Oh, yeah. The rational actor theory. But by the same postulates that underly that theory there should be no human being who eats unhealthy, boozes or gambles excessively, or picks fights he obviously can't win.

I have an alternative theory which states that going by actual behavior most people discount their future welfare to zero when there's an immediate reward, even a trivial one. It's almost impossible to resist an immediate burst of pleasure a nasty habit's got you hooked, whether it's a relaxing smoke or that glow of self-righteousness you get when you act on your bigotry.

People will literally kill themselves for a little short-term reward. Forgoing a little profit is nothing compared to that. If you look at places where segregation was historically sanctioned, you'll see you're entirely right: it's economically irrational. That didn't stop people from doing it.

Crashing through a gate where there's a guy armed with a machine gun is a really good way to get shot, a lot. It annoys the guy with the machine gun, and he has a tendency to shoot things that annoy him. And he's not using the cheap Wal*Mart bullets, either. The last thing to go through your head, I mean, before bullets, would probably be "Wow, those are really some high quality bullets that guy is shooting me with!" I seem to recall that this sort of thing was fairly common back in the 70's and 80's with the hippies trying to disrupt the SAC air force bases. We seem to be having a spike in the crazy/stupid lately, where people seem to think that if you go crashing through a gate with a guy with a machine gun, they'll be nice to you or something. Nope. Not the case at all.

It's certainly not a 'hoax'. Coal contains (to varying degrees) all of these pollutants.

Coal plants do often have filters these days, but always:

http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerp...

the emissions are significant, and not everything gets filtered out.

Also the filtering is expensive and the carbon dioxide that coal emits is becoming a *massive* problem. Although carbon capture has been trialled, it makes coal non competitive with other technologies.

This open source policy is open for comments. :)

Eight of 17 reactors have been shut down, so you're right, it's not "most", it's just "half of them".

Where do you get "two or three"? Are you confusing Germany with Belgium?

Runner up for dumbest statement ever, only beaten my "most food contains chemicals".

FTFY.

I can't speak to the chemical plants near you but with nuclear power, you always have incredibly dirty radioactive materials inside a container, with lots of complex plumbing leading into it, and under worst case conditions that stuff can potentially always get into the air and water and get spread far and wide.

Although in principle we could make it never fail over the lifetime of human beings, in practice, we as a species, don't know how to do that, and the proliferative effects of nuclear power and their association with nuclear bombs cannot be underestimated either.

To make nuclear power completely safe, is like trying to make water not wet. It's built into the nature of what we are doing with the materials, for utility-scale nuclear power they are always on the edge of melting down.

Because of these inherent properties it's also never been cheap; the extensive containment and safety you need to engage in, seriously impairs the economics and what you have to do to get around that problem, renders it an inflexible source of power. You have to run it essentially flat out to get the kWh price down to reasonable figures. The most successful systems (like in France) have hydroelectricity or other additional flexible supplies to balance out the power. But if you have that anyway, then overall, technologies like wind power are now usually cheaper and incredibly less risky and easier to install, and compared to nuclear power which is a more mature technology, still getting significantly cheaper over time.

Throwing money at such inherently risky technology like nuclear power to try to make it less risky is not a wise investment right now, and all the signs are that it is only getting less wise with time, other technologies are rapidly rendering it moot.

Thare have been "climactic" conditions in the past that humans might not thrive in. (Like lack of free oxygen in the atmosphere for example).

They prove that string concatenation (in memory) is slower than writing to buffers (in memory).

I.E. that :

char *s, *new;
new = malloc (len + 1);
memcpy (s, new, len);
new [++len] = 'x';
free (s);
s = new;

is slower than:

buf [len] = x;
if (++len > sizeof buf) {
  write (out, buf, len);
  len = 0;
}

What a fucking joke.

No, in the case of the "paper" cited it depends on the gross stupidity of the algorithm.

They're comparing:

string s = "";
for (1..1000000) {
  s = s + "x";
}
write (x);

With

for (1..1000000) {
  write ("x");
}

For fucks sake!

At some point wingsuit pilots will start wrangling drones for Amazon bonus loot, and an entire fun new sport will be born!

In Japan, they found at one point that there was a possibility of it *seriously* going to hell in a hand basket.

If the wind had been really wrong, it would have put serious fallout over Tokyo; which would have been really, really, really bad. While few people would have died, the economic disruption would have been (without any hyperbole) unbelievably stupendous.

http://world.time.com/2012/02/...

You can tell me all you want that this kind of accident can never happen, but I just don't believe it. We have no reason to think that Chernobyl or Fukushima were the worse cases, nor that these kinds of failures cannot happen again worse.

I also mulled laying off gambling before I went broke.

Therefore I am, morally speaking, thin and rich.

Which makes sense. Sea level rise in the last 50 years has amounted to about 4 inches, probably not enough to make drains run backwards.

The way sea level rise will make itself known isn't through changes in day to day phenomena, but in exceptional phenomena like storm surge flooding. This is a place where inches may well matter. People plan around concepts like a "ten year flood" or a "hundred year flood", and this creates a sharp line on the map where there is no sharp line in reality. Depending where on the domain of the bell curve their chosen planning horizon is, a few inches could turn a ten year flood into a five year flood, which has immense practical implications.

When people way that there is nothing intrinsically worse about a globe that's four degrees hotter they're right. But *change* that undermines human plans represents a big challenge. Change also represents a big challenge to species populations that can't relocate on the timescale of change.