SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: gao seng who wrote (148627)5/24/2001 10:24:10 PM
From: Thomas A Watson  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
gao, arithmetic is way to complex for those who seek science thru through meditation and intuition. Why use 1+1 = 2 when with meditation and intuition you can feel good about any number of tenants of faith of vacant liberal minds.

tom watson tosiwmee



To: gao seng who wrote (148627)5/24/2001 10:25:37 PM
From: ZenWarrior  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Whether you label it as a "scientific measurement" or not is unimportant; what matters is how relevant and accurate the information is. It claims a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points, but that is likely at a mere 80% confidence level. Regardless of numbers, the article appropriately notes that "Californians have not thought about nuclear energy for about 20 years and do not have as much information as they did around Three Mile Island." BTW, if Wall Street refuses to fund nuclear, why should it hold any more precedence than cleaner alternative energy resources?? For the $billion$ it takes to fund just one nuclear plant (not to mention maintaining it, providing security for it, and providing safe storage for waste), I could build wind farms producing just as much electricity. Nuclear require subsidies to continue running, as do many wind farms... so why choose the riskier alternative?? Why choose the alternative which produces the nastiest byproduct ever created?? Completely ridiculous.

- Zen