Jerry_Atrick

A very interesting admission: How the media is failing us - https://on.ft.com/3Cb61pv via @FT

I hadn't heard about it until I was in the car driving home (my post was fro teh train). Absolutely awful.

Must because it isn't here

You know sooner or later I will come up with a YT video:

I want to be very clear.. I am not offended at all. I also want to be clear, I was not intending to cause offence and my post was designed to question - yes. We all have belief systems and when we publish them in public, and the reasons for them, we may be drawing a response. For example, @pmccarthy expresses his beliefs that on balance fossil fuels are better to stay with than renewables; nuclear is the next best thing and if we don't agree we are ALP lovers and LNP haters (I may be exaggerating to make a point). When others - myself included - proffer evidence to contest this, it is the normal discourse of life and all is OK. Why should expressions of religious belief based on expressed facts be any different? I pointed out factual errors in the assertions, and probable deficiencies in the logic. I accepted that some things are not fully explained, but to say nothing can explain things wasn't quite accurate either. In other words, I was challenging a public statement to reconcile with statements of fact with belief with the evidence provided. I am open to there being or had been some superior being but at the moment my belief is there isn't one on the evidence in front of me. I am happy to accept that as an unknown and am open to changing my mind. If, for example someone came in here and expressed that their true belief is that Trump is the messiah and proffered facts to support it, would we leave it at that, untested? I will remember that when whatever religion is waging their version of jihad

C

I don't think that is an entirely accurate statement. Spent fuel is normally considered high level waste and is by far the smallest amount of waste produced. There is low level and medium level (and I think VLLW and VHLW, as well, but let's leave these out of the equation. High Level waste, according to the WNO takes 30 - 50 years to be safe for transport to storage. From teh WNO's website (https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-waste/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities) : "Most nuclear waste produced is hazardous, due to its radioactivity, for only a few tens of years and is routinely disposed of in near-surface disposal facilities (see above). Only a small volume of nuclear waste (~3% of the total) is long-lived and highly radioactive and requires isolation from the environment for many thousands of years." It just so hhappens the 3% is made up of largely spent fuel. In the US, it is about 2000 tonnes a year that is produced. To put things into perspective, though, storage of nuclear waste is a mature science and engineering discipline and as far as I am aware, at least in the western world, excecpt for the drums of it stored in one of the rivers in the US, there has been no major incident to do with transport or storage.. that is a pretty good record. But it doesn't detract from the fact to accommodate all this is flipping expensive - far more so on a per kilowatt basis than renewables, and renewables are oing going to get cheaper as there is plenty of room for technical development in a relative immature industry. SMR is the only real development on the horizon, ex fusion, and it is not going to materially drop costs (IMHO).

Now that I have a keyboard, I will respond more fully.. Everyone is entitiled to a belief strcuture - I don't deny that.. And If i caused offience, I apologise... However I was not justifying my beleif system.. nor was I imposing it on anyone else. Statements were made that of beliefs that were stated as absolute fact - which is that contex in which I quoted the snippets of the post.. For example the scientist (I still guess Darwin) was an amateur and devised evolution; They clearly are not true.. maybe the selection of "devised" was an accident, but in the context of "because it is total fallacy. , which is a statement of fact, makes me think it wasn't necessarily a mistake. I merely pointed out mistakes of fact guiding a beleif.. I may have overdone it, but thats fine. The quip at getting a place in life after death was an attempt at humour (and a touch of sarcasm). I am not using it to justify my beliefs, which I admit are beliefs, and am open to them being changed, with enough evidence apart from intuition. @onetrack - If I caused offence, I truly apologise.

Multiple cellular towers usually with overlapping range so if one goes down, then you will automatically switch to the other as an end point... Of course, the land line network has redundancy in the broader sense, but of the local line to your house experiences a problem, you are SOL (ship outta luck).

At law, a defacto couple have the same rights as a married couple (family law act), save if any one of the partners is legally still married, in whic case the nuptial partner (can't recall the word for it) would have rights to the property over the defacto partner. The difficulty in a de facto relationship is proving there is one; the law was made more complex in this area a few years ago. The cost of a separation and custody allocation for a divorce or defacto separation is directly proprtional to the attitude of the people invovled

I am not si sure abou that. If you are hotspotting a device to your phone and it is faster than NBN, chances are it will handle multiple devices (depending on the phone) faster because the connection is faster, and phones have reasonably powered chips tha would rival most domestic use wi fi routers for multiplexing. Of course, you can't ethernet cable to a phone, but how many people use ethernet cable these days? My son and I wer streaming a movie from 4g in London, and it was perfectly fine - no buffering or anything like that. Was no worse than our home line. If we got relaible mobile signal where we live, we probably wouldn't have a land line, because unlike a land line, there is redundancy in a mobile network.

Illustrated very well, I may add

Yes.. after all, I may well be a nitwit:

Of course most of them realise it is their intention... It's just they are still taken by the trickle down effect, and at the end of the day, if it gives them a gurantee of food ont he table now as opposed to a banquet later, they will always take the food food on the table now.

Give us the facts or sources that disprove what was claimed. At least Marty quoted a source. Ontario Power Generation operates all of Ontario's nuclear power stations, and guess what.. it is state owned (they used to be a client of mine). But, just to make it easy for you, here is the evidence from the financial accountability office of Ontario: https://www.fao-on.org/web/default/files/publications/FA1907 Electricity Sector Review/Ontario's Energy and Electricity Subsidy Programs-EN.pdf And to make it even easier for you: BTW, I think this is not limited to nuclear, but as it is the most expensive, you can bet it gets the most - I haven't read the full report. Are you telling me the Canadian Government is doing this just because they don't like the LNP? If Aus was to go nuclear, I could pick up some lucrative work.. I stand to benefit from it personally.. I guess it does come down to values, though.

OK.. You know I am going to pick this apart... It is not anything poersonal, so please don't take it that way, but That is a very clear statement that this omnipotent god is here, today (otherwsie, the wording would be there was.. but then if it was a was, then there were limits to this "god's" power). What evidence do you have to support this contention? If this god made the earth, then who would have made other forms of life on earth? Are you saying god made the earth and just Abrahamic people? And nothing else? If so, then it doesn't reinforce the bible, because isn't it in the bible that it is written that all the earth's creatures are a product of god, and than man shall have command over them: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" John 1:3 "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made" Colossians 1:16 "For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible" Romans 11:36 "Everything comes from God; everything exists by his power; and everything is intended for his glory" You can probably see, I am now starting to get sceptical. But let's keep going. I am guessing you are referring to Charles Dawrin in terms of his theory of evolution. Firstly, the wording should give you a hint. At the time, he developed a theory - he did not devise evolution, nor did he say it was the gospel (if you'll pardon the pun) truth. He came out and labelled it what it was - a theory. Like most science, it starts with an observation, then a theory is developed. Where possible, experiments are created to test the theory, and then at some stage, it is submitted to peer review. Sometimes what is theorised and then accepted as true is then later rebuked through further observation. An amatuer scientist? I suggest you read a bit about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin. Interestingly he wasn't an amatuer - he was working at universities as a researcher/scientist.. that makes him a pro. Beginning his theries in 1838 is hardly a time where no major scientific instruments existed. Yes, they were a long way off today, but they were a lot further ahead of, dare I say, biblical times, when there was what appears to be a deference to the mathematics of the time. Naturally, however, as time passed, more technological advances have been made, for example carbon dating, and yet, his theory of evolution survives today.. The atomic theory has undergone far more refinment and of course, so has physics. And, they did understand germs and bacteria.. just not how to deal with it. In 1683, Leeuwenhoek wrote to the Royal Society in London about the small individual cells he found in teeth scrapings. He described some of the cells as spinning and others moving rapidly through water. This is accepted as the earliest observation of bacteria. But, even if bacteria and vuiruses were not yet discovered, how does that render a different type of science invalid? And interestingly, you beleive it is a total fallacy, but what proof do you havge of thatm except for a 2000 year old text that has little scientific or other evidence? I am not sure the science is based on "primordal ooze". I think primordal ooze has served its purpose long ago. The But how is it simply not true? What's your evidence other than a gut feeling? Whereas, the theory has undergone continual peer scrutiny, and is still largely accepted by people who are keen to get a nobel proze for finding something else that it could be based on? I believe Charnia was one of the first lifeforms to be identified on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charnia The development of mamals as the dominant species on the land is through to have been the result of a prehistoric squirrel or similar who fed off seeds and therefore didn't starve like the rest of the land animals, and that quite possibly, that is where we all emanate from today.. Wonder how many ribs he or she or they had: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/07/jurassic-squirrel-mammals-evolution-earth You have not proffered (well as of yet) any evidence that is contrary nor anything to support your belief. Therein lies the rub.,. what makes your view more correct than the many other religions that don't support your view? And if there is an omipetent god, why doesn't that god control things on earth or anywhere else thay god decided to play? Yeah, he's not obliged to, and it is an easy cop out to say so, but how do you explain away the evidence of evolutionary biology without just saying you don't believe it? And, what evidence do you have that this god was a) alone in it all; b) omnipitent; and c) was even around? What you have is a theory, just liek Darwin's.. But I don't see the evidence nor the scientific expertise nor the scientific instruments used to validate the theory. At least Darwin had some evidence. The laws of nature and physicis seem to not quite agree with the handbook left by this so-called god. Actually, they do have a theory. The brain may generate brain oscillations that are involved in memory retrieval just before death, which could be the cause of people remembering things for a short time after they die. These oscillations could be similar to the ones reported in near-death experiences. The brain has been measured to be active after death, and while it can't be proven it does actually etch memory in the brain of actual things, it can explain why there are feelings of warmth, why they see a glow, etc. It can be argued that some people are observed to be clinically dead before they actually are. There are many potential explanations. It's easy to looky up referneces, What do you mean we don't know what lies beyond the grave? Do we not eventually decompose? Ahh.. what about the "spirit"? What is the "spirit"? Our consciousness? Well, given the physcial evidence, it goes with us. Some of us are lucky to have it in tact until we die. Others, not so.. ever seen dimential sufferes, permanent vegetative state, and similar issues.. These are awful conditions, but a state of consciousness, or "spirit" in ther terms most of us think? Or maybe the spirit is just being alive.. When the chemcial reactions decay to the point that this can no longer be done, er, we go.. BTW, many people say when coming back from the dead, that it was dark and they couldn't see. Again, just because we don't know if there is something beyond is not an argument for there being something beyond.. The physical evidence shows what happens - the biblical evidence - not so much. So, one person writes a book and this is real? Haven't you thought he may have just wanted to make money? Tell me how many scientists/doctors who are free from childhood conditioning of religion believe it versus those who don't... then we may have some evidence to look at. Seriously? Who has made you an offer of an afterlife simply for believing in a biblical story? And what is the reward? How many virgins? 76? Because that is the reward at least one Abrhamic relgion believes they are up for? Same god, apparently? Anyway, weren't the Jews the chosen ones.. you'll have to get in line.. 😉 Seriously, though, you're welcome to your beliefs, but the deingration of science and scientists because it doesn't fit your belief, it is hard to say that you don't have aproblem with people who don't believe. As an ahtiest, I don't believe. I made that decision myself after looking at what was around, what religion coudl be used for, and how it didn't add up to me. My kids went to a christian school and often would question why does the RE class say one ting and the science class say another. I never imposed a religious belief on my childnren, nor imposed athiesm, agnostical stuff or anything else. One of my kids is a diest, and the other - to be honest, I am not sure. I can understand why people do believe .. and I don't have a problem with it.. I believe stuff that is not all grounded in science, too.. I am even open to there being a person or being that started this all off, if someone can provide evidence. And of course, if our universe is so complex it required some intelligent life form to kick it all off, then presumably that intelligent life form was too intelligent to be created out of quantum physcial forces and some matter, so what created the creator of our creator? And what created the creator of the creator of our creator? I know it won't change your mind, and I neither want to nor expect to.. but don't try and tell me that just because you believe it a) it is true and b) science doesn't know what it is talking about.. There is a prominent evolutionary biologist who says on the evidence, it is extrememly unlikely there is or was a god.. but it hasn't been entirely disproved either. Is it Richard Dawkins? Will have to look it up.

I flew them once from London to Prague... Never again would I after that flight.

No, I didn't... But I picked points in the YT vid.. and there were also some celebs who have traction in the US middle classes.. And, of course, Musk has his fandoms as well. The reality is humanity seems to be going off the rails a bit and as disaffected people are seeking their "fair share", they will turn to nutters... They did it in the 30s.. and they will do it again. Let's nopt forget, there are billionaires now who are only too happy to show their stripes. I am coming off Amazon thanks to Bezos stopping the ashington Post, which he owns, from printing their endorsement (and I would have come off, even if he stopped an endorsement for Trump - editorial independence is right up there for me).

This election is really hard to call. The polls apparently are showing them neck and neck. Harris has "natural" disadvantages in the US: a) a womnan and b) of colour. While in the progressive states, she will probably romp it home, in reality, most of the USA are still a little more "traditional" in their values. She also has the burden of having been the VP under Biden, which although seem to have steered the ship relatively calmly through choppy waters, is an administration that is seen in the US as a realtively weak one. Where Trump has really capitalised is that the USA is ferociously patriotic - often times the line between partiotism and nationalism is blurred. Trump's America first will resonate with a lot of voters purely out of patriotism - a more measured approach by the Democrats is seen as not putting America's interests first. And, the yanks are up for a fight (as long as it is on someone elses land, preferably using someone elses forces).. So a belligerent leader who is ready to talk tough to his foreign counterparts has a certain appeal to the Americans. His tough talk and action got more NATO members contributing 2% GDP to defence; notably Canada is still not there yet. Now, according to an FT article, they are going to play hard ball with countruies that the USA has a trading deficit with. Yes, economists warn protectionism will result in costs increasing at home. But what pollies and economists don't often realise is that the majority of the population earn well under average earnings and they, especially today, most are struggling with the cost of living. If they can't afford something today, it matters not that it becomes more expensive. And as more and more of the mioddle class with families struggle, they become more and more disillusioned with the whole thing. If you look at Brexit as an example, the pollies and economists that were remainers were all about "why would you be crazy enough to vote to be worse off?" Well, if you're unable to afford the basics, then who cares - so and so is offering a way out - trying something new (ironically by going back tot he good old days) over the same ol' same ol'. Voilla! You have your votes. In Brexit, affluent areas vvoted to remain, while the vast majority of areas to vote leave were not affluent (generally speaking). If you look at the US elections, affluent areas will vote Democrats while the others will look for putting America first. On that basis, it will be hard for Harris to take the gong. But, Trump and the more nutter types may well just sway enough people to say, "Nah.. I'll wait for someone a little less unhinged."

Nuckear done properly, even with SMRs is not terribly economic in these times.. The problem with central power generation is that it concentrates economic resources of a major denpendecy of the economy into the hands of the few. 20 or so years ago, yes, operating nuclear plants would ave been better.. There are undoubtedly brown paper bags, or the equivalent, changing hands somewhere...

I tend to agree with it. This seems to be the reason that people in Europe are voting hard right. It really is getting worrying.

I only buy second hand phones these days, and the mid-range rather than premiums, which still pack a fair punch in terms of tech power, seem to be the best calue. £159 for a 5G Samsung A52 that was about £500 when new.. everything works, 256G of memory.. Only downside is, it is lilac!

Basically, lead a life opposite the way I have and you will give yourself the best chance of a long and healthy one ;-)... But that would be a boring one