You're absolutely right that there's more to the energy issue than carbon emissions - it's too bad people focus on the CO2 problem without considering the other political consequences of energy use. However, when we talk about coal, it doesn't have much to do with nasty dictatorships, because almost all coal is domestic. Oil is a different story of course, since we can't produce enough to fuel all our vehicles. And come to think of it, I'm not sure whether we can produce enough uranium domestically either, so that could end with us still dependent on bad regimes...do you know?

I'm not really up for playing the citation game, if you trust that I'm not making things up, you can (and probably ought to) do the research yourself. If you think I'm completely fabricating this argument you can ignore me.

The bottom line is that we're both right. A fully operational nuclear plant can produce power more efficiently than a coal plant. But that's not the only thing to consider. We're both agreed that nuclear plants can only work with huge government subsidy, so the question is one of opportunity cost: if the government has to pay to build our coal alternatives, should we be putting that money into tech that won't be online for a decade? Because that means an entire decade of continued dependence on coal. And even once they're online, it's not like nuclear is free energy, just somewhat more efficient than coal. Fuel still needs to be mined, transported, processed, and then disposed of safely, all of which are very energy intensive.

Sustainable technologies can start making a very significant dent in coal use within a year or two. And yes, I know that solar power alone can't completely replace coal. But sustainable power in general can make a /huge/ reduction in coal use and it can do it soon, when we need it.

Even if all of these sheeple you bemoan suddenly decided to start following your vague but self-assured brand of techno-optimism instead, nuclear reactors could not solve our CO2 problems. The things take at least a decade to come online, and during that time they're actually contributing to a significant spike in CO2 emissions due to the huge amount of energy sunk into their construction. It would take much longer for them to actually "break even" in terms of their overall carbon footprint. We do not need tech which increases CO2 emissions over the next 10+ years with a promise of greater efficiency sometime in the next generation. We need tech which reduces CO2 emissions now, in the next few years. Yes, it's conceivable that if we'd fully embraced nuclear in the 70's we'd be in better shape now, but it's too late now.

Not to mention cost: everyone blames ignorance and fear for the reason nuclear reactors aren't constructed today, but the real reason is they're not competitive in the energy market. Even today with all the supposed breakthroughs, nuclear cannot be built without vast, vast government subsidy. Face it, the nuclear industry is just another group of energy barons looking for government hand-outs. Even the Libertarian Party has objected to plans to build new reactors, because they amount to little more than welfare for big energy companies.

It's weird how geeks are so quick to jump on the "no software is secure" bandwagon, laughing loudly at anyone who thinks their system can't be exploited or crashed - and then turn around and insist that every single problem with a vastly complex (and computerized, mind you) technology has been solved, and it's now immune to failure.

If you have life-or-death data, don't keep it on a networked computer - because there /are/ bugs, and when they're exploited (gotta assume they will be) you don't want to lose everything. Similarly, your power plants /will/ have bugs that cause them to malfunction. All you can do is design those plants using technologies that won't unleash radioactive ultra-kill on everything around them when they do.

Yes, but with current technology, we have the halflife down to 10 years.

Is this true? I've never heard that before, please provide a citation. If 100% of the waste that would come from reactors that we're considering actually building will be non-toxic in 10 years, that's pretty significant. But I suspect it's not that simple.

Well, isn't that something.

Animals already endure all kinds of sores, infections and other wounds as a result of factory farm conditions. The fact that they feel pain doesn't allow them to prevent their injuries, though. Pain is only useful if you have the power to do something in response to it, and factory farm animals have no power at all. Everyone knows if you want to "ensure quality", you get meat locally grown on a small farm that doesn't use hormones or antibiotics. You want festering, stressed, infection-ravaged meat pumped full of chemicals, head down to the supermarket.

As you hinted at, the killing may or may not be painless, it's the part before the killing that's obviously cruel. Part of that is because it's physically painful to be packed in so tightly you can't move, covered in infections, etc. However being an animal in a factory farm is probably also terrifying on a more abstract level, even if you can't feel physical pain. That's a lot more difficult to change without restructuring the whole way the meat industry operates. Until such a restructuring happens, I'm not buying what they're selling.

MDMA is Schedule I in the US, indicating that the government claims that it has no significant medical uses. They're wrong, but nevertheless there's no legal way to use MDMA for medical treatment in the US.

I think he's re-envisioning the reward system and the meaning of "success" in his game. In a game like WoW, you're l33t if you managed to accumulate the most epic loot for yourself. Success in WoW is making your toon uber-powerful, or doing something that nobody else can.

In Love, it sounds like success is much more based around your personal relationships with other players - success is measured in how much respect and "props" you get from your fellow players. Players are competing not for shiny loot which they can hoard, but for the opportunity to help their peers and earn a good reputation.

Kind of reminds me of the warez scene, actually. Everyone is hyper-motivated and competitive about doing a good job, even though ultimately all they're doing is sharing with each other. It's competition to show who's the best at sharing.

Fair enough, my point was just that western governments have a proven track record of pulling this type of shit on pretty innocuous individuals/organizations, so it wouldn't be at all surprising in this case.

Nevertheless, I would go so far as to say that even if they are the nailbombing type, we should still demand that they be subjected to the same legal procedures that we ourselves would expect. Which means that under no circumstances should anyone be punished simply for refusing to decrypt allegedly encrypted data.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't go to jail, just not for that.

It's probably actually intended to give police the ability to coerce people who they don't have any actual evidence against, or who they may not even believe had anything to do with a crime. The process goes like this:
- Find a group who seems to share the ideology or ideals of some terrorist activity (for example, an animal rights advocacy organization).
- Put together enough flimsy misrepresented evidence to get a warrant
- Start a witch hunt. Target an activist and demand they decrypt all their data including communications, etc.
- If the activist won't cooperate, great, send them to jail and make a press release about how you successfully disrupted a terrorist operation.
- If they cooperate, sift all of their data - especially communications - for more flimsy misrepresented evidence and take the witch hunt to someone else.
- Repeat

This isn't just unfair to activists - it's a very, very poor way of trying to stop terrorism, because it basically consists of harassing random people with radical politics in the hopes that eventually they'll hit on a real lead to real terrorists. We should expect our security/intelligence organizations to be doing real investigative work, not just trawling the public and hoping they accidentally catch someone bad.

I guess the difference is that one lock is physical and one is really only a lock by metaphor - it's actually just a very difficult math problem. The only solution to the math problem (which will produce your data) is a bit of data, which the government expects you to tell them. Taking the idea that we can be compelled to open metaphorical locks further, the murder case (or whatever) itself could be considered a lock by metaphor, the "key" to which is your testimony or confession.

Of course, thinking about it in another way, a physical key is really just a manifestation of a bit of data as well - a set of specifications for the configuration of teeth on the key surface. What if you had destroyed all copies of the key to a certain lock, but still knew the specs for fabricating a new key - would the cops be able to compel you to turn over this metaphorical key?

You might be interested in the "Animal Enterprise Terorism Act" (AETA), a new US law which specifically targets animal rights activists. It basically defines activities that most would consider protected speech as terrorism, and punishable with long jail sentences - specifically if those activities are connected with animal rights activism. For example, activists in the US are currently being tried under AETA for holding (admittedly loud and obnoxious) rallies outside upscale fur stores and the homes of high-profile vivisectionists while wearing masks. No weapons, nobody harmed, nothing even broken, and yet everyone expects they will be convicted of what amounts to domestic terrorism. They may already have been, I haven't followed it closely.

The lesson here is that just like with child pornography, governments start out using unpopular groups to introduce new repressive methods. If we don't speak up in their defense now, even if we don't care about the groups being targeted, we'll almost assuredly be next ourselves.

1) Greenpeace isn't affiliated in any way with the Sea Shepherds. The two organizations are very different both in their strategies and philosophies.

2) If you're having trouble deciding whether something is a prank or terrorism, it's a prank. The only way I can think of that painting on a building (graffiti) could even remotely be considered terrorism is if they painted a bomb threat or something. The fact that people even bring up terrorism in relation to actions like that is pretty troubling, because it suggests a pattern of using "terrorism" as a label for things which they find politically objectionable.

If there are a handful of instances where Greenpeace could be accused of terrorism, why not give us some examples? Seems like you're being deliberately vague. I wouldn't think it'd be difficult to find accounts of these instances - terrorist attacks are generally a big deal and well documented.

If your definition of terrorism is really just "using fear to achieve political objectives", then campaign smear ads are terrorism, because they try to make you afraid of what will happen if the other guy gets elected. Violence is a necessary part of any serious definition of terrorism.

As for "people associated with Greenpeace", that's kind of reaching. Greenpeace is a huge org, with tons of members, obviously a few of whom are bound to be violent extremists. That doesn't mean Greenpeace endorses or even knows about their activity. What you're doing is kind of like saying the Catholic Church is a terrorist organization because of clinic bombers.