I hear the thunder three miles away. The Island's leaking into the bay The poison is spreading The demon is free And people are running from what they can't even see
lol.
Total dead Zero The poison that spread The demons you dread As substantive as the fiddling of Nero
Just goes to show that fucking drama queens have always handwaived about stupid shit rather than doing something about the things which actually matter.
Would you be pissed off and ready to hang the person that told you?
No. I would get pissed off and ready to hang the fuckwit after he copied all of my personal documents, banking/financial info, browsing history, chat histories, and home-made porn collection, dumped a bunch of it randomly on the internet, and then fucked off and offered it to my neighbour in exchange for getting to hide in his house.
That's wonderful, but not the point of contention. There was valid science suggesting that these things were harmless.
Again, no, no there wasn't. Let's stick with CO2 just to keep things simple. You can make the argument that most scientists believed it couldn't cause climate change. You can claim that they had papers which supported that position. You might be right about those specific claims. But that would not, and could not, have been evidence that CO2 was harmless. It would merely have been evidence that CO2 wasn't harmful in that specific way. It was still known that a person emersed in a high concentration of CO2 would die, ergo CO2 was still known to be harmful.
In a more broad sense, though, science can pretty much never demonstrate that ANYTHING is harmless. Saying to a scientist "prove to me that this is harmless" is functionally equivalent to saying "prove to me there's no god". It can't be done. That's not how science works.
This is a key distinction which the "precautionary principle" dweebs always fail to grasp. We know that everything around us - from the food we eat to the water we drink to the oxygen we breathe - can be harmful in the right circumstances... but even if there are some things for which we have been unable to demonstrate any harm under any of the circumstances we've been able to test, that still doesn't mean we can make the claim that they're completely harmless. All we can say is that they seem highly unlikely to be harmful under all of the conditions which we've tested.
This is not just some pedantic hair-spliting; it's a key philosophical distinction. If you don't understand why it's important you're probably not doing good science.
Um, not know about climate change don't snt make CO2 harmless, and not knowing about the ozone layer doesn't make CFCs harmless. Both can be quite harmful to humans.
CO2, Tetraethyl lead and lead in general, CFCs, Thalidomide, and perhaps cigarettes.
I would love to see you provide the doubtless voluminous reams of studies which were used to determine that those things are harmless.
Thalidomide is perhaps the only legitimate example in your list, and that particular drug was never approved for use in America because the FDA required more rigorous studies than other nations did.
Eh, if it's not in Brisbane or Sidney, it's all the outback to me. My lack of familiarity with Australian terminology in no way offsets your lack of familiarity with the technologies in question.
Yes I agree! How peoole can make any claims that non-GMOs are safe with respect to the wider ecosystem, with virtually no test data is ridiculous and anti-science BS
For the same reason that pickpocketing is still a popular form of employment in many places; because there's a shortage of jobs, and an extreme shortage of jobs for those who have no education and limited skillsets.
This kind of venture - as compared to pickpocketing - obviously takes more effort and money to set up in the first place, but it takes far less effort and money than setting up a real business with a tangible product which is in demand and competitively priced. When you're scamming people you don't really have to worry about pricing, demand, and competition (or at least not as much).
It's an especially attractive line of business when you're living in some third world shithole and targeting people in first world nations. There's not much you can steal from your neighbours, let alone legitimately earn by selling to them, whereas fleecing a single westerner can keep you fed and happy for the next few weeks.
So you're saying that digging out fossilized plants and burning them is more sustainable and predictable than...
Well you've managed to be 50% right, which is better than most. It's more predictable yes. No clue where you got the sustainability thing from.
Have you ever heard about Tesla battery pack installation in Australia, which stabilizes its power grid better then anything they had so far?
The Tesla battery pack is wonderful, but you clearly don't know much about it. The benefit which it provides is being able to flatten out quick, short fluctuations. It provides seconds, or maybe minutes of power, giving other facilities a chance to kick on (and, often, during very short spikes, keeps them from having to kick on at all).
This is a valuable service for a small, somewhat unreliable grid in the Australian outback. It might even be useful in larger urban locations. It does not, however, provide anything like the kind of power needed to ride out peak demands lasting for hours at a time, let alone the amount of power needed to replace base-load generation.
880 miles over 100 years is about 127 feet per day. I guess you could pull out of your driveway and park beside the neighbours house, then walk the rest of the way.
Stop. This nonsense about humans being able to create systems that are 100% human proof has to stop because of, oh, I don't know, history.
So I've got one guy telling me that things need to be engineered to be human proof, and I've got you telling me that it's impossible. Great. You two go argue it out. I'll get my popcorn.
1. Get a VoIP service which provides call filtering and IVR functionality. 2. Set up all calls to go to the IVR. Have the IVR ask legitimate callers to press a number to connect. 3. Any calls which pass the IVR get forwarded to a ring group. 4. Optional; set up VoIP client on cellphone. 5. Optional; if not using VoIP on cell, set up your cellphone to only allow incoming calls from your IVR. 6. Optional; whitelist any legit numbers to let them bypass the IVR completely.
I use a setup something like this for both home phone and cell. Works like a charm. Since I can forward the calls as VoIP I've actually switched my cell to a data-only plan which also saves me hundreds of dollars every year, but that's just the cherry on top; the fact that not a single spam call has managed to get through in the last 2 years is the real benefit of it all.
For added fun:
7. Blacklist any numbers which keep hammering your IVR and getting stuck there; forward them to The Jolly Roger.
Absolutely no legitimate international business needs to randomly call tens of thousands of people every day with a faked caller ID from the receiver's area. None.
Google voice does, for starters. If you use their "one number" feature they wouldn't be able to show you the incoming caller ID without being able to spoof it.
Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The biggest problem with nuclear is that is takes a lot of technology to make them safe
No, it doesn't. For the plants which are currently in use, yeah, that was true, but all of that safety "technology" is already in place and is essentially a sunk cost. Modern designs are inherently failsafe and far simpler in most ways. At this point IRS entirely a regulatory issue. Streamlining the approval process for the construction of modern plants would make them far cheaper to build and operate, while improving public safety by allowing us to decommission older (more dangerous) facilities.
Here's a lesson for young engineers out there: A good engineering solution is one that is intrinsically safe and simple, one that naturally fails in a safe way
Which modern designs absolutely are. Even older nuclear plants didn't depend on "everyone doing their jobs perfectly", they only depended on people not doing incredibly stupid things in large numbers at the same time. This invariably meant that at some point I'm the 70ish years we've had them, at least a few would fail in dangerous way. Their safety record was still fantastic, but not perfect.
With modern designs you don't even have that possibility. You could put a bunch of liberal arts majors in charge of the plant and the worst thing that happens is it stops working. Granted, there's still the possibility that one of them will try eating the nuclear fuel, but the damage from that particular failure will be quite limited in scope.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear the thunder three miles away.
The Island's leaking into the bay
The poison is spreading
The demon is free
And people are running from what they can't even see
lol.
Total dead
Zero
The poison that spread
The demons you dread
As substantive as the fiddling of Nero
Just goes to show that fucking drama queens have always handwaived about stupid shit rather than doing something about the things which actually matter.
Would you be pissed off and ready to hang the person that told you?
No. I would get pissed off and ready to hang the fuckwit after he copied all of my personal documents, banking/financial info, browsing history, chat histories, and home-made porn collection, dumped a bunch of it randomly on the internet, and then fucked off and offered it to my neighbour in exchange for getting to hide in his house.
Of course not. I'm sure he will be releasing a trove of information about Russian spying programs. Aaaaany day now.
Yeah, I once tried to drive from new York to Los Angeles but accidentally got stuck in Abhu Dhabi.
And your evidence for all of this is ... hey, look over there!
That's wonderful, but not the point of contention. There was valid science suggesting that these things were harmless.
Again, no, no there wasn't. Let's stick with CO2 just to keep things simple. You can make the argument that most scientists believed it couldn't cause climate change. You can claim that they had papers which supported that position. You might be right about those specific claims. But that would not, and could not, have been evidence that CO2 was harmless. It would merely have been evidence that CO2 wasn't harmful in that specific way. It was still known that a person emersed in a high concentration of CO2 would die, ergo CO2 was still known to be harmful.
In a more broad sense, though, science can pretty much never demonstrate that ANYTHING is harmless. Saying to a scientist "prove to me that this is harmless" is functionally equivalent to saying "prove to me there's no god". It can't be done. That's not how science works.
This is a key distinction which the "precautionary principle" dweebs always fail to grasp. We know that everything around us - from the food we eat to the water we drink to the oxygen we breathe - can be harmful in the right circumstances ... but even if there are some things for which we have been unable to demonstrate any harm under any of the circumstances we've been able to test, that still doesn't mean we can make the claim that they're completely harmless. All we can say is that they seem highly unlikely to be harmful under all of the conditions which we've tested.
This is not just some pedantic hair-spliting; it's a key philosophical distinction. If you don't understand why it's important you're probably not doing good science.
Um, not know about climate change don't snt make CO2 harmless, and not knowing about the ozone layer doesn't make CFCs harmless. Both can be quite harmful to humans.
Education.
CO2, Tetraethyl lead and lead in general, CFCs, Thalidomide, and perhaps cigarettes.
I would love to see you provide the doubtless voluminous reams of studies which were used to determine that those things are harmless.
Thalidomide is perhaps the only legitimate example in your list, and that particular drug was never approved for use in America because the FDA required more rigorous studies than other nations did.
Eh, if it's not in Brisbane or Sidney, it's all the outback to me. My lack of familiarity with Australian terminology in no way offsets your lack of familiarity with the technologies in question.
People aren't stupid
If that were true they wouldn't have demonized Monsanto in the first place ...
Yes I agree! How peoole can make any claims that non-GMOs are safe with respect to the wider ecosystem, with virtually no test data is ridiculous and anti-science BS
For the same reason that pickpocketing is still a popular form of employment in many places; because there's a shortage of jobs, and an extreme shortage of jobs for those who have no education and limited skillsets.
This kind of venture - as compared to pickpocketing - obviously takes more effort and money to set up in the first place, but it takes far less effort and money than setting up a real business with a tangible product which is in demand and competitively priced. When you're scamming people you don't really have to worry about pricing, demand, and competition (or at least not as much).
It's an especially attractive line of business when you're living in some third world shithole and targeting people in first world nations. There's not much you can steal from your neighbours, let alone legitimately earn by selling to them, whereas fleecing a single westerner can keep you fed and happy for the next few weeks.
Was there a question in there somewhere? I'm honestly baffled as to how your comment relates to mine ...
So you're saying that digging out fossilized plants and burning them is more sustainable and predictable than ...
Well you've managed to be 50% right, which is better than most. It's more predictable yes. No clue where you got the sustainability thing from.
Have you ever heard about Tesla battery pack installation in Australia, which stabilizes its power grid better then anything they had so far?
The Tesla battery pack is wonderful, but you clearly don't know much about it. The benefit which it provides is being able to flatten out quick, short fluctuations. It provides seconds, or maybe minutes of power, giving other facilities a chance to kick on (and, often, during very short spikes, keeps them from having to kick on at all).
This is a valuable service for a small, somewhat unreliable grid in the Australian outback. It might even be useful in larger urban locations. It does not, however, provide anything like the kind of power needed to ride out peak demands lasting for hours at a time, let alone the amount of power needed to replace base-load generation.
If mental gymnastics ever becomes an Olympic sport, you, my friend, are taking home the gold!
880 miles over 100 years is about 127 feet per day. I guess you could pull out of your driveway and park beside the neighbours house, then walk the rest of the way.
And spend billions on cleanup. Great tradeoff if you're a fucking aspie.
Ignoring it only works until you get caught ... and mother nature keeps a pretty close eye on that shit.
Stop. This nonsense about humans being able to create systems that are 100% human proof has to stop because of, oh, I don't know, history.
So I've got one guy telling me that things need to be engineered to be human proof, and I've got you telling me that it's impossible. Great. You two go argue it out. I'll get my popcorn.
Better solution:
1. Get a VoIP service which provides call filtering and IVR functionality.
2. Set up all calls to go to the IVR. Have the IVR ask legitimate callers to press a number to connect.
3. Any calls which pass the IVR get forwarded to a ring group.
4. Optional; set up VoIP client on cellphone.
5. Optional; if not using VoIP on cell, set up your cellphone to only allow incoming calls from your IVR.
6. Optional; whitelist any legit numbers to let them bypass the IVR completely.
I use a setup something like this for both home phone and cell. Works like a charm. Since I can forward the calls as VoIP I've actually switched my cell to a data-only plan which also saves me hundreds of dollars every year, but that's just the cherry on top; the fact that not a single spam call has managed to get through in the last 2 years is the real benefit of it all.
For added fun:
7. Blacklist any numbers which keep hammering your IVR and getting stuck there; forward them to The Jolly Roger.
Absolutely no legitimate international business needs to randomly call tens of thousands of people every day with a faked caller ID from the receiver's area. None.
Google voice does, for starters. If you use their "one number" feature they wouldn't be able to show you the incoming caller ID without being able to spoof it.
Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
... I think your brain just farted.
The biggest problem with nuclear is that is takes a lot of technology to make them safe
No, it doesn't. For the plants which are currently in use, yeah, that was true, but all of that safety "technology" is already in place and is essentially a sunk cost. Modern designs are inherently failsafe and far simpler in most ways. At this point IRS entirely a regulatory issue. Streamlining the approval process for the construction of modern plants would make them far cheaper to build and operate, while improving public safety by allowing us to decommission older (more dangerous) facilities.
Here's a lesson for young engineers out there: A good engineering solution is one that is intrinsically safe and simple, one that naturally fails in a safe way
Which modern designs absolutely are. Even older nuclear plants didn't depend on "everyone doing their jobs perfectly", they only depended on people not doing incredibly stupid things in large numbers at the same time. This invariably meant that at some point I'm the 70ish years we've had them, at least a few would fail in dangerous way. Their safety record was still fantastic, but not perfect.
With modern designs you don't even have that possibility. You could put a bunch of liberal arts majors in charge of the plant and the worst thing that happens is it stops working. Granted, there's still the possibility that one of them will try eating the nuclear fuel, but the damage from that particular failure will be quite limited in scope.