Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Must question the "revised" estimates (Score 1) 152

I didn't say all cancers are radiation caused, I said we don't how many of them are. Stop putting words in to my mouth.

Stick to what I actually said.

You seem to have reading difficulty, I said twice that we should be investing in storage technologies, you seem to want to ignore that.

And you can keep lying to yourself about renewables

Do you ever do any research, are you aware that nuclear has to be subsidised, or that we have hardly put any effort in to energy mass storage tech and that storage tech can be over 90% efficient.

Why on earth would you want to use dirty nuclear power when cheap ever lasting renewables are within our reach. If US DOE says one small area of land can power the USA then obviously the rest of the planet can be run on renewables. The way things are going, solar will be as cheap as coal power.

http://blog.comparemysolar.co....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Comment: Re:Must question the "revised" estimates (Score 1) 152

"The electrical grid has ZERO energy storage"

Why do you think I said we should be investing in storage technologies?

"your side's fabricated dire predictions"

I didn't fabricate anything.

You say nuclear waste can be recycled, but right now, that is a fantasy, this is the reality:

Around the world, nuclear power plants are churning out high-level radioactive waste at a rate of knots. It's estimated that about 250,000 tonnes of the material is currently in interim storage, submerged in huge tanks of water in facilities that keep it safe -- temporarily.

But there's very little agreement on what to do with the stuff long-term, as it will remain a danger for around 100,000 years

from:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...

Comment: Re:Unfalsifieable (Score 1) 469

No I meant the awareness aspect of consciousness, it is unprovable. The only persons consciousness I can be sure of is my own. For all we know trees or machines could have consciousness, it is the magic of life and we will never know.

Conscious is were magic begins and science ends.

+ - To reduce the health risk of barbecuing meat, just add beer->

Submitted by PolygamousRanchKid
PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) writes "Grilling meat gives it great flavour. This taste, though, comes at a price, since the process creates molecules called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which damage DNA and thus increase the eater’s chances of developing colon cancer. But a group of researchers led by Isabel Ferreira of the University of Porto, in Portugal, think they have found a way around the problem. When barbecuing meat, they suggest, you should add beer.

The PAHs created by grilling form from molecules called free radicals which, in turn, form from fat and protein in the intense heat of this type of cooking. One way of stopping PAH-formation, then, might be to apply chemicals called antioxidants that mop up free radicals. And beer is rich in these, in the shape of melanoidins, which form when barley is roasted."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Must question the "revised" estimates (Score 0) 152

From my point of view you have to be pretty 'fundamentalist ' to support nuclear. Every country that has nuclear has accidents.

Why is it that pro-nuclear people always like to ignore the fact that nuclear is the most expensive option and that there is no good place to store the waste. You could sell it to the Italian mafia though, they have disposed of it in the past.

And the dangers are never sufficiently dealt with, luckily terrorists have never attempted to fly plans in to nuclear power stations with the accuracy of the plane that hit the pentagon.

Terrorists, storage, cost, earthquakes, profit motive, tsunamis, large solar flares, disgruntled nut job employees, rogue govt hackers, organised crime, I can't be bothered to go in to all of these in detail but I'm sure there are more reasons why nuclear is a bad idea.

When was the last time a coal fired power station exploded leaving land uninhabitable and the ocean unfishable and with astronomical clean-up costs?

If we put a fraction of what we spend on nuclear in to large scale energy storage R+D and implement it then we could use wind, solar, tidal etc a lot more. UK could be powered from wind alone.

Comment: Re:Must question the "revised" estimates (Score 1, Funny) 152

Until you start giving coal power the treatment it DESERVES by killing about 200,000 people/year worldwide and 13,000 people/year in the USA alone, you have ZERO moral authority to try to destroy nuclear power for its most remote risks.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Your argument is that we should castigate Dave for killing people because John kills more people!!!!

7 Billion people on earth, 30+% of them will die of cancer, the simple fact is we don't know how many of those 2 billion people died because of radiation but what we do know is that high powered photons can damage DNA and that can lead to cancer.

How many Fukishimas, windscales, three-mile-islands and chernobyls do we have to have before we say enough is enough. We CAN power this planet on renewables.

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that the solar energy resource in a 100-square-mile (259-square-kilometer) area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity. We're talking 800 gigawatts of power, and that's using modestly efficient commercial PV modules.

Comment: Re:Typical corporation bullshit (Score 1) 76

"Since a domain registration contract is time bound, automatic exit is not guaranteed by law."

What contract? A TOS is not a contract, a contract is a document agreed between two parties, signed by both parties and witnessed at the same time, THAT is a contract.

Comment: Re:Freedom of Speech? (Score 1) 328

by anne on E. mouse cow (#46668529) Attached to: Federal Bill Would Criminalize Revenge Porn Websites

Copyright was intended for art when it was created. And the purpose of copyright is certainly not to allow someone to take revenge by means of humiliation.

If you are letting a partner take images of you then you are, without any further agreement, letting them do what they choose with that image.

What complete and utter stinking bullshit.

Within current law, the only reasonable way to solve that is to have a contractual agreement in place first that allows you to recoup civil damages from the other party if they use the image in a way that you don't expressly consent to.

You are raving mad.

"the reasonable way to solve that is to".. be a decent human being.

Comment: Re:Wear the tin foil hat (Score 1) 303

by anne on E. mouse cow (#46651463) Attached to: Ad Tracking: Is Anything Being Done?

I visited again and my fingerprint was unique again, but yes I do hate that websites get access to info that it is private, something I don't think Mozilla really cares about - they just make token gestures towards privacy.

I think the problem with the fingerprint is that it changes too much and so is not very useful, my guess is that advertisers do not rely on this kind of fingerprinting.

Having said that, I'd install a plugin to block the upload of the info in an instant, especially fonts.

Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

Working...