Life isn't what your mommy said, well it ain't what my mommy said either. But you know what you watched: An observant and hilarious nigga with a cellphone filming a cracker ass cracker that needs his insulin.

Comcast sadly, is the only provider with decent speeds for the needs around my general area-All the "G" networks blow for Mbps. Comcast's internet only package is about 10 bucks less than a bundle with cable so.......For the first time in about 30 years, there's television programming in the home.

After about 3 months now, I'll turn the thing on when I am washing dishes and all I do pretty-much is parody the adverts, re-scripting them in my head like I'm working on a pitch.

After so long without any alternative programming than that of my own (save a bit of F.M. radio whilst driving), my bullshit detector (located near the conarium at the cerebral juncture) goes off at the slightest movement of the continental plates in New Zealand.

I see myself doing without the internet in the future as well as mobile devices beyond a basic cellphone-Probably give them all up for a variety of diversions like welding, tending animals, and building all manner of objects d'arte, to sell to folks to put in their homes next to their televisions, or connect to their many devices-

Now you know my 20-year-plan, see you at 68, update in ten....

wallet/cellphone chain.

Jeezus-This looks like a standard cellphone AP for all CIA, NSA, DHS, and any other initials entity's operatives to fuck with to do their job-Maybe it's time to dump googles n YT, too...

staged...amazingly awful quality for a Korean cellphone. BTW "shibal" means shit

@radx No problem on the short comment, I do the exact same thing

I find your question hard to address directly because it is a series of things I find kind of complexly contradictory. IE, market forces causing undesirable things, and the lack of market forces because of centralization causing undesirable things. Not to say you are believing in contradictions, but rather it is a complex set of issues that have to be addressed, In that, I was thinking all day how to address these, and decided on an a round about way, talking about neither, but rather the history and evolution as to why it is viewed the way you see it, and if those things are necessarily bad. This might be a bit long in the tooth, and I apologize up front for that.

Firstly, reactors are the second invention of nuclear. While a reactor type creation were the first demonstration of fission by humans (turns out there are natural fission reactors: Oklo in Gabon, Africa ), the first objective was, of course, weapons. Most of the early tech that was researched was aimed at "how to make a bomb, and fast". As a result, after the war was all said and done, those pieces of technology could most quickly be transitioned to reactor tech, even if more qualified pieces of technology were better suited. As a result, nearly all of Americas 104 (or so) reactors are based on light water pressure vessels, the result of mostly Admiral Rickover's decision to use them in the nuclear navy. This technological lock in made the big players bigger in the nuclear field, as they didn't have to do any heavy lifting on R&D, just sell lucrative fuel contracts.

This had some very toxic effects on the overall development of reactor technology. As a result of this lock-in, the NRC is predisposed to only approving technology the resembles 50 year old reactor technology. Most of the fleet is very old, and all might as well be called Rickover Reactors. Reactors which use solid fuel rods, control rods, water under pressure, ect, are approved; even though there are some other very good candidates for reactor R&D and deployment, it simply is beyond the NRCs desire to make those kinds of changes. These barriers to entry can't be understated, only the very rich could ever afford to attempt to approve a new reactor technology, like mutli-billionaire, and still might not get approved it it smells funny (thorium, what the hell is thorium!)! The result is current reactors use mostly the same innards but have larger requirements. Those requirements also change without notice and they are required to comply with more hast than any industry. So if you built a reactor to code, and the wire mesh standards changed mid construction, you have to comply, so tear down the wall and start over unless you can figure out some way to comply. This has had a multiplication effect on costs and construction times. So many times, complications can arise not because it was "over engineered", but that they have had to go super ad-hawk to make it all work due to changes mid construction. Frankly, it is pretty amazing what they have done with reactor technology to stretch it out this long. Even with the setbacks you mention, these rube goldbergian devices still manage to compete with coal in terms of its cost per Kwh, and blow away things like solar and wind on the carbon free front.

As to reactor size LWRs had to be big in the day because of various reasons, mostly licencing. Currently, there are no real ways to do small reactors because all licencing and regulatory framework assumes it is a 1GW power station. All the huge fees and regulatory framework established by these well engineered at the time, but now ancient marvels. So you need an evacuation plan that is X miles wide ( I think it is 10), even if your reactor is fractionally as large. In other words, there is nothing technically keeping reactors large. I actually would like to see them go more modular, self regulating, and at the point of need. This would simplify transmission greatly and build in a redundancy into the system. It would also potentially open up a huge market to a variety of different small, modular reactors. Currently, though, this is a pipe dream...but a dream well worth having and pushing for.

Also, reactors in the west are pretty safe, if you look at deaths per KWH, even figuring in the worst estimates of Chernobyl, nuclear is one of the best (Chernobyl isn't a western reactor). Even so, safety ratcheting in nuclear safety happens all the time, driving costs and complexity on very old systems up and up with only nominal gains. For instance, there are no computer control systems in a reactor. Each and every gauge is a specific type that is mandated by NRC edict or similar ones abroad (usually very archaic) . This creates a potential for counterfeiter parts and other actions considered foul by many. These edicts do little for safety, most safety comes from proper reactor design, and skillful operation of the plant managers. With plants so expensive, and general costs of power still very competitive, Managers would never want to damage the money output of nuclear reactors. They would very much like to make plant operations a combination of safe, smooth, and affordable. When one of those edges out the other, it tends to find abuses in the real world. If something gets to needlessly costly, managers start looking around for alternatives. Like the DHS, much of nuclear safety is nuclear safety theater...so to a certain extent, some of the abuses don't account for any real significant increase in risk. This isn't always the case, but it has to be evaluated case by case, and for the layperson, this isn't usually something that will be done.

This combination of unwillingness to invest in new reactor technology, higher demands from reactors in general, and a single minded focus on safety, (several NRC chairmen have been decidedly anti-nuclear, that is like having the internet czar hate broadband) have stilted true growth in nuclear technology. For instance, cars are not 100% safe. It is likely you will know someone that will die in a car wreak in the course of your life. This, however, doesn't cause cars to escalate that drastically in safety features or costs to implement features to drop the death rate to 0. Even though in the US, 10s of thousands die each year in cars, you will not see well meaning people call for arresting foam injection or titanium platted unobtanium body frames, mainly because safety isn't the only point of a car. A car, or a plane, or anything really, has a complicated set of benefits and defects that we have to make hard choices on...choices that don't necessarily have a correct answer. There is a benefit curve where excessive costs don't actually improve safety that much more. If everyone in the USA had to spend 10K more on a car for form injection systems that saved 100 lives in the course of a year, is that worth it? I don't have an answer there as a matter of fact, only opinion. And as the same matter of opinion on reactors, most of their cost, complication, and centralization have to do with the special way in which we treat reactors, not the technology itself. If there was a better regulatory framework, you would see (as we kind of are slowly in the industry despite these things) cheaper, easier to fabricate reactors which are safer by default. Designs that start on a fresh sheet of paper, with the latest and greatest in computer modeling (most current reactors were designed before computer simulations on the internals or externals was even a thing) and materials science. I am routing for the molten salt, thorium reactors, but there are a bunch of other generation4 reactors that are just begging to be built.

Right now, getting the NRC to approve a new reactor design takes millions of dollars, ensuring the big boy will stay around for awhile longer yet. And the regularly framework also ensures whatever reactor gets built, it is big, and that it will use solid fuel, and water coolant, and specific dials and gauges...ect. It would be like the FCC saying the exact innards of what a cellphone should be, it would be kind of maddening to cellphone manufacturers..and you most likely wouldn't have an iPhone in the way we have it today. NRC needs to change for any of the problems you mentioned to be resolved. That is a big obstacle, I am not going to lie, it is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I think the promise of carbon free energy with reliable base-load abilities can't be ignored in this green minded future we want to create.

Any rate, thanks for your feedback, hopefully, that wasn't overkill

>> ^chingalera:

No wonder Verizon has amped-up efforts to collect on an abandoned cellphone account after having given up 2 years ago!!


No they probably just want the money they are owed from the asshole who used service and did not pay for it.

No wonder Verizon has amped-up efforts to collect on an abandoned cellphone account after having given up 2 years ago!!

>> ^Nexxus:

That's the way I react when people hold their cellphone cameras vertical instead of horizontal. Don't do it people!!


People complain about this constantly, but I think it's more a problem with youtube and other video sites than with the cell phones.

Holding a phone in portrait mode, you're capturing just as many pixels. For some scenes you might be capturing a more relevant set of pixels, as well.

It's just that the videos are needlessly squished because the Youtube player won't resize accordingly.

That's the way I react when people hold their cellphone cameras vertical instead of horizontal. Don't do it people!!

Seems like a valuable use of precious cellphone battery life.

I get where you are coming from Boise, but we need to go back to the fact of the matter that you cannot judge a person on how they look, even if they are a smirking bastard. Being a smirking bastard does not make him guilty of a bigger crime than being a smirking bastard.

The problem is that if we let our justice system totally collapse and start putting people in jail because of what the Young Turks chooses to comment on partial information, it won't be the guys like this that will suffer, but rather so many others who are judged by their looks.

I was on a jury a few years ago where a tattooed asian guy with a shaved head was being accused of some pretty severe drug charges. There was literally no evidence against him other than he was present when the people with the drugs were arrested. He had no money, no drugs, no cellphone and the prosecution provided no context other than guilty by association. During the deliberations, one of the jurors said, "well, just look at him, he clearly looks guilty." It was one of the most frustrating moments of my life.

Anyway, that aside and back to this: again, you are all worked up because you only have heard what one side has to say. The problem is that because of the way the legal system works, it may not be possible to see the other side at this time. You said if your comment that this won't see trial. Where did you get that from? The criminal case was dropped, but the cabby can definitely do a civil case, which is why in the second video they refuse to give any information. They need to play their cards close to their chest because it is obvious that the cabby is going to bring it back in a civil suit.

Now don't get me wrong. I want to see the other side just as much as anyone and if it turns out to be bunk, then hell, this guy should get stiff sentencing and there should be an investigation into the circumstances as to why the prosecution dropped it. The thing is, it has to be done legally. You can't resort to the mob mentality or you will end up with innocent people being railroaded as has happened to so many people who may not be likable, but are not guilty.

The bottom line is: yes, he's not likable, but that doesn't mean that we know all that happened then.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^ponceleon:
I hate to rain on the outrage parade, but we need more information in this case. All you have is the facts according to the stabbing victim. Everything they are quoting is from his perspective. I know this will probably come across as an amazingly unpopular comment, but this reminds me of the initial reaction to the Treyvon case:
When it was first blown big it was very much like this: it was painted as a white guy shooting an unarmed black teen without provocation. Regardless of the outcome of the Treyvon case, I feel you would have to be pretty dense not to realize that it was actually a very complicated situation that ended very tragically. I'm not saying that I stand on either side on that one, but I feel like the YTs have jumped to a lot of conclusions without knowing the actual circumstances of why it was dropped.
Don't get me wrong, I think the details should come out, I personally want to know if this was a case of a separate justice system and I definitely know that white criminals are treated differently than those of other ethnicities. The thing is, while that may be statistically true, it is impossible for us to do a fair judgement of this case without seeing ALL of the evidence. Otherwise, you are doing just as much a disservice. You cannot penalize the banker because of his wealth, race, or even his smirk in that other video.
Again, I definitely agree that the justice system is messed up when it comes to the statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals. The issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. You can't just assume this guy was guilty because the other party said so... Anyway I'll gladly say he's a douchebag when more information surfaces about why charges were dropped.

I take exactly the same stand on this case as I did on the Treyvon Martin shooting.
I'm outraged because we will not see a trial.
You say the details should come out--as it stands now they will not.
You say we won't know what really happened until ALL the evidence is placed before us. I agree--as it stands now we will never get that chance.
Without media attention to this case it is being swept under the "good ole boy" rug. This must be "blown big" in order to hold the prosecutor responsible and have the evidence released--or brought out in trial.
Sure it's possible the prosecutor dropped this case because of lack of evidence, or contrary evidence, but because of the "...statistics surrounding prosecution and sentencing of non-white criminals" just allowing this to be dropped is wrong.
I called him a smirking bastard not because I'm absolutely convinced that he did it--it's because, in my opinion, he is a smirking bastard.

That's why NY and NJ ACLU released a cellphone apps http://www.nyclu.org/app & http://www.aclu-nj.org/yourrights/the-app-place/ that records police interactions and automatically uploads it to ACLU's website so that if cops try to delete that recording from your phone, there's a backup copy.

Mormonism seems cosmetically more ridiculous because it's new: we know miracles and magic didn't happen within the last couple of centuries; it only happens an inteterminate period of time so long ago that any real verification is impossible. Obviously. God prefers obfuscation, so he never shows up anymore for fear of some miracle or magic being captured on someone's cellphone and giving people a better reason to believe than "some guy said so."

To clarify this issue, a friend of me pointed me to a snopes.com article that explains that Obama didn't initiate the free cell phone idea. http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp Similar information can be found in the last link on the webpage obamaphone.net. The problem that this video and other media clips illustrate, however, is that this woman and numerous others of her ilk (regardless of race) believe Barack Obama reached out and handed them a free cell phone. As such, she and others have pledged their unwavering allegiance to the man and will vote for him in November. And Obama has not bothered to step up and tell them he's not responsible for their being duped into casting a vote by living off the largess of taxpaying workers in this country. Oh yeah and don't miss her brilliant analysis of Romney's campaign!