A quick scan of TFA is enough to convince me this is fundamentally flawed. Case in point: He doesn't even bother to prevent double-spending, instead relying on an ill-defined concept of "people will notice and devalue you", which is basically handwaving. And that for a problem that's been solved 20 times over.

The idea is cute, but I wouldn't trust his implementation one inch.

This is total hogwash, all of it.

Sun is not always shining in the same location, same for wind. But if you have a whole country, there will be sun somewhere, and wind somewhere. Especially for wind, near the coast (where almost all our wind turbines are located), there is always some wind.

Secondly, this "we had to import power from France" is a media lie. What actually happened was that yes, electricity was brought into Germany from France. However, it was not for Germany, it was transferred on to Switzerland and Austria. In fact, on the very same days that the liars cite, Germany actually produced a surplus of electricity and was a net exporter.

Actually, we've orchestrated the financial crisis as a plot to destroy the french banking sector so we can simply buy them this time.

You think you're alone?

I live in Germany, a country that has spearheaded the move to renewable energy with a law (EEG) so good that 65 countries have copied it.

Our latest government has been busy dismantling it, because the large energy companies cry wolf. They've destroyed thousands of jobs in the solar industry, and we've lost our world leadership in it as a direct result.

Oh yes, they've also given new licenses to build new fucking coal power plants, as if we lived in the 19th century.

It works until the other side has a lawyer who can argue that due to the length and constant changes, his client could not reasonably expected to know all the details.

Paperwork to cover your ass is nice, but just because you put it on paper doesn't mean it'll survive scrutiny.

Reading properly instead of fuming at the mouth would have revealed that I simply stated the counterpoint to the GP and said that without evidence, they are equally plausible.

Here's what problem I have with this, as someone who has written and implemented policies: The longer it is, and the more content that the reader thinks of as boring and "why the fuck do they even mention this?", the higher the chance it won't get read.

If you want your employees to actually read and know your policy, it must be short, to the point, and use redundancy very sparsely and intentionally.

You're committing the "gateway drug" fallacy. Do you have any evidence to back up that sexual jokes promote rape, or did you pull that out of a hat?

And not "obviousness" is not an argument. I can just as well claim that it is obvious that if the environment allows for the harmless discharge of sexual tension, more serious offenses would be contained.

The GP is right, lumping these things together is evil. The human mind likes to group things that are alike, and it commonly makes the mistake of believing that things that are grouped are alike. But especially in a scientific environment, those assumptions should be questioned, and proved before they are used.

A lot of security experts (myself included) have been saying this for years. It's nice to have an actual paper out on it, but it is quite trivial and obvious.

Password systems and the core elements of even most modern password policies were developed at a time when you had 3 or 4 different systems you needed to access. And when almost everyone doing it was a geek and could actually remember 65**L;)Y\BLe-A (an actual "secure password" I just generated on a password generator website).

Once you add normal people and 50 or so additional systems to the mix, you would have to be a total idiot to believe that users actually use 50 different 65**L;)Y\BLe-A style passwords, or that it is even within the capacity of the typical human mind to remember those.

In the real world, if your password policy is crazy, people will either break or circumvent it, most commonly by writing their passwords down. Which, of course, does not exactly make you more safe.

Answering your own questions much? Up until now, Thor had a lot of powers not derived from Mjolnir. On the contrary, Thors soul is imbued in the hammer, not the other way around. Mjolnir is a part of Thor, not Thor an extension of Mjolnir.

To change that is very much a retcon. To call a new, different character "Thor" means changing "Thor" from a name to a title.

It's a publicity stunt, and a pretty stupid one. In so far, you are right:

Yes, I do in fact think that it is a misguided attempt at catering to a very specific, ideologically driven "audience". It's the attempt to cash in bonus points with the crowd that wants more female characters, but without the hassle of actualy creating one.

Yepp, totally fine. Because I understand the concept of "based on ..."

Which is why they call the new character "Thor", yes? Because "Thor" is an old norse word that means "whoever holds the hammer", yes? Are you really so easily tricked by comic-book-retcon-handwaving?

It's clear that people are already fighting this with sarcasm. There are a couple famous products on Amazon with comments that laud them and praise them so much, you would have to be a total idiot to not understand they mean the exact opposite.

Because everything that doesn't bow down to radical feminism nazi shit and kisses its feet is automatically misogyny?

There are male characters in mythology, and there are female characters in mythology. If you want a female character, a strong warrior type with power, who commands respect and is listened to by the other gods - the norse mythology has several you can take.

Making an inherently male character female is at best stupid, and at worst both misgoynic and misandric. If you have to look that last word up in a dictionary, you've just revealed your true nature.

If I were a feminist, I'd probably hate this. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.

The only people who I can see to support an idiot move like this are feminazis, the people who're not really interested in equality of any kind, but believe in women being the master race. They are the only people who can possibly have a problem with a beloved male comic book character not being a woman.

Everyone who simply would like to see more female characters on screen, in books or elsewhere would understand that this new "Thor" is not actually a woman. He's a male character in a female body, that's all.

Are you for real?

The norse mythology is radically gender-equal compared to most other ancient mythologies, especially among the western ones. It has plenty of strong female characters to offer.

No, it's ridiculous, stupid and if I were a feminist, I'd probably hate it. What would be a good thing is to create an original female character, one that's not a sidekick or off-shot, but a fully-fledged character in her own rights, with none of the stupid revealing-armour-that-is-worthless-in-a-fight-but-makes-your-boobs-look-bigger nonsense.

Turning a male character into a woman is probably the most idiotic non-solution you could come up with.

That is what makes it doubly stupid. If this were a pure comic book character, the dissonance would be much less.

You can wish the moon was made of cheese, and you can announce it is, but it won't make it so.

Thor is a male norse god, no matter how you try to retcon it. The new character will not be Thor, period. It'll be a female character called Thor.

I don't know why they did this, because it's completely stupid. The norse mythology is rich with strong women, equal in power to their male counterparts. They could have easily built up any of them into a major character.

You are, indeed, trying very hard to miss the point.

The parliament is specifically elected for the purpose of passing laws in the name of the people. When it passes a law, it does what it is supposed to do. If you don't like the law, you could've elected a different parliament, and you can elect one that changes the law the next time.

Last I checked, the official job description of the president did not include a section on his sex life. He's not elected in order to fuck (or abstain from it) his staff. His job is to run the executive, and if it weren't for America and its strange fascination with gossip, celebrity and sex, nobody would give a fuck what he does with his private part.

You basically set out to find the only thing that the two have in common and then think that because tomatoes and fire engines are both red, they're absolutely the same thing.