peterpathname

in my opinion, no order to deploy nuclear weapons can ever possible come from a sane commander. any such order should be refused.

optimise for maintainability, reusability, composibility

or parallax ... I always confuse the two.

I don't think it's possible. We live in a finite world. All my wealth comes from someone else's poverty.

so? good for him. I think it's an inescapable reality of the human condition: we suffer an irresolvable emptiness. we make different choices about how to fill the unfillable hole. I think his choice to fill his by spreading hard-won wisdom and describing a path to honour is a smart solution to a problem we all face.

here in australia, decades of research and policy development have hit upon a world-class solution to the nuclear waste challenge.

We're building a road in a semi-arid remote location, on the traditional lands of a small, disemowered, remote indigenous community. At the end of the road, we plan to build a shed with a barbed wire fence. In return for this inconvenience, the local community will see employment opportunities (2 security guards) and compensation (scholarships for their children).

this standard of excellence is possible when you have a society that tolerates institutionalised inequity and cultural genocide, and apartheid style laws that target particular races. None of this should surprise, as this is the same spirit in which a large portion of the world's uranium is mined on traditional lands in Australia. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/12/08/calls-ranger-u...

recommendations?

unlike tobacco: hence its (legitimate?) status.

... or a healthy sense of humour. we didn't hear how much he drinks other months.

that's a problem with the law, not the substance.

Why Murdoch wants Rudd to lose the coming federal election is not merely political, it is commercial. News Corp hates the government's National Broadband Network (NBN). The company has formed a view that it poses a threat to the business model of by far its most important asset in Australia, the Foxtel cable TV monopoly it jointly owns with Telstra.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013...

I call BS. for rich developed nations, gas is an unnecessary and dangerous distraction from the genuine renewable and sustainable energy alternatives which are already taking shape around us. there is an argument about using gas in the developing world (where they need cheap energy fast), but wealthy nations should be leapfrogging into the same renewable energy solutions that will inevitably dominate our futures, rather than 'investing' in new gas plants with their long 30-40 year lifespan.

most of the planet's uranium is in very low concentrations in the sea. We certainly don't have enough commercially viable uranium (ie, that can be extracted and enriched with less energy inputs than they might produce) to maintain current rates of consumption for more than around 100 years using existing technologies.

thats it. if all the nuclear promises come true, its still just offering to delay the inevitable

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.

radioactive tracers do constitute radioactive material. Stupd semantics. Ypu can choose to have a CT scan, and good for you: the scandal here is that experiments were performed without the children or their parents having an opportunity to give informed consent.

Plato's Cave.

also important because 'foiling terror plots' may well not be the focus of these programs. demonstrating lack of efficacy on the stated objectives could help expose a wider agenda.

I haven't seen much from CD on PRISM: got any links?

the CAAT appeal was stunning. Alhough admitting that Pine Gap was used to target strikes on Iraq, defence insisited that it is not a war base - which made the facility ineligible for the protections from judicial scrutiny afforded under "special undertakings". Rather than admit that a foreign war base operates from the heart of our country, and unwilling (unable!) to answer the defendants' full range of examination, the prior conviction was nullified and the christians against all terrorism walked free.

but now the usa is opening more bases around the country, including marines in Darwin and US warships off WA.

nonsense. even ignoring the undeniable nexus between weapons and civilian power programs, where I live, nuclear power would be more expensive and much slower to roll out.

maybe more significant.

" ... it has been alleged that foreign-owned data hosted by US Internet companies has lesser protection than data belonging to US citizens.”

and, whats the bet the industry's supporters will be offering that same unhelpful rationalisation, come the next reactor failure.

I don't accept that the significant disqualifications you raise are all 'solved problems'. some are solved. some mitigated. I do accept the scenario I think you're describing: the US[a] is choosing to extend licenses to old plants instead of building safer ones. But beyond the US[a], I'm concerned we're illogically facilitating development of more conventional reactors that offer none of these benefits, in part under the cover of promises that the industry is moving in the right direction. That's the disconnect I see between promises and realities.

sure. whats to bet tho that the next reactor disaster uses the same unhelpful rationalisation, that better designs are just around the corner.

they don't care? so you may say, my experience is that the industry includes some players who duck and weave to try to evade application of existing regulatory radiation limits.

and again the coal/nukes false dichotomy. the fact that this is fundamentally flawed thinking is highlighted by your conclusion that more nuclear plants reduce public radiation exposure.

fair call re status of the hormesis theory. what I get from this is that the LNT theory holds more sway; regulators choose precautionary adherance to ALARA. Let's not ignore the obvious fact that there is a powerful industry tugging in the other direction ...

... which suggests to me that facebook's sustained block of the legitimate news source westpapuamedia.info - despite ongoing attempts by the publishers and their readers to have it reviewed - is precisely what supporters of the site claim it to be: active submission to pressure from the murderous TNI

"The idea that the best way to promote economic advancement in the Northern Territory is to post six of the loneliest security guards in the country to guard against people tampering with radioactive waste for the next three centuries absolutely beggars belief. They waved around a $12 million cheque in the community, north of Tennant Creek, which wanted a decent road and some community education support for their kids. That $12 million cheque was dangled in their faces in exchange for hosting what they thought was going to be a rubbish dump."

http://scott-ludlam.greensmps.org.au/content/speeches/aborig...

what's your point? people do get old and sick. the fact that radiation exists naturally in the environment doesn't mean its good for you, and doesnt mean that more won't pose an increased health hazard