4 ms·

Thanks for your reply. I spell out in no uncertain terms how the comment proves what I'm claiming, and you think I'm getting creative? At what point do you thin

Thanks for your reply. I spell out in no uncertain terms how the comment proves what I'm claiming, and you think I'm getting creative? At what point do you think I got creative? How well do you score in reading comprehension? I have a feeling we would get along just fine if we were communicating on the same level, or as native speakers of the same language. Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant, you can point it out as much as you want - you won't get any marks for it. I think you've typecast Andi as a crazy luddite very unfairly. You are putting quite a lot of extra words into his mouth. Andi did not argue against all technical progress, he argues against ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for future generations. One more time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree with this statement or not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine I can get a lot more references, more recent but that just about sums it up!

berntb 15y ago
>>I spell out in no uncertain terms how the comment proves what I'm claiming Here is another weird Andi comment, which relates to his original claim -- and show you to be wrong. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601341 >>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion. So you are wrong -- Andi really meant what he said. So much for your claim of proof. (I accept that, given enough strange people to argue with, a reasonable person -- a non-Luddite/-econazi -- might have written what "Andi" wrote. Even if it seems unlikely. But "Andi" is not reasonable...) >> Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant See above -- Andi is just plain weird, your guess is very unlikely. Also, you made that claim without touching that I've commented on his weird comments three times, even gave a link. My troll detector isn't sensitive enough. >> ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations And for nuclear power -- you haven't show that there is a net cost to future generations (not just creation of useful materials for their accelerator reactors). Note also that the present humanity do research and infrastructure now, which will make future generations' lives better. (Which certainly is a religious view, according to Andi.) (Also, there are lots of radioactive materials in nature. See my proof-of-principle solution.)
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  Excuse my lack of a reply this evening, I've been busy today - I'll respond tomorrow. If you have time could you please tell me what your proof of principle solution refers to, Thanks.
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  >>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion. This poorly constructed sentence shows me to be wrong does it? It somehow refutes my claim? How exactly? Have you ever heard the phrase quasi-religious? Perhaps you should have some sympathy for someone with Andi's dearth of vocabulary. It adds nothing to his earlier comment and takes nothing away from it either. You are making Andi out to be the unabomber, he does seem like a reasonable person - you are completely overreacting to all of his comments for some utterly bizarre reason. His comments are irrelevant to what we are talking about. Your whole basis of argument now is that Andi is some sort of certifiable nutcase. Time and again I've said his comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided? Even if you were somehow magically correct in delivering a devastating psychoanalysis of Andi, over the internet based on some comments, you can't argue with this: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. But you continue to. Do you disagree with this statement? It's what I'm calling you out on, and you seem to have a massive problem with it. What proof of principle solution? Your oil well suggestion is no solution to anything. Are you referring to something else perhaps? I'm sure they have pulled and will continue to pull lots of useful materials out of the areas and people near e.g. Fukushima and Chernobyl that our past, current and future research will make useful for future generations: cancerous thyroid glands, contaminated milk, water and aquatic life with 2Sv of radiation in it, irradiated metal and farmland. To demonstrate that there is a net cost of nuclear power to future generations: accept that nuclear plants are supported by tax breaks, and the cost of shutting down nuclear plants is so great that it cannot be undertaken by their owners and caretakers. This must be undertaken by the state taxpayer. After they have been shut down, the waste cannot be processed by current technology and must be stored and protected by the taxpayer. When the plants are no longer generating profit - the vain hope for the enterprise to benefit future generations is that someone invents some way of processing their waste. This is the same vain hope those had when they built these reactors in the the 50s/60s/70s. Sure, they produced power for a few decades - the waste however will cost taxpayer money for millennia. I will repeat myself again, perhaps you may notice this time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

berntb 15y ago

>>I spell out in no uncertain terms how the comment proves what I'm claiming Here is another weird Andi comment, which relates to his original claim -- and show you to be wrong. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601341 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2601341 >>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion. So you are wrong -- Andi really meant what he said. So much for your claim of proof. (I accept that, given enough strange people to argue with, a reasonable person -- a non-Luddite/-econazi -- might have written what "Andi" wrote. Even if it seems unlikely. But "Andi" is not reasonable...) >> Andi's other comments don't show anything of the sort, and are irrelevant See above -- Andi is just plain weird, your guess is very unlikely. Also, you made that claim without touching that I've commented on his weird comments three times, even gave a link. My troll detector isn't sensitive enough. >> ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations And for nuclear power -- you haven't show that there is a net cost to future generations (not just creation of useful materials for their accelerator reactors). Note also that the present humanity do research and infrastructure now, which will make future generations' lives better. (Which certainly is a religious view, according to Andi.) (Also, there are lots of radioactive materials in nature. See my proof-of-principle solution.)

eliasmacpherson 15y ago
Excuse my lack of a reply this evening, I've been busy today - I'll respond tomorrow. If you have time could you please tell me what your proof of principle solution refers to, Thanks.
eliasmacpherson 15y ago
>>This kind of technical view is religious but is usually not called religion. This poorly constructed sentence shows me to be wrong does it? It somehow refutes my claim? How exactly? Have you ever heard the phrase quasi-religious? Perhaps you should have some sympathy for someone with Andi's dearth of vocabulary. It adds nothing to his earlier comment and takes nothing away from it either. You are making Andi out to be the unabomber, he does seem like a reasonable person - you are completely overreacting to all of his comments for some utterly bizarre reason. His comments are irrelevant to what we are talking about. Your whole basis of argument now is that Andi is some sort of certifiable nutcase. Time and again I've said his comments are not relevant, nor do they show anything of the sort, what has you so agitated about the one in the link you provided? Even if you were somehow magically correct in delivering a devastating psychoanalysis of Andi, over the internet based on some comments, you can't argue with this: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. But you continue to. Do you disagree with this statement? It's what I'm calling you out on, and you seem to have a massive problem with it. What proof of principle solution? Your oil well suggestion is no solution to anything. Are you referring to something else perhaps? I'm sure they have pulled and will continue to pull lots of useful materials out of the areas and people near e.g. Fukushima and Chernobyl that our past, current and future research will make useful for future generations: cancerous thyroid glands, contaminated milk, water and aquatic life with 2Sv of radiation in it, irradiated metal and farmland. To demonstrate that there is a net cost of nuclear power to future generations: accept that nuclear plants are supported by tax breaks, and the cost of shutting down nuclear plants is so great that it cannot be undertaken by their owners and caretakers. This must be undertaken by the state taxpayer. After they have been shut down, the waste cannot be processed by current technology and must be stored and protected by the taxpayer. When the plants are no longer generating profit - the vain hope for the enterprise to benefit future generations is that someone invents some way of processing their waste. This is the same vain hope those had when they built these reactors in the the 50s/60s/70s. Sure, they produced power for a few decades - the waste however will cost taxpayer money for millennia. I will repeat myself again, perhaps you may notice this time: there is no forced binary choice to be made between living as luddites, and ignoring the cost of nuclear reactors for nature and future generations. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?