Forgot your password?

Comment: The American Dream is not a lie (Score 1) 531

by Taco Cowboy (#46768275) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

the American Dream(TM) lie is well understood .... The idea that anyone can make it if they work hard. Well, maybe they can if they get really lucky, but for the majority they won't get rich in their lifetime. Not to say that they will have bad lives or anything

It has nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with one's point of view and how far one is willing to go to achieve that dream.

The American Dream does happen, and it happened to me. Of course, there aren't many people like me, but to say that it is a lie is to deny the reality.

Comment: Tyranny can't last forever (Score 1) 531

by Taco Cowboy (#46768109) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

...we're likely to break the cycle by spawning an eternal Tyranny instead of a sustainable Democracy

The only way a tyranny can last is when the people let them.

Unless they can find a way to turn the "subjects" into borg-like things (which obeys their master 100% of the time), human beings, being a rebellious lot, can not, and will not be suppressed forever.

Rebellions (plural) will happen.

While the tyrannical regime might be able to crush most of the rebellious attempts, there will always be that final rebellion which will crush the ruling junta.

Thus, the cycle continues ...

Comment: Nationalism in China (Score 1) 531

by Taco Cowboy (#46767841) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

The Chinese are always, and have been, very concern to what is happening in China.

Even me, a Chinese, who ran away from China when I was very young, and ended up in America and stayed in America for a few decades, still in my spare time, check out what is going on in China.

The "nationalistic" phenomenon for the Chinese people ebbs and flows - it happened back in WW2, when the Japanese invaded China, it happened again during the Korean war, and for a while, in between the Korean war until recently, most Chinese prefer to focus their attention towards themselves.

At first it was for survival, as China under the tutelage of Mao, landed itself in a seemingly endless episodes of man-made disasters. Famines that took away the lives of millions happened. Cannibalism happened, cultural revolution happened, intellectuals were driven to madness and/or suicide happened, and so on...

When Deng took over in the late 1970's, economically speaking China became better. The Chinese people turned towards making money.

That lasted for almost 40 years, and the economy of China has started to flatline, people are getting laid off (and young university graduates couldn't find jobs).

To allay the pent-up anger, the CCP, under the Xi-Li pair, opted for the "nationalistic" approach.

And that coincides with the provocations from Japan. With more and more provocations from Japan, the fuel for the fire of nationalism multiplied.

You gotta understand that the Chinese people, until today, can *NOT* forgive what the Japanese did to them, back in the WW2. That is because, unlike the Germans who issued public apologies to their victims (particularly Jews and Gypsies), the Japanese refused to apologize for the carnage they had done in China.

That bad blood in between the Japanese and Chinese is now exposed in the open.

The CCP of course, ain't stupid. They fully utilize the follies from Japan to add fuel to the nationalism fervor.

Comment: Re:The U. S. of A. does not operate in this mode (Score 1) 531

by Taco Cowboy (#46766415) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

The fact still stands.

In the United States of America, the commoners are totally cut off from the decision making process.

George Bush did *NOT* get the permission from the American public before he launched the attack. He didn't have to, as the American public has absolutely *NO SAY* in the running of things.

Taking this a step further --- in the current situation relating to NSA --- Obama does *NOT* care what the people feel, because the "feeling" of the people is inconsequential, as what is to be done, WILL BE DONE, whether the people like it, or not.

Comment: The U. S. of A. does not operate in this mode (Score 3, Interesting) 531

by Taco Cowboy (#46765867) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

"...because the politicians do, as you say, simply have to FRAME a proposal in language which RESONATES with the worldview of the people being targeted..."

Sadly, you do not know the US of A.

The politicians inside the United States of America do not need to frame any proposal to the people, all the need to do to get anything done is to use their influence to rally a portion of semi-elites to his or her cause, and through the butterfly effect , it is done.

Case in point - United States attacking Iraq

When George Bush decides to attack Iraq, he did not need to get the approval from the Americans. All he did was to rally the world community (elites from different countries) to his cause, and when he got the support, off goes the Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

I was from China, and I still remember how hard the Chinese Communist Party had to rally their own people to support their decision to send troops into Korea to fight the Korean war.

In contrast to what George Bush did - the Chinese government, under Mao, almost tapped into all the resources it could muster, to get the people into the mood.

In a way, at least back in the time of the Korean War, the Communist government which rule China was more attuned to their own people, than George Bush, to the Americans.

Comment: The bigger picture (Score 1) 82

by Dan Askme (#46765811) Attached to: Paper Microscope Magnifies Objects 2100 Times and Costs Less Than $1

Lets break this down a little bit:
+ This is a device ideally aimed for third world countries
+ No training/procedures for handling the device
+ They will be reusing the item as much as possible to save on costs, regardless if it says "single use".
+ An item that comes into direct contact with the disease.
= More spread of diseases.

Its all well and good inventing the tools for the job.
But who is going to pay the cost for the training to ensure this device doesn't start a mass epidemic?

Comment: and they want Jessica Biel wearing whipped cream (Score 1) 423

by raymorris (#46763009) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

> of course you conveniently ignored that manufacturers do not even want a liability with an upper bound at the sale price.

Of course they WANT no liability. They WANT Jessica Biel, wearing nothing but whipped cream, too. Neither of those is reality, so I don't know how that's relevant.

Yrs, under current law in India, anyone providing any products or services to a can be held liable. Anyone includesanyone who sells them batteries for their smoke detector. If something scary were to happen, the lawyers may well sue everyone and see what sticks. It's clear you don't run a business. The most worrisome thing isn't that you actually screw up and ARE liable. Most if the cost is that someone sues you and you have to spend millions s prove that you aren't liable, then hope that the jury doesn't decide "someone needs to pay".

Comment: no, risking millions to make hundreds is stupid (Score 1) 423

by raymorris (#46760855) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

> no company is ready to undertake that including the risk even at twice market rates, this is a serious argument against it being ridiculously easy to not cause accident, right?

Twice market rates would be $200 ($120 profit). Is is smart to risk $200 million in order to make $120? No.

And, they do need to buy batteries from somewhere, and right now it would be stupid for anyone to sell batteries to them.

Comment: Re:Oh, man, what a mess (Score 1) 151

by pnutjam (#46756385) Attached to: Private Keys Stolen Within Hours From Heartbleed OpenSSL Site
I don't see what the point of that article is? Sure, lots of people were requesting certs. I saw their site slow to a crawl, from 30 seconds to 5 or 10 minutes to get the page to load so I could request certs.

They did not however, change any of their intermediate trust chain certs. I don't see Commodo really did anything except issue certs as requested, like always.

Comment: Your article explains why. $300 sale = $300M liabi (Score 1) 423

by raymorris (#46755767) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

The article you linked to isn't as clear as it should be, but it does indicate the problem with the law in India. If I manufacture AA batteries, or example, and I sell $300 of batteries that end up at a nuclear power station, I'd be liable for $300,000,000 in case of an accident. Why would anyone take on a $300,000,000 liability to make a $300 sale? It would be kind of dumb to provide any of the odds and ends needed for a nuclear reactor in India, until their law is "tweaked". Suppose you have the contract to mow the grass at the power station. That contract pays $100 / week. If one of your guys bumps into the wrong thing with the mower, you're liable for a nuclear accident. It's not worth it, so nobody would take the lawn contract at a an Indian power plant.

Comment: Not talking about IS not, talking about CAN not (Score 1) 423

by raymorris (#46753199) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

We're talking about two different things. You're talking about what IS happening. My comment was about what CAN happen, what's POSSIBLE by the laws of physics.

If 10 million windmills magically appeared tomorrow, that wouldn't provide for most of our energy needs, because most of the time, the wind isn't blowing at the right speed.

Similarly, there is a certain amount of water in the rivers. Those rivers start at a certain altitude. The weight of the water multiplied by the distance it falls is the potential energy. To capture the energy in the water, you have to build dams. To capture more energy, you build bigger dams, holding bigger reservoirs (more tons of water). In order to have enough energy to meet our needs, the reservoirs would need to cover 1/3rd of the United States. It simply isn't possible.

I'm not saying it's unlikely, or that it's not politically viable, I'm talking about what's physically possible. The physics is such that there are two/three sources that have enough energy. Nuclear can, mathematically, provide enough. Old fashioned fossil fuels DO provide the majority. Clean fossil (natural gas and clean coal) can, at least for awhile. Wind cannot. It doesn't matter how many windmills you have, because at the moment it's not windy out.

Comment: Hydroelectric Banqiao killed 160,000. Coal similar (Score 2) 423

by raymorris (#46752589) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Fukushima was nasty. It killed about two people. Hydroelectric killed 160,000 when Banqiao failed. When the original Niagra Falls dam failed, it wiped out a couple of towns. I don't know the inflation-adjusted cost off hand, but it wasn't minor. Coal mining accidents have killed thousands. There's liability risk for any workable option. For some reason , the safest option (by several orders of magnitude) is the one the government wants billions in liability reserve for.

Have you ever heard of a hydroelectric operator being required to deposit billions of dollars in case they have an accident? No, which is interesting since hydro has FAR more accidents.

Comment: Solar and wind compliment, not compete (Score 1) 423

by raymorris (#46748681) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

In the last two years, natural gas has provided cheap, stable power. That's not why for decades new nuclear plants weren't built. The problem with nuclear is political, and yes those political hurdles create costs, but when the federal government IGNORES nuclear paperwork for years at a time, that's not that nuclear isn't competitive, that's the federal government choosing not to do its job.

Wind power is good. It does not compete with nuclear. Wind provides clean, safe power about half the time, and no power half the time. Wind allows you to throttle down your nuclear, gas, or coal plant sometimes. It doesn't replace the stable, reliable power supply of nuclear or older technologies. In the best case, solar is the same - it provides power for several hours per day. The other 18 hours, you can choose nuclear, natural gas, or coal. Unfortunately, solar now has a lot of worst case, since it's the industry chosen as a front for graft and corruption at the moment.

Comment: physics doesn't care banks (Score 1) 423

by raymorris (#46748555) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

It doesn't matter how regulated nuclear is, or the capital required. The physics is such that it's one of two options that can provide the majority of our power. Unless you plan to flood 1/3rd of the United States, hydro can't do it. Unless the sun starts shining at night, and there are no more cloudy days, solar can't do it. These things aren't politically bad, they are physically incapable of providing more than 4%-6% of the need.

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.