...is it?

Let's just cut to the chase. Thomas Paine in "Age Of Reason", which you can read online sorted this all out very nicely: the entire body of our religious works is hearsay.

New Testament, old, whatever. We've got little more than, "somebody says god says...", which isn't jack shit in a court of law, where the big kids actually make the rules.

No wonder it's embarrassing! Really, the most common ugly social issue arguments boil down to "somebody says god says...." and that somebody can be from the Bible, or Pastor Corn Hole Bob, who has it on good authority, or some other garbage.

All of it carries exactly the authority you grant it, and for all of us, it's entirely optional too, meaning none of us really have to care what "somebody says God says."

It's like trying to split the baby. Dig too deep into the problem and it gets really messy. Better to just move on and treat other people the same way you would like to be treated.

Racism, bigotry and theocracy are always wrong. Doesn't matter who says God says whatever. It's just wrong.

There, now we all can get along, New Testament or old, whatever.

And yes, God told me. Really.

...for the name of his security company, clicked on the first link, and said "OK, asshole, now you're going down!"

Now insert your own PMITA Prison/Goatse joke here...

Depends who you ask. According to that study: ".. another clear result: High school grades matter — a lot. For both those students who submitted their test results to their colleges and those who did not, high school grades were the best predictor of a student's success in college."

I wonder if this study has the College Board a little worried about their relevance. Does the SAT make them a little money?

He might be a bot, but he also might not be a bot.

Mainly because I'm out of sorts...

Weird outliers exist in every industry, and in every time. It's just that now get mroe examples of it worldwide, in realtime.

Five bits of anecdotal weirdness do not a trend make.

M and above are capitalized and everything else is in lower case.

oH, I THInK I GET IT now.

I agree with you. There would likely be a boost over land-based mw estimates. 10% seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how much exactly. I saw 144% on Wikipedia, but that number also took into account the fact that space-based uptime is better than land-based uptime in rainy and snowier places. This system uses stable weather areas as stations though, which would lower that 144% by some amount.

Good article on space-based solar here: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/.

Yes, I don't however see any data on their website about how wide they are planning to build the ring out. If their graphical renderings are accurate, they display a 195 pixel moon with a 22 pixel ring. Given that google tells me the moon's radius is 1737 km, that means the ring should be about 200 km wide.

So considering that we have a 11,000 km ring that is 200 km width, the power generation for the light-facing half should be what you'd expect from 5500km x 200km or 1,100,000 square kilometers. I've seen estimates of 1.2 mw per square km for solar. Using that as a basis we'd expect 1,320,000 mw of constant power generation. Wikipedia says to take off 10% due to conversion inefficiencies of microwave transmission of electricity and we probably should take off another 5% or so for weather and atmospheric disruptions or inefficiencies. That leaves us with 1,122,000 mw of constant power.

As a point of comparison, all the wind power in the entire world added up to 238,351 megawatts in 2011, so it is roughly five times the capacity of that. However, in 2008 the world had an average power consumption rate of 15 terawatts . 1,122,000 mw is 1.12 terawatts, so this project could supply roughly 7% of the worlds electricity if it was operational today.

The moon has an area of 37,932,000 square km though, so if we coated the entire moon and got energy from the sunny side and do the same math we get 19.34 terrawats. So, at our current state of energy usage it could power the world if we coated the moon in solar panels.

I'm not sure about the aesthetics of it though, a racing stripe on the moon.

...you mean hundreds of thousands, as numerous pictures from Newspapers and Twitter have shown.

The rest of your post is of similar accuracy.

Now why don't you tell us how Euromaidan in Ukraine is "just a handful of extremists"?

Fukushima is a serious nuclear disaster. It's a very situation that we should all be concerned about. But this should not lead to any pause in our appetite for nuclear energy.

What people often fail to appreciate is that even coal fired powerstations release quite large amounts of radioactive material in to atmosphere. Coal fired powerstations burn about a million times as much material as a nuclear powerstation per joule of energy produced. Some of that material is radioactive. That stuff isn't been sealed in a container in burrried in a mountain, it's being blown up chimney stacks along with the rest of the rather unpleasant stuff.

Don't believe me? Reflect on this passage taken from this (PDF) document:

The EPA found slightly higher average coal concentrations than used by McBride et al. of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Gabbard (A. Gabbard, “Coal combustion: nuclear resource or danger?,” ORNL Review 26, http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview... 34/text/colmain.html.) finds that American releases from each typical 1 GWe coal plant in 1982 were 4.7 tonnes of uranium and 11.6 tonnes of thorium, for a total national release of 727 tonnes of uranium and 1788 tonnes of thorium. The total release of radioactivity from coal-fired fossil fuel was 97.3 TBq (9.73 x 1013 Bq) that year. This compares to the total release of 0.63 TBq (6.3 x 1011 Bq) from the notorious TMI accident, 155 times smaller.

So far, there has not been a single confirmed death due to Fukushima accident. In comparison, there were 20 deaths in the US just mining for coal in 2013. This is not to mention all the deaths being caused by cancers and other health problems being caused by breathing polluted air.

If we're ever going to get on top of this climate change challenge, nuclear must be leading the charge. Nuclear is a safe, non-polluting technology. Modern designs are fail-safe in every sense of the word. The newer designs can even cope with a loss of external power (like Fukushima experienced) yet still stay safe.

This is the 21st century. The technology is mature, sensible and safe. Really, we should be looking to retire every coal fired plant as a matter of urgency, if only to reduce the amount of radioactive contamination of the atmosphere!!

A few problems:

- What about circular reactions?
- Is SQL really that right language for encoding business logic?
- Triggers are kind of an anti-pattern.
- What about atomicity? What if I need the whole reaction chain to work or none of it.

I'm afraid there more questions than answers with this proposed pattern.