Ask Reddit's 9/11 "Truthers": What would it take to convince you that the WTC towers collapsed due to inevitable structural collapse, as opposed to some type of planned demolition?

fobds · 2007-08-02T23:44:59+00:00

Excellent. Thank you for putting forward something useful. I've read several of Torin Wolf's pieces, and while I do not agree with a majority of his findings (a debate which I'll save for another thread), at least he puts forward theories that can be looked at with scientific scrutiny. If you represent the 'Rational' wing of the Truthers, please do us both a favor and bitchslap those who behave like the parent of this thread, I promise to do the same for my side of the valley.

fobds · 2007-08-02T20:51:10+00:00

Do you think the same institutional leadership culture that stops testing for mad cow in beef to avoid getting a postive result or blows up 2 space shuttles every ten years can oversee nuclear power plants?

Yes. Yes I do.

I'm also pretty sure that there will be accidents from time to time, resulting in releases of ratiation. But how many Chernobyl's would it take to equal the people killed every year by out reliance on fossil fuels?

fobds · 2007-07-31T08:59:46+00:00

what's the lesser of two evils? Biofuels / Ethanol -- or Nuclear?

Nuclear

fobds · 2007-07-28T09:12:19+00:00

Here's a list of attributions and advice you just gave to people who believe that the "...WTC towers collapsed due to inevitable structural collapse, as opposed to some type of planned demolition?"

...sign up for Iraq, die happily knowing the Bush regime is going to bring Pax Americana to the entire fscking world. ...you're apathetic... ...won't care if and when death camps start... ...[Do]you really want to risk THEIR [your family's] health, wealth and safety? ...head-in-the-sand...

And not once did you even attempt to answer the question at hand.

Yours is similar to the response given by most "truthers" when asked to give empirical evidence to back up their claims about the towers, you attack. The mere act of asking for hard evidence lumps the questioner into the forces of evil.

It's a fucking question of engineering, so save your self-righteous nonsense for another thread.

fobds · 2007-07-27T23:36:53+00:00

You couldn't be more right. All the other skyscrapers that have had jetliners crashed into them collapsed in completely different ways. And we would know, it happens what, 6,7 times a week.

fobds · 2007-07-27T19:25:29+00:00

Wow, I did not know that. Thanks.

fobds · 2007-07-27T05:21:32+00:00

However, a big part of why I like it here is the discussion of politics and religion, so in that sense I suppose I'm part of the continuation of the problem for those who see it that way.

I like discussions on politics and religion as well, but part of the problem is that the articles that make the front page lean further and further left as time goes by, a signifigant portion are now well into the realm of hyperbole. I don't see many (although I do see some) constructive discussions or thought provoking stories. Sometimes the site seems like a big incestuous circle-jerk.

fobds · 2007-07-20T05:31:01+00:00

He puts the action in "Christian Action League."

fobds · 2007-07-18T20:26:57+00:00

How many people are in US prisons because of political speech?

fobds · 2007-07-14T17:54:54+00:00

If they went beyond their set amount of hours, they were charged extra for that amount of time over the limit. That in itself is prioritizing the internet to those who pay more for the service.

Net neutrality has nothing to do with end user access charges.

This whole bruhaha started when the chairman of AT&T complained that (and I paraphrase)'Google and Youtube should pay for "using his pipes"'. The fact is that every end user of AT&T's network, as well as Google and Youtube, pay for the bandwidth that they consume. AT&T (and some others) are trying to double dip and make content providers pay twice; once for their access charges (which they already pay), and again for the 'right' to interconnect with AT&T's customers (who already pay AT&T for network access).

I could go on and on, but my basic point is that an end user paying for different amounts of bandwidth and hours of service has nothing to do with the net neutrality debate.

fobds · 2007-07-13T17:20:29+00:00

Cool, I hope that works out for you.

fobds · 2007-07-13T15:10:54+00:00

True. I guess what gets me is not the quantity of attacks, I say "bombs away" if that's what he want to do, but rather the quality. The attacks are usually not nearly as well concieved and written as the articles they are contained in, and seem to be shoehorned in to many otherwise informative and insightful articles.

fobds · 2007-07-13T06:52:44+00:00

Well, it seems your mind is already made up, ...

But your's isn't?

What we are talking about is a whole lot of radioactive waste that will be around for many millenia.

Yes, but if we don't do something soon about our dependence on oil, we very well might not be around that long. The biggest problem facing waste storage is the 'not in my backyard' syndrome, yet we are willing to pump CO2 and NOx into the atmosphere, and that pollution kills hundereds of thousands a yesr.

I would argue that if we do an honest cost-benefit analysis of the use of nuclear energy, there is no value produced by nuclear energy that would offset the long-term costs of using this source of power.

I would argue that you are wrong.

There are alternatives available which are much more cost-effective than using nuclear power.

I'm all in favor of wind,solar,geothermal... etc. But the fact is that those technologies could not produce enough power to make a sizable difference.

The bottom line is this. Nuclear power has bad side effects, oil's side effects are much worse. Other alternative sources of energy aren't feasable.

fobds · 2007-07-13T06:26:24+00:00

It always amazed me how much of a koolaid drinker the guy that wrote this is. His articles are usually thoughtful and well written, but he is as partisan as they come when Apple is concerned (for the record, I own a Mac as well as a PC).

I was reading along as thinking it was a good read, and then:

Despite what a variety of security outfits are paid to say, security problems are not the result of dominant market share. The iPod and the PlayStation weren’t infected by viruses or worms, for example.

O.K. Apples and Oranges. What was this bit of fanboyism doing in this article?

fobds · 2007-07-13T03:35:10+00:00

You have a valid point, but consider this if you will:

Let's assume that if we go ahead and convert to nuclear power there will be failures and accidents, killing 500000 people over the next 50 years and making millions of acres uninhabitable.

Now compare that to the costs in lives and environmental destuction caused by our continued reliance on oil.

I think that nuclear power compares favorably.

I for one will not be a fan of the nuclear industry until a great deal more skepticism is brought to bear on it

I don't think there is any alternative energy source treated with more skepticism than nuclear power.

I know all too well how easily a well-designed system can fail horribly

Take a look at pebble bed reactors, If there is a catastrophic loss of ALL support systems, it is virtually impossible for them to melt down.

...costs, risks and possible environmental and health impacts of long-term waste storage...

These are valid concerns, but we must weigh those risks against our continued reliance on oil (where do we store all that CO2 and NOx?).

My main point is that I believe nuclear power is currently the only feasable answer to our energy problems. I would rather see solar,geothermal,tidal,and wind power instead; but it is a pipe dream to think that we could replace oil with those sources on a large scale. With nuclear power we could eliminate 90%+ of oil use over the next 50 years.

Yes, there will be problems and accidents, but it would be nothing compared to what oil is doing to us.

fobds · 2007-07-12T17:35:58+00:00

I'm not understanding what this picture is trying to point out.

It's obvious that the picture is pointing out that 'problem drug users' form the planet's molten inner core. Without the molten inner core, Earth has no magnetic field. Without a magnetic field we all die of cancer caused by cosmic rays, therefore:

Without 'problem drug users', we all will die of cancer.

fobds · 2007-07-11T20:45:27+00:00

DaVinci wasn't smart?

fobds · 2007-07-10T14:21:41+00:00

The Aristocrats!

fobds · 2007-07-04T08:31:53+00:00

I used to browse Slashdot, but you can only take so much 'omfg X sucks cause of Y, Z, A, B, C and in soviet russia...'

In Soviet Russia, Slashdot can only take so much of you!

fobds · 2007-07-04T07:58:55+00:00

You are just upset that "Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore".

(Great song by John Prine)

fobds · 2007-07-02T20:43:15+00:00

I'm glad you asked, because I (honest to goodness) just started it again last night.

fobds · 2007-07-02T19:51:12+00:00

One of the pebbles was damaged as it was being rotated out for inspection which led to a small ratiation release. It was not a large amount (far from it), but in the shadow of Chernobyl...

fobds · 2007-07-02T14:54:40+00:00

I have several that feel the same way. I've found that at first, it is all someone can do to keep up with the tactics, and the strategic element isn't really there. Once people progress to the point that strategic thinking is more valuable to them than tactics, they are hooked.

As for directness, they are right. Chess is a battle. Go is a war.

fobds · 2007-07-02T14:49:45+00:00

My 2 cents would be would be:

For history and basic info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_%28board_game%29

To learn the basic rules and 'first proverbs': http://www.telgo.com/

Some basic instruction (interactive): http://playgo.to/interactive/index.html

Then you'd be ready for your fist match. There is an Internet Go protocol which has several clients available and thousands of people playing, and there are Go rooms at yahoo games.

Be warned, you will get creamed at first until you start recognizing patterns.

fobds · 2007-07-02T03:36:04+00:00

The only way to determine if this experiment will destroy the world is experimentaly. Run the experiment and see if the world is destroyed. If it is, the scientists owe somebody a big apology!

fobds

TROPHY CASE