Hacker Newsnew | comments | ask | jobs | submit | justatdotin's commentslogin

caching won't help for libraries that want to have a particular version of jquery baked in ...

-----


"plan an invasion" - sounds inhuman

-----

toomuchtodo 135 days ago | link

I take it as reading Sun Tzu's Art Of War at least once; strategy.

-----


some 30 years ago, land rights in that region were made conditional on the nuclear ambitions of the time. which is why the locals have had to bear the indignity of a uranium operation on the world heritage listed lands they own. it's called radioactive racism. http://bit.ly/1d73XYz

-----


why not?

-----

V-2 178 days ago | link

It's unconventional, and hence distracting. It's a mental bump, it gets you thinking "why so?" instead of focusing on the text. Pretty much the same problem as violating coding convention in source code.

-----

aaren 178 days ago | link

' she ' occurs a total of four times in the entire thing. If you're getting noticeably slowed down by these four mental bumps then perhaps it is more you and not the text.

-----

garg 178 days ago | link

Human language is and will always be much more forgiving than coding conventions in source code. It wasn't distracting for me and it is fairly conventional now to use he and she interchangeably. Conventions change in language.

-----

jkarni 178 days ago | link

I don't get your point. Obviously if it's a really bad convention (naming all predicates '{something}Th1s1sAFuncT10nThatReturnsABooleanValueAndILikeCheese', say), it might be worth breaking, even if it's initially distracting. Presumably you want to be making the point that this is a convention that isn't worth breaking?

-----

V-2 178 days ago | link

It is conventional to use "he" when you mean "someone" (regardless of the actual gender).

Of course you may argue that this convention is evil, as a product of political oppression etc. etc.

And I'm not even questioning that - my point is that this is beyond the point. Even if it's true, it doesn't mean it has to be brought up everywhere all the time.

I'd like to be able to read an article on programming (or any other neutral subject) without an unrelated political or social agenda being shoved in my face, in whatever form.

If somebody says "to hell with your pet peeves, this is more important and you're probably a bigot anyway", that's fine to me - it's a matter of taste.

It gets on my nerves more when people pretend not to get the point at all (for the sake of polemics of course). "The use of the word she? Why on Earth would you think it sticks out? Of course if one becomes a programmer, then as a programmer she bears certain responsibilities. I can't see what you mean? I'm stumped? Why can't you read on - you're stupid, huh?" (as aaren subtly hinted in reply to my previous comment)

-----

jkarni 178 days ago | link

What? It has to be brought up everywhere. That's the whole point behind trying to change usage: people are supposed to start doing it, and then it's likely to brought to your mind.

Unless your point is that you're tired of it coming out as an explicit point for discussion, as in this current thread of the conversation. That's optional to the core of the effort.

-----

V-2 177 days ago | link

"It has to be brought up everywhere. That's the whole point behind trying to change usage"

It's not much of a point then ;)

If it even did some good to anyone. But all this linguistic ritual smells of magical thinking to me. The idea that if you change the usus and call things differently, they will change. It's pushing on a string.

Basically it's another incarnation of Facebook's "liking this picture will end world hunger" :)

No, fixing the world is not that simple. Just you wait, gender inequality - I'll replace all the "he"s with "she"s on my blog. Ouch that's tough blow, I can only hope my misogyne silicone bracelet will shield me!

"Unless your point is that you're tired of it coming out as an explicit point for discussion, as in this current thread of the conversation. That's optional to the core of the effort."

If one decides to be importunate and pushy (ever had that friend who wouldn't talk about anything else that 9/11 conspiracy, for example - be it at work, at lunch, parties...?) - fine, but don't be surprised if it creates backlash and is counter-effective on occasions. It's a trade-off that should be weighed in. You're free to use that tactic just as I'm free to comment on it :)

-----


high cost and difficulty to access quality substance are driven by criminalisation.

-----


let's not ignore the fact that USA continues to develop new nukes, designed for deployment, not detterence.

-----


it is certainly not just a Japanese problem. Japanese uranium mines didn't fuel the reactors, and the radiological contamination does not recognise national borders. The mismanagement of this disaster is not solely the responsibility of the Japanese government, but has been enabled by the hopeful silence of other nations. Why didn't all our governments stand up and denounce the misinformation around declaration of a 20msv 'acceptable' public dose limit, up from 1msv? Hoping to continue on with business as usual, international authorities stayed silent while their Japanese counterparts misled their people about what was 'safe'.

-----


I also see a similarity: both GMOs and the nuclear industry pose poorly-managed threats to genetic integrity of all forms of life.

-----


"Wind and solar aren't the answer either, or you wouldn't be having this discussion because it would already have been deployed."

I accept that these aren't 'solutions' for those who control the old energy industries and related power structures that are still dominant, but the logic on display here is fundamentally broken.

Various forms of Solar, and bi-gas, are already deployed where I live. Tidal, geothermal and Wind are all well underway. These renewable energies already emerging around us are our inevitable future.

I'm pretty familiar with hearing the nuclear industry over-promise, then watching them under-deliver, so feel free to bump that 99 to 99.9%. Continue fantasizing about radically different forms of nuclear power: I'm gonna remain focussed on the real detriments of the reactors being built (and up for license renewal) right now.

-----

jhartmann 272 days ago | link

Do the math, with advanced nuclear power (stuff we had working in the 60's and 70's, but was crap for bombs and upended the business model of existing nuclear which is roughly equivalent to giving the razor away at cost and making the money on the blades) you can hold all the energy you will ever use in your hand. A metal ball of Thorium is quite safe as well before it is used in a reactor. A molten salt reactor is a chemical plant running at ambient pressure, a much easier thing to deal with then the steam bombs we have currently deployed. They also don't require crazy coolants like liquid sodium (asking for it, a little water and boom) or fast neutrons (eats up anything containing them like swiss cheese.) The biggest problem with the nuclear industry is that they haven't been innovating since the 60's and 70's, not anything else really. Even the crazy steam bombs we have now are many orders of magnitude safer than other energy sources. How many people have died from installing solar panels, because of hydroelectric power, coal pollution, or petrochemical accidents? Let me give you a hint, all of these are WAY more than the number of people who have been affected by Nuclear accidents. Look up deaths per terawatt/hour of all the energy sources and you will see its quite clear that even current nuclear is SO much more safe than anything else, but it has been effectively marketed against by people invested in the status quo.

Diffuse energy is economically unviable, it is only being deployed at great cost and things like solar will never solve baseline load. People also don't think about the pollution caused by manufacturing things like solar panels. There are vast areas in China that are full of industrial waste that will not degrade for a very very long time due to solar panel manufacturing. Way nastier stuff the radioactive elements, because anything that is really dangerous has a short half life (iodine is completely gone in weeks), and will clean up rather quickly or it is usable as a fuel (though we in the United States are daft for not reprocessing our fuel like sane countries like France.) Even existing nuclear is way better than anything else, and advanced nuclear is even better still. Nuclear has a marketing problem, not a technical one.

If your worried about waste, well you have to realize that the really nasty stuff will all decay in 300-400 years, and anything radioactive left over is something I would be happy to have under my bed as I sleep. Anything radioactive at that point is also really fuel, and advanced nuclear reactors (like a molten salt reactor) will happily burn it up. The whole Yucca mountain crap is just caused by the United States having a silly ban on reprocessing. Another thing people don't mention is that the plutonium extracted from a long running reaction like those used for power is completely unsuitable for making bombs, its really just a bugaboo.

-----

peterpathname 272 days ago | link

yes, I'm worried about waste. No, I don't accept assurances that it's all over in a few hundred years. yes I'm worried about weapons - U233 from the thorium cycle has been weaponised before. as with real nuclear reactors, the issue with the thorium fantasies isnt what comes out of the power reactor, but the leap towards weapons (materials, technology and capacity) that development towards these reactors would represent.

-----


ref. rap news #19 http://thejuicemedia.com/

-----

More

Lists | RSS | Bookmarklet | Guidelines | FAQ | DMCA | News News | Feature Requests | Bugs | Y Combinator | Apply | Library

Search: