Denier: Ah hah! Told you all! Told you all!

Warmist: World is still getting warmer, which means we will all die

Skeptic: These are all extrapolations which are barely worth the paper they are written on

Denier: We need to stop with the environmental programs, they are killing the economy

Warmist: We need to stop polluting, the world is in jeopardy

Denier: It will cost trillion to "save" the world, and it might not even be saved. Anyone who wants to spend that kind of money on a crapshoot is an idiot

Warmist: Can we afford to take a chance? Our choice is trillions now, or quadrillions later. If you don't agree with me, then you are an idiot.

Skeptic: Anybody who wants to take drastic action on the currently available data is an idiot.

Did the order state that I also lose control over my account? My understanding is that users can delete their account at any time, is that not correct? (Luckily, I suspect it will not be a contested divorce, so I won't have this issue, but imprisoning me over deleting my facebook account seems to be... harsh.)

Well, I will probably looking at a divorce in a year's time or so, and if I was ordered to turn over my facebook password my very first action would be to delete my profile.

hopefully it is not mute, otherwise releasing the video would be moot.

So, if I changed "2011" to "1970", and came to the exact opposite conclusion, then you would agree that I had completely debunked global warming?

I'm hardly a denier, but I hate when random correlations are used to "prove" anything in science, let alone something that requires a massive amount of extrapolation from the data that we have. This is an important topic, and junk science/stats is just handing a tool to the deniers to beat us over the head.

Well dang, I wrote the above but forgot to log in.

One problem is that voters are, by and large, uninformed people who cannot be trusted to make appropriate decisions. See California tax policy for a good study in the disaster that is direct democracy. We need representatives to shield our legislation from the will of the public.

I find the number one factor using in sentence is your level of success.

Failed attempt to kill somebody --> attempted murder

Successful attempt to kill somebody --> first degree murder

Slashdot is of course on the "pro-nuclear" side

Slashdot has educated people, with backgrounds in science, who understand the issues involved in nuclear processes.

Your implication is that there are two reasonable sides to the argument: pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear. This is akin to saying that there are two sides to the flat earth debate. The only difference is that everyone knows the flat earth people are wrong, but it takes a substantial amount of education to recognize how badly wrong the anti-nuclear crowd generally is.

As for the topic of this thread, the idea of asking for a geiger counter to measure some pool that is probably barely above background (if at all) would be like somebody asking if he needs to buy a set of 11 super-powered turbo fans for his home computer that he uses for email that has been running a little slow lately.. He can buy the fans, and there might be some marginal use to them, but the money would be better spent dealing with real problems.

Yes, I have a background in nuclear physics. No, I don't think it makes me biased, I think it makes me informed.

The problem is that once you know what the error is, you don't know where the error is.

I mean, once you know where the error is, you don't know what the error is.

I mean, err... I'm not sure.

Instead of getting rid of the pilot manual, why not just get rid of the pilot?

Computers can now fly better than any human. Yes, the Hudson landing was well done, but that does not mean that a computer would not have been able to pull off the same stunt. If I had a choice, I would definitely take the computer-controlled airplane over the one manned by a pilot who may be tired, drunk, a terrorist, etc.

The rocket fire only goes one way. "Between" implies that the Palestinians fire rockets at civilians, and that Israel responds by blindly launching rockets back at the Palestinians.

Anyhow, back on topic. Currently, the rocket fire is inadequate. It is not beyond imagining that google street view could enhance the accuracy and lethality of Palestinian rocket fire, which would make a restriction make perfect sense. I assume that it has been determined by Israel that, despite what I just said in the previous sentence, google streetview will not actually help make the rocket fire more accurate, so they are now allowing it.

Canada also has substantially more landmass. Much of that landmass is also unoccupied. It is easier to produce power when there are no pesky people in the way.

Good to know that the noble natives are still the stalwart guardians of nature and the environment. Mining companies come and go, but a windmill will stain the land forever.

Frankly, I am shocked, shocked I tellz ya, that Al-Jazeera has found that Israel is not being reasonable in the negotiations. I mean, if Al-Jazeera says that Israel is wrong, it is certainly the gosh-darned Truth. Captial T Truth!