and filling in blanks in your knowledge with ideas that support it. It couldn't possibly be that Martin actually acted in self-defense and punched Zimmerman while Zimmerman was going for his gun. Not to mention that the broken nose is still highly contentious right now.
In short, you're making shit up. Still. And persisting in it. If you want to pretend you're not, stop making assumptions about what happened.
There is no indication how he received the wound. There is nothing that indicates Martin went after him. That's where you're just making shit up.
That link has no eye witness account. The only thing in it is that Zimmerman stated that he had been yelling for help. The only thing in it related to witnesses is the list of witnesses, and the fact that statements had been taken. Nothing about what those statements actually were.
So if that's where you got your information from: you're just making shit up. Which is just one step away from lying about it.
There is a big difference between 160 and 168. There's an even bigger difference between 160 and 175. The middleweights you mention are all under 6 feet.
At 6'3 and 160, you're basically unable to do a pull-up, and push-ups stop at about 10. Just working on those pushes you up to 165. At 170, you become actually muscular. And at 175, you're actually able to put that leverage to use, rather than have it used against it you.
I've been at 6'3-6'4 and 160. I know how I got to 185, and I know how martial arts feel at the different weights. It's night and day. To argue that merely being 6'2 automatically means that Martin would overpower Zimmerman is complete hogwash.
This is the Duke Lacrosse case all over again.
To me, this smells more like the OJ case: enough circumstantial evidence to be very suspicious, but thanks to a botched police investigation, we're left with a civil suit conviction.
Except it has been reported by many eyewitnesses that he did not in fact chase him down, but was himself chased, and then beaten
Pics - I mean, link, or GTFO. The only person I've so far heard advancing this version of the events is Zimmerman.
Where the hell do you get DNA from? And for someone who says "let the facts play out", you seem awfully sure that Zimmerman did indeed act in self-defense.
Here are the only things that are actually known at this point:
* Zimmerman identified someone walking in his neighborhood as enough of a risk to call 911.
* Zimmerman follows said person.
* Zimmerman and Martin get into an altercation.
* Zimmerman shoots Martin.
* EMT releases Zimmerman after an on-site inspection.
* Police does not investigate issue.
Here are the things that point at Martin being suspicious enough to get Zimmerman to make a 911 call and and follow Martin:
* He is young
* He is black
* He is wearing a hoodie
* He is walking in a gated community
* He is carrying a can.
Here's what the police and the DA didn't deem suspicious enough to investigate the matter further:
* Zimmerman shot Martin out in the open, on a semi-private road. The only witness is Zimmerman. There is reason to believe that Zimmerman might have instigated the confrontation.
Yes, please, let the police and the DA do their work - but for god's sake, they need to be doing their work. They're not. That's the real issue here, not whether Zimmerman is an overly aggressive cop-wannabe who thinks shooting black kids is the way to solve his crime problem.
And 160 lbs at 6'3 is so skinny as to be a total non-threat. I know, because I've been there. Furthermore, there was no smashing the head into the pavement. Otherwise, he would have gotten a ride to the ER and a catscan to check for bleeding in the brain.
In the US system, judges are guaranteed to write laws from the bench. That's how judicial precedent works. Either go to a common law based system (the French have that, so that means it's a commie-coward approach to writing law), or suck it up.
the government can pass any damn law they want presuming they have support within their ranks to do so
Fair enough. The point though is that an appeal to the Supreme Court is pretty much guaranteed, and until then, it is on hiatus.
Atheists were damn rare. Almost as rare today. Deists were much more common among the landed gentry in the latter stages of the colonization, but not really the reason people left the country (Europe). Anglicans were mostly in the US for economic reasons. Not sure about the rest. But the puritans really came to found a better place. For some reason, their approach to morality stuck. Sad, but true.
Basically, if there are no laws against what you are saying, then the government can't punish you for saying it.
It's a little bit more than that. It means that no legislative body can write a law that can punish someone for saying something that offends someone in government, or that someone in government disagrees with. Porn is weird in that area, but... hey, the US was founded by puritans.
You're mistaking a difference of opinion with bias. Yes, there's a difference. Go look it up.
And this complaining about the slashdot moderation is a really tired meme. The only time it gets brought up is by people who somehow care what their post is sitting at. Yes, it's a popularity contest. That's inherent in any moderation system. No, it doesn't mean that it automatically means that your beautiful snowflakishness is being unjustly trampled. It means that the majority think that what you wrote is dumb, uninformed or stupid. Yes, this is a vague judgment. Get over it.
Let's be very explicit about this: freedom of speech means that the government can't put its resources into harming you because you said something someone in the government didn't like. There are significant exceptions to this, all of which relate to speech indicating imminent or on-going criminal activity. Furthermore, you can't lie about somebody.
What it also means is that private entities - corporations, people, etc - are exempt from laws of Freedom of Speech, because by definition, they are not the government, and your relationship with them is voluntary. A corporation can restrict what you say, either because it is paying you, or because you are using its resources and agreed to abide by its rules when doing so.
The risk in free speech is that it's not a free-for-all, and you CAN run afoul of certain laws limiting speech. Anything else is either governed by contract law or terms of service, or is just someone trying to frighting you into not stating your opinion.
I wonder what would happen if someone would start a Kickstarter project around this: "Save the Earth! Target funding: $1,000,000,000,000. The more you contribute, the greater the chance you will survive."
I guess I should have been more specific - less people are acutely in need in of medical attention than not. But you make a good point: if the majority of a population is in need of some medical attention, some of it over the course of years, what does that mean for the health care system? I think that might be a reason for rising medical care costs right there.
Not surprising. Sick people cost more than healthy people. At any given time, less people are sick than are healthy. Furthermore, there is a small segment of chronically ill people.
Note: the reason why health care needs the biggest pool possible is because at any given time, you cannot tell who will need expensive health care. Our health care isn't good enough to predict who will get what disease and when, or who will get into an expensive accident. This means that unless you want to bankrupt 5% of the US population and keep them permanently in the poor house, you need a national health care system. Otherwise, the health care system will trend to cost+profit+cost to help uninsured people.