While agent provocateurs are a very real phenomenon, and have been used to discredit political dissidents in the US countless times, you can't chalk everything up to them.

There are genuine, honest activists out there who sabotage storefronts, recruitment centers, police stations, etc during demonstrations. They do it because it's the only way to get the attention of the public and authorities. If it weren't for their actions, we wouldn't even be having conversations about whether the G20 summit and the policies of G20 countries are fucked up or not. Condemn them all you want, if you need, but they started a conversation that badly needs to be started about the path our nation and the global elite is going down.

That article just blames all other problems on population. Global warming? Wouldn't be happening if there were fewer people. Famine? That amount of food would be plenty for fewer people. Warfare, environmental devastation? Fewer people!

We've been destroying the environment, starving, and killing each other for generations. These are not new problems, and they're not created by overpopulation. Certainly the more people there are, the more of all these things happen - but the solution is to fix the problems, not create less people.

I even agree that having less people is a desirable thing, but it's not the root of all our problems. Acting as though it is will just distract us from addressing the real issues of concern here. Unfortunately, those issues are more political and nuanced than just "people should stop breeding!".

...and yet people are still starving and/or dying of poverty-related illnesses in droves. All this overflowing prosperity and we still can't (or won't) share the benefit with those who are dying from lack of it.

Ever think that maybe it's not the number of people on earth that's the problem, it's just the particular ones who happen to have the most power?

You're right that my perspective is a very US-centric one - I can't really speak to what's appropriate for a country like France, since so much of their infrastructure is already nuclear. In general, I think any country that hasn't already sunk huge amounts of money into nuclear would be foolish to start doing so now, because that money could be spent better on other tech.

I'm unclear on why (a) it is an "either / or" with nuclear power to you

I wish it weren't, I wish we had a blank check to do whatever it takes to kill coal, but unfortunately that's not how the US government seems to be approaching things. There's a limited amount of money available for non-coal subsidies, and the nuclear industry is getting /far/ more than its share of it. A cynic would say that it's because the same energy tycoons who've been burning coal all this time are now having their lobbyists draw up proposals for nuclear plants in an effort to keep the government cheese flowing and their business model undisrupted for as long as possible. The problem is that businessmen and politicians are presenting (and funding, respectively) nuclear power like it's the central solution to our problems, when in reality it has a peripherally supporting role at best.

So that might explain where I'm coming from better - you thought I was arguing in favor of coal when I pointed out problems with nuclear, but really my concern is to combat the overly enthusiastic way that nuclear is being embraced over sustainable tech in the US.

and (b) why you think nuclear power has such a longer lead in time than renewable.

I guess it's just a function of the complexity of the technology, and perhaps the safety precautions necessary. A solar or wind farm can be set up and operating at peak production quite quickly, whereas building a nuclear reactor and getting it online is a very long-term proposition. I'm sure that the time could be shortened by eliminating or weakening safety and environmental red tape, but I'd hope we're all against that.

let's also clear up exactly what we mean by subsidies here. That money is primarily going into R&D.

Again, not in the US. Energy companies (most of whom are running coal plants) are seeking government funding for the construction and operation of nuclear plants. Maybe they have a position on it, but I've never heard environmental groups like Greenpeace object to funding nuclear R&D, just the building of new nuke plants.

If you are arguing in favor of solar power in place of nuclear, then you'll find no argument from me as far as you are able to provide solar power to me. But if you can't provide me enough power from renwables, then I want the shortfall made up in nuclear power until you can,

Engineers concerned with energy efficiency sometimes talk about the "low hanging fruit". Basically, we need to start by optimizing the things that provide the most optimization with the least cost, and then move on to whatever is the next "lowest hanging fruit". Right now, solar power during the day and wind power during wind is really, really low hanging fruit. When it's day, a solar plant really does provide almost free energy, and similarly for a wind farm when there's wind. Granted these technologies aren't the full solution, but they're very clearly the most effective place to start. Once we're getting as much energy as possible out of renewables, then it makes sense to look at how to optimize the remainder of our coal use, with nuclear or what-have-you. But until we've tackled that low hanging fruit, devoting so much resources to other optimizations is inefficient. And in some cases, it's being used as deliberate misdirection by business people to distract us from the sustainable solutions which can severely cripple their coal-based business model right now.

You're absolutely right that there's more to the energy issue than carbon emissions - it's too bad people focus on the CO2 problem without considering the other political consequences of energy use. However, when we talk about coal, it doesn't have much to do with nasty dictatorships, because almost all coal is domestic. Oil is a different story of course, since we can't produce enough to fuel all our vehicles. And come to think of it, I'm not sure whether we can produce enough uranium domestically either, so that could end with us still dependent on bad regimes...do you know?

I'm not really up for playing the citation game, if you trust that I'm not making things up, you can (and probably ought to) do the research yourself. If you think I'm completely fabricating this argument you can ignore me.

The bottom line is that we're both right. A fully operational nuclear plant can produce power more efficiently than a coal plant. But that's not the only thing to consider. We're both agreed that nuclear plants can only work with huge government subsidy, so the question is one of opportunity cost: if the government has to pay to build our coal alternatives, should we be putting that money into tech that won't be online for a decade? Because that means an entire decade of continued dependence on coal. And even once they're online, it's not like nuclear is free energy, just somewhat more efficient than coal. Fuel still needs to be mined, transported, processed, and then disposed of safely, all of which are very energy intensive.

Sustainable technologies can start making a very significant dent in coal use within a year or two. And yes, I know that solar power alone can't completely replace coal. But sustainable power in general can make a /huge/ reduction in coal use and it can do it soon, when we need it.

Even if all of these sheeple you bemoan suddenly decided to start following your vague but self-assured brand of techno-optimism instead, nuclear reactors could not solve our CO2 problems. The things take at least a decade to come online, and during that time they're actually contributing to a significant spike in CO2 emissions due to the huge amount of energy sunk into their construction. It would take much longer for them to actually "break even" in terms of their overall carbon footprint. We do not need tech which increases CO2 emissions over the next 10+ years with a promise of greater efficiency sometime in the next generation. We need tech which reduces CO2 emissions now, in the next few years. Yes, it's conceivable that if we'd fully embraced nuclear in the 70's we'd be in better shape now, but it's too late now.

Not to mention cost: everyone blames ignorance and fear for the reason nuclear reactors aren't constructed today, but the real reason is they're not competitive in the energy market. Even today with all the supposed breakthroughs, nuclear cannot be built without vast, vast government subsidy. Face it, the nuclear industry is just another group of energy barons looking for government hand-outs. Even the Libertarian Party has objected to plans to build new reactors, because they amount to little more than welfare for big energy companies.

It's weird how geeks are so quick to jump on the "no software is secure" bandwagon, laughing loudly at anyone who thinks their system can't be exploited or crashed - and then turn around and insist that every single problem with a vastly complex (and computerized, mind you) technology has been solved, and it's now immune to failure.

If you have life-or-death data, don't keep it on a networked computer - because there /are/ bugs, and when they're exploited (gotta assume they will be) you don't want to lose everything. Similarly, your power plants /will/ have bugs that cause them to malfunction. All you can do is design those plants using technologies that won't unleash radioactive ultra-kill on everything around them when they do.

Yes, but with current technology, we have the halflife down to 10 years.

Is this true? I've never heard that before, please provide a citation. If 100% of the waste that would come from reactors that we're considering actually building will be non-toxic in 10 years, that's pretty significant. But I suspect it's not that simple.

Well, isn't that something.

Animals already endure all kinds of sores, infections and other wounds as a result of factory farm conditions. The fact that they feel pain doesn't allow them to prevent their injuries, though. Pain is only useful if you have the power to do something in response to it, and factory farm animals have no power at all. Everyone knows if you want to "ensure quality", you get meat locally grown on a small farm that doesn't use hormones or antibiotics. You want festering, stressed, infection-ravaged meat pumped full of chemicals, head down to the supermarket.

As you hinted at, the killing may or may not be painless, it's the part before the killing that's obviously cruel. Part of that is because it's physically painful to be packed in so tightly you can't move, covered in infections, etc. However being an animal in a factory farm is probably also terrifying on a more abstract level, even if you can't feel physical pain. That's a lot more difficult to change without restructuring the whole way the meat industry operates. Until such a restructuring happens, I'm not buying what they're selling.

MDMA is Schedule I in the US, indicating that the government claims that it has no significant medical uses. They're wrong, but nevertheless there's no legal way to use MDMA for medical treatment in the US.

I think he's re-envisioning the reward system and the meaning of "success" in his game. In a game like WoW, you're l33t if you managed to accumulate the most epic loot for yourself. Success in WoW is making your toon uber-powerful, or doing something that nobody else can.

In Love, it sounds like success is much more based around your personal relationships with other players - success is measured in how much respect and "props" you get from your fellow players. Players are competing not for shiny loot which they can hoard, but for the opportunity to help their peers and earn a good reputation.

Kind of reminds me of the warez scene, actually. Everyone is hyper-motivated and competitive about doing a good job, even though ultimately all they're doing is sharing with each other. It's competition to show who's the best at sharing.

Fair enough, my point was just that western governments have a proven track record of pulling this type of shit on pretty innocuous individuals/organizations, so it wouldn't be at all surprising in this case.

Nevertheless, I would go so far as to say that even if they are the nailbombing type, we should still demand that they be subjected to the same legal procedures that we ourselves would expect. Which means that under no circumstances should anyone be punished simply for refusing to decrypt allegedly encrypted data.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't go to jail, just not for that.

It's probably actually intended to give police the ability to coerce people who they don't have any actual evidence against, or who they may not even believe had anything to do with a crime. The process goes like this:
- Find a group who seems to share the ideology or ideals of some terrorist activity (for example, an animal rights advocacy organization).
- Put together enough flimsy misrepresented evidence to get a warrant
- Start a witch hunt. Target an activist and demand they decrypt all their data including communications, etc.
- If the activist won't cooperate, great, send them to jail and make a press release about how you successfully disrupted a terrorist operation.
- If they cooperate, sift all of their data - especially communications - for more flimsy misrepresented evidence and take the witch hunt to someone else.
- Repeat

This isn't just unfair to activists - it's a very, very poor way of trying to stop terrorism, because it basically consists of harassing random people with radical politics in the hopes that eventually they'll hit on a real lead to real terrorists. We should expect our security/intelligence organizations to be doing real investigative work, not just trawling the public and hoping they accidentally catch someone bad.