2. = Enforce ban on fission activities of any kind because there's no longer any excuse for them
How about economic power without greenhouse gas emissions?
(I won't bother asking who is going to enforce this ban..)
They all hid their weapons programs within "civilian" nuclear research.
They tried to; they failed. The system works.
100% of countries that developed nuclear weapons had nuclear power or "research" reactors.
That doesn't show the link between nuclear power generation and nuclear proliferation. But I guess this means there should be no more reactors for medical isotopes either? Even here in Australia where the government is opposed to nuclear power we have reactors for medical isotopes, you want those closed down too?
Your ban would suck for all the people who rely on nuclear reactors for energy and medical imaging, and all it'd do is remove a supposed smoke screen which evidently failed to work for Iran.
Even if everyone closed their reactors down, what's to stop a rogue nation building one? Do you think once there are no nuclear reactors rogue nations will somehow forget that such things exist, or does your ban on all nuclear reactors include a ban on teaching nuclear physics?
1. Elimination fission-based nuclear power technology.
2. ???
3. No more nuclear weapons.
North Korea didn't use fission as a major power source but they still got nukes, same with Pakistan, same with Israel.
Nuclear power is becoming more and more economical, so if your plan for eliminating proliferation relies on fighting the laws of economics you're pretty much screwed from the start. You also need to demonstrate a correlation between nuclear proliferation and nuclear power use.
(To save you some time: <quote>You also need to demonstrate a correlation between nuclear proliferation and nuclear power use.</quote> <p>Precisely. That's why nuclear power is not a viable answer to the world's energy needs.</p>)
Also, they have demonstrated their capability of suicidal and homicidal actions so have lost the privilege of nuclear capabilities.
Exactly. The factors that make us deem nuclear technology to be a "privilege" are the same ones that prevent it from being a viable answer to the world's energy needs.
Iran signed the NPA; they were completely free to use nuclear power. The only problem is that they allegedly started their nuclear program without informing the IAEA, which means they broke the terms they agreed to in the NPA.
For some reason they're not co-operating in clearing themselves of the accusation that they started before informing the IAEA, and if nuclear power is their goal why would they do that?
Their actions only make sense if nuclear weapons are their goal. (Also they are refusing pre-enriched uranium from Russia; why? The only logical reason is that they want to be able to enrich to weapons grade, and Russia would only sell them reactor grade.)
When I try to discuss this topic with my friends, they are either not scientifically minded enough to follow through, or just can't accept the fact that, as physical beings, we would be absolutely determined in our behaviour and actions.
Or maybe they think it's all a load of waffle and nonsense that has no bearing on reality?
I have enough free will to avoid TFA like the plague, and that's all the free will I need. You can say I'm "predetermined" not to, or whatever, but who cares? It's of no significance.
But what, then, is guiding us to believe we have free will?
The fact that there are so many variables constantly changing as to construct the illusion of it.
That, and the desire to have some purpose - any purpose - to our behaviours.
Then what gives purpose to our illusions and illusions to our purpose? An intersection of behavior and free will represents the purpose of free will and illusion of behavior.
I feel the same way. If I want content like that I'll read fark or digg.
I think that's the reason for it. I'm fine with idle though; no-one is putting a gun to my head and forcing me to read it.
Re:Takes unusual vision and courage
on
The Evolution of Sega
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I don't really think it was a choice; they made way too many Dreamcasts, wasted loads of money making Shenmue II (and then didn't even release it on the Dreamcast in the US). Plus the Saturn before that was a flop, and Sega were a big arcade games maker and that market also dried up rapidly. It was a major squeeze all around.
Don't get me wrong; I bought a Dreamcast and loved it, but I don't think they had the momentum or money for another release after that.
The sad thing is if they had as much money as Microsoft they could have bounced back easily in the next generation (the current generation), but being such a specialized company means excellent games but volatile profit margins.
"Bug" is more concise than "a software flaw which causes behavior the developers didn't intend", "bootstrap" is more concise than "software which loads the boot-loader". "Cloud" is just "internet".
"Bug" is just "flaw", "Cloud" is more concise than "an enormous, globally interconnected network".
"Bug" implies more than "flaw". It's specifically not a design flaw, and it's not a problem where the user thinks something should be done a differently. "Cloud" doesn't imply anything more than "internet" though
"Bug" is more concise than "a software flaw which causes behavior the developers didn't intend", "bootstrap" is more concise than "software which loads the boot-loader". "Cloud" is just "internet".
There are better examples though which make your point (like "firewall", which I think would be better as just "packet filter"), but these phrases are old and cast in stone, so there's no point trying to fight them anyway. It'd now, unfortunately, be more confusing to try and change them than to just stick with the status quo.
However "cloud" seems to be the latest thing, and so I'm still prepared to put up whatever little token resistance I can.
(I know it has older origins, but its use is only gaining momentum very recently. I checked Google Trends to make sure I'm not going crazy.)
I dislike "Cloud" for much the same reason you probably dislike "the information super-highway". Words are words, I can call the internet whatever I want, but others don't have to accept my definition. If you're fine with "the information super-highway" and "web/pod/screencast" etc then you're not the kind of person my sig will resonate with.
Please don't let anyone get away with calling the internet the cloud!
Traditionally, when network engineers and administrators draw diagrams of networks, they represent the connection to the Internet as a big bumpy object not unlike a child's drawing of a cloud. I have heard old hackers who used to work in the telecommunications industry during the 80's and 70's describe this object as 'the cloud', meaning the Internet.
This term predates the current usage by several decades, and is in fact the source of the current usage
This is a gentle but pedantic reminder that, if you're going to make an absolute assertion, make sure it is the correct assertion.
I know where the term came from, that's one of the reasons I find it so annoying.:-(
We don't call resistors "jagged lines" and inductors "curly loops", so why call the internet "the cloud"?
It isn't actually a cloud, and saying "cloud" isn't any shorter or clearer than "internet" (in fact less clear).
It's just a new IT business fad which lets IT staff make something familiar sound new, I think.
Let me also say they're wrong about legacy systems being slow to migrate: PHP5 runs PHP4 code just fine (notwithstanding a few copy-on-write and unassigned reference issues, which are very easy to fix).
PHP5, in this context, would be better called "Zend Engine 2", since that's what the real update is. PHP4 the language is essentially just a subset of PHP5.
Incidentally (perhaps) the phpMyAdmin 3.0.0 beta just came out yesterday which sacrifices Zend Engine 1 (PHP4) support. It also drops MySQL 4 support, and I think lots of projects will follow suit; PHP4 is going to drag MySQL 4 with it, which is also great.
It's being pushed, but people don't want it. They increased the price, added more invasive stricter DRM technology, and inserted unskippable commercials at the beginning of the discs. I'm sure tens of millions must groan, if not cursing out load, as their dvd skip, forward and menu buttons fail, as they are spammed with a commercial. That's gotta kill multiple future sales at the margin, every time.
Increased price - Also true of DVDs when they first came out
Stricter DRM technology - Also true of DVDs when they first came out
Unskippable ads - Also true of DVDs when they first came out
The price will fall, the DRM worked around, the "unskippable" tags for the unskippable ads will be ignored, exactly like what happened with DVDs.
Also others have made the "o-one wants it, DVDs are good enough" argument, but again people said this about VHS->DVD.
When Blu-ray is at the same price as DVDs (and there's no reason to think it won't be) and most people have HDTVs (I went shopping for a new one recently; it's actually difficult to get a non-HDTV set now) then Blu-ray will be the obvious default choice. Not because it's a must-have huge leap forward, but because it's a better default for no extra cost, just like DVDs were.
Woman has spent EONS perfecting her control of the male's life via sexual gratification.
"Woman"? What? Eons? How has she been perfecting control of the life of a single man this whole time?
Huge layers of our social structure are based around the notion that sexually-powerful women get to select the most worldly-powerful men.
Huge layers.. what?
and, as they say, if momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy.
Who says that?
When a man wants sex and the woman would rather use it for leverage, he can say 'fine bitch - be that way' and break out the porno.
Leverage? Is it a substitute? Weren't there prostitutes before porno anyway? Which "worldly-powerful" men being denied? What layers of society? How does --
Forget it - This is one of those posts that avoids criticism only because practically every sentence contains false assumptions, baseless opinion, and obvious counter-examples, and it'd just be too much effort to do justice to it.
(And beneath this is the annoying implication that women are whores who seek out rich men and only use marriage and sex as a bargaining tool for "leverage", not out of mutual enjoyment)
Because NASA have never taken nuclear power sources up into space before..
(I actually feel like I need to specifically say; they have, regularly. Voyager hasn't been sending data back to us for the last 30 years (and the next 30) from inconceivable distances running on biofuel.)
The Liberal Party is conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues. It doesn't really have the same connotations in Australia as the Republican Party has in America. It's more like the Tories in the UK
Slashdot Mirror
assuming I still own a standard 4 wheeled vehicle by then.
We'll probably have flying cars by then; don't upgrade your stereo system yet
Ugh.. Please improve your English.
Maybe not, but one nice thing about nuclear technology is that you can make it *really* hard to hide by sniffing trace isotopes in the air.
So civilian nuclear power generation releases amounts of isotopes into the atmosphere that can be detected? That must be one leaky reactor.
2. = Enforce ban on fission activities of any kind because there's no longer any excuse for them
How about economic power without greenhouse gas emissions?
(I won't bother asking who is going to enforce this ban..)
They all hid their weapons programs within "civilian" nuclear research.
They tried to; they failed. The system works.
100% of countries that developed nuclear weapons had nuclear power or "research" reactors.
That doesn't show the link between nuclear power generation and nuclear proliferation. But I guess this means there should be no more reactors for medical isotopes either? Even here in Australia where the government is opposed to nuclear power we have reactors for medical isotopes, you want those closed down too?
Your ban would suck for all the people who rely on nuclear reactors for energy and medical imaging, and all it'd do is remove a supposed smoke screen which evidently failed to work for Iran.
Even if everyone closed their reactors down, what's to stop a rogue nation building one? Do you think once there are no nuclear reactors rogue nations will somehow forget that such things exist, or does your ban on all nuclear reactors include a ban on teaching nuclear physics?
1. Elimination fission-based nuclear power technology.
2. ???
3. No more nuclear weapons.
North Korea didn't use fission as a major power source but they still got nukes, same with Pakistan, same with Israel.
Nuclear power is becoming more and more economical, so if your plan for eliminating proliferation relies on fighting the laws of economics you're pretty much screwed from the start. You also need to demonstrate a correlation between nuclear proliferation and nuclear power use.
(To save you some time: <quote>You also need to demonstrate a correlation between nuclear proliferation and nuclear power use.</quote> <p>Precisely. That's why nuclear power is not a viable answer to the world's energy needs.</p>)
Also, they have demonstrated their capability of suicidal and homicidal actions so have lost the privilege of nuclear capabilities.
Exactly. The factors that make us deem nuclear technology to be a "privilege" are the same ones that prevent it from being a viable answer to the world's energy needs.
Iran signed the NPA; they were completely free to use nuclear power. The only problem is that they allegedly started their nuclear program without informing the IAEA, which means they broke the terms they agreed to in the NPA.
For some reason they're not co-operating in clearing themselves of the accusation that they started before informing the IAEA, and if nuclear power is their goal why would they do that?
Their actions only make sense if nuclear weapons are their goal. (Also they are refusing pre-enriched uranium from Russia; why? The only logical reason is that they want to be able to enrich to weapons grade, and Russia would only sell them reactor grade.)
When I try to discuss this topic with my friends, they are either not scientifically minded enough to follow through, or just can't accept the fact that, as physical beings, we would be absolutely determined in our behaviour and actions.
Or maybe they think it's all a load of waffle and nonsense that has no bearing on reality?
I have enough free will to avoid TFA like the plague, and that's all the free will I need. You can say I'm "predetermined" not to, or whatever, but who cares? It's of no significance.
But what, then, is guiding us to believe we have free will?
The fact that there are so many variables constantly changing as to construct the illusion of it.
That, and the desire to have some purpose - any purpose - to our behaviours.
Then what gives purpose to our illusions and illusions to our purpose? An intersection of behavior and free will represents the purpose of free will and illusion of behavior.
I wonder if it's because they're closer to Russia, and not just because of inbreeding.
I feel the same way. If I want content like that I'll read fark or digg.
I think that's the reason for it. I'm fine with idle though; no-one is putting a gun to my head and forcing me to read it.
I don't really think it was a choice; they made way too many Dreamcasts, wasted loads of money making Shenmue II (and then didn't even release it on the Dreamcast in the US). Plus the Saturn before that was a flop, and Sega were a big arcade games maker and that market also dried up rapidly. It was a major squeeze all around.
Don't get me wrong; I bought a Dreamcast and loved it, but I don't think they had the momentum or money for another release after that.
The sad thing is if they had as much money as Microsoft they could have bounced back easily in the next generation (the current generation), but being such a specialized company means excellent games but volatile profit margins.
When was the last time you heard someone say, "Sega is way better than Nintendo!" or "Nu-uh, Sega beats the pants off Nintendo!"
I think it was when video game consoles stopped being kids toys
Urgh, "cloud" this, "cloud" that.. I really hope this is turns out to be a fad buzzword.
"Bug" is just "flaw", "Cloud" is more concise than "an enormous, globally interconnected network".
"Bug" implies more than "flaw". It's specifically not a design flaw, and it's not a problem where the user thinks something should be done a differently. "Cloud" doesn't imply anything more than "internet" though
"Bug" is more concise than "a software flaw which causes behavior the developers didn't intend", "bootstrap" is more concise than "software which loads the boot-loader". "Cloud" is just "internet".
There are better examples though which make your point (like "firewall", which I think would be better as just "packet filter"), but these phrases are old and cast in stone, so there's no point trying to fight them anyway. It'd now, unfortunately, be more confusing to try and change them than to just stick with the status quo.
However "cloud" seems to be the latest thing, and so I'm still prepared to put up whatever little token resistance I can.
(I know it has older origins, but its use is only gaining momentum very recently. I checked Google Trends to make sure I'm not going crazy.)
I dislike "Cloud" for much the same reason you probably dislike "the information super-highway". Words are words, I can call the internet whatever I want, but others don't have to accept my definition. If you're fine with "the information super-highway" and "web/pod/screencast" etc then you're not the kind of person my sig will resonate with.
Please don't let anyone get away with calling the internet the cloud!
Traditionally, when network engineers and administrators draw diagrams of networks, they represent the connection to the Internet as a big bumpy object not unlike a child's drawing of a cloud. I have heard old hackers who used to work in the telecommunications industry during the 80's and 70's describe this object as 'the cloud', meaning the Internet.
This term predates the current usage by several decades, and is in fact the source of the current usage
This is a gentle but pedantic reminder that, if you're going to make an absolute assertion, make sure it is the correct assertion.
I know where the term came from, that's one of the reasons I find it so annoying. :-(
We don't call resistors "jagged lines" and inductors "curly loops", so why call the internet "the cloud"?
It isn't actually a cloud, and saying "cloud" isn't any shorter or clearer than "internet" (in fact less clear).
It's just a new IT business fad which lets IT staff make something familiar sound new, I think.
.. let me say hooray! PHP5 is worlds ahead.
Let me also say they're wrong about legacy systems being slow to migrate: PHP5 runs PHP4 code just fine (notwithstanding a few copy-on-write and unassigned reference issues, which are very easy to fix).
PHP5, in this context, would be better called "Zend Engine 2", since that's what the real update is. PHP4 the language is essentially just a subset of PHP5.
Incidentally (perhaps) the phpMyAdmin 3.0.0 beta just came out yesterday which sacrifices Zend Engine 1 (PHP4) support. It also drops MySQL 4 support, and I think lots of projects will follow suit; PHP4 is going to drag MySQL 4 with it, which is also great.
I guess you don't have to be an Einstein to be a patent clerk any more (aharhar)
The system was not ORIGINALLY intended to provide someone with a lifetime's worth of income. It was to ENCOURAGE development.
If you compare the Japanese computer games industry to the Chinese one you could argue the system is encouraging development.
(By the way the RANDOM capitalization is very ANNOYING.)
No! You are outraged and disgusted!
It's being pushed, but people don't want it. They increased the price, added more invasive stricter DRM technology, and inserted unskippable commercials at the beginning of the discs. I'm sure tens of millions must groan, if not cursing out load, as their dvd skip, forward and menu buttons fail, as they are spammed with a commercial. That's gotta kill multiple future sales at the margin, every time.
The price will fall, the DRM worked around, the "unskippable" tags for the unskippable ads will be ignored, exactly like what happened with DVDs.
Also others have made the "o-one wants it, DVDs are good enough" argument, but again people said this about VHS->DVD.
When Blu-ray is at the same price as DVDs (and there's no reason to think it won't be) and most people have HDTVs (I went shopping for a new one recently; it's actually difficult to get a non-HDTV set now) then Blu-ray will be the obvious default choice. Not because it's a must-have huge leap forward, but because it's a better default for no extra cost, just like DVDs were.
Woman has spent EONS perfecting her control of the male's life via sexual gratification.
"Woman"? What? Eons? How has she been perfecting control of the life of a single man this whole time?
Huge layers of our social structure are based around the notion that sexually-powerful women get to select the most worldly-powerful men.
Huge layers.. what?
and, as they say, if momma ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy.
Who says that?
When a man wants sex and the woman would rather use it for leverage, he can say 'fine bitch - be that way' and break out the porno.
Leverage? Is it a substitute? Weren't there prostitutes before porno anyway? Which "worldly-powerful" men being denied? What layers of society? How does --
Forget it - This is one of those posts that avoids criticism only because practically every sentence contains false assumptions, baseless opinion, and obvious counter-examples, and it'd just be too much effort to do justice to it.
(And beneath this is the annoying implication that women are whores who seek out rich men and only use marriage and sex as a bargaining tool for "leverage", not out of mutual enjoyment)
Oops, missed the RTG part, my mistake. Looking back 200kW is a bit much for an RTG
Because NASA have never taken nuclear power sources up into space before..
(I actually feel like I need to specifically say; they have, regularly. Voyager hasn't been sending data back to us for the last 30 years (and the next 30) from inconceivable distances running on biofuel.)
The Liberal Party is conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues. It doesn't really have the same connotations in Australia as the Republican Party has in America. It's more like the Tories in the UK