Hard to believe Obama would hire such an idiot. Sounds like a George Bush kinda guy.
Except that Obama and Bush ran on the same platform. In the 2000 election, Bush played the "nice guy" card and seemed like the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. In 2008, Obama also played the "nice guy" card by being a very inspirational orator and forming a bandwagon that was fun to jump onto.
If you think if the children, the terrorists win. Wait. No. If you don't think of the children, the terrorists win. Ahhh...my moral outrage is so confused right now.
shouldn't the far smaller amount released by nuclear plants ALSO be too small to have health effects?
Umm, yes. My position is that both coal and nuclear don't emit enough radiation to matter. My understanding is that your position is that coal is bad because it emits enough radiation to matter. (Otherwise why would you include radiation in the list of reasons why coal is "environmentally damaging"?)
And yet, people are deathly afraid of nuclear power plants
And they have no reason to be so afraid. Are you afraid of nuclear? I'm sure not.
Coal plants... are definitely the most environmentally damaging form of energy production on the planet.
Back to your original post. I challenge you to back that assertion up based on the radon and sulfur reasons you originally listed.
Recap as I understand it. You said that coal is bad because it releases radioactive elements into the atmosphere. I pointed out that whether or not it is bad depends on how much it releases into the atmosphere and referenced a study indicating it may be a negligible amount.
So what does all that have to do with how much is emitted by nuclear? Yes, the same argument applies to nuclear in that it doesn't matter whether you are exposed to radiation, but now much exposure you get.
I am not arguing that the radioactive elements were "already in nature" to start with so releasing them into the atmosphere isn't a problem. I am arguing that the amount released into the atmosphere by coal isn't enough to have health or environmental impacts.
Coal plant emit more radioactive material (radon) than nuclear plants
It doesn't matter whether something emits radioactive elements but rather how much is emitted. Living organisms and granite are both naturally radioactive just not enough to cause a problem.
A quick google finds a study indicating that each year 100,000 times more radon is emitted directly by the soil than from coal[1]. Show me a better study that says otherwise and I'll believe you, but until then the radiation argument against coal is bunk.
The same goes for sulfur. The question isn't whether it is emitted, but how much relative to other sources and is it enough to actually matter.
Observing the lines at the airport, I've noticed that the imaging machines are much slower than the rest of the line. They were only pulling 1 in 5 people out of the regular line to go into the imaging machine and the machine was still at full capacity. Is there anything in the works to make these machines process people faster?
If I sew a lead lining into my pants, would it be able to see through that? What about leather? Other materials? Sequins (their reflections would sometimes overload early TV camera's)? Chainmail? What mm-wave opaque or reflective materials are out there?
(Hmm, I'm not sure what the status of meta-materials at mm length is but you might be able to build a cloak out of these.)
The image you link appears to be a passive IR with fairly low resolution. However, I was under the impression that these sensors were acrive (i.e. they emit mm waves and detect the backscatter) and had much higher resolution than the image you show (cf. new report linked from a TSA page on the topic).
Obviously the latter raises a much more blatant privacy concern (it's basically a strip search without removing your clothes). So...is the TSA mostly going for the former tech, the latter, both, a random mix or what?
they weren't particularly economical compared to just building two or three shorter (but still pretty tall) buildings
We need a new "tallest building" metric to account for this. Something along the lines of average-building-height per geographic-square-mile. Or better yet, to stop cheaters building a solitary building in a vacant square mile, maybe we should use total-habitable-square-feet per geographic-square-mile (taller buildings will naturally have more habitable square feet). Or maybe total-building-volume per geographic-square-mile (this avoids the trouble with variable floor heights).
From the summary: "The judge's order was made in response to a libel lawsuit..."
It sounds like they are claiming both libel and copyright. Now both are possible at the same time if the libel is in some parts of the page and copyright infringement is in other parts of the page. For example, saying "Disney is evil, they employ child labor to animate their movies such as the The Lion King" and then including a rip of the entire Lion King, would probably be both libel and copyright infringement.
Yes, the truth is an absolute defense against libel, but the trouble is that you need someone there to argue and produce evidence that the statements are true. Normally that is the job of the defense, but right now their identity isn't known so they can't be served and so aren't present. (IIUC part of the motion was to obtain the identity of the defendants.)
Libel trumps free speech. If the plaintiff's libel case is proven, then issuing a permanent injunction against the libelous page would be an appropriate resolution (legally speaking). As long as a libelous page is up, it continues to cause harm. These two facts together then justify a temporary injunction for the duration of the case.
At least that is the legal reasoning. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that is the way the law currently stands. For example, in this case the information isn't time critical, but if it were then a temporary injunction could be as bad as a permanent one.
Keep in mind that since the defendants haven't yet been identified they probably don't have any lawyers there to speak for them. Taking down the entire site seems excessive but is probably due to the plaintiff making as broad a claim as possible and the judge not being on the ball enough to limit the scope of the injunction.
However, in this case, I wonder why you picked the nit, because Javascript is in fact weakly typed.
Meh, I would say that it just has automatic coercion. Soundness is still preserved.
Unfortunately on the strongly vs. weakly typed scale there are several different stopping points so one man's strong is another man's weak (e.g. to a Haskell or ML programmer, both Python's and Perl's type systems are fairly weak). It also doesn't help that strong vs. weak is use to refer both to the level of sophistication and to whether it is possible to violate soundness.
This is an area where ECMAscript pays the price for not being a strongly typed language.
I think you mean "statically typed" not "strongly typed".
Statically typed
Catches type errors at compile time.
Dynamically typed
Catches type errros at run time.
Strongly typed
Always catches type errors.
Weakly typed
Doesn't always catch type errors.
Sorry, as a programming languages researcher this is a pet peeve of mine. Carry on.
Public Defenders' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.
Sounds like we need to pass a law requiring the PD's office to have the same amount of funding as the DA's office. (Anyone have a cite with the current funding numbers?)
Interestingly, the most effective pirate deterrent is the ship's fire suppression system. If you've never seen one of these in operation, it's quite impressive
I haven't seen one but I'd love to. Got a video of that posted online anywhere?
Except that if you shoot innocent people with an air cannon, they might shoot back with guns in self defense. (Especially if they mistake your air cannon for... well... a cannon.)
He was fishing until he got caught in the storm. Storm took out his radio and blew him off course until nightfall. Fortunately he found the only found the only merchant ship within 50 nautical miles and was sailing to it to ask for help.
So does AGW stand for "anthropomorphic global warming" or "anti-global warming"? And would "anti-global warming" mean you are against global warming (meaning you think it's happening) or you are against the theory that global warming is happening?
But "Tell them to leave" is not a lawful order from a police officer
Where do I find a definition of what are and what are not lawful orders? People like to throw that term around but I've never been able to find an official definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Agree, and you have stated your opinion as "fact"
Hard to believe Obama would hire such an idiot. Sounds like a George Bush kinda guy.
Except that Obama and Bush ran on the same platform. In the 2000 election, Bush played the "nice guy" card and seemed like the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. In 2008, Obama also played the "nice guy" card by being a very inspirational orator and forming a bandwagon that was fun to jump onto.
Option 1: Pick a low level bureaucrat "persuade" him to write a self-criticism and move on.
Option 2: Denial, denial, denial. (See Tiananmen Square.)
If you think if the children, the terrorists win. Wait. No. If you don't think of the children, the terrorists win. Ahhh...my moral outrage is so confused right now.
shouldn't the far smaller amount released by nuclear plants ALSO be too small to have health effects?
Umm, yes. My position is that both coal and nuclear don't emit enough radiation to matter. My understanding is that your position is that coal is bad because it emits enough radiation to matter. (Otherwise why would you include radiation in the list of reasons why coal is "environmentally damaging"?)
And yet, people are deathly afraid of nuclear power plants
And they have no reason to be so afraid. Are you afraid of nuclear? I'm sure not.
Coal plants ... are definitely the most environmentally damaging form of energy production on the planet.
Back to your original post. I challenge you to back that assertion up based on the radon and sulfur reasons you originally listed.
I'm not sure I understand your reasoning.
Recap as I understand it. You said that coal is bad because it releases radioactive elements into the atmosphere. I pointed out that whether or not it is bad depends on how much it releases into the atmosphere and referenced a study indicating it may be a negligible amount.
So what does all that have to do with how much is emitted by nuclear? Yes, the same argument applies to nuclear in that it doesn't matter whether you are exposed to radiation, but now much exposure you get.
I am not arguing that the radioactive elements were "already in nature" to start with so releasing them into the atmosphere isn't a problem. I am arguing that the amount released into the atmosphere by coal isn't enough to have health or environmental impacts.
Coal plant emit more radioactive material (radon) than nuclear plants
It doesn't matter whether something emits radioactive elements but rather how much is emitted. Living organisms and granite are both naturally radioactive just not enough to cause a problem.
A quick google finds a study indicating that each year 100,000 times more radon is emitted directly by the soil than from coal[1]. Show me a better study that says otherwise and I'll believe you, but until then the radiation argument against coal is bunk.
The same goes for sulfur. The question isn't whether it is emitted, but how much relative to other sources and is it enough to actually matter.
[1] Table 4 in http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/radon.htm
Observing the lines at the airport, I've noticed that the imaging machines are much slower than the rest of the line. They were only pulling 1 in 5 people out of the regular line to go into the imaging machine and the machine was still at full capacity. Is there anything in the works to make these machines process people faster?
If I sew a lead lining into my pants, would it be able to see through that? What about leather? Other materials? Sequins (their reflections would sometimes overload early TV camera's)? Chainmail? What mm-wave opaque or reflective materials are out there?
(Hmm, I'm not sure what the status of meta-materials at mm length is but you might be able to build a cloak out of these.)
The image you link appears to be a passive IR with fairly low resolution. However, I was under the impression that these sensors were acrive (i.e. they emit mm waves and detect the backscatter) and had much higher resolution than the image you show (cf. new report linked from a TSA page on the topic).
Obviously the latter raises a much more blatant privacy concern (it's basically a strip search without removing your clothes). So...is the TSA mostly going for the former tech, the latter, both, a random mix or what?
they weren't particularly economical compared to just building two or three shorter (but still pretty tall) buildings
We need a new "tallest building" metric to account for this. Something along the lines of average-building-height per geographic-square-mile. Or better yet, to stop cheaters building a solitary building in a vacant square mile, maybe we should use total-habitable-square-feet per geographic-square-mile (taller buildings will naturally have more habitable square feet). Or maybe total-building-volume per geographic-square-mile (this avoids the trouble with variable floor heights).
From the summary: "The judge's order was made in response to a libel lawsuit ..."
It sounds like they are claiming both libel and copyright. Now both are possible at the same time if the libel is in some parts of the page and copyright infringement is in other parts of the page. For example, saying "Disney is evil, they employ child labor to animate their movies such as the The Lion King" and then including a rip of the entire Lion King, would probably be both libel and copyright infringement.
Yes, the truth is an absolute defense against libel, but the trouble is that you need someone there to argue and produce evidence that the statements are true. Normally that is the job of the defense, but right now their identity isn't known so they can't be served and so aren't present. (IIUC part of the motion was to obtain the identity of the defendants.)
Libel trumps free speech. If the plaintiff's libel case is proven, then issuing a permanent injunction against the libelous page would be an appropriate resolution (legally speaking). As long as a libelous page is up, it continues to cause harm. These two facts together then justify a temporary injunction for the duration of the case.
At least that is the legal reasoning. I'm not saying I agree with it, but that is the way the law currently stands. For example, in this case the information isn't time critical, but if it were then a temporary injunction could be as bad as a permanent one.
Keep in mind that since the defendants haven't yet been identified they probably don't have any lawyers there to speak for them. Taking down the entire site seems excessive but is probably due to the plaintiff making as broad a claim as possible and the judge not being on the ball enough to limit the scope of the injunction.
A pile of explosives goes poof with a flash and some flame. That's it. Even a really big pile.
I won't believe it until I see it on MythBusters.
And even with that 172, the entire lower 48 is pretty much your playground, because if you live in the Midwest there's nowhere you can't go in a day.
How often do you have to refuel? (I.e. How big is the tank, how many MPG (or whatever the equivalent is) and how much does fuel cost?)
"It is really hard for me to get to work on time because of my OCD and ADD"
Somehow I can't picture OCD and ADD at the same time. Wouldn't they kind of cancel each other out?
However, in this case, I wonder why you picked the nit, because Javascript is in fact weakly typed.
Meh, I would say that it just has automatic coercion. Soundness is still preserved.
Unfortunately on the strongly vs. weakly typed scale there are several different stopping points so one man's strong is another man's weak (e.g. to a Haskell or ML programmer, both Python's and Perl's type systems are fairly weak). It also doesn't help that strong vs. weak is use to refer both to the level of sophistication and to whether it is possible to violate soundness.
Catches type errros at run time.
And no, I don't know what the name is for a language that catches spelling errors.
This is an area where ECMAscript pays the price for not being a strongly typed language.
I think you mean "statically typed" not "strongly typed".
Statically typed Catches type errors at compile time. Dynamically typed Catches type errros at run time. Strongly typed Always catches type errors. Weakly typed Doesn't always catch type errors.Sorry, as a programming languages researcher this is a pet peeve of mine. Carry on.
Public Defenders' offices are criminally underfunded compared to the DAs, who have the full backing of the State.
Sounds like we need to pass a law requiring the PD's office to have the same amount of funding as the DA's office. (Anyone have a cite with the current funding numbers?)
Interestingly, the most effective pirate deterrent is the ship's fire suppression system. If you've never seen one of these in operation, it's quite impressive
I haven't seen one but I'd love to. Got a video of that posted online anywhere?
Except that if you shoot innocent people with an air cannon, they might shoot back with guns in self defense. (Especially if they mistake your air cannon for ... well ... a cannon.)
He was fishing until he got caught in the storm. Storm took out his radio and blew him off course until nightfall. Fortunately he found the only found the only merchant ship within 50 nautical miles and was sailing to it to ask for help.
So does AGW stand for "anthropomorphic global warming" or "anti-global warming"? And would "anti-global warming" mean you are against global warming (meaning you think it's happening) or you are against the theory that global warming is happening?
But "Tell them to leave" is not a lawful order from a police officer
Where do I find a definition of what are and what are not lawful orders? People like to throw that term around but I've never been able to find an official definition.