Kinda lost me when he claimed wind creates 11g CO² per kwh with no reference, calculations, or explanation.
Wind energy production is zero emission.
Are they including every gram produced by every step of construction and estimating a short lifespan, but not doing the same for nuclear, which takes exponentially more resources to build, run, fuel, store waste, and dismantle?
I also have a problem with him saying more expensive, higher profit natural gas plants have better prices because they're much HIGHER than nuclear prices per kwh.
He seems to ignore the spent fuel disposal/storage costs, which are significant in both cases, but while the natural gas plants don't pay for their waste (massive amounts of CO² and methane), nuclear has no choice.
Diablo canyon refurbishing was canned after Fukashima, because it's got all the same dangerous issues of being in an active earthquake/tsunami zone right on the coast with no way to shield itself from tsunamis. Before Fukashima, they totally planned to revamp and continue operations.
His levelized cost of electricity slide conveniently ignores the cost of environmental damage caused by fuel production/use.
Include all costs, coal is worst, followed by natural gas, then nuke, hydro, wind, and solar cheapest. Geothermal is great, but only in areas where it can be easily tapped, which are few and far between.

In short, his vast oversimplification and inconsistencies in what's included in his cost basis make his conclusions relatively meaningless, imo.

Why is the Republican party so afraid of the NRA? How much money can they donate and lobby? Why can't the anti-gun side mobilize and match the donation like 2~3 folds and dangle the money to the GOP to silence the NRA? Of course it's a gross oversimplification of the issues (NRA can go "mental" and threaten any Republican's families, etc. if I go all cynical), but money is a good start...

Ban assault rifle, raise the price of guns. the manufacturers still make as much money.

Amendment right? Well what about my right to own a nuclear baseball? Anthrax and Agent Orange? It isn't it my right to have them? Stop with the BS amendment right argument.

"I've always wondered myself about keyless tech safety for this exact reason. How can the signal not just be copied and replayed?"

Well, I can't say for certain, but if I was designing it, the signal wouldn't be the same every time. Basically, you would have an algorithm that generates a signal (essentially a large number encoded as a binary stream) based on a seed and the current time.

The seed is unique to the car and the key.

So when you press the button, the key does something like

entryCode = SomeComplexAlgorithm(seed, time())

so the car would do something like

entryRequest = GetSignal()
checkedRequest = SomeComplexAlgorithm(sameSeedAsKey, time())
if (checkedRequest == entryRequest) Unlock()

That's obviously a vast oversimplification (not sure how they'd get around the time sync), but you get the idea.

What surprises me here is not that the car starts, but that it doesn't cut out once it gets out of range of the key. Even a strong relay would only have a short range (1-2km at most?).

All you have to do is smoke DMT to see a hypercube, 4 dimensional visuals where any where you look, every side, is perfectly 3D. That's an oversimplification of that experience but if the brain is able to "see" it through experience, there's probably something to it, scientifically speaking and beyond just the brain, lol

True enough---may I step in with what I was taught? (and therefore am totally unqualified to teach but this is the internet so...)

From the beach, look for the breaking waves (the top of the wave is turning white and then crashing down in a curl and splashing into that confused white foam); waves break because the bottom is shallowing out and the bottom of the wave is "dragging" on the ocean/beach bottom (gross oversimplification; please don't shoot me with Nerf bullets).

Then, as you watch the "break", look for the last place it appears on the front of the wave (it will progress down the face of the wave, 99% of the time, moving left to right or right to left)--that's a clue about where the rip is.

Another clue is a place in the horizon/beach where the waves never breaks, or where two breaks converge on a section of different colored water, maybe sandy (flushing beach sediment) and darker (the water is deeper as a result)--that's a an interesting spot to watch for a while.

Examples of all this?

Look at the 26 second mark, between the two wide set white arrows to the left; imagine what that looks like from the beach---two sets of white wave fronts converging from left to right, and right to left---with green water and an unbreaking wave between them. You can imagine surfers launching from the left heading to the right, and launching from the right and heading to the left, outracing the white water behind them, right?

Another spot is the 48 second mark; the camera starts low, more from a normal person's eye level, then rises up to take the bird's eye view...
See it? The white breaking waves on either side of what becomes the highlit "rip"?

Finally, the 1:08 second mark---again, the white waves on either side of the non-breaking channel...that's the main rip---I dunno how you'd see the feeder...maybe use the Force?

Anyway, hope that helps.

I'm not about to become any manner of expert either, but the mental gymnastics you suggest aren't nearly as exotic as you describe.

The very basic explanation usually given is old testament versus new testament. That of course is an oversimplification though and leads to your obvious come back about what gets kept/rejected and the irreconcilable contradictions.

The more specific response given next is that Jesus teachings a couple centuries after your passages was basically tell all the scholars of the day they had missed the entire point. Hating your neighbour and wanting to kill him but refraining just because you feared hell was zero degrees better than just killing him. all the intent and evil is already there. Thus, the new message that everybody is guilty under the unchanged law and the punishment is nasty. This message was wildly unpopular and ended with him being killed. Theologies differ, but the widely agreed next step was that his death was accept as payment for everybody's wrongs and thus he was the path to saving everyone from the death the letter of the law demanded.

You don't need to believe a word of that, but to say it's trivially obvious it's the wrong interpretation just isn't true. It is not a bunch of mental gymnastics at all, it is the pretty clear explanation and teaching Jesus gave in the Bible. Rejected with all the enthusiasm you want, but your grossly misrepresenting the beliefs of millions of people today by insisting that murder the unbelievers is the only rational way to read the Bible.

I'm sorry, but that is an oversimplification too great to just allow you to apologise for and continue on with the point.

To suggest a narrative in which all Thatcher did was close a few factories and blame the communities for being too lazy to fend for themselves or find a new job is not only naive and ignorant of all the facts, but incredibly insulting to people from those areas.

An apology for oversimplifying? I personally think you owe one to the hard working people of northern mining towns that were not only made redundant by Thatcher (with no other jobs available), they were victimised by her and then blacklisted so that they would not be able to find work again - some have only been vindicated in the past few years.

The only redeeming aspect of your frankly disgusting ideas about deprived areas in the UK is that you are clearly not in possession of the facts. Lazyness? The miners were the backbone of this country, the WORKING class - you know? Steelworkers lazy?

To some people in this country there has been no recovery, they are more in debt than ever, they have less job and home security, they are depressed, there is no future and it doesn't even seem like their kids will be able to do any better. David Chameron appears on the TV and tells them we're all doing better and the recovery is going great and they laugh at him... THEY'RE USING FOODBANKS TO LIVE. Their families eat by the grace of generous community members who donate food... in 2016....... in the United Kingdom, ex-fifth largest economy in the world. Recovery!? That's how the recovery was FUNDED!!! By taking money from the poorest and most desperate in the form of cuts and austerity! They're using foodbanks right now so that you can claim the UK had a recovery. Disabled people committed suicide because they felt as if they were a burden, because they were scared and saw no hope, all so that people could claim we had a fucking recovery. But the average person is no better off and the debt that Osborne made such a big deal about has increased. He's missed every target he made for himself and redefined poverty so that the statistics looked better!

And that isn't BECAUSE of brexit - that was before brexit. Many people are blissfully ignorant of how some people have to live their lives in this country, especially those most influenced by the Westminster bubble. Politicians and political commentators have completely misjudged the mood of the nation; that led to brexit, that has led to Corbyn who in fact has been the ONLY man in parliament to be making these points.

And they think he's no leader? When he goes to work every day he has to deal with around 400 people spitting abuse and doubt at him. He stood in parliament with hundreds of them jeering him and faced them down and made the democratic will of hundreds of thousands of people (who were not in attendance) felt. He is the only man who looks like a leader right now, the only one who looks like he knows what the hell to do.

There is actually an argument that our brains are three due to the way the frontal cortex works. (not the "triune brain" which is a different idea)

The frontal part can exercise control over the two hemispheres and is about as close as we have gotten to identifying where free will comes from. Certainly, in people who have had frontal brain damage there appears to be a direct link to lack of impulse control.
Almost every serial killer in history appears to have had some manner of frontal brain trauma at some stage in their lives and the link to delinquency is fairly well documented by this stage.

The latest research suggests consciousness itself is a fractal programme running co-operatively across the brain, but it remains pretty obscure none the less. The frontal cortex is split between left and right hemispheres, but it certain appears to behave as one in healthy brains.

The best way I could describe it is that the left and right represent the animistic unconsidered side of our behaviour and desires as we see in most animals (interacting via the corpus callosum that connects them). With the frontal cortex seeming to represent the higher functions that allow us to harness the rest of our brain in more considered and abstract ways (presumably also split into left and right).

I think of it like the foreman directing the other divisions of the factory but staying largely hands off when considered decisions don't need to be made.

All of the above is a gross oversimplification though. We can guess at the basis for free will, but it remains elusive.

There are a few minor factual errors and some oversimplifications, but in general this is a pretty good rundown of the history of photography in 5 minutes.

Ya...you can't really accurately describe the history of Russia in a 5 minute video...Extreme oversimplification all over the place.

Since the case is ongoing, not sure if all of the details about the extent of the harassment has come out, but the article someone else mentioned (https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150716/00572731657/canadian-court-ponders-if-disagreement-twitter-constitutes-criminal-harassment.shtml) has a link to a spreadsheet of the undeleted tweets between them. I read through and see a few early mentions of them meeting in person for business reasons, then him asking to drive her places a lot, and (after he aours and becomes more antagonistic) mentioning going to an event she was at.

I think the reason most articles aren't necessarily reporting the physical stalking is that part is its not widely known and seems to be from reports of those that know the woman and the angle of online harassment against women is more of a "hot topic" now.

I've also noticed most of the articles are directly parroting the guys defense without any counterpoint from anyone representating the complainant. Which I'm sure the defense isn't going to bring up the physical stalking accusations.

The "angry lady wants man jailed for disagreeing" narrative just seems like such a blatant oversimplification that only aids the side talking to the media and surely is what the defense wants people to remember.

Hockey is a violent sport. A lot of hockey people think that allowing fights, which in the NHL usually happen between each team's designated "goons", prevents or lessens other dirty/dangerous play that would build up with unchecked aggression that is a pretty natural part of the sport. That's an oversimplification, but one of the major justifications.

I love watching hockey. I think it is a great sport that allows for many different paths to victory -- you can have a winning team made up of fast, graceful, highly skilled players, OR cerebral, teamwork based players, OR intimidating, brute force goons. Or a mix of any/all of those.

I'm not an expert, but I'm a fan. I didn't grow up with hockey in my blood (not from Canada), but became a fan in my teens. But, I do actually see a certain amount of logic in the hockey pundits argument that fighting cuts down on other dirty play. I think that if anyone watches enough hockey, they see evidence that it is true. Maybe not quite as true as the pro-fight pundits suggest, but it is there.

Better officiating, penalties, and suspensions for the kinds of dangerous / dirty play that fighting is supposed to cut down on would help. Even though I think fighting has a place in the game, the NHL does need to evolve some more consistency in those areas.

I'm a Colorado Avalanche fan. The Avs main rival for a long time was the Detroit Red Wings, and then a former Wings player (Brendan Shanahan) became the head of player safety. His job was basically to review dirty plays or plays that resulted in an injury, and dole out warnings/suspensions/fines. He took a lot of flack for inconsistency; many people thought that in two similar incidents he might hand out a long suspension to one and a slap on the wrist to the other. But even though he was from my "rival team", I thought he did a pretty good job, and it represented a great step forward for the NHL. The thing that I thought he did really well was that for every incident he reviewed, there was always a video available on the internet showing what happened from multiple angles followed by his thoughts on it, what disciplinary action he was going to issue, and his justifications for it. Of course everyone isn't always going to agree about that kind of stuff, but he put it out in the open instead of behind closed doors.

To me, that was a big step forward for the NHL. If they continue on that path, I think it is reasonable to suggest that fighting will become less important/necessary/beneficial. But I think it will always be at least a small part of the game.

Fascinating to hear the history of this.

Around his point of the labourer being paid less than their worth: I think he closes over the point of "capital" in the first place. No matter what you produce, be it cars, hammers, phones or even intangibles like software or movies, someone had to invest money in it or there would be no output. Simply saying that the initial investment is in the value of the output is gross oversimplification (ignoring the reality of things like time for return on investment, etc.)

I would consider myself fairly left leaning, but even I don't have a problem with that. What I DO have a problem with is how inequal it's become.

It used to be that an employee was paid x% of their value add. These days it has been repressed down to .5x%.

Add to that, large parts of the economy produce nothing, simply shifting money around generating capital that is grossly disproportionate to their economic input (i.e. they're making lots of money, but not employing people or buying plant).

@Trancecoach @enoch

Enoch's questions:

1. People should be producing something if they are getting paid for it - whether that is a good, service, etc. If someone else pays them to create or perform they are owed exactly what they have been promised to be compensated.

2. Enoch I think you are misunderstanding what a free market is. A free market is not a marketplace without regulations. A free market is not anarchy - there are still rules. Instead a free market is a market without a centralized or directing authority. To clarify a free market is one in which government policy does not set pricing.

3. You don't believe or disbelieve in democracy. It isn't a religion, it is a form of government. There is nothing inherently wrong with regulations. The devil is in the details. Regulations can be good or bad for a marketplace.

4. Enoch, I think that is a gross oversimplification of why corporate profits have been as high as they are. Many things have led to large corporate profits including globalization, expanding markets, etc. Yes, here in the USA corporations exercise influence on government, but its only one part of the bigger picture.

5. Completely incorrect. A free market has nothing to do with the existence of copyrights or patents.

6. Democracy is a form of government. A Free Market is a type of market structure. You could have a dictatorship and a free market. A monarch and a free market. A republic and a free market. A Theocracy and a free market.

Furthermore you could have a "Free Market" for automobiles but a "regulated" or "controlled" market for electricity within one country.

For example:

In the USA I would argue automobiles operate in a "Free Market". Yes there are certain standards the government sets (safety, fuel efficiency, etc) but the pricing is determined by the automakers. You can argue about the restrictions. Do they go far enough? Do they go too far? etc.

Conversely, most electric companies prices are regulated by the government and they are required to provide services to certain areas.

Lastly, a free market does not mean the market operates without laws. Copyright and patent law being just a small part of those laws.

I hope this clarifies some of these questions for you.


Best,

Kgrr

>> ^snoozedoctor:

By the way, I work on the morbidly obese every day. The place I work is designated a "Center of Excellence" for Bariatric surgery. Yes, doing bariatric surgery helps prevent a lot of complications down the road, like diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, etc. With the US struggling to provide even basic health care needs to the poor, do I get a little miffed with all the health care dollars consumed because of self-induced diseases, like smoking and over-eating? I freely admit I do.


And so you should, you have reason to feel like that. I cringe when I think how much obese people are costing the NHS and how if I'm not careful I will become one of those people whose weight will cause me health problems. I have on and off dieted most of my adult life, I am very much not content with my weight for a variety of reasons. And I am fully aware exactly what I have to do and what will work. The problem is and I imagine it's the same for most fat people, it's harder to give up on something you can't completely avoid. There is literally no way to take away the temptation when food is required to live.

And of course you work with it and you hear day after day, excuses as to why they can't lose weight, and you think there is NO such thing as can't. Well that's true, but it's like telling someone who has a smoking habit they can't quit, "well you shouldn't have started in the first place." It's too friggin late, the damage is done! And like we were saying, getting obese often isn't something you have had any control over, it started off in childhood. And then, you are stuck with the life long struggle of trying to beat an addiction. It's not like drugs, where if you stay away from it long enough and get it out of your system, you only have a mental addiction to contend with. You've got to eat. Willpower isn't something you can just switch on, if ONLY it was.

And then there's the exercise thing. Such a simple thing to do, burn off more calories than you're consuming. No one can argue that is the ONLY automatic guarantee you will lose weight. But consider that for someone fat and the bigger they are the worse it is, exercise is probably twice if not more times as difficult to do. It hurts, there's pressure on your joints, you're out of breath within a couple of minutes, you ache for hours afterwards because you aren't necessarily flexible enough to stretch out properly. Really we should all go swimming, it's the best thing, has always worked for me, but at certain weights I imagine getting into a swimming cossie is the last thing they want to do, people stare and pull faces. So yeah, it's very easy to give up when every solution is miles harder than for the people telling you what you should be doing. None of this is excuses, I hope you have garnered from what I've said that I entirely understand where thin people or health professionals are coming from. But without actually having had a weight problem themselves, that completely dismissive attitude and oversimplification is thoughtless at best and fucking arrogant at worst.