Nuclear power emerges as green option for Asia

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
You are the one playing a dishonest game here.

NOT true. I sill see it in my view. But Topix is not letting me re-post it. Howevr, you have all the MIT lecture notes as a pdf file to look up pp. 10-11.

<quoted text>
How could you not know?

I still see them in my view.

<quoted text>
I already TOLD you that in the post you replied (#358) to before writing these words!

You did not ask me if I see them. I was seeing them in my view.

<quoted text>
Or did you simply fail to put 2 and 2 together, forgetting that the link YOU gave for it was to p16?

I have shown your link on another thread was the same way. You did another one like it after that to Robert. You are also doing it.

Why do you do it WRONG?

<quoted text>
I have seen Topix get their warning code wrong before, but for a different alleged violation. And then they stopped getting it wrong. So this could very well be a similar Topix bug.

I think the bug does NOT like too many numbers. It seems to figure they are personal data.

By the way, the lecture notes on page 10 had mistakes and typos that I had corrected in my version, e.g. 800 to 1450 C.. in the first missing post.

P.S. I am having difficulty posting this one as well. I am getting warning for personal data. So I removed the post numbers to test it.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>NOT true.

Yes, true.

I sill see it in my view.

Irrelevant, even after fixing the obvious typo. Again: I already TOLD you that I do NOT see it in my view of the same page. You already
REPLIED to that post. So yes, you DID know, unless you were so inattentive you didn't even know the link you referred to was to page 16 of this thread.

Will you two chill out? We're trying to get some reactors built in Asia -- one wishes there were a bell, like at prize fights, for a cooling off period -- as for me in the neutral corner, I'm having a hard time napping with all the noise -- even topix seems falling apart as posts vanish from the thread; pretty rickety electronics :-) time out's over, "gong!" (joke) Let me know if I need to find a minister so you two can get married and spoil this relationship you've developed :-)

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Dear "Truthiness"
Pot Kettle Black.

It is unacceptable that you have used this name to address me several times when in reality such a person existed and was banned by Topix according to this post:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...

You might have been the very person who was banned.

Furthermore, this post

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...

shows that MattJ knew this poster was banned. Yet he kept silent about it in this thread.

Furthermore, in the same tread where http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin ...

was posted about the banned poster, LessHypeMoreFact wrote this:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...

where he used "Dear "truthiness"." And nobody objected.

Who is this poster who was banned?
Why does LessHypeMoreFact use his name to address me?

In this post
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...

I suggested that Brian_G's posts were still missing to which he replied:
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...
meaning they are not missing.

In other words, when a post is deleted by Topix, the poster still can view his/her post. S/he is unaware that his/her post was deleted.

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>It is unacceptable that you have used this name to address me several times when in reality such a person existed and was banned by Topix according to this post:

I call them as I see them. You call yourself 'truthist' but your handle SHOULD be 'truthiness' since you distort truth out of all semblance.

As many have pointed out to you, light water reactors can overheat very fast and that raises the possible generation of a hydrogen bubble explosion shattering the containment vessel. It results from thermal decomposition, not the reaction you proposed which is a small factor ,controlled by catalytic surfaces to recombine, during normal operations. Only during the overheat can hydrogen accumulate faster than the catalysts can recombine it.

And no. THey will not censor informative posts. Heck, they won't even censor your endless nonsense.

In addition to Brian_G, "The Truth Matters" lost a post of his. It was offensive towards MattJ and I had complained to The Truth Matters about his language.

Later I told him that his post was deleted. He would not agree because he could still see it in his view.

This is the post where in the last hour I told The TruthMatters that a poster can still see his own post after Topix deletes a post.

http://www.topix.net/news/global-warming/2009...

MattJ was also posting in the thread where subject post addressed to him was removed by Topix. I would suggest that he read our posts about him and The Truth Matters replies to me.

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
I call them as I see them. You call yourself 'truthist' but your handle SHOULD be 'truthiness' since you distort truth out of all semblance.
As many have pointed out to you, light water reactors can overheat very fast and that raises the possible generation of a hydrogen bubble explosion shattering the containment vessel. It results from thermal decomposition, not the reaction you proposed which is a small factor ,controlled by catalytic surfaces to recombine, during normal operations. Only during the overheat can hydrogen accumulate faster than the catalysts can recombine it.
And no. THey will not censor informative posts. Heck, they won't even censor your endless nonsense.

Nonsense. You are re-writing the past.

My posts tell what happened.

And you might very well be the Mr. Truthiness who was banned. You certainly have the described offensive language. You are not here for scientific exchange as the evidence indicates starting with 90% comment between MattJ and I.

You should be banned by Topix.

truthist wrote:

Furthermore, in the same tread where http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin ...
was posted about the banned poster, LessHypeMoreFact wrote this:
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...
where he used "Dear "truthiness"." And nobody objected.

You say that as if there were some reason why we should object. There isn't. You think there is only because YOU follow a broken moral compass.

Until the person is able to abstract and define rationally the idea of good, and unless he can run the gauntlet of all objections, and is ready to disprove them, not by appeals to opinion, but to absolute truth, never faltering at any step of the argument-- unless he can do all this, you would say that he knows neither the idea of good nor any other good; he apprehends only a shadow, if anything at all, which is given by opinion and not by science;-- dreaming and slumbering in this life, before he is well awake here, he arrives at the world below, and has his final quietus.

Plato

We must bring moral accountability to the legal system both in the United States and around the world. This means explicitly recognizing the accountability of one generation to the next – and putting it into action. Moral philosophers point to many reasons why:

* The earth is held by past, present and future generations in common, as a species forming the community of humankind as a whole.

*As living members of a community, we benefit from the sacrifices and investments made by future generations. Succeeding generations cannot harm preceding ones, and so current generations should not inflict harm on their successors.

*Future generations are under-represented in legal and political processes, and thus the power of present generations to adversely affect their quality of life is imbalanced.

* A social contract requires each generation to pass on to the next one the gifts it has jointly inherited from the past.

* No generation should be deliberately favored or disadvantaged over another.

* No generation should have to envy the impersonal resources enjoyed by predecessor generations.

* The impact of environmentally degrading policies in the present tends to be long-term and therefore threatens future generations disproportionately.

* Present actions may not only inflict disadvantages on future generations but also deprive them of benefits.

* Scientific and technological advances have expanded the sphere of human control and thus present generations have a greater capacity to offset future risks.

* Future generations will have properties tomorrow, even if they do not have them now, and these will be shaped substantially by the values practiced by present generations.

* The policies of present generations will affect not only the interests of future generations, but also their rights and obligations their affected rights will impose on their contemporaries.

* Even if all individuals do not have offspring, all societies need and therefore have affection for their children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and thus care about their future well-being at a minimum.

The task before us is to live up to this morality and to enshrine its principles in the law. Every person is endowed with rights by the Creator. The right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment—to a planet not devastated by climate change—is and must be foremost among them.

ReferenCe for #376: http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Academics/Environme...

truthist wrote:

We must bring moral accountability to the legal system both in the United States and around the world.

A noble goal indeed. Unfortunately "legal nihilists" have been working against that for over a hundred years in the American legal system. Even Oliver Wendell Holmes was not helpful, largely due to his mind's enslavement to the American philosophy known as 'pragmatism', enshrining a impoverished version of positivism in American jurisprudence.

truthist wrote:

he knows neither the idea of good nor any other good; he apprehends only a shadow, if anything at all, which is given by opinion and not by science;

Plato

Man, could Plato ever bullshit with the best of them.

BDV wrote:

<quoted text>
Man, could Plato ever bullshit with the best of them.

You are the bullshitter, not Plato. As Whitehead said, all of Western Philosophy IS nothing more than footnotes to Plato.

And then again:

14 For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these having not the law are a law to themselves: 15 Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing, or also defending one another,

MattJ wrote:

As Whitehead said, all of Western Philosophy IS nothing more than footnotes to Plato.

As footnotes go, Yuropeean philosophy is sophist footnotes to a compedium from quite different authors - try the New Testament.

And Kir Plato's argument is but a straw man - one would expect the brightest mind in Universe to do better than that.

MattJ wrote:

<quoted text>
A noble goal indeed. Unfortunately "legal nihilists" have been working against that for over a hundred years in the American legal system. Even Oliver Wendell Holmes was not helpful, largely due to his mind's enslavement to the American philosophy known as 'pragmatism', enshrining a impoverished version of positivism in American jurisprudence.

You can say it again ;)

I really enjoyed your viewpoint. Puritanist, idealist, purist, pragmatist, positivist,.. life goes on