You might be ahead of the curve on that one.

I agree that a bit (or a lot) of fear might force our representatives all over the world to realize that even the richest donor cannot provide you with a replacement for your head after it was chopped off by the mob. Hell, we might find out soon enough if the troika keeps choking the life out of Greece, Spain and Portugal.

Similarly, the damage being done by secrecy of all kinds, particularly to core elements of democracy (see: deep state), might very well outweigh potential damages caused by putting an end to it entirely.

But I'm not there yet. Iceland and, to some degree, Switzerland are showcases that shit can be turned on its head much quicker than anyone thought. Nationalising banks, jailing bankers, referendums about maximum wages and basic incomes... if the Swiss can openly discuss the "1:12" initiative, a disbandment -- or at least a complete restructuring -- of intelligence services is not as impossible as one might think.

Upvote for the rolling swiss ball of doom.

@:24-What the kid really wanted-That hand-out of delicious Vatican Swiss Guard Hard Candies

Okay then, lets arbitrarily exclude everything that's not part of the so-called "first world" -- which leaves the U.S. "empire" and its satellites/provinces.

"Regulated" how? What specific "regulations" did you have in mind? (You have an "out" by saying that it has to be the "right regulation," so, pray tell, what is the "right" regulation?)

And ultimately, so what? Is Greece better off because it is more "regulated" (whatever that means)? Or because it has less "inequality?" Or is Greece now no-longer part of the "first world?"

And by "Europe," do you mean the EU (have you seen Europe's economy lately)? How about Switzerland? Are they more "regulated" (whatever that means)?

In case you have noticed, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Greece, the UK (most of the EU, really) isn't doing that great right now, is it?

Edit: Let me know of the specific regulations you have in mind that will make everyone equal (like the Greeks, apparently). Hint: Just "regulations" does not mean anything without context. Do you mean to say that the EU has more laws than the U.S.? I wouldn't think of the U.S. as being a "deregulated" or an "unregulated" place. Would you? I live in California where the legislature is just now reviewing no fewer than 400 new laws to implement. I doubt that many (if any) Swiss cantons have more laws and regulations than California. Or Luxembourg. Or Estonia (which, by the way, is Europe's most recent economic miracle: a country with one of the freest -- albeit not perfectly free -- markets, relative to other countries).

Or perhaps you mean the Scandinavian countries (which I contest are not as "regulated" as you might think)?

Well yeah sure it's possible to sound like that in german, but it ressembles much more the Austrian or even Swiss natural language I guess.
France has a different problem with their rebellious youth differentiating themselves with their "verlent"...

and so here is a google translation...

[Flynt]
My friend is my Swiss although not sorrel
This is my ganache, my mouth but not me
This is my brother, but it was not brought by the same arm
This is my SRAB is surely not the one who denounced me
My friend is my big but it is not Pierre Menes
It does not break my back on sugar
It can support the OM and if it helps I lie to his wife without problem
If my friend has far him or her darons
Black, white, yellow or brown, it makes me a less ignorant
I do not expect from me that thou waxes pumps
It will not be because of your deductible if I cut the bridges
J'te would not put in my shenanigans and if I did the con
J'te not ask to reapply with a shovel at night without asking any question
But if we take me home
If I go into a spin please take me to the reason
We can disagree, we can take the lead
But y 'will always firstly for you on my plate
My buddy does not scream with Wolves
We do not wash dirty linen in public but us
This is not always the good wind brings buddy
J'cautionne not always how it behaves
I would not learn that he has betrayed me or plotting
It bury our relationship even if they are strong
I have not sealed my fate to his, for me things are clear
My friend is my friend but it is not my father
I want to keep it that long so I avoid interfering
Between him and me money, women and all c'qui could divide us

[Orelsan]
My friend has always been there
Too long, my best friend was me
Buddy squats at home, we spend sleepless nights
We remade the world, means even in the silences
My friend always answers my shots thread
That is called every hour or every twelve rods
J'peux all understand him with an eyebrow
At the edge of the explosion buddy is the pin
I'm where many people mix friends and groupies
But I understood the treason since Fox and the Hound
My buddy is trying not please at all costs
Not pretend to move the head when j'fais couplets rotten
Late evening, always a corner sofa
My car is not in the ditch because it holds the key
Nothing separates us even large sums
No pigs are raised but raised some sluts
Buddy lowers one to highlight
This is my reflection, we break it's risky seven years of misfortune
My buddy is not a beast in heat
And I can sleep peacefully at night when my sister has J'lui
Loyal friend
If I have more down to earth dude reminds me of the laws of gravity
Always ready, always the first to reapply
If that blow for a party Play

This is my antidepressant, my lexo, my friends n'sont not all heroes
(n'sont = are not) so my friends are not all heroes.

In practice we all have our faults
If one day in my life I forgot to be legit

J'réécouterais this piece as a kind of memo
(J'réécouterais = I'm saying)

[Flynt & Orelsan]
This is for my friend 20 years
For my buddy now
This is my friend and my disgusting dapper dude
My ugliest friend
To my greatest con pal
My friend down to earth
To my friend on Pluto

This is for my friend and my Chatter dyslexic friend
( I think chatter here means mumbling)

My buddy that my friend said no but still
Unemployed for my buddy, my buddy who works

Kickeur my buddy, my buddy who raps poorly
(kickeur apparently means good rapper)

Boxer buddy, my pianist friend
Handler buddy, buddy artist
Buddy hook, buddy Roger
My friend who squats at a mate and no project

Dude in a suit, buddy-Coste in the (coste-la seems to mean united states or the coast) so buddy in the states

My friend who lives in the countryside

@hpqp I completely agree with what you were saying but I know that I have seen a documentary recently about the problems of homelessness in Switzerland. IIRC it is not driven by mental illness but rather the attitudes of the government and the society towards immigrants both legal and legal from southern Europe and northern Africa. You fully acknowledged that Swiss society was not perfect, but i thought it interesting to raise a counterpoint to how empathetic the Swiss are towards some sectors of their society while turning a blind eye to others.

True but the Atheist also holds the "belief" that there is not GOD. So which belief is more correct? For me to get into a biblical debate with you and the atheist sift community would be pointless. It's like the saying you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. So this makes me search the web for other ways to argue the point. Here is 1 of them.

Mathematically speaking evolution falls flat on it face..
Lifted from site: http://www.freewebs.com/proofofgod/whataretheodds.htm



Suppose you take ten pennies and mark them from 1 to 10. Put them in your pocket and give them a good shake. Now try to draw them out in sequence from 1 to 10, putting each coin back in your pocket after each draw.

Your chance of drawing number 1 is 1 to 10.
Your chance of drawing 1 & 2 in succession is 1 in 100.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2 & 3 in succession would be one in a thousand.
Your chance of drawing 1, 2, 3 & 4 in succession would be one in 10,000.

And so on, until your chance of drawing from number 1 to number 10 in succession would reach the unbelievable figure of one chance in 10 billion. The object in dealing with so simple a problem is to show how enormously figures multiply against chance.

Sir Fred Hoyle similarly dismisses the notion that life could have started by random processes:

Imagine a blindfolded person trying to solve a Rubik’s cube. The chance against achieving perfect colour matching is about 50,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1. These odds are roughly the same as those against just one of our body's 200,000 proteins having evolved randomly, by chance.

Now, just imagine, if life as we know it had come into existence by a stroke of chance, how much time would it have taken? To quote the biophysicist, Frank Allen:

Proteins are the essential constituents of all living cells, and they consist of the five elements, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen and sulphur, with possibly 40,000 atoms in the ponderous molecule. As there are 92 chemical elements in nature, all distributed at random, the chance that these five elements may come together to form the molecule, the quantity of matter that must be continually shaken up, and the length of time necessary to finish the task, can all be calculated. A Swiss mathematician, Charles Eugene Guye, has made the computation and finds that the odds against such an occurrence are 10^160, that is 10 multiplied by itself 160 times, a number far too large to be expressed in words. The amount of matter to be shaken together to produce a single molecule of protein would be millions of times greater than the whole universe. For it to occur on the earth alone would require many, almost endless billions (10^243) of years.

Proteins are made from long chains called amino-acids. The way those are put together matters enormously. If in the wrong way, they will not sustain life and may be poisons. Professor J.B. Leathes (England) has calculated that the links in the chain of quite a simple protein could be put together in millions of ways (10^48). It is impossible for all these chances to have coincided to build one molecule of protein.

But proteins, as chemicals, are without life. It is only when the mysterious life comes into them that they live. Only the infinite mind of God could have foreseen that such a molecule could be the abode of life, could have constructed it, and made it live.

Science, in attempt to calculate the age of the whole universe, has placed the figure at 50 billion years. Even such a prolonged duration is too short for the necessary proteinous molecule to have come into existence in a random fashion. When one applies the laws of chance to the probability of an event occurring in nature, such as the formation of a single protein molecule from the elements, even if we allow three billion years for the age of the Earth or more, there isn't enough time for the event to occur.

There are several ways in which the age of the Earth may be calculated from the point in time which at which it solidified. The best of all these methods is based on the physical changes in radioactive elements. Because of the steady emission or decay of their electric particles, they are gradually transformed into radio-inactive elements, the transformation of uranium into lead being of special interest to us. It has been established that this rate of transformation remains constant irrespective of extremely high temperatures or intense pressures. In this way we can calculate for how long the process of uranium disintegration has been at work beneath any given rock by examining the lead formed from it. And since uranium has existed beneath the layers of rock on the Earth's surface right from the time of its solidification, we can calculate from its disintegration rate the exact point in time the rock solidified.

In his book, Human Destiny, Le Comte Du nuoy has made an excellent, detailed analysis of this problem:

It is impossible because of the tremendous complexity of the question to lay down the basis for a calculation which would enable one to establish the probability of the spontaneous appearance of life on Earth.

The volume of the substance necessary for such a probability to take place is beyond all imagination. It would that of a sphere with a radius so great that light would take 10^82 years to cover this distance. The volume is incomparably greater than that of the whole universe including the farthest galaxies, whose light takes only 2x10^6 (two million) years to reach us. In brief, we would have to imagine a volume more than one sextillion, sextillion, sextillion times greater than the Einsteinian universe.

The probability for a single molecule of high dissymmetry to be formed by the action of chance and normal thermic agitation remains practically nill. Indeed, if we suppose 500 trillion shakings per second (5x10^14), which corresponds to the order of magnitude of light frequency (wave lengths comprised between 0.4 and 0.8 microns), we find that the time needed to form, on an average, one such molecule (degree of dissymmetry 0.9) in a material volume equal to that of our terrestrial globe (Earth) is about 10^243 billions of years (1 followed by 243 zeros)

But we must not forget that the Earth has only existed for two billion years and that life appeared about one billion years ago, as soon as the Earth had cooled.

Life itself is not even in question but merely one of the substances which constitute living beings. Now, one molecule is of no use. Hundreds of millions of identical ones are necessary. We would need much greater figures to "explain" the appearance of a series of similar molecules, the improbability increasing considerably, as we have seen for each new molecule (compound probability), and for each series of identical throws.

If the probability of appearance of a living cell could be expressed mathematically the previous figures would seem negligible. The problem was deliberately simplified in order to increase the probabilities.

Events which, even when we admit very numerous experiments, reactions or shakings per second, need an almost-infinitely longer time than the estimated duration of the Earth in order to have one chance, on an average to manifest themselves can, it would seem, be considered as impossible in the human sense.

It is totally impossible to account scientifically for all phenomena pertaining to life, its development and progressive evolution, and that, unless the foundations of modern science are overthrown, they are unexplainable.

We are faced by a hiatus in our knowledge. There is a gap between living and non-living matter which we have not been able to bridge.

The laws of chance cannot take into account or explain the fact that the properties of a cell are born out of the coordination of complexity and not out of the chaotic complexity of a mixture of gases. This transmissible, hereditary, continuous coordination entirely escapes our laws of chance.

Rare fluctuations do not explain qualitative facts; they only enable us to conceive that they are not impossible qualitatively.

Evolution is mathematically impossible

It would be impossible for chance to produce enough beneficial mutations—and just the right ones—to accomplish anything worthwhile.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 10^50. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000."
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 10^50 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."
I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Peart, Terry Bozzio, Ginger Baker and Kieth Moon have always been my favorites for sheer energy in execution, improvisation, and texture. John Bonham was fun to listen to and watch, too. Surprisingly, I sat mesmerized by Charlie Watts at this show in 79' in Dallas where the band was Page, Clapton, and Beck all jamming with Entwistle on bass and Watts on drums. He looks like a tax collector sitting there but busts out an incredible envelop of rhythm with the precision of a Swiss timepiece on a minimalist kit.

Hobbit Hole Breakfast: Two eggs fried right into the center of grilled Cheddar bun halves. Served with two strips of bacon and crispy hash browns topped with melted shredded Cheddar cheese and bacon.

Shire Sausage Skillet: Shire sausage with seasoned red-skinned potatoes, sautéed mushrooms and fire-roasted peppers and onions served on a sizzling skillet. Topped with shredded Cheddar cheese and two eggs.

Frodo's Pot Roast Skillet: Slow-cooked pot roast, herb-roasted carrots, celery, mushrooms and onions over broccoli and seasoned red-skinned potatoes served on a hot sizzling skillet. Topped with shredded Cheddar cheese and served with dinner bread.

The Ring Burger: A hand-pressed burger topped with Pepper Jack cheese, bacon, sautéed mushrooms and mayo on a grilled Cheddar cheese bun. Crowned with three crispy onion rings and served with lettuce, tomato, red onions, pickles and a side of wavy-cut French fries.

Gandalf's Gobble Melt: Tender sliced turkey breast and savory stuffing topped with melted Swiss cheese placed on grilled potato bread with a cranberry honey mustard spread. Served with your choice of side and gravy for dipping.

Dwarves' Turkey & Dressing Dinner: Tender sliced turkey breast, savory stuffing, gravy and cranberry sauce served with your choice of two sides and dinner bread. Feeds a band of Dwarves. Or one hungry human.....or Bear.

Lonely Mountain Treasure: Seed Cake French Toast cut into nine squares and served with a side of cream cheese icing for dipping.

Radagast's Red Velvet Pancake Puppies: Six bite-sized round red velvet Pancake Puppies® made with white chocolate chips and sprinkled with powdered sugar. Served with a side of cream cheese icing for dipping.

Bilbo's Berry Smoothie: Made with a delicious blend of raspberries, blueberries, pomegranate and nonfat yogurt.

Lone-Lands Campfire Cookie Milk Shake: A thick hand-dipped milk shake with a delicious blend of premium vanilla ice cream and s'mores cookie pieces topped with a dollop of whipped cream. Served with a little extra in the tin.

-his argument(s), all of them, completely without merit??.."Idiotic? "...to 99% of Europeans?? "FUCKING INSANE?"
Please?! Culture ain't adjusted overnight and certainly not with new and improved laws. Laws about what people MUST do rather than what they can't do man, c'mon??

Sell that shit to the Swiss and the Israelis!

@GeeSussFreeK

I tried to stay way from issues specific to the use of nuclear technology for a reason. There's very little in your reply that I can respond to, simply for a lack of expertise. So bear with me if I once again attempt to generalize and abstract some points. And I'll try to keep it shorter this time.

You mentioned how construction times and costs are pushed up by the constant evolution of compliance codes. A problem not exclusive to the construction of power plants, but maybe more pronounced in these cases. No matter.

What buggers me, however, is what you can currently observe in real time at the EPR construction sites in Olkiluoto and Flamanville.
For instance, the former is reported to have more than 4000 workers from over 60 nations, involving more than 1500 sub-contractors. It's basically the Tower of Babylon, and the quality of work might be similar as well. Workers say, they were ordered to just pour concrete over inadequate weld seams to get things done in time, just to name an example. They are three years over plan as of now, and it'll be at least 2-3 more before completion.
And Flamanville... here's some of what the French Nuclear Safety Authority had to say about the construction site: "concrete supports look like Swiss cheese", "walls with gaping holes", "brittle spots without a trace of cement".

Again, this is not exclusive to the construction of NPPs. Almost every large scale construction site in Europe these days looks like this, except for whatever the Swiss are doing: kudos to them, wonderful work indeed. But if they mess up the construction of a train station, they don't run a risk of ruining the ground water and irradiating what little living space we have in Europe as it is.

Then you explain the advantages of small scale, modular reactors. Again, no argument from my side on the feasability of this, I have to take your word on it. But looking at how the Russians dispose of their old nuclear reactors (bottom of the Barents Sea) and how Germany disposes of its nuclear waste (dropped down a hole), I don't fancy the idea of having even more reactors around.

As for prices, I have to raise my hands in surrender once again. Not my area of expertise, my knowledge is limited to whatever analysis hits the mainstream press every now and then. Here's my take on it, regarding just the German market: the development, construction, tax exemption, insurance exemption, fuel transport and waste disposal of the nuclear industry was paid for primarly by taxes. Conservative government estimates were in the neighbourhood of €300B since the sixties, in addition to the costs of waste disposal and plant deconstruction that the companies can't pay for. And that's if nothing happens to any of the plants, no flood, no fire, nothing.

That's not cheap. E.ON and RWE dropped out of the bid on construction permits for new NPPs in GB, simply because it's not profitable. RWE CEO Terium mentioned ~100€/MWh as the minimum base price to make new NPPs profitable, 75.80€/MWh for gas-powered plants. Right now, the base (peak) price is at 46€/MWh (54€/MWh) in Germany. France generates ~75% of its power through NPPs, while Germany is getting plastered with highly subsidized wind turbines and solar panels, yet the market price for energy is lower in Germany.

Yes, the conditions are vastly different in the US, and yes, the next generation of NPPs might be significantly cheaper and safer to construct and run. I'm all for research in these areas. But on the field of commercial energy generation, nuclear energy just doesn't seem to cut it right now.

So let's hop over to safety/dangers. Again, priorities might differ significantly and I can only argue from a central European perspective. As cold-hearted as it may sound, the number of direct casualties is not the issue. Toxicity and radiation is, as far as I'm concerned. All our NPPs are built on rivers and the entire country is rather densely populated. A crashing plane might kill 500 people, but there will be no long term damage, particularly not to the water table. The picture of an experimental waste storage site is disturbing enough as it is, and it wasn't even "by accident" that some of these chambers are now flooded by ground water.

Apologies if I ripped anything out of context. I tried to avoid the technicalities as best as I could in a desperate attempt not to make a fool of myself. Again.

And sorry for not linking any sources in many cases. Most of it was taken from German/Swiss/Austrian/French articles.

A very neutral overview of Swiss democracy. How typically Swiss.

GREAT POINTS! HOW CAN I SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR NEWSLETTER? THX!

>> ^shinyblurry:

I agree that religion isn't necessary for someone to be moral. What the scripture actually says is that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. So, even if you've never read the bible you should understand that it's wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, or murder, etc.
When I speak of fearing the Lord, I am speaking of a reverence and awe towards Him. A filial fear that a child would have towards his father, which includes an appreciation of the consequences of disobedience.
You say at no point does God need to be involved, and you are seeing the fruit that attitude is bearing in American society today. God is involved in everything, from beginning to end, but the choice given to us is whether we want to be involved with His purpose for our lives, or if you want to reject God and go your own way. It's your choice, and there are consequences for what you choose.
The problem with children, and society in general, is that everyone is pointing the finger at conditions. They believe man is inherently noble (although this makes no sense in an evolutionary worldwide) and with the right conditions, he will eventually create a utopia. The problem with this theory is that it has no reflection in reality, be it now or at any time in history. Even when conditions are good, even optimal, corruption is always making swiss cheese of the foundations. Eventually the structure will collapse without divine intervention.
Today, there is more sin, more injustice, more hate, and more senseless destruction than at any other time in our history. The world is reflection of the evil heart of man, which comes not from conditions but his fallen nature. Modern man has an advantage with knowledge, but no improvement in wisdom; he is still as base as he always has been since the fall. This is because the only true wisdom comes from God. Sin and death are the problems in this world and God has ordained the perfect solution: faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. It is the hand of God in a childs life which will keep him on the straight and narrow. Is it impossible for someone to be moral without God: no. Ultimately, though, this person is working against Gods purposes, both for him and this world. This will only ever lead to what we are seeing today.



>> ^Selektaa:
Fear is fear, whether it's of Hell or of prison, it's still fear. You need to teach with positive reinforcement, empathy, to instill in the kids a proper sense or right and wrong. The Bible has some good lessons, the Golden Rule is one of the best, Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I think just that act of projecting yourself unto others can give you the perspective to not be a dick all the time. At no point does God need to be involved, just an understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. Good and responsible behavior doesn't start and stop with religion, and I can't stand it when religions try and claim a monopoly on morality, because it just isn't true.

I agree that religion isn't necessary for someone to be moral. What the scripture actually says is that everyone has a God given conscience which tells them right from wrong. So, even if you've never read the bible you should understand that it's wrong to lie, cheat, steal, rape, or murder, etc.

When I speak of fearing the Lord, I am speaking of a reverence and awe towards Him. A filial fear that a child would have towards his father, which includes an appreciation of the consequences of disobedience.

You say at no point does God need to be involved, and you are seeing the fruit that attitude is bearing in American society today. God is involved in everything, from beginning to end, but the choice given to us is whether we want to be involved with His purpose for our lives, or if you want to reject God and go your own way. It's your choice, and there are consequences for what you choose.

The problem with children, and society in general, is that everyone is pointing the finger at conditions. They believe man is inherently noble (although this makes no sense in an evolutionary worldwide) and with the right conditions, he will eventually create a utopia. The problem with this theory is that it has no reflection in reality, be it now or at any time in history. Even when conditions are good, even optimal, corruption is always making swiss cheese of the foundations. Eventually the structure will collapse without divine intervention.

Today, there is more sin, more injustice, more hate, and more senseless destruction than at any other time in our history. The world is reflection of the evil heart of man, which comes not from conditions but his fallen nature. Modern man has an advantage with knowledge, but no improvement in wisdom; he is still as base as he always has been since the fall. This is because the only true wisdom comes from God. Sin and death are the problems in this world and God has ordained the perfect solution: faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. It is the hand of God in a childs life which will keep him on the straight and narrow. Is it impossible for someone to be moral without God: no. Ultimately, though, this person is working against Gods purposes, both for him and this world. This will only ever lead to what we are seeing today.






>> ^Selektaa:

Fear is fear, whether it's of Hell or of prison, it's still fear. You need to teach with positive reinforcement, empathy, to instill in the kids a proper sense or right and wrong. The Bible has some good lessons, the Golden Rule is one of the best, Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I think just that act of projecting yourself unto others can give you the perspective to not be a dick all the time. At no point does God need to be involved, just an understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. Good and responsible behavior doesn't start and stop with religion, and I can't stand it when religions try and claim a monopoly on morality, because it just isn't true.