It's about as contested as the validity of the Theory of Evolution and the effectiveness of childhood vaccines in that there are people who claim it not to be true in spite of massive amount of empirical evidence.

First, is nuclear power safer than other methods of power generation? Yes, by orders of magnitude.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/...

Second, Chernobyl (which is included in the evidence presented above). Chernobyl was a reactor that served two purposes for the Soviets. First, it was used to experiment on the capabilities and the limitations of the RBMK-1000 reactor series (this is what caused the disaster there). Second, it was used to produce weaponized materials for nuclear weapons for the Soviet military. As it produced power and that power needed to go somewhere, it was connected to the grid and added supply to nearby communities. Now I could get into the fact that the RBMK-1000 was one of the only reactor designs ever constructed that used a high positive void coefficient and that since that disaster, every single nuclear reactor in the world has been either designed or modified to not do that. I could get into the fact that the disaster that happened there (runaway reaction) isn't possible anywhere else without breaking the laws of physics due to the design of the plants (regardless of any safety features - it's a physical limitation of the design itself). But I think you should do your own research on those things.

Suffice it to say that Chernobyl is included in the numbers proving that nuclear power is the safest form of power production ever utilized by mankind and that it's arguable that it shouldn't be (which would only improve the numbers above for nuclear). Whichever way you stand on that point of contention (whether or not an experimental military facility operating a reactor design known to be unstable and dangerous in such a way that it was regularly pushed to its design tolerances should be included in a list of civilian nuclear power plant accidents), nuclear still comes out way ahead in the basic math. It's merely a matter of how many orders of magnitude its safety record exceeds that of other power production methods.

There's nothing unclear about over half a century of safety record that demonstrates an exceedingly safe technology. There's nothing unclear about the fact that if you care about human life, nuclear is the only option and that if you care about the environment, nuclear is the only good option that can handle base load. You can contest whether gravity exists all day long, but if you jump off a desk, you're going to fall to the floor every time.

Reality is that which is still there regardless of how much you wish it weren't so.

Do you realize that nuclear power - with everything that people have done wrong with it - is by far the safest method of producing energy (clean, dirty, or otherwise) that mankind has ever developed? Literally nothing, including wind or solar, is safer. Nothing is. Even if you choose to include Chernobyl (which was an experimental reactor used as a weapons research lab that happened to produce electricity for nearby communities), it's still by far safer than any other source.

So let's talk about risk and let's be real about it. The other sources of power are killing human beings; actually killing them (not just pretend in somebody's head killing them). Nuclear, even 1950s nuclear, is vastly safer. That's demonstrably the case with decades of clear evidence.

I'm going to assume this will end somewhere between a net effect of zero and a problem that's 1,000 times worse than what they're trying to solve.

One or two shots to a subject wearing body armor is typically enough to incapacitate them. That second shot can even be fatal, depending on the armor, the round, and the shot placement. Armor is there to prevent penetration and dissipate as much of the bullet's energy as possible. However, that first shot is going to do enough damage to leave at least a good amount (if not a ridiculous amount) of bruising around the impact zone. At that point, the body armor is compromised (not useless, but no longer fully capable). Another shot will do anything from leave a lot more bruising to fully penetrate. The most likely case is where you'll start getting ribs cracked. All subsequent shots increase the damage to the subject and each carries a rapidly increasing risk of penetration of the armor and death for the subject. Even without penetration of the armor, the human body can only handle so much kinetic energy.

In any event, it would be uncommon for an individual who's taken two shots to the chest to be combat effective. More commonly, they'd be lying on the ground in a lot of pain. Considering how many attempts it takes to get a shot on target for the head versus the center of mass, you're vastly better off going for the center of mass even if you know for a fact that your target is wearing armor. And before you bring up the North Hollywood shootout, understand that there were a number of factors that allowed those guys to carry on during the shootout, not the least of which was the poor accuracy of the firearms available to the police on scene at the range at which they were forced to engage.

It's unfortunate that the man you knew died while trying to stop a courthouse shooter. However, that one incident doesn't change the fact that the odds vastly favor center of mass targeting. Getting headshots on a paper target at a fixed distance and height, with no motion whatsoever, in an unstressful situation isn't that challenging. Getting them on a real human head at variable heights and distances, full range of motion, non-targets in the way and behind the target, in the most stressful situation you'll ever face (where millions of years of human evolution are working against you to destroy your vision, higher reasoning, etc) is one of those things best left to Delta operators who train on that day-in and day-out for years and years on end. And I'll bet if you talk to those guys, they'll also tell you that a center of mass shot is the perfect starting point as you'll get a hit faster and cut down on the motion that makes the head shot nigh impossible.

It's dead all right, it just hasn't stopped moving yet!

ummm. waitttttt...

Point of order, the annual average humidity is lower in Dallas than it is in LA.

"encrypting anything random should also be random"

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

I think the studies show that MSE is by far the least effective... but none of the others are anything like 100% either.

Got stuck with Vipre at work for a few years. It was nothing short of a complete disaster, to the point where on some systems, it just had to be shut down completely so the systems would function. Combined with the latest ratings from AV Comparatives (lol @ 88% detection rate and huge false positives) and I'd say nobody should ever run that garbage. It's truly terrible.

ESET's NOD32 is good and Kaspersky is very good. Nothing else has been consistently good for quite a while.

Why go back to an old version of Office for that experience? Just install one of the main OSS competitors... it's like Word for Windows 2.0, but worse.

Science by democracy isn't science.

Just tell us where you buried your gramma and we'll let you go.

Based on my experience in Kerbal, they're 95% of where they need to be. They've done the really hard stuff (controlled burns to bring the craft down at the right spot, slowing the descent at the right time without running out of fuel, etc) successfully. Properly orienting the rocket should be relatively easy assuming that the systems responsible for that haven't run out of fuel. The fact that the engine was able to get it that close without the fins working speaks volumes for how well the thing is operating.

Even if something else goes wrong the next time or two, they'll have a successful landing shortly. The simple fact that it hit the platform ought to be enough to let them start trying on land after another one or two similar attempts. As failures go, this was extremely successful.

Arrogant and self-obsessed. When you're around a little longer, you'll come to realize that you don't actually know everything. Or perhaps you won't as some never achieve significant emotional maturation.

First to create a workable, marketable, functional-in-the-real-world electric cars and created the first new successful car company in the US in decades to design, build, and sell them. Designed and built reusable rockets that run good reliably to the ISS for a fraction of the cost of any other solution ever devised by man. Also working towards sending people to Mars, which even world governments haven't even seriously considered. And on the Solar City side, they're making solar power so affordable to people that they've become the number 1 installer for residences in the US and the number 2 installer overall in less than 10 years of existence. 4.3 gigawatts of power produced by their installations as of 2013. They're doing all this while bumping up US manufacturing to compete directly with the Chinese. Who else is doing that successfully?

And again, I ask, what have YOU done lately besides read Wikipedia and spout off about things you don't understand? Because Musk, the guy you're criticizing, seems to be busy getting shit done.

This guy has actually designed and built rockets that go to space and can land safely back on Earth. You think he's so out of touch with reality that a fucking Wiki page is standing between what he says and what reality is?

Musk may not ever perfect the Hyperloop, but if he doesn't, it won't be because of anything you think you know. It'll be because he's too busy revolutionizing the automobile, space travel, and power industries simultaneously. What a stunning display of arrogance to sit where you sit and toss trivial criticisms like "we know it's impractical because I read a Wiki article about it" at a guy who launches shit into space for a living while he's not building electric tank-cars or spreading affordable solar power or raising his kids. The day you know more than Musk about -anything- is the day he has a fuckin' tag on his toe.