"The libertarians advocate electing people who are more modest in those determination, who provide for actual needs of citizens, who don't provide mere wants as a mechanism to win favor and re-election."

Not only that, but libertarian leaders all have perfect pitch, play multiple musical instruments, speak multiple languages, can sing, dance, paint, juggle, know higher math, engineering (civil, electrical, chemical, computer), farming, veterinary science, medicine, surgery, and psychiatry. They're also perfect physical specimens, have movie star good looks, excel at all sports, know martial arts, ride horses, are expert with all kinds of guns, know how to build and use archaic weapons, and know military tactics and strategy. They are gourmet chefs. They never have bad breath, body odor, or fart.

In fact, their shit doesn't even stink. Perfect humans, just like you.

All of Areva's renewables investments combined are less than 10% of their business. And they're performing far better than their core nuclear business. I find it amazing that you argue that they shouldn't have invested in the few projects they're involved in that are actually paying off.

I wasn't going to agree with you, but as you spelled MS "M$", clearly you are 100% correct with everything you said. You are a very intelligent, rational person, and I think you must be Jesus or something because of how you stuck it to Microsoft by using a dollar sign. Simply incredible. I can die happy. I shall name my firstborn child rtb61 after you.

Yes, the banks, aka Wall Street, are corrupt. The people who run Wall Street, and the government regulators who pretend to , are personally corrupt, and always retire with vast personal fortunes.

But get your facts straight. The US government, and all other governments hate money laundering.

HSBC to pay $1.9 billion U.S. fine in money-laundering case

(Reuters) - HSBC Holdings Plc agreed to pay a record $1.92 billion in fines to U.S. authorities for allowing itself to be used to launder a river of drug money flowing out of Mexico and other banking lapses.

Mexico's Sinaloa cartel and Colombia's Norte del Valle cartel between them laundered $881 million through HSBC and a Mexican unit, the U.S. Justice Department said on Tuesday.

In a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, the bank acknowledged it failed to maintain an effective program against money laundering and failed to conduct basic due diligence on some of its account holders.

Under the agreement, which was reported by Reuters last week, the bank agreed to take steps to fix the problems, forfeit $1.256 billion, and retain a compliance monitor. The bank also agreed to pay $665 million in civil penalties to regulators including to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, and the Treasury Department.

Money laundering is required by drug cartels and terrorist organizations, which are both pursued relentlessly by governments, It's illegal corruption.

You are confusing this with legal corruption. Legal corruption is the normal order of events where the rich and powerful are allowed to do things that would be wrong if you did them, along with getting free money from the government that comes out of your pocket. You are a source of wealth for the rich, and the government is the middle man.

An example of inequality under the law is Mitt Romney's 401K. He has somewhere between $21 million and $101 million in a tax free IRA account. Most people have around $42,000 in their IRA according to the article. Until recently you were limited to around $6000 a year contribution account, and it was just increased to $16,500. So, ignoring appreciation in your IRA account, and using the $16,500 amount, it would take you around 60 years to get $1 million.

When this came out his lawyers said it was all legal and he paid all the necessary taxes. I believe that. You, however, have a fixed amount of money that you can save on taxes retirement; it's not based on your income in any way. He lives by one set of rules, you live by a completely different set of rules. Legal corruption.

As for free money from the government, what do you think the TARP bailout was about?

The Senate Congressional Oversight Panel created to oversee the TARP concluded on January 9, 2009: "In particular, the Panel sees no evidence that the U.S. Treasury has used TARP funds to support the housing market by avoiding preventable foreclosures". The panel also concluded that "Although half the money has not yet been received by the banks, hundreds of billions of dollars have been injected into the marketplace with no demonstrable effects on lending."

Government officials overseeing the bailout have acknowledged difficulties in tracking the money and in measuring the bailout's effectiveness.

During 2008, companies that received $295 billion in bailout money had spent $114 million on lobbying and campaign contributions. Banks that received bailout money had compensated their top executives nearly $1.6 billion in 2007, including salaries, cash bonuses, stock options, and benefits including personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships, and professional money management. The Obama administration has promised to set a $500,000 cap on executive pay at companies that receive bailout money, directing banks to tie risk taken to workers' reward by paying anything further in deferred stock. Graef Crystal, a former compensation consultant and author of "The Crystal Report on Executive Compensation," claimed that the limits on executive pay were "a joke" and that "they're just allowing companies to defer compensation."

Since TARP, the Fed has had zero interest rates. That is free money for Wall Street. A senile poodle with diabetes could make money with zero interest loans. This zero prime interest rate, along with quantitative easing, are deliberately inflationary. They do things like drive up the stock market and devalue currency. They also make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

According to CNBC's Robert Frank, a Bank of England report shows that its quantitative easing policies had benefited mainly the wealthy, and that 40% of those gains went to the richest 5% of British households. Dhaval Joshi of BCA Research wrote that "QE cash ends up overwhelmingly in profits, thereby exacerbating already extreme income inequality and the consequent social tensions that arise from it". Anthony Randazzo of the Reason Foundation wrote that QE "is fundamentally a regressive redistribution program that has been boosting wealth for those already engaged in the financial sector or those who already own homes, but passing little along to the rest of the economy. It is a primary driver of income inequality".

In May 2013, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas President Richard Fisher said that cheap money has made rich people richer, but has not done quite as much for working Americans.

So money laundering is chump change. The real robbery is that our economic system steals from the poor to give to the rich. Any questions?

That is true. My comment was(in retrospect, very poorly explained) narrowly focused on an issue I heard a lot of complaining about from people operating reactors in the US(PWRs, if my memory serves): between stray hydrogen from the water in the primary coolant loop and massive neutron flux, a combination of hydrogen embrittlement and neutron damage had a way of pushing even very classy alloys into serious risk of developing cracks; and properly servicing internal parts wasn't something you did lightly, since you'd have to substantially lower output power or take the reactor offline while doing so(and when you've got that much capital equipment sitting idle, team balance sheet is not happy).

None of these stories ended catastrophically, or even dramatically, nothing even approached leaving the containment vessels; but the complaint was that speccing materials for use inside the reactor was even less fun than handling plumbing for chemical plants, refineries, and the like.

An engineering challenge, it's what engineers do; but not good for cost cutting.

You're being rather disingenuous by considering the entire globe's population rather than the population of the system being railed against. Someone making $1 a day in Africa doesn't magically make all the wealth issues in the US go away. You also magically inferred everyone's reasons for not attending the OWS events and magically made them fit your own narrative. You neglect to consider, for example, people who have to work every hour they can to survive.

No you can't. They are set and read together in both the primary APIs, and virtually every UI.

Oh it'll certainly change. It's just a matter of when. The precursors are already there. UIs hiding the file extensions from users. Internet protocols using mime types rather than file extensions.

It'd certainly be perfectly possible to have an OS and file system right now that did it and interoperated perfectly well with the rest of the world. It's just a matter of defaulting to file extensions when communicating with something dumb.

If you're not using inheritance then you won't use a virtual function. (Did you read what I wrote?)

Not necessarily. Just because you might do things with objects in C++ doesn't mean the code would be written as pseudo objects in C.

Portable libraries. It makes no fucking difference whether the library was written within the same conglomerate.

Actually, it is my understanding that the Flight 447 airplane's autopilot handled the sensor malfunction just fine: it switched to manual. It was the pilots who botched the rest. Presumably, a self-driving car would do the same.

It's not just neutron bombardment either. Your fuel is producing almost every element in the periodic table, anisotropically and varying across time. It's pretty much the worst situation one could come up with from a containment standpoint inside the fuel even before you factor in neutron bombardment.

Then there's the nature of nuclear disasters: they're disasters in slow motion. The upside is that few people usually die from them because there's usually plenty of time to get away. The downside is that they take bloody forever and a king's ransom to clean up, where it's even possible. Picture, for example, an accident at Indian Point that would increase NYC residents' rate of cancer over the next 10 years by two to three orders of magnitude. You could evacuate over days to weeks and it'd have little impact on public health. But you'd be having to pay for the loss and cleanup of New York City. That is, of course, an extreme case, but it's an illustration of the financial challenge faced by an industry that deals with large amounts of chemicals that are incredibly toxic even in the minutest quantities. Screwups can turn out to be REALLY BIG screwups.

Mac OS did too. Not as a mimetype, but at least separate from the name.

And BeOS died for reasons other than this.

The compatibility issue used to be a problem when we all shared physical media. These days as most remote files come from the internet, and generally has metadata when it does so, this is perfectly workable. e.g. Anything that comes over HTTP has a MIME-TYPE provided the server is not broken.

Judging from our sample size of one on what sort of conditions life can thrive in, and a couple datapoints on where it doesn't seem to, I think we haven't the foggiest of clues where we're actually likely to find life. There seems to be this presumption among many that "where we find liquid water we should find life, and where we don't find liquid water we shouldn't". I think that's totally logically indefensible. We have no bloody clue whether water-based life is a common or rare occurrence, nor whether non-water-based life is a common or rare occurrence. We have way, way to little data to be drawing these kind of conclusions.

Life can be defined empirically and that's a good enough of a description. The problem is people debating over what that definition should be. The problem with gravity is not describing it, but figuring out why it exists as it does. They're very different situations.

Most people agree on the basics of life - something that can self replicate and evolve - but it's the details that pose the thorny issues. For example, how particular is it about its environment? Viruses leave most of the work of their reproduction to outside sources, so there are many people who don't want to call them life. But there's a continuous slope between that and something that can survive on nothing more than sunlight, water, CO2 and trace minerals; you don't say that a cat isn't alive because it can't make taurine and has to rely on external entities to do so, for example. And at an even more basic level, how picky must one be about what constitutes "replication"? What if you have imperfect replicators that create entities "similar" to themselves, which may have varying degrees (perhaps frequently "zero") of ability to replicate themselves? Certainly such a thing has the potential to at least lead to life. But is it life? If not then what's the cutoff point in terms of replicative accuracy when you start to call it life and the inaccuracies in its reproduction "evolution"?

Bloody peasant.