The idea isn't to charge them with the cause of the disaster, but with more than a little incompetence that they displayed afterwards - not to mention the often blatant lies they told to the public during the aftermath. Examples include publicly chewing out the Daiichi site supervisor for using seawater to keep the surviving reactors cooled down when that was pretty much all he had to use (given the alternative? Yeah, I'd piss on the things if it helped). Other examples include sending needed cooling water to the Daini site... in drinking water bottles. There's a whole host of other bork-ups, and the blame for the vast majority of them lies squarely on the execs in Tokyo.
So what? What's so special about your accusations that the level of "blame" rises to that of public humiliation? I think instead we see here a prime example of why the culture of responsibility, that Japan is or perhaps was famous for, has such a hard time taking root on "this side of this Pacific". Namely, that a certain culture is far more interested in assigning blame even to the point of blowing minor missteps out of proportion such as you do above, than in taking responsibility or respecting those who do.
And I find it interesting how you respond to a post about witch hunts with arguments based on water bottles. That veers into self-parody.
None of this affects the validity of using CC as age verification.
It's a form of age verification that can be charged.
Did you read the article? It's not a problem of having enough robotic surgeon candidates, but of making sure they can all be adequately trained.
In a country with the most massive education and training infrastructure in the world? I don't buy it.
You might have a point if his argument was something more nuanced than "it's hard and I don't understand how it will ever work" with a few marketing = boogeyman slams thrown in for good measure.
It was. You mischaracterize the post in question.
So because you can't understand it, it must not be of any consequence?
If you're spouting such straw man platitudes, then you don't know enough about quantum computers to condemn someone else. In the defense of the previous poster, I'll note that there are a number of phenomena that permeate all of the Solar System (gravity, neutrinos, and thermal radiation) that may place an upper bound on the reliability of quantum computing no matter how magical your technology is.
You tell me. I'm not you, I don't know why you do the things you do. I'm not trying to tell you why you did something. I'm just telling you what you did.
Since I didn't do what you are "telling" me I did, and you are now claiming that you didn't imply this either, then there's no point to this thread. We can communicate or we can imagine things of other people. I'd rather communicate.
You tell me.
No, I won't.
I fear it's something ingrained in humanity, so long as we have the capacity to imagine, it seems possible to become deluded in this particular way given the right conditions.
I think it starts with the idea that one knows best usually combined with a ridiculously oversimplified model of how things work.
Yeah so? Doesn't mean you can't be ALSO predicting a die off. It's not a false dilemma.
Why would I be predicting that? To claim that die-offs are necessary for prosperity is in my view a non sequitur, another sort of fallacy.
China is wealthier and better off than before. Doesn't mean there wasn't a whole lot of dying off on its way here.
Correlation doesn't imply causation. And really, die offs are associated in Chinese history with chaotic periods which don't have prosperity.
Exactly, and I'm saying you have pointed out how there are many people right here on slashdot who show all the signs of walking right into those screw ups, making things a lot worse before they could get better.
That's a lot of vague talk. What are "many people"? What are "screw ups"? And what is "better" versus "lot worse"?
Only for a short time.
There we go. With a "short time" being anywhere from a short time to a very long time.
And in other nations, it's a faction of what you spend in the USA.
For the OECD, it's 35% (from countries like Mexico and Estonia) to 70% of the US's spending per GDP (France and Netherlands). It's considerably better than the absolute worst, but it's still a big and growing problem.
You can have one or the other.
Or you can have both or neither. There are four states after all, depending on which bits you set. Note here that by definition, democratic republics decide a number of things by collective agreement.