You are so wrong. Now granted they compared nuclear to coal, but on your stated grounds, you should abolish coal first. You are falling into the flying vs. driving fallacy. Just because the deaths incurred though the mining and pollution of coal (not to mention possible CO2 related issues) are so unspectacular does not make them not happen.

It appears to me that you fail at statistics. If you cherry pick the 2000 - 2015 period and take the trend from that period, you will see that the earth did not warm significantly in that period. Your graph actually confirms GP's statement. Now don't get me wrong; our current course of action is nonsense and we are in dire need of a change. Pumping humongous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, while destroying many carbon sinks is not a sustainable course of action. Although I think that many climate scientist are half frauds (don't have a clue about numerical simulations), but in the long run they are right, even if their current prognosis is borderline useless. Remember we need to continue living on this planet for the next couple of thousand years for the very least...

Greenpeace and many other environment groups are anti-nuclear, not because it is sensible, but because of institutional momentum. Nuclear was one of the big subjects that founded these organisations. If they back paddle on the issue, they fear to lose face. They want a solution that involves low CO2 and no nuclear... (Cake and eat it)

Some are and some are not... Most of the Chernobyl exclusion zone now has less radiation than natural radiation occurring in the Black Forest. Many species thrive; with comparable life spans and no significant anomalies, these are especially larger multi-celled organisms. Some organisms that have few anti-oxidants; especially some annual flowers and Bactria don't fare quite so well.

You must take into account tow issues, first the high radiation environment killed many organisms; especially single celled organisms. This has caused oddities, such as the Red Forest, where almost not decay is happening, because the bacteria and small organisms where all killed off by the radiation. This is still the case, because it takes time for Bacteria and small organisms to repopulate the area. (And they are still partially dying of mild radiation.) The second issue is, that because the the amount of anti-oxidants in the organism determines if it will thrive or not in mild radiation. it has brought the ecosystem somewhat out of kilter. Some ecological niches are not or only badly accounted for and this creates the situation that some organisms could survive the mild radiation, but can't because their dependent niches are empty.

And if they are still running they have a well defined end of life date before 2020. They are being taken out of service significantly earlier than planed.

Yes, yes... But is it usable as a weapon?

THAT is why is should have read:

Actually I think with modern OS and compiler the opposite is true. The moment you overwrite your stack canaries and return address you app goes *poof*. (No message box, no error handler, just disappears from the process list.) You can live with corrupted heap objects for a good while; especially if you wrote over the
end and don't try to free / reallocate the following heap object.

This is only an iteration of sibling posts, but they are using the most retarded solution to build a sting in memory. Something that you learn in your introductory course, use StringBuilder, because performance...

It's a matter of mission statement. In Germany the public TV and radio is also payed by a "tax" (it's not called a tax, but it's mandatory). But they broadcast many things, especially the news world wide without restrictions. Up until last year they operated lang wave radio to reach the entire globe. They see it as a service to ex-pat Germans and other people interested in Germany.

The BBC has a long track record of selling their stuff (which is quite good). They have a vested interest to not make it available outside of the UK. But technically you could argue that they are double dipping, since it should be payed though UK TV licenses. (For example in the US this would not fly, since anything produced on tax money is automatically public domain.) The problem is that the BBC relies on these outside of UK licenses to produce the things they do; this law change would throw a spanned in the gears of the BBC's funding. (If would not be totally doom and gloom though, since the only thing that is unblocked is BBC's website's streaming services.)

Where is this digital goods factory you speak of? I would like to visit it...

Do you pay taxes?

Yea, that interstate commerce -> no sales tax thing in the US never made sense to either.

In this specific case, I would rather think that the northern countries, especially Germany, wanted that their food safety regulations to also apply to the southern countries. "Somebody think of our poor consumers?" (They don't make olive oil in mid and northern Europe.)

Although I understand the sentiment; the "richer" countries, e.g. Germany, already works with these "food safety" measures in place. They have had this drag on the marked already in place, so they did not need to adapt. The problem is when a new EU directive actually kills traditional products; like in France where the requirement to make cheese with pasteurized milk made something like 3/4 of the French cheeses impossible to make. (They resolved the issue with local exemptions.)

But once you comply with "improved" food and product safety requirements, the EU did help trade.