Brown's Ferry was a fire - nothing compared to a meltdown. But yes, there are nastier examples, SL-1 being one of them. You left out the coolest detail - "pinned to the ceiling". Now that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!
Thanks for bringing the balance - I'd sort of forgot to include any in my post.
Sticking with the spiders and beavers... we're like beavers that are so good at making dams that we dry up our water supply. What I'm saying is that the solution isn't to bring in more water, it's to build less dams.
"Mankind is part of nature, therefore any changes we make are natural." is something I agree with 100%, and I take this even further and say that it doesn't matter if we wipe ourselves out. At the end of the day, though, it's just semantics and speculation. It's pretty useful for shutting up dumbasses talking about humans being "bad for nature" and stupid shit like that, but when one kind of solution is better than another (in my opinion), I still feel that it's worth saying so.
It's because people feel very much a part of global warming. Unlike electrical engineering, everybody is affected by the environment, everyone watches the gloomy news reports, and everybody does things which they could stop doing that they know harm the environment.
Everyone has an opinion because everyone feels it's a part of their lives.
This sounds like it's just a rationalisation of your intuitive dislike of the guy. More objectively, the ability to change one's mind is important. Punishing people for it is bad for progress.
A quote from my very crappy blog (no link = no blogspam):
What we need is an established inactivism group, whose logo could be plastered onto some prominent, visible place, like a front door or forehead. Such a group would advocate the following complex, multi-layered belief system:
You should wherever possible do the most right thing based on your best possible interpretation of a given situation based solely on the information available to you at the time and your experience as a person, and not on some stupid belief system.
This little rule has served me well these last 2 months. Unfortunately, politicians already use it, and they tend to consider consequences like "Can I make a boatload of money off this yet?".
It's not a question of whether or not we can do anything about it, it's whether we should. Why should we tune the ecosystem to our own benefit, when the planet has gone through things like ice-ages which have only served to refine the life here?
A lot hinges on the question of whether the changes are our doing. If they're not, we should adapt ourselves, not the planet. If they are, we need to start controlling ourselves. Your view of the solution sounds a bit external to humans ("reverse the cycle") for my tastes, though my impression may be wrong.
Country level TLDs are enforced. They tend to be in the control of the likes of governments and universities, and you have to do things like supply the address of your company in the country in question in order to apply. Obviously, this can be circumvented, but for the most part country TLDs (and the likes of.gov and.edu) are working well.
As for.com,.net and.org, they're the legacy of what people thought the rest of the internet would be. It's too late to start enforcing the differences now though. Too many people have personal sites on.coms, for example.
Re:eliminate top-level domains ?
on
Is It Time For .tel?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
You condescending little shit, not only have I already read that article, but my talk of the practicalities of the real world (look it up) has nothing to do with what might have been.
I used to wonder about this. I ended up sticking with.net (in all my previous domain names), because I felt I could be considered as "providing infrastructure" in the form of user comment posting (which I currently don't have).
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that nobody foresaw demand for personal websites, so no personal website TLD was created. The result of this is that the mental barriers between the TLDs have been broken down. It's just the sort of thing language does when an important, popular concept somehow falls through the gaps between the words.
Even with the shared symbolism, the christian Easter is seperate from the secular one, which in turn is seperate from the pagan one. The only claiming getting done in that group is as follows:
The pagans claim the christian easter
The christians claim the secular easter
I know that you won't see it this way, since you probably consider the differences between paganism and christianity as significant, whereas areligious people such as myself tend to just see "religious people" arguing over insignificant details in the style of the KDE vs GNOME and vi vs emacs flamewars.
By the time all of those stuck-in-the-mud intellectual article-reading types are done "reading" and "thinking" and "coming up with worthwhile ideas", and all that other smarty pants, college education crap, people like me have already put the comments past the threaded threshold and made off with all the karma!
Make SQL dumps or something similar available at intervals to enable forking in the name of freedom.
Make forking difficult in order to keep effort focused in spite of spats over differences.
I'm going with number 2 myself. By now, hundreds of self-important dipshits would have forked by now, just because their pet article was a candidate for deletion (for example). But Wikipedia needs to keep those same dipshits around for the sake of the other useful things they can do.
Slashdot Mirror
Brown's Ferry was a fire - nothing compared to a meltdown. But yes, there are nastier examples, SL-1 being one of them. You left out the coolest detail - "pinned to the ceiling". Now that's what I call REAL ULTIMATE POWER!
GAH! The car metaphor! It lives!
Sticking with the spiders and beavers... we're like beavers that are so good at making dams that we dry up our water supply. What I'm saying is that the solution isn't to bring in more water, it's to build less dams.
"Mankind is part of nature, therefore any changes we make are natural." is something I agree with 100%, and I take this even further and say that it doesn't matter if we wipe ourselves out. At the end of the day, though, it's just semantics and speculation. It's pretty useful for shutting up dumbasses talking about humans being "bad for nature" and stupid shit like that, but when one kind of solution is better than another (in my opinion), I still feel that it's worth saying so.
It's because people feel very much a part of global warming. Unlike electrical engineering, everybody is affected by the environment, everyone watches the gloomy news reports, and everybody does things which they could stop doing that they know harm the environment.
Everyone has an opinion because everyone feels it's a part of their lives.
This sounds like it's just a rationalisation of your intuitive dislike of the guy. More objectively, the ability to change one's mind is important. Punishing people for it is bad for progress.
The three incidents you cite were minor compared to Three Mile Island, so your definition of "serious" merely differs from the other guy's.
This little rule has served me well these last 2 months. Unfortunately, politicians already use it, and they tend to consider consequences like "Can I make a boatload of money off this yet?".
No, now it's Iran's nuclear program!
Argh, it's changed again! Now it's back to global warming!
Now the sky is falling!
Lack of drinkable water!
Now we're getting cancer from ozone depletion!
A lot hinges on the question of whether the changes are our doing. If they're not, we should adapt ourselves, not the planet. If they are, we need to start controlling ourselves. Your view of the solution sounds a bit external to humans ("reverse the cycle") for my tastes, though my impression may be wrong.
And embiggen the font while you're at it!
Sounds exactly like Morrowind. Add that to the list of things that have passed into the sequel seemingly completely unchanged.
lmfao!
You have to be right in the first place before you can use sarcasm to reinforce your point.
It was just a comment on the linguistic merit of the TLD, not the technical merit.
As for .com, .net and .org, they're the legacy of what people thought the rest of the internet would be. It's too late to start enforcing the differences now though. Too many people have personal sites on .coms, for example.
You condescending little shit, not only have I already read that article, but my talk of the practicalities of the real world (look it up) has nothing to do with what might have been.
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that nobody foresaw demand for personal websites, so no personal website TLD was created. The result of this is that the mental barriers between the TLDs have been broken down. It's just the sort of thing language does when an important, popular concept somehow falls through the gaps between the words.
It's a way of organizing sites by name in a useful way. Slashdot.jp is the best example I can come up with on the spot.
This is way better than .biz, which I can only guess that they just banged out without thinking twice about.
Next in the series: Why Judaism still isn't ready for the desktop user!
I know that you won't see it this way, since you probably consider the differences between paganism and christianity as significant, whereas areligious people such as myself tend to just see "religious people" arguing over insignificant details in the style of the KDE vs GNOME and vi vs emacs flamewars.
By the time all of those stuck-in-the-mud intellectual article-reading types are done "reading" and "thinking" and "coming up with worthwhile ideas", and all that other smarty pants, college education crap, people like me have already put the comments past the threaded threshold and made off with all the karma!
Sorry about that everyone. Dumps are available. See the, er... 'uncle' post for details.
I'm going with number 2 myself. By now, hundreds of self-important dipshits would have forked by now, just because their pet article was a candidate for deletion (for example). But Wikipedia needs to keep those same dipshits around for the sake of the other useful things they can do.
Yes, Microsoft gives itself way too much control over their customers. But Apple isn't a better choice in this respect.