* Posts by vanishment

3 posts • joined 14 Mar 2011


Thumb Up

Here, here, Lewis!

Now you're in territory we truly appreciate. One thing was left unmentioned, though: The inherent stress involved in going through life stone-cold sober and never allowing oneself a frothy pint or a wee dram to chase the worries away. Or simply enjoy oneself.

And numerous studies have concluded that a glass or two is good for the heart.

Off to the pub, er lab, to further research this important subject.

Fukushima situation as of Wednesday

Dead Vulture

Who's the Troll? Page or the Reg?

(apologies if this appears twice - connection stalled first time)

Quote: "So far from Fukushima proving that nuclear power is dangerous compared to other technologies, it seems to be proving quite the reverse. ®"

Add this to Mr. Page's previous article: "Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now!" and you can see that the Reg, apparently enamoured with Mr. Page's "reporting", is self-trolling in an effort to boost readership through controversy - the lowest trick of the trade and an insult to any intelligent readership. And before we get started again on the validity of expressing opinions and calling commenters twits - yes, I mean YOU, Ms. Sarah Bee of the Reg - Mr. Page's inexcusable PR spin ("Build More Reactors Now!", etc, etc) for the nuclear industry is actually placed under the rubrik "analysis" by the Reg - not "opinion". If that's what the Reg considers analysis, lord only knows how low your actual opinions will go.

Clever bylines and cheeky writing are one thing. Being a die-hard shill for the nuclear lobby is quite another. Mr. Page's copy-and-paste opinions (or "analysis", as the Reg sees fit to call them) are embarrassingly premature, technically incompetent, and obviously don't belong in a journal that purports to be duly informing IT professionals. I'll look elsewhere, thanks.

Fukushima is a triumph for nuke power: Build more reactors now!

Thumb Down


The Reg can occasionally be entertaining with its headlines and rants on less significant issues, however the lack of research and often even basic journalism is getting pretty irritating. It's one thing to post a completely one-sided and poorly written piece on something as mundane as Steve Job's latest hit or a Steve Ballmer balls-up. It's quite another to post utterly asinine arguments on nuclear power with the apparent assumption that technological know-how = nerd-like ignorance. For Mr. Lewis' information, I was living in Munich at the time of Chernobyl and, thanks to the inept Bavarian government, we were rained upon without warning with plenty of radioactivity when the reactor's cloud made its way right across Europe. Much of the damage and confusion was due to the lack of integrity of all too many levels of government, from Moscow to Bonn. Couple such secrecy and stupidity with an aging reactor (or badly-designed/maintained newer one) and you're only asking for disaster. While credit is certainly due to Japan for containing the situation, one can only wonder what the outcome would have been in a country with less safeguards and less communication with the outside world.

While small sections of Mr. Lewis' piece may be considered mildly informative, a more intelligent article presenting the various pros and cons and latest technological advances in the context of Japan's situation would have been more appropriate - and less an insult to the average reader and "technician".

One might also consider one of the reasons for so many reactors in such a tiny area as Japan: Consumer Electronics. Yet, rather than sincerely investigate and report on alternatives sources of electricity and energy-saving devices, the Reg apparently prefers to be a cheerleader for unfettered nuclear energy.

If, on the other hand, such "articles" are merely a ploy to grab attention, a-la-Sun-and-Daily Mail, we may as well be reading those and ignore the Reg altogether.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019