Monday, March 28, 2011


OJ     says (9:26 PM):
*what's chinese for "azalea"
*no fuck that
*what the fuck is an azalea

Hungy-ΤΉ-fail says (9:27 PM):
*its the town with that bug gymleader in gold/silver

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Nuclear debate

With the recent events in Fukushima, Japan, the nuclear energy debate has been fervently reignited.

Here's just a selection of online articles from my browsing, each one of which I support completely.

'Climate may demand some nuclear power' - Tim Soutphommasane

"I am inclined to believe nuclear power should be part of the global energy mix. Of Fukushima, let's not forget it took a 9.0-magnitude earthquake and a 14m tsunami to trigger this crisis."

"If we are to repudiate nuclear power, it's not enough just to point to dangers. It must be shown that its costs clearly outweigh its benefits.

There's one obvious benefit that opponents of nuclear typically downplay; namely, nuclear power plants are carbon-free (in their generation of electricity). If we are interested in mitigating global warming, this should carry some moral weight."

'Japan crisis 'teaches Aussies value of nuclear energy'' - Ziggy Switkowski

"The plants were designed for a magnitude 8 earthquake but were staggered by an earthquake 10 times stronger, with its epicentre just offshore and with 40,000 times the energy of the atomic bomb which devastated Hiroshima, according to a Cosmos Online editorial.

That the plant remains largely intact is extraordinary given most structures in that area are severely damaged.

The earthquake and tsunami cracked dams, exploded oil storages, ignited coal and gas-fired power stations and killed many people.

But at this point, there is no report of a nuclear-related fatality nor any case of radiation sickness from exposure to elevated radioactivity."

'How nuclear passed its toughest test' - Miranda Devine

"The Japanese nuclear power complex is like a Tonka Truck. It's so tough that you can put it through a magnitude 9 earthquake and a 14m tsunami and it's still standing, with no armageddon in sight."

"But when you think about it, Fukushima shows how resilient even a 40-year-old, inadequately maintained nuclear plant can be.

And, in the scheme of things, with more than 20,000 people dead in the rest of Japan and a massive rebuilding operation still to come, what are a few millisieverts of radiation between friends?"

"As the only form of baseload energy with virtually zero carbon emissions, nuclear is the only solution for those, like the Prime Minister, who claim a "low-carbon" world is necessary to prevent climate catastrophe. (Well, there is one other solution, which BlueScope Steel chairman Graham Kraehe suggested sarcastically this week while criticising Gillard's carbon tax at the National Press Club. We could stop exporting coal and wreck our economy.)

The truth is, greens who oppose nuclear energy don't really care about carbon dioxide emissions or global warming. They know the hype is just a means to an end.

They want us to reduce our consumption of power and change our way of life. They want to stall progress, and have everyone live like Wombles."

And best of all...
'Propaganda has no place in crisis' - Geoffrey Barker and Paul Dibb

"As Japanese authorities struggle to contain potentially grave radiation leakages from the damaged Fukushima reactors, conservation and green ideologues have rushed to claim the catastrophe shows there is no future for nuclear power.

Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman David Noonan says nuclear power has no place in a sustainable energy future; Greens leader Bob Brown says the Japanese crisis is a reminder that nuclear energy is outside the limits of human safeguards. These sorts of statements, echoed by activists globally, are at once false and heartless."

"But generalised arguments against nuclear power are separate, irrelevant and inappropriate issues at this time of appalling devastation and human suffering wrought by the earthquake and tsunami. With a probable death toll of many tens of thousands, and widespread destruction of homes and economic infrastructure on the north coast, Japan is facing challenges quite reasonably claimed by Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan as the country's greatest challenge since the end of World War II."

"Sterile ideological arguments over the future of nuclear power should be for another day. It verges on the indecent for anti-nuclear activists to propagandise when perhaps millions of Japanese are traumatised by bereavement, hunger, homelessness, joblessness, fear and cold."

"So let us not be distracted by Green obsessions about nuclear power. Japan's long-term welfare and recovery is too important to be held hostage to such comparatively irrelevant side issues."

Saturday, March 19, 2011

Japan explains nuclear problem to Japanese kids

Thursday, March 17, 2011


[9:01:19 PM] Victor Liaw: you do Arts!
[9:01:29 PM] Oliver Jiang: ?
[9:01:36 PM] Victor Liaw: have you been taught about epistemologies in research methods?
[9:01:51 PM] Oliver Jiang: Hah, epistemologies
[9:02:13 PM] Victor Liaw: have you!?
[9:03:01 PM] Oliver Jiang: No
[9:03:03 PM] Oliver Jiang: It sounds funny though
[9:03:43 PM] Victor Liaw: shit
[9:03:51 PM] Victor Liaw: so you ahven't been taught it?
[9:04:26 PM] Oliver Jiang: No
[9:04:28 PM] Oliver Jiang: wtf are epistemologies
[9:04:41 PM] Victor Liaw: the study of how we know what we know
[9:04:54 PM] Victor Liaw: yeah.
[9:04:58 PM] Oliver Jiang: Err...fuck that
[9:05:05 PM] Oliver Jiang: Go back to Psych, Psych-boy
[9:05:13 PM] Victor Liaw: PSYCH IS SCIENTIFIC
[9:05:17 PM] Victor Liaw: THIS IS SOCIAL SCIENCES
[9:05:20 PM] Oliver Jiang: Pshh, Arts
[9:05:24 PM] Oliver Jiang: Social "science"
[9:05:25 PM] Oliver Jiang: Good one

Sunday, March 13, 2011

Obama gets set straight? Hardly.

Just a few..."disagreements" with the letter.

America is no longer a Christian nation. Separation of State and Religion, buddy.
America is arrogant, because it is. Flouting international law? Falsifying evidence? And believing that they can get away with it? Come on.
America hasn't lived up to her ideals. Obama doesn't mean during World War 2, he means during the Iraqi War. Get with the times, please.
How does an American act? Like the people in this article?
There sure was a lot of hand-kissing of corrupt leaders and murderers during the Cold War.
He doesn't want people assuming the Muslim major was a fanatic or a terrorist. The US Army does try to weed them out, you know. Or are you trying to say that the US military no longer cares who it lets into its ranks?
If my memory serves me correct, Obama did actually approve the surge into Iraq, to get the job done.
Just because the President never served in the military for his country, doesn't mean that he isn't willing to lay down his life for America. It doesn't mean that he values it less than you do. He has taken upon himself the supreme burden any living person can take for their country; total personal dedication and service.