All we need is one remote-root in systemd and people might start to think again.
there are remote roots in all kinds of software, and your putting systemd against unreasonable standards. you didn't ditch linux on the first remote root? admit it, your a luddite who doesn't got a clue.
Still, I consider all water cooled nukes kludges for all their worth, but they are far safer than coal, natural gas or oil based sources of electricity.
quite a loaded answer, what about wind, solar, geothermal, biofuel, etc....????
Unless your assuming they will never price match fossiel fuels which in all likelyness they will in the next few years.
The reality is the anti nuclear power sentiment is rooted on pacifist people that are violently against nuclear weapons, and see each and every nuclear reactor a source of materials for nuclear weapons (which is mostly hogwash)
How is that hogwash?
Plus they ignore the simple fact that before the creation of nuclear weapons we had 2 world wars, in the 70 years since, zero world wars, in my view nuclear weapons avoided at least 2 world wars and 50-100 million of deaths.
Two additional world wars you say? surely you jest. You went from making a somewhat decent point about nuclear, to going flat out fucking crazy. If you know your history, you know we came very damn close to a nuclear WW3, with 100s of millions of dead more than once. The only saving graces being the good judgement of a handful of involved inviduals.
Nuclear weapons also did not stop the cold war, which ravaged accross Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and even into South America, killing millions in brush wars, and setting up despotic governments and a complex mess of problems that would take decades to fix. Nuclear weapons didn't stop that.
Your notion that there would have been two additional world wars without nuclear weapons is insane, and entirely unfounded, and pure speculation based soley on your strangelovian fetish for nuclear stuff, weaponry and otherwise.
In the rush to vilify various and sundry sources of energy vis-a-vis environmental impact, that all energy comes at an environmental cost.
did I say anything to the contrary? Of course, and even things like bicycles have carbon costs associated with them. But, in your rush to vilify various sources of energy, vis-a-vsa enviromental impact, you must consider that like all other costs in life, not all are the same.
It would be absolutely ludicris to say that solar, wind, or even hydro-electric has the same, similar, or in the same leauge enviromental costs any method of combustion to produce power.
One day, when the other grid-friendly options are all exploited, our offspring will enjoy ubiquitous clean and relatively safe nuclear power.
I feel as if you jumped straight to a conclusion without really making an argument. Why Nuclear?
Such a vacuous comment it's hard to know what to say.
Translation: My greater world views are not up for debate, or you can't comprehend the most basic critique that allows someone to aqquire large piles of cash on the backs of other people who did most of the real work, and then buy your reputation back, again, not by doing work, but by simply spending other people's earnings.
None of the people you listed can work for free all the time
never suggesting they would. After all its what they do for a living. I was curious why Gates gets all the credit, and the people who actually did all the real work do not. Reason: They get paid. Its nice to think that private philanthropers can save the world, but thats an an-cap daydream. Truth is, in both time and resources spent, No private program compares to publicly run programs.
So just writing checks would mean he gets a lot of the credit because he's making it happen.
What about the sole reason he has a large pile of money is because he got it in a system that swindles it from the people who did the hard work to make the products in the first place. Compare with public efforts, Gates still takes far more off the top personally than publicly lead efforts. Even after accounting for corruption. Then we get to the obnoxious issue, in which people who do the work, and perhaps even the shadow managers and organizers don't get the credit for things they work with. The only way we measure "doing work" is "investing capital". Hence why we think the poor are lazy. They don't invest capital. Perfoming labor is not considered "real work" in our current system.
Yes, those other people deserve a lot of credit too but making sure billions of dollars are spent effectively is harder than it sounds and he will go down in history as someone who did a lot more good than bad with his time on earth.
It depends in who's history books. The scope of his or any other private effort pales in comparison to much larger public assistance programs, and government efforts.
Those people have to get paid.
yeah, and they also did all the work.
They have families and need to eat just like the rest of us.
yeah they do, whats your point?
Or mabey I guess thats capitalist, logic, if you actually do the work, its not really doing the work. But paying people to do the work is actually doing work. Thats what capitalists mean when they say the "poor are lazy", its not that they don't actually do work, its that they don't pay anyone else to do work.
The fact that he chooses to spend his money paying them should give him some credit.
You mean he did none of the work, right?
The side that has been getting a very significant part of the upfront costs shouldered by the taxpayers
you mean the oil industry? The same people who viciously complain anytime we try to touch any of their tax breaks.
Which is true
The real implications of this system, is that while on an old paper, or mabey spreadsheet, or localzed version, the only people who had accesss to it where the teachers, perhaps shared with school administration in extreme cases. Teachers had no reason to save such performance data longer than it was useful, i.e. a school year.
Now, you have a perminant record of how obediant you are, how mallable you are to information, and the psycological profile that google builds on you as a consumer, also shared with the government and other large corporations starts when you are young.
The government, along with corporate partners (see pubic/private partnerships), find out which people are more receptive to the system, and which people are not, and begin targeting people at a younger and younger age, when they are most vulrnerable, and it would be the hardest to detect. They could try weeding out dissent before it happens.