According to a new poll on citizen security in 135 countries, Venezuelans are the least likely people in the world to feel safe walking alone at night.
The Gallup 2017 Global Law and Order Index found that just 12 percent of Venezuelans felt safe walking after sundown and only 14 percent expressed confidence in their police.
In addition, 38 percent of Venezuelans said they had been robbed in the last year, putting it in sixth place worldwide behind five countries, all in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Observatory of Venezuelan Violence, or OVV, says there were at least 28,479 violent deaths in 2016, or 91.8 deaths per 100,000 residents.
Sure, socialism tends to work OK on a small-comunuty level. Mainly because there's a fairly low limit to how much power the community as a whole can actually amass, and because people are free to leave if they're not happy with the way things are being run. Where it starts being a problem is with communal cults/religions which try to prevent members from leaving, and/or don't allow them to take anything with them.
Anyway, I'm not the one arguing that it's never been tried. Talk to the other guy.
Obviously. That's what I said; by your definition no plan could ever be unlimited. Pay attention. If you're going to be a pedant about the word "unlimited" then the word itself is useless since everything in this universe has some kind of limit.
Everything is limited. My internet connection is limited to 50mbps. My home network is limited to gigabit speed. The speed of light is limited to 299 million meters per second. If you want no limits, find a different universe.
"Unlimited" in this context is used to differentiate them from plans which had a hard cap on how much data you could transfer, after which you would have to buy more. If the word "unlimited" is not acceptable to you, which word would you use to advertise that difference?
Your quote disproves your premise. First you say that all of their plans throttle, then you quote them saying that all of the unlimited plans get throttled. Those are two completely different things.
They do offer plans with set data caps, which do not throttle. If you use more than your allotted data for the month, instead of being throttled you get charged for extra data by the gigabyte. This seems like a much better option for this specific use-case.
If people had more than one choice for Internet service, throttling, data caps and all the other bullshit would disappear overnight.
The only way you make throttling and data caps to go away is by expanding capacity. That takes time, and money. I would agree that competition could help in the long run but there's no way it's happening "overnight".
No, it's not. It's a statement about how much you can download, not how fast you can download it.
By your logic no plan could ever be unlimited. If I have a 20 megabit plan which is never throttled, and I download 24/7 for a month, I can transfer about 6 and a half terabytes. So 6.5 terabytes is the limit of that plan. See, not unlimited!
It violates the boundary of respect for a policy of no guns on school property.
By this logic, a teacher showing a historical ww2 video showing soldiers with guns also violates school policy. Hell, I'll bet some of the history textbooks have at least one or two pictures of soldiers with guns. The horror! They should all be burned.
Of course it would be OK. Why wouldn't it? Any prosecution based on that is basically enforcement of thought crime. "We think maybe he wanted to shoot up the school, so he needs to go to jail".
That's idiotic. This is the clock-boy case all over again, except this time the kid is facing actual criminal charges instead of just being questioned and released. If you're OK with that, there's something seriously wrong with you.
I'm glad you've found a way to make yourself feel superior to all intellectuals; I'm sure you need some kind of ego boost in your life. However, you may want to think about keeping your smugness to yourself, so that the rest of us aren't put in the position of having to point out your ignorance.
The problem I have with nuclear is it is difficult to protect against stupid.
It's probably impossible to completely protect against stupid. But no serious person would demand that. The track record of nuclear even after Chernobyl and Fukushima shows that it's possible to protect against it well enough to maintain an acceptable safety margin, even with very old designs. Newer designs improve safety even further. And MSRs would be the closest thing to idiot-proof that it's possible to get.
Continuing to run older and less safe plants past their initial design period is a bad decision, yet what are we doing? Older plants aren't more risky than they were, at least if they pass tests and all that, but not taking proactive steps to reduce risk when you can is, well, risky.
Absolutely. Letst fast track the development of MSRs, pump out hundreds as soon as the designs are proven, and decommission all those old plants as soon as new ones start coming online.
Sure newer designs are inherently better protected against stupid, but are they enough?
Yes.
Basically, convince me that the nuclear plants will never be run by idiots or people wanting to save a buck at (almost) any price, and you will remove my remaining skepticism on nuclear.
Why would you set such an unrealistic goal? Look, MSRs are inherently immune from meltdowns. They don't require any human intervention to make them safe. If the temperature in the reactor gets high enough, instead of the fuel "melting down" and causing an increase in reactivity it instead melts through plugs at the bottom of the vessel causing the molten fuel to drain out into multiple separate containers. Once separated in that fashion it no longer has enough material present to continue the chain reaction, and it cools off all on it's own. No special procedure needed, no coolant required, just leave it alone and it will stop on it's own. The only "disaster" is that you lose electrical production and are going to have to spend time and money fixing and restarting the reactor.
If you can think of a way that "idiots or people wanting to save a buck" can fuck up that system to the point that it releases radiation into the environment, I'm all ears.
Unfortunately preventing stupid decisions is invariably expensive.
That's why you don't waste money trying to prevent all possible stupid decisions; you just build your reactor so that a stupid decision can't do any serious harm. You do this by ensuring that overheating of the core causes a reduction of power output rather than an increase. You also do it by removing water from the cooling circuit so that you can't have any hydrogen explosions (which are the main problem with meltdowns; hydrogen exploding spreads radiation all over the place). Even non-MSR Gen 4 reactors include passive cooling features which preclude the possibility of a Fukushima-type failure, and use coolants which can't cause explosions.
We have had 60 years of development since Fukushima was built; you don't think we've learned anything about how to design safer reactors in the last 6 decades?
I know you're pretty retarded, but even you could have actually read the article and seen that it says they had a "trip-average Supercharger dwell time of 38.3 minutes" rather than your "ONE FUCKING HOUR!!11!11!1ELEVENTY!!!".
No shit you're going to spend a lot of time charging if you decide to drive thousands of miles with a car that gets 300 miles on a full charge. What kind of halfwit do you have to be to expect otherwise? If you want to drive from one side of the USA to the other on a weekly basis without stopping, you are not the target demographic for any EV whatsoever. Fuck off and buy something else.
Oh sure. Out of the 80,000 model 3s delivered you just happen to know several people who own one and happen to be conveniently close to where you're visiting. So of course you just had to ask to drive one while you were in the area, even though you hate everything about Tesla.
No. You are stupid so I will explain slowly. Expensive items are not green because normal people cannot afford them.
Congrats, you win the "most retarded comment of the week" award. Wanna try for an encore? Maybe you can follow it up with "expensive computers aren't fast because poor people can't afford them".
It is not hysteria when the failure-mode is the definition of 'disaster,'
That is, of course, total nonsense. The failure mode for everything from cars and airplanes to home furnaces and matches is "disaster" if you're willing to be creative enough. By your logic, as long as it's technically possible for any particular bit of technology to cause a disaster, no level of crying and nail-biting can be considered hysterical.
This is why people rightly call your arguments anti-nuclear hysteria.
This article of faith reminds me of what Nassim Taleb said, "We have managed to transfer religious belief into gullibility for whatever can masquerade as science."
And this is how I know that you are as much of an idiot as Taleb. What I've stated is no more "an article of faith" than if I were to say that when someone flicks a light switch the lights will come on regardless of whether the person doing the flicking is Chinese or European. The fact that you see it as an article of faith only demonstrates that you have no clue what's going on.
It seems like a clinical trial is a nice simple truth detector but the truth is often too nuanced for this tool. Studies on acupuncture (which is also outside of our scientific framework) when done by Eastern medical doctors show higher effectiveness than when done by their Western counterparts, for whatever variety of reasons.
"Whatever reasons?". The reasons are simple; bias and poor methodology. A properly designed and executed double-blind study will have the same results regardless of where it's done. The fact that there are shoddy studies out there does not mean that "the truth is too nuanced for this tool" any more than the fact that there are crappy mechanics out there means you need to take your car to a homeopathic mechanic. It just means we need to look at the good studies and ignore the bad ones.
That said I agree, clinical trials are at least some tool, and as far as I know they show homeopathy is as effective as placebo. Which is better than nothing, since the placebo effect is not trivial to induce.
This is just nonsense. The placebo effect is trivially easy to induce. When I'm sick I drink a cup of tea, and I feel better. Even just talking to someone about how you feel, and having them listen and respond with compassion, induces a placebo response. Different types of "intervention" may generate a stronger or weaker placebo response, but let's not pretend that this is some massively complex thing which you need a multibillion dollar industry for.
Slashdot Mirror
Free for all anything is anarchy, Einstein.
According to a new poll on citizen security in 135 countries, Venezuelans are the least likely people in the world to feel safe walking alone at night.
The Gallup 2017 Global Law and Order Index found that just 12 percent of Venezuelans felt safe walking after sundown and only 14 percent expressed confidence in their police.
In addition, 38 percent of Venezuelans said they had been robbed in the last year, putting it in sixth place worldwide behind five countries, all in sub-Saharan Africa.
The Observatory of Venezuelan Violence, or OVV, says there were at least 28,479 violent deaths in 2016, or 91.8 deaths per 100,000 residents.
https://www.miamiherald.com/ne...
Great place. Good thing they banned guns. Keep up the good work, Hugo!
Sure, socialism tends to work OK on a small-comunuty level. Mainly because there's a fairly low limit to how much power the community as a whole can actually amass, and because people are free to leave if they're not happy with the way things are being run. Where it starts being a problem is with communal cults/religions which try to prevent members from leaving, and/or don't allow them to take anything with them.
Anyway, I'm not the one arguing that it's never been tried. Talk to the other guy.
Obviously. That's what I said; by your definition no plan could ever be unlimited. Pay attention. If you're going to be a pedant about the word "unlimited" then the word itself is useless since everything in this universe has some kind of limit.
I guess when you don't understand words you can probably convince yourself of such things.
Everything is limited. My internet connection is limited to 50mbps. My home network is limited to gigabit speed. The speed of light is limited to 299 million meters per second. If you want no limits, find a different universe.
"Unlimited" in this context is used to differentiate them from plans which had a hard cap on how much data you could transfer, after which you would have to buy more. If the word "unlimited" is not acceptable to you, which word would you use to advertise that difference?
Your quote disproves your premise. First you say that all of their plans throttle, then you quote them saying that all of the unlimited plans get throttled. Those are two completely different things.
They do offer plans with set data caps, which do not throttle. If you use more than your allotted data for the month, instead of being throttled you get charged for extra data by the gigabyte. This seems like a much better option for this specific use-case.
If people had more than one choice for Internet service, throttling, data caps and all the other bullshit would disappear overnight.
The only way you make throttling and data caps to go away is by expanding capacity. That takes time, and money. I would agree that competition could help in the long run but there's no way it's happening "overnight".
But "unlimited" is a blatant lie.
No, it's not. It's a statement about how much you can download, not how fast you can download it.
By your logic no plan could ever be unlimited. If I have a 20 megabit plan which is never throttled, and I download 24/7 for a month, I can transfer about 6 and a half terabytes. So 6.5 terabytes is the limit of that plan. See, not unlimited!
Translation: "hurt durr REAL socialism has never been tried!!1!1!1"
You should get beyond your 1st or 2nd grade education ...
Socialism = drinking water, interstate highways, college tuition assistance programs
Irony.
They used the game to repeatedly practice crashing into buildings.
I did that with a million dollar professional full-motion simulator. Guess I should be arrested too.
It violates the boundary of respect for a policy of no guns on school property.
By this logic, a teacher showing a historical ww2 video showing soldiers with guns also violates school policy. Hell, I'll bet some of the history textbooks have at least one or two pictures of soldiers with guns. The horror! They should all be burned.
Of course it would be OK. Why wouldn't it? Any prosecution based on that is basically enforcement of thought crime. "We think maybe he wanted to shoot up the school, so he needs to go to jail".
That's idiotic. This is the clock-boy case all over again, except this time the kid is facing actual criminal charges instead of just being questioned and released. If you're OK with that, there's something seriously wrong with you.
Your enemies need only destroy your nuke facilities with conventional weapons, and you will have effectively nuked yourself.
If you think that this is even remotely true you're clearly not qualified to speak on the subject.
I'm glad you've found a way to make yourself feel superior to all intellectuals; I'm sure you need some kind of ego boost in your life. However, you may want to think about keeping your smugness to yourself, so that the rest of us aren't put in the position of having to point out your ignorance.
The problem I have with nuclear is it is difficult to protect against stupid.
It's probably impossible to completely protect against stupid. But no serious person would demand that. The track record of nuclear even after Chernobyl and Fukushima shows that it's possible to protect against it well enough to maintain an acceptable safety margin, even with very old designs. Newer designs improve safety even further. And MSRs would be the closest thing to idiot-proof that it's possible to get.
Continuing to run older and less safe plants past their initial design period is a bad decision, yet what are we doing? Older plants aren't more risky than they were, at least if they pass tests and all that, but not taking proactive steps to reduce risk when you can is, well, risky.
Absolutely. Letst fast track the development of MSRs, pump out hundreds as soon as the designs are proven, and decommission all those old plants as soon as new ones start coming online.
Sure newer designs are inherently better protected against stupid, but are they enough?
Yes.
Basically, convince me that the nuclear plants will never be run by idiots or people wanting to save a buck at (almost) any price, and you will remove my remaining skepticism on nuclear.
Why would you set such an unrealistic goal? Look, MSRs are inherently immune from meltdowns. They don't require any human intervention to make them safe. If the temperature in the reactor gets high enough, instead of the fuel "melting down" and causing an increase in reactivity it instead melts through plugs at the bottom of the vessel causing the molten fuel to drain out into multiple separate containers. Once separated in that fashion it no longer has enough material present to continue the chain reaction, and it cools off all on it's own. No special procedure needed, no coolant required, just leave it alone and it will stop on it's own. The only "disaster" is that you lose electrical production and are going to have to spend time and money fixing and restarting the reactor.
If you can think of a way that "idiots or people wanting to save a buck" can fuck up that system to the point that it releases radiation into the environment, I'm all ears.
Unfortunately preventing stupid decisions is invariably expensive.
That's why you don't waste money trying to prevent all possible stupid decisions; you just build your reactor so that a stupid decision can't do any serious harm. You do this by ensuring that overheating of the core causes a reduction of power output rather than an increase. You also do it by removing water from the cooling circuit so that you can't have any hydrogen explosions (which are the main problem with meltdowns; hydrogen exploding spreads radiation all over the place). Even non-MSR Gen 4 reactors include passive cooling features which preclude the possibility of a Fukushima-type failure, and use coolants which can't cause explosions.
We have had 60 years of development since Fukushima was built; you don't think we've learned anything about how to design safer reactors in the last 6 decades?
A lot more likely for a random jackoff on Slashdot to make up what I believe than for him to actually know what I believe.
You're funniest.
I know you're pretty retarded, but even you could have actually read the article and seen that it says they had a "trip-average Supercharger dwell time of 38.3 minutes" rather than your "ONE FUCKING HOUR!!11!11!1ELEVENTY!!!".
No shit you're going to spend a lot of time charging if you decide to drive thousands of miles with a car that gets 300 miles on a full charge. What kind of halfwit do you have to be to expect otherwise? If you want to drive from one side of the USA to the other on a weekly basis without stopping, you are not the target demographic for any EV whatsoever. Fuck off and buy something else.
Oh sure. Out of the 80,000 model 3s delivered you just happen to know several people who own one and happen to be conveniently close to where you're visiting. So of course you just had to ask to drive one while you were in the area, even though you hate everything about Tesla.
Do you enjoy being a laughingstock?
No. You are stupid so I will explain slowly. Expensive items are not green because normal people cannot afford them.
Congrats, you win the "most retarded comment of the week" award. Wanna try for an encore? Maybe you can follow it up with "expensive computers aren't fast because poor people can't afford them".
It is not hysteria when the failure-mode is the definition of 'disaster,'
That is, of course, total nonsense. The failure mode for everything from cars and airplanes to home furnaces and matches is "disaster" if you're willing to be creative enough. By your logic, as long as it's technically possible for any particular bit of technology to cause a disaster, no level of crying and nail-biting can be considered hysterical.
This is why people rightly call your arguments anti-nuclear hysteria.
This article of faith reminds me of what Nassim Taleb said, "We have managed to transfer religious belief into gullibility for whatever can masquerade as science."
And this is how I know that you are as much of an idiot as Taleb. What I've stated is no more "an article of faith" than if I were to say that when someone flicks a light switch the lights will come on regardless of whether the person doing the flicking is Chinese or European. The fact that you see it as an article of faith only demonstrates that you have no clue what's going on.
It seems like a clinical trial is a nice simple truth detector but the truth is often too nuanced for this tool. Studies on acupuncture (which is also outside of our scientific framework) when done by Eastern medical doctors show higher effectiveness than when done by their Western counterparts, for whatever variety of reasons.
"Whatever reasons?". The reasons are simple; bias and poor methodology. A properly designed and executed double-blind study will have the same results regardless of where it's done. The fact that there are shoddy studies out there does not mean that "the truth is too nuanced for this tool" any more than the fact that there are crappy mechanics out there means you need to take your car to a homeopathic mechanic. It just means we need to look at the good studies and ignore the bad ones.
That said I agree, clinical trials are at least some tool, and as far as I know they show homeopathy is as effective as placebo. Which is better than nothing, since the placebo effect is not trivial to induce.
This is just nonsense. The placebo effect is trivially easy to induce. When I'm sick I drink a cup of tea, and I feel better. Even just talking to someone about how you feel, and having them listen and respond with compassion, induces a placebo response. Different types of "intervention" may generate a stronger or weaker placebo response, but let's not pretend that this is some massively complex thing which you need a multibillion dollar industry for.