I enjoy the other two movies. There I fucking said it.

It fact they were pretty fucking good when I figured them out, I'm going to watch them again. Like most of the people here whinging about we're fools today, they make it lame, because the second two matrix movies require someone to *think* instead of having the answer painted in ten metre high letters so they can have their 'ohhhhh' moment, when it dawns on them. Of course if you try to explain it, it makes it lame and them lame and you lame. Case in point Neon Genesis Evangelon, fucking awesome, unless you need it explained to you.

That's why people who say the second two movies suck are actually saying 'I have no attention span and I'm too lazy to figure out the second two movies' a consequence of their inanity and downright mental laziness. Now they have the idea in their head that it sucks, they prejudice the films for people who might enjoy them. Complain complain complain about star wars and star trek until they fucking take it off the air and then there is nothing. Fringe is a great example of how lame people didn't get it. Enders Game - didn't let you down if you enjoyed the book. Fuck them for spoiling my fun.

The producers took a risk to make something that *SCI FI* fans could enjoy and would challenge them and their reward was idiocracy through lamity so no more risky movies. Now movies are made to appeal to the mass moron and instead of making everyone a little bit smarter, it makes the smart people a little more jaded.

It is because of whining morons that we don't have risky movies approved by boring accountants. If you don't like movies like the second two matrix movies and movies like that because you can't pay attention for that long, I suggest the following:

• Don't watch the movie and continue with your inane mundane existence stuffing fast food in you mouth
• Shut the fuck up and let the people who enjoy watching and making these movies do their thing

This is not about you VanessaE however, it's been a long time and you reminded me it needed to be said when it was the topic. Simple to remember - STFU if you don't like the movie.

I dunno, the reactions and expressions of discomfiture are pretty amusing.

It was 127.0.,0.1

arrgh - sorry about the block of text - v.tired.

I don't have time at the moment to answer everything you posted here, maybe in a couple of days. My insistence on this is based on the behaviour of radionuclides in the environment. They are toxic and emit different types of radiation at various energetic levels. At high energetic levels various radionuclide types cause various types of cancers to Humans and other organisms, like plutonium-239 which is fatal at 1-10 micrograms, it's oxide an inhalant and its chloride easily dissolved into the water table. An iron analogue to the metabolism so its readily absorbed by blood and bone and causes lung cancer and leukaemia. Other types only affect childhood development and there are many different type of radionuclides, sr-90, et.al. At lower energetic levels, say Tritium they are responsible for only doing damage to the DNA in the reproductive system increasing the likely hood of birth defects, transgenic disease. Exposing children reduces brain weight to the adult. it goes on and on.

So when you add to all that that the radio isotope is toxic *and* radio active in geological timeframes is very slow and permanent when released into the environment because it is practically impossible to remove or detect in everyday life. That the more that is released is an accumulation of cancer doses and transgenic disease which is persistent h*20 where h is the half life and 20 is the amount of daughter products and the molecule can circulate in the environment to repeat the cycle.

It just makes me think we've been a little too hasty and arrogant in the handling and use of these materials. It's complex, it can kill us for generation and people don't want to deal with that complexity to build an understanding of just how slowly lethal this stuff is. Let alone the rest of the complexity of this industry.

That's a small part of why I think it is as bad, probably worse than coal. As bad as, I completely agree, coal is.

People, i.e. Joe Public, don't understand what a massive gift technology is to either enslave or free them. In the cyber era technical folk will be both revered and feared because people don't invest in the critical thinking skills required to be responsible netizens, frankly browse here at -1 and see how many pointless annoying trolls there are. Perhaps people should have to be qualified and prove they are responsible enough to use the net.

The Information Technology arms race should have always been a stalemate, however I think the spooks will inadvertanly bump things into the blackhats favor. Why, because it is already clear to see that the spooks have a disdain for the people who, indirectly, pay our salaries. Worse Snowden showed them that people here can cause damage to them.

Ethics, of course, very narrowly rest with the whitehats, who constantly try to educate users, who don't give a shit, why and how they should protect themselves. Of couse couple that with net users ridiculous apathy and it makes it easier for the lawmakers to pass laws to the detriment of those very same users. Maybe the blackhats and spooks are right to treat them like morons and fodder whose only use is as fall guy and launch point onto a harder target.

Right now users are complaining that crypotolocker encrypted their files, so encryption must be bad because they lost all their baby photos - yet they won't back anything up. Tomorrow they will be complaining how thier retirement fund was emptied and their house was sold from underneath them and that if 'only someone had told them' while they try to shift the blame for their moronic behavior elsewhere. I do feel up bad about it but I find it difficult to feel sympathy anymore for people who can't take responsibility for their own *lack* of action.

I'm sorry about being so cynical but I, like many slashdotters, was here before the web when you could talk to lots of really smart people. Now it seems like the morons have taken over and the collective IQ of the net takes a hit every time. As a former whitehat, setting up security for banks you have heard of, I hate to say it but I think the spooks have tipped the balance in favor of the blackhats and it is now a matter of how badly and how much Joe Public looses.

In the coming years really bad fraud will happen to people, which is when they will realize how truely Pwned they have always been.

And certainly not if it fell out of the sky and onto your head or your kids head grandmother, dog or anything else for that matter. It's hard to imagine them never failing.

I'm not sure if I like the idea of these things buzzing around where the birds are supposed to be either. Just how much of nature are we prepared to fuck up.

I think that remains to be seen, however you only see 2 accidents and I see about 2000 accidents, the nuclear industry is littered with them. The difference is the coal industries PR machine is 'we don't give a fuck you'll buy it anyway" and the Nuclear Industries PR machine is "this is so complex you won't understand why it's bad" relying on the complexity and amount of time that it takes for accidents to unfold.

It is moronic trying to portray one as better than the other and your play for an emotional reaction doesn't sway my opinion in the slightest

Dead fucking serious. Don't try to corner me as a supporter of coal either, it's a shit industry and both of them have a serious environmental impact.

I don't know, why don't you ask them.

Sure, we can use geothermal to make steel for wind plants and crush ore for nuclear so I see the question there is about which give a better return for your investment in the technology.

Most radio isotopes from power production are extremely toxic, so your response doesn't really make sense in that regard - it is clear to see that it is a major threat to the environment, just not well understood how...

Sure, that's why the IAEA has publishing interdiction orders over the WHO in all matters nuclear.

Besides I'm not certain what NASA/UN studies you refer to? I do know that some rely on a document sponsored by the nuclear industry player Vattenfal, as does the IPCC, which gives them an overly optimistic picture of what is achievable with Nuclear.

Can you send me a link of what your referring to, mine is in the last two IPCC reports if you want to check.

And speaking of vilification, that is what happened to the peer reviewed science regarding the energetic return of the nuclear industry. From actual nuclear industry scientists, you'll understand the Nuclear Industry from an "energetic return" perspective on investment in the nuclear industry. I hope you find it interesting.

As of the biological harm, there is no question, it is a toxic threat to the environment via radiological and transgenic disease. I don't know if that is GP's objections but they are pretty good reasons to think radio isotopes are a threat to the environment and ultimately, humanity.

Absolutely. The actually implementation of a serious nuclear driven state would exclude corporations from being involved as the industry created would span generations. Unfortunatley I think it will take something pretty bad to get us out of this 'next quarter' short term mentality before we can really develop any vision for the future that is truly sustainable - no matter what technology we use.