Slashdot Mirror

Did you read the whole page? The only (levelised) study that shows nuclear to be competitive it the UK study (and only by a relatively small margin). In everything else, nuclear trails on-shore wind.

The Wikipedia entry for U.S. DOE levelized cost lists nuclear at 119, onshore wind at 149.3. However, this is inconsistent with the referenced source which lists 113.9 for nuclear, 97 for onshore wind. The history of the chart on the wikipedia page shows no edits, so likely the DOE revised their report. Note that these are estimated levilized costs for 2016, so there's room to fudge. I'll call this a draw.

The figures in the UK study are consistent with the source. Winner: nuclear.

The Califoria Energy Commission costs listed in Wikipedia does not match the source. If you flip to table 24, you'll see the levelized costs are both $99//MWh for wind and nuclear. However, that is the subsidized cost. Without tax credits, nuclear is $114, wind is $140. Winner: nuclear

The Australian figures for nuclear cite a reference which is not available online. Putting the title of the chart into Google yielded this report. If you scroll down to figure 10-13 (p. 218), wind comes out at roughly 90-210 AU cents/MWh, nuclear 120-200 AU cents/MWH. I'm inclined to call this a draw, but one could argue it's a win for wind.

The final chart on wiki is unreferenced, does not state where the data supposedly came from, and does not describe what factors and assumptions went into the calculations. My guess is the source is German, but my German is not good enough to be searching through their publications. However, it is pretty well known that Germany has a strong anti-nuclear bias, having banned it in their country.

Overall, I'd say the sources in the Wikipedia entry more strongly support the conclusion that nuclear is cheaper than or about the same as wind.

What studies show that daylight saving time reduces energy use in practice?

http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html links to this DOE 2008 report [PDF] which suggests Daylight Savings saved the US 1.3 TWh over 4 weeks in 2007. While this only corresponds to 0.03% of the annual energy output, it's a fair chunk in absolute terms.

Of course, the energy picture is complicated by the fact that DST typically occurs in summer, when temperatures are hotter and there is greater demand for powered cooling, and the demand for that varies from year to year. There's no control environment to measure it against, so it won't satisfy stringent experiment conditions.

In other words, "when pigs fly". In 2009, swine flu.

Err... ok... how exactly are you equating the H1N1 "swine" flu with pigs flying? did you want me to label it independently-ambulatory true porcine gravitational counteraction resulting in the significant unassisted elevation and movement of Suinae Sus?

So, there's no way they'd put the County courthouse in a City called Vista, and then someone refer to it by the city? If I said to you, "Go to the North County Superior Court of California," would you know where to go without Google? Or, if I simply said, "Go to the Vista County Courthouse," I think you'd know exactly where I'm referring. To be technically accurate, yes, I should have called it the Vista Court Complex, but that's not terribly descriptive in my opinion.

Well, if you read the actual decision, you'll notice that the court says merchants can, according to the law, ask for the ZIP code as part of credit-card verification. What they can't do is record that ZIP code for other uses.

The problem that this case brought up is that, when that gas pump prompts you for the ZIP code? It isn't just for credit-card authorization. The station will use that ZIP code for that, sure, but they also store it in their database along with your name and purchase history and then cross-reference other databases to determine who you actually are. A name alone isn't unique, a ZIP code sure isn't unique, but in the majority of cases there's only one person with a particular name in a particular ZIP code so the company operating the gas station now knows your address, phone number, age, and can use that to get other information on you since now they can uniquely identify you. All the court's saying here is that that kind of double use isn't permitted. They can require you to give your ZIP code as part of a credit-card authorization, but they can only use that ZIP code for that purpose. If they want to store data on you they have to treat that as a completely separate request, not appropriate the information you provided to authorize your credit card.

The law provides for the collection of personally identifying information that's necessary for the transaction. Online, this includes the billing zip code. This ruling apples to card-present retail transactions. FYI. Here's the entire decision: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S178241.PDF

Except the billing zip code happens to be a very important (though not the only) piece of AVS (Address Verification System), which is used to combat fraud. In a nutshell, the merchant submits the customer's address along with their card info, and (depending on the merchant's arrangement) the credit card processor checks to make sure certain parts of that address match what's associated with that card number. Zip code happens to be one of the most reliable.

The law provides for the collection of personally identifying information that's necessary for the transaction. Online, this includes the billing zip code. This ruling apples to card-present retail transactions. FYI. Here's the entire decision: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S178241.PDF

It doesn't matter if it goes 250mph if it sits on the track for an hour waiting for right of way. Granted, this is just one experience, but from reading up after it happened, it seems to be the norm
....
Sure, you can build a high speed train, but if its run by Amtrak and exists in this countries rail system mentality, it will quickly become worthless. Fix the real issues.

Er, a the whole point is to "fix the real issues," at a far more fundamental level than has been tried in the past. Because of the insanely awful state of U.S. rail infrastructure, doing it right requires a lot of capital investment.

Much of the money will go to HSR projects that actually get it, like CAHSR. They will build dedicated lines and use real world-class equipment (not the awful overweight stuff gimped by clueless FRA regulations that's typical in the U.S.); it will not be run by Amtrak, and won't be sharing with freight lines. As a result, it will be real high-speed rail.

I've no doubt that some of the money will go to "lesser" projects, but that's politics in the U.S.

[Unfortunately, the Republicans and anti-rail think-tanks like the Reason Foundation will be making a concerted effort to convince everybody that HSR simply "can't happen," and "won't work in the U.S." They are wrong, but they are very well funded, and very media savvy.]

It doesn't matter if it goes 250mph if it sits on the track for an hour waiting for right of way. Granted, this is just one experience, but from reading up after it happened, it seems to be the norm
....
Sure, you can build a high speed train, but if its run by Amtrak and exists in this countries rail system mentality, it will quickly become worthless. Fix the real issues.

Er, a the whole point is to "fix the real issues," at a far more fundamental level than has been tried in the past. Because of the insanely awful state of U.S. rail infrastructure, doing it right requires a lot of capital investment.

Much of the money will go to HSR projects that actually get it, like CAHSR. They will build dedicated lines and use real world-class equipment (not the awful overweight stuff gimped by clueless FRA regulations that's typical in the U.S.); it will not be run by Amtrak, and won't be sharing with freight lines. As a result, it will be real high-speed rail.

I've no doubt that some of the money will go to "lesser" projects, but that's politics in the U.S.

[Unfortunately, the Republicans and anti-rail think-tanks like the Reason Foundation will be making a concerted effort to convince everybody that HSR simply "can't happen," and "won't work in the U.S." They are wrong, but they are very well funded, and very media savvy.]

I think, given the disagreement on your claim, it would be best if you gave an actual cite that people could actually look up.

I think, given the ease of finding this information, my critics are bitches. They don't actually give a fuck about the issue, they just want to make me look bad. The fourth result for my search leads us to CVC 21654(a) where it says:

21654. (a) Notwithstanding the prima facie speed limits, any vehicle proceeding upon a highway at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.

(b) If a vehicle is being driven at a speed less than the normal speed of traffic moving in the same direction at such time, and is not being driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand edge or curb, it shall constitute prima facie evidence that the driver is operating the vehicle in violation of subdivision (a) of this section.

(c) The Department of Transportation, with respect to state highways, and local authorities, with respect to highways under their jurisdiction, may place and maintain upon highways official signs directing slow-moving traffic to use the right-hand traffic lane except when overtaking and passing another vehicle or preparing for a left turn.

So in summary: You are required to get the fuck out of the "normal" flow of traffic if you are obstructing it, in spite of the speed limit, and the DoT may spend your tax money to put up signs reminding people of this in the state of California. The site I found this link from claims that 30/50 (aka the majority of) states have similar laws. And the people who were crying about the need for a citation could have found one with google in less time than it would have taken to bitch and whine about how I didn't post one.

Real summary: Driving in the passing lane is illegal more often than it isn't, and people who just hang out there and make you pass on the right are douchebags.

Choosing A Lane

Traffic lanes are often referred to by number. The left or "fast" lane is called the "Number 1 Lane." The lane to the right of the "Number 1 Lane" is called the "Number 2 Lane," then the "Number 3 Lane."

Drive in the lane with the smoothest flow of traffic.If you can choose among three lanes, pick the middle lane for the smoothest driving. To drive faster, pass, or turn left, use the left lane. When you choose to drive slowly or enter or turn off the road, use the right lane.

If there are only two lanes in your direction, pick the right lane for the smoothest driving.

Do not weave in and out of traffic. Stay in one lane as much as possible. Once you start through an intersection, keep going. If you start to make a turn, follow through. Last minute changes may cause collisions. If you miss a turn, continue until you can safely and legally turn around.

Changing Lanes

Changing lanes includes:
* Moving from one lane to another.
* Entering the freeway from an on-ramp.
* Entering the road from a curb or the shoulder.

Before changing lanes, signal, look in all your mirrors, and:
* Check traffic behind and beside you.
* Glance over your left or right shoulder to make sure the lane you want is clear.
* Look for all vehicles, motorcyclists, and bicycle traffic in your blind spot.
* Be sure there is enough room for your vehicle in the next lane.

Passing Lanes

Before you pass, look ahead for road conditions and traffic that may cause other vehicles to move into your lane.

Never drive off the paved or maintraveled portion of the road or on the shoulder to pass. The edge of the main-traveled portion of the road may have a painted white line on the road's surface. Passing other vehicles at crossroads, railroad crossings, and shopping center entrances is dangerous.

Pass traffic on the left. You may pass on the right only when:
* An open highway is clearly marked for two or more lanes of travel in your direction.
* The driver ahead of you is turning left and you do not drive off the roadway to pass. Never pass on the left, if the driver is signaling a left turn.

I also Googled "keep right site:dmv.ca.gov" and came up with precious little.

Explaination is here. I hope that help.

More goodies here:
http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2009/090734.aspx

Currently, California governments contribute about $13 billion per year to the state's public retirement systems for pension This amount probably will increase by several billion dollars per year over the next few years due mainly to unfunded liabilities resulting from the systems' investment losses during 2008.

Currently, California governments pay around $4 billion to $5 billion per year for retiree health benefits.

So 17 to 18 billion dollars per year in pension costs now, 20 to 21 billion in the next few years.

$13 billion is about 10x the 1.3 billion figure- so I guess there are a lot of municipal managers and firemen/policemen who "spiked" their retirements with overtime who are eligible for those multi-million dollar pensions.

$10,000 per working citizen is a LOT of money to be paying for a maximum of 10% of the population retired.

The shortfall is the amount by which the debt is increasing each year. The total debt was just under $90bn at June 2010 (source http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/publications/2010dar.pdf Sect 2, p5, pdf page 13), and I guess it will be about $103bn now. That doesn't include pension liabilities, or municipal bonds. The unfunded pension liabilities on 1st July 2008 were $425bn and estimated to be $534bn the following year (source http://www.stanford.edu/group/siepr/cgi-bin/siepr/?q=/system/files/shared/GoingforBroke_pb.pdf p2). Who knows what the unfunded liability is now. I understand that municipal debt is around $400bn, but most of that is insured by federal government backed insurance companies so probably isn't relevant.

I don't think any of the billionaires you listed could afford to write a cheque for $25bn. They would need to sell their companies and other assets to raise the money.

It's a good start-- but i hope they find some real meat.

The things that you see reported that are being implemented now -- this cellphone takeback, Brown returning most of the funds allocated for the gubernatorial transition to the State treasury rather than spending them, etc., are all the things that are within the Governor's direct control. The "real meat" is in the the Governor's proposed budget which requires action by the legislature (and, for those things that Brown has proposed, also action by the voters). An overview of can be found in the Introduction.

It's a good start-- but i hope they find some real meat.

The things that you see reported that are being implemented now -- this cellphone takeback, Brown returning most of the funds allocated for the gubernatorial transition to the State treasury rather than spending them, etc., are all the things that are within the Governor's direct control. The "real meat" is in the the Governor's proposed budget which requires action by the legislature (and, for those things that Brown has proposed, also action by the voters). An overview of can be found in the Introduction.

The bill SB 400 granted billions of dollars in retroactive pension boosts to state employees, allowing retirements as young as age 50 with lifetime pensions of up to 90% of final year salaries.

Key word there is "up to". For someone to retire with those numbers, given the most GENEROUS formula available of 3% @ 50 (typically CHP and a few other select state agencies), they would have to work 30 years. So to retire at age 50 with 90%, they would've had to start out working there at age 20, in the same state agency (or another one with the same formula). Furthermore, for the "safety" category that enjoys those benefits of higher formulas, a lot of the time the state opts out of Social Security for those employees, so the state isn't paying into Social Security. My wife works for Corrections, thus can't get Social Security, so will solely rely on her CalPERS pension and private investments at retirement.

The average pension that a state employee gets is about $2200 after 20 years of service (see here)... not much more than Social Security. Check here if you want to see all the formulas available.

If you really want to criticize the pension system in California, look no further than cities or counties that participate in CalPERS. Places like Bell, CA are the major abusers and they should be targeted before any state employees. There are a few abuses from state employees, but it's typically those bullshit positions that the assembly or governor appoints their friends to 1 year before retirement.

Most of the crap you hear about these unfunded pensions are due to A) the minority who abuse it (see above), and B) misinformation by millionaires who would rather see pension systems "privatized" to 401k (i.e. Meg Whitman) so that even more people can be forced into poverty when rich bankers crash our economy due to their greed.

The bill SB 400 granted billions of dollars in retroactive pension boosts to state employees, allowing retirements as young as age 50 with lifetime pensions of up to 90% of final year salaries.

Key word there is "up to". For someone to retire with those numbers, given the most GENEROUS formula available of 3% @ 50 (typically CHP and a few other select state agencies), they would have to work 30 years. So to retire at age 50 with 90%, they would've had to start out working there at age 20, in the same state agency (or another one with the same formula). Furthermore, for the "safety" category that enjoys those benefits of higher formulas, a lot of the time the state opts out of Social Security for those employees, so the state isn't paying into Social Security. My wife works for Corrections, thus can't get Social Security, so will solely rely on her CalPERS pension and private investments at retirement.

The average pension that a state employee gets is about $2200 after 20 years of service (see here)... not much more than Social Security. Check here if you want to see all the formulas available.

If you really want to criticize the pension system in California, look no further than cities or counties that participate in CalPERS. Places like Bell, CA are the major abusers and they should be targeted before any state employees. There are a few abuses from state employees, but it's typically those bullshit positions that the assembly or governor appoints their friends to 1 year before retirement.

Most of the crap you hear about these unfunded pensions are due to A) the minority who abuse it (see above), and B) misinformation by millionaires who would rather see pension systems "privatized" to 401k (i.e. Meg Whitman) so that even more people can be forced into poverty when rich bankers crash our economy due to their greed.

Here's the law from California that says they must (section 2802): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2800-2810

I'm sure MANY other states have similar laws, though I'm not exactly willing at this moment to spend the time to provide you with a full list. :p

I read that and I don't see anything in there about paying for cell phones. In most cases, they can expect you to use land lines if they want...

Here's the law from California that says they must (section 2802): http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=lab&group=02001-03000&file=2800-2810

I'm sure MANY other states have similar laws, though I'm not exactly willing at this moment to spend the time to provide you with a full list. :p

Please provide a government document, a code, ordinance, statute, etc (you know, a law) that states a person cannot call themselves an engineer

Here you go. http://mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_124th/billpdfs/HP018001.pdf

Please provide a specific instance where this is a punishable offense.

And here: http://www.pels.ca.gov/consumers/convicted.shtml

My point, and most others on this site, is that pretty much anyone can (legally) call themselves an engineer without facing any consequences from the law. Whether you feel they can call themselves an engineer or not is moot and a subjective point.

Clearly untrue.

You know they have this thing called Google nowadays that helps you find things on your own.

I did read the single PDF you linked to:

The state budget [pdf] [ca.gov]...

I also indicated that I had done so: "(If I'm reading that table correctly..."

There's no links to anything else on that page. The link that you've just now provided is for another single PDF, on a different server than the link from your original post. Maybe you intended to point to a page that had a number of links to budget documents, but you didn't, and you didn't supply any other information in your post.

You didn't present any useful evidence for your argument, and I pointed that out. Why should I do your research for you?

I did read the single PDF you linked to:

The state budget [pdf] [ca.gov]...

I also indicated that I had done so: "(If I'm reading that table correctly..."

There's no links to anything else on that page. The link that you've just now provided is for another single PDF, on a different server than the link from your original post. Maybe you intended to point to a page that had a number of links to budget documents, but you didn't, and you didn't supply any other information in your post.

You didn't present any useful evidence for your argument, and I pointed that out. Why should I do your research for you?

Per-capita would be a start, so what's the change in population over that period?

You didn't go through the state of California webpage I linked to did you? Just now the first link I clicked on on that page was to Schedule 6 — Summary of State Population, Employees and Expenditures. The pdf has the per capita numbers. Since you didn't bother to look I won't bother to answer the rest of your questions either.

Falcon

The Federal government takes much more in taxes from California than it returns

While that may be true California would be in better shape if the government there hadn't increased spending as much as it did in the 1990's while the economy was booming. The state budget [pdf] in 1990-91 was $51,445.5 million, 2000-01 it was $96,381.5 million, and in 2010-11 it's $125,254.9 million.

Falcon

you could buy a bond and not insurance http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm Types of financial responsibility A motor vehicle liability insurance policy A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV A DMV issued self-insurance certificate A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California. so no, you are not required to buy car insurance from anyone in CA just to drive a car. You just have to have money to pay for an accident.

In California pulling over is required by law but only when people stack up behind you. So it's only when some dipshit like you is slowing down a whole BUNCH of people at once that they are legally obligated to pull over. Who cares if they want to go 5, 15, or 50 miles per hour faster than you? Why do you want them behind you anyway? I pull into a turnout at the least provocation, and if you had ever heard of a thing called the golden rule, you would too.

There's plenty of good reasons you'll find yourself in the left-most lane even if you're not the fastest car - it's interesting to see the responses from people assuming you'd only be doing that because you're a dick. In any case it is not an excuse to tailgate. It's dangerous to both cars as well as all those following as you're going to turn any minor one car incident into an unavoidable mess of two cars spinning across the highway, piling up those behind.

You could always shrug and just pass on the right, if you're in a state where it's legal, which in CA it is. In most of the cases you'd ever consider passing on the right, they just happen to be legal. See this: CA DMV 21754. I can only assume most drivers who tailgate me in CA when there's a completely empty freeway haven't read the code - I have because I moved there recently.

And while we're on the subject of what the Code actually says, the advice given in the CA code for being tailgated is to slow down. I remember the same applies in the UK code, but sadly not the pass-on-right (left in UK), unless it's the natural flow of congested traffic (I have a UK license too). It's so that braking distance is reduced to compensate for the prick behind you having basically no reaction time gap, and to lessen the speed of the two-car incident he may cause. So hey, it's actually against the recommended code of conduct on the road to maintain or increase speed if you're being tailgated. Again: why don't you just drive lawfully at a decent distance and/or change lane and pass?

And yes, CA is full of single lane roads with no passing lanes. I have yet to encounter a significant amount of time where the car in front didn't use a pull-out passing area. Sometimes they're not well-marked and they'll miss them - fair enough, I've certainly missed a few in poor visibility and held up traffic an extra half mile. In no case would I tailgate to "encourage" them to move over like some drivers do. That's the most absurdly dangerous and selfish thing you can do.

Being at the worst school in the district means that I am in at 7:30 to _actively_ tutor, have meetings with other teachers to align instruction, start teaching at 9 and stand straight through to 4:20 (except for my planning period, which is taken up by meetings)

First paragraph and you are already lying. You do not "stand" straight through until 4:20. Your school will have 6 periods give or take one. Unless your school has developed transportation (which seems unlikely given you are the "worst in the district"), there will be at least 10 minutes between each of those periods. There is also a lunch hour. That means that you have at least 1.5 hours during the school day that you could sit down. You don't convince people of your 'unique' situation by starting your first paragraph with a lie that is so obvious.

Being a math teacher requires that you are either incompetent, or have at least a rudimentary understanding of how numbers work. Your statement of "worst school in the district" is either a lie, irrelevant, or an indication of gross incompetence. "worst school in the district" could be "worst" as in, your wife wanted a three way, and she brought home the worst homeless guy with open sores in town for it. Or, it could be that she brought home the "worst" super hot disease free female model from the international fashion show her friend invited her too.

The bell curve is one of those tools that incompetent teachers (as well as other educational "professionals") use.

tutor more after school (and again a full day on Saturday), answer the forty e-mails I got but was unable to read during the day, then leave at 7:30. Planning generally happens at home.

It's funny how every teacher makes the same claim that you do. That they are spending huge amounts of time 'tutoring'. Maybe you are that one teacher that isn't lying about that, but given that you have already been caught lying, it seems unlikely. As for 40 emails a day. I call BS. There is no way that the administration is sending 40 emails a day, if other teachers claims are true, and like you spend all day lecturing, then they are not coming from other teachers. If they are coming from parents, you would have to be claiming that you get emails from nearly 20% of your students EVERY DAY. That astounding level of parental involvement flies directly in the (vague) claim that your school is the worst in the district. So, while I cannot prove you are lying like I could earlier, you are making an extraordinary claim that you get 40 school related emails a day. You will need to offer a better explanation than that if you want to get anyone who is half way intelligent to believe that.

1) Your math teacher was lazy and most of the students who left his/her class never "got" math.

That is an ad hominem attack. You call the math teacher lazy because they don't work 12 hours a day? That is what incompetent people say when they are confronted. They claim that the longer it takes the better they must be. And how did you come to the conclusion that most of the students who left his/her class never “got” math? Ahhh... You made it up. That is how you defend accusations that you are incompetent? You make stuff up and you lie. You should be ashamed of yourself for even writing that sentence.

2) You didn't go to a high school where 95% of students were on free lunch,

That isn't much of a metric these days. Shifting the feeding of kids to the state has been an on going effort in both social engineering as well as increasing revenue to the schools. It is common to see advice being given by government agencies on how to enlarge your free lunch programs. I have known plenty of middle class families living in nice homes they own, and that can afford to take vacations as well as have their fancy overpriced daily coffee ge

Today while I was filling up my 2003 Corolla with gas, a guy drove up to the next pump in his 1952 MG convertible. Which gets 30MPG. My Corolla gets 27MPG.

I was at a car show today, marveling over the newest crop of hybrids that get up to 41mpg. Wow! My 2001 Jetta TDI (diesel) just delivered 46mpg on a road trip a few weeks ago, and my car is in _rough_ shape.

Yes thats about right a diesel engine is really fuel efficient which is why trucks use it.
I think I read somewhere diesel fuel gives about 30% more energy compared to the same amount of petrol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency

Hybrids real reason for development was to meet California's emissions laws the that fact you get similar fuel economy to a diesel is a bonus.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/advanced_vehicles_and_fuels/ca-zev.html
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/background.htm

To be a write in candidate, you merely need to have a pledged and registered slate of electors in the states in which you are running.

As of August, Fresno had a 15.4% unemployment rate. Maybe people like it there because the cost of living is low enough to live on unemployment. The Fresno Wikipedia page lists the city's top ten employers as being in the medical industry, government entities, such as schools, and the bottom 2 of the top ten are private industry. Sounds like it will soon be the next economic hub of California. Many of California's flat cities experienced a lot of growth through the real estate boom because, well, there are still places to build. As opposed to places like the SF Bay Area, where the only places left to build are pretty much outside of what has traditionally been the Bay Area or ludicrous expensive.

I'm not arguing that Fresno is undesirable, I just don't think it qualifies as 'desirable'. From Silicon Valley I can catch a Southwest flight to Tahoe for less than $50. We have the greatest motorcycling roads in the world. Redwood forests. Historic landmarks, every kind of sports team, the ocean, plays, museums, etc. I don't think Fresno compares in these things.

I know Google is evil and all, but selling Canadian data to the Government of California? That's low, even for you, Schwarzenegger.

You picked a really bad example. Electricians must be certified.

How many geothermal plants would the US need to produce 100 exojoules?

I can ask the same about LFTR plants. It takes the same amount whether they're nuclear plants or wind farms if they are of the same size. If it takes 1000 wind farms then it takes 1000 LFTR plants. Exo? Do you mean exa, (peta X 1000)? I see Google returns both.

If we extracted geothermal energy at that rate how long would it take to deplete the extraction sites and how many new wells would we need to drill every year?

Well let's see... The Geysers Geothermal Resource Area in Napa and Sonoma Counties has been producing geothermal energy since the 1960s, between 40 and 50 years. The Department of Energy, DOE, says the oldest nuclear power plants in the US still operating was licensed in 1969. They are licensed for 40 years, and license renewals are for another 20 years. Now how long do geothermal energy plants last? The geothermal plant at Larderello, Italy has been operating since 1904. Or 1913 according to wiki. The Wairakei Power Station in New Zealand has been operating since 1958. That rounds up the top 3 oldest geothermal power plants. Each one is older than the oldest nuclear power plant still in operation.

Also let's look at Old Faithful Geyser in Yellowstone, it was named in 1870, so it must of been erupting regularly by then.

If there are any more objecting questions I don't know what to think, except maybe you object to geothermal. Maybe because you own shares in nuclear power but not geothermal. Me, I don't own any shares but if I were to buy energy shares I'd buy geothermal, solar, or wind but not coal, natural gas, or nuclear power. At that, I'd try to buy shares in Chinese manufacturers, maybe Brazilian, Indian, and or Russian. BRIC.

Falcon

Here's where your math fails: That 500 MW LFTR will produce it's nameplate rating all day, every day with over 98% uptime over the 5 or 6 decades that it operates.

Your 500 megawatts of wind towers won't even come close.

First, where did the 500 MW LFTR come from? I used 100MW as an example. I could have said 100 turbines a month. That would make 500 MW a year. You're right though, wind is not a baseload. But geothermal is. In 2007 geothermal produced 13,000 gigawatts in California. That is a lot more than your 500 MW. As is what's produced in Iceland, there geothermal produced 79.7 petajoules, a joule being how many watts are produced in a second and peta- being 10^15.

Falcon

Stupid links... California nhtsa US Law.

Approved? How, why, and by whom? I know people that have installed aftermarket cruise control systems themselves. Are you asserting that cruise control DIY is illegal?

Please read my posts elsewhere in the thread where I point out this difference and don't put words in my mouth ,,.

"The comparison to cruise control is apt - cars that are equipped with cruise control meet federally-mandated safety standards - google's devices do not." The "cars" still meet all NHTSA safety requirements. You are asserting a positive. There is some federal safety law which Google failed to meet. Yet, I've seen no mention of that law. Furthermore, you've asserted that sitting in the driver's seat, paying attention to the vehicle, but not actually manipulating the controls at that time is illegal on the state level. Again, an direct statement by you that there is some law being broken by Google. And I've seen no evidence of that.

You are making a number of wholly unsubstantiated claims about federal and state laws. You are asserting that Google broke multiple laws under multiple jurisdictions. Yet you can't point to any law that was broken, other than your feelings that it should be illegal.

I can't prove it is legal. Why not? Because laws don't make things legal. It's not "legal" to breathe in that I can't find any law that states "the intake of air into your lungs is allowed by this law." They don't work that way. The laws say "this is illegal." The closest you get to the proof of legality is when the law says "this is illegal, unless ..." And I'm sure the lawmakers didn't make a law on self-driven cars yet, so such exceptions would be impossible to find.

So, you've asserted that state laws are broken. Which CA laws (since that's where the vast majority, if not all of the miles were driven) and which federal laws were broken in the operation of this vehicle? From my knowledge of traffic laws, there are none. You aren't presenting any yourself. I could drag up TX code (as that's where I took my classes in law and dabbled in traffic engineering) and show you right where it would be if it were there, but that won't prove anything. I can try if you like, but the "proof" is to pull up a law that was broken. Not suggest some "I think it should be illegal, so I'll assert my incorrect opinion as law" arguments. So go ahead.

And if there's anything in there where I put words in your mouth, please let me know what. Perhaps I worded things hypothetically to get you to answer one way or another on it, but you dodged and went off on a tangent. The simple facts are clear. You've asserted that it breaks CA law and US law and haven't cited any possible law it's in violation of. You've asserted that the software is the driver (or possibly the writer of the software) and apparently asserted (via a little logic, so correct me if I'm wrong) that if the software programmer is belted in, regardless of location, that since they have "care and control" that they would be legal, but if the programmer doesn't have his seatbelt on, that the car is illegal. However, again that's irrelevant at best and insane at worst. The car can't be "illegal." You don't give the car the ticket. The driver gets the ticket. And you are asserting that the cop would let the driver of the Google car go without a ticket, but would track down a programmer to give them a ticket. It's never going to happen. Cars aren't given tickets, people are. And when you can't cite a law that's been broken or describe a practical interaction if the car was pulled over that would result in a ticket or other charge, then I have to believe you are offended on principle, and there's actually nothing illegal.

Prove me wrong. Cite a law. It's easy. Here are some links that may help.

Wind is a proven technology, although all these horizontal-axis wind turbines are stupid.

Not all wind turbines are horizontal axis. There are vertical axis turbines as well. Actually there's a Best Buy in my area that has had a vertical axis wind turbine for years, the last tyme I went there they had added another one.

Out of curiosity when I went in I asked the greeter if they were selling them. He didn't know.

Geothermal is not the answer. Solar would be far more useful, as it produces power when we need it most, and we have control over the pollution inherent to the process... which we do NOT have over geothermal.

Solar is not the answer either. The answer is to use what is available in a given location. That means solar where solar is feasible, wind where it is plentiful, and geothermal where it is. Right now geothermal provides 30 MW, 20% of Hawaii's Big Island's energy. New York State has case studies of geothermal used in the state. Geothermal sources provide 27% of the Philippines energy. In 2007 California produced 13 terawatthours of energy, 4.5% of the energy the state used. Not only does geothermal provide 24% of Iceland's energy but it heats 87% of all buildings.

It is totally hogwash to discount the energy geothermal sources can provide.

Falcon

I'd be surprised if portable devices account for even 0.1% of household energy usage.

Maybe you should actually look into it rather than just making wild guesses? Here, I'll even do some of the work for you; 30 seconds of Googling finds:

This one estimates at 15-19%

And this one at about 10%

So it looks like you're at least 2 orders of magnitude off... But I guess completely uneducated guesses count as "insightful" these days.

--Jeremy

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I enjoy talking about education. The trouble is, it's very easy to have an opinion about what works and what doesn't work without having rigorous evaluation results supporting your premise. And it's very hard to get good results, because people are so complicated - it's not like administering a drug to someone and seeing how much their rash decreases (http://xkcd.com/790/).

It's important to evaluate claims for merit, otherwise the situation of having *too many* solutions just gets worse. For example, Gatto et al think the problem with schools is that they're part of a secret conspiracy to turn students into docile sheep for the Secret Masters of the Universe to exploit. To use your summation of his stance, he thinks that students need more freedom, and more chance to exercise their freedom, in order to not become these mindless factory slaves. So that's a claim. What evidence is there for it that this approach works?

1) You mention home schooling, and imply that I am against it or something (I'm not - in fact, I'll help my sister out with math and science if she home schools my niece.) This isn't an especially useful alternative, though, since aside from offering vouchers to parents to home school, you can't really implement it in a widespread fashion. Two-working-parent households means you still need to have to have traditional schooling.

2) You mention that students are held at gunpoint and forced to go to school. Well, there's a reason for that. =) Even before the Prussian model was adopted, parents would force their kids to go to the local schoolhouse, if they didn't just have a private tutor. It didn't seem to turn them into mindless drones.

3) The efficacy of private schools and charter schools is also hard to assess cleanly, since by their very nature parents who are actively engaged in their students' education are going to go to the extra effort of researching different educational options in their area, and involved parents are one of the most powerful indicators for educational success. If you disaggregate achievement data just by the socioeconomic status of the parents (rich parents tend to be more engaged in their students' learning than poor parents), this is one of the most consistent predictors of success for students, regardless of if they go to Montessori schools or the local public school. School culture is also important, and even poor kids going to La Jolla High are going to do better than their peers in the ghetto.

4) You claim that giving students more freedom to self-direct studies (such as with the Montessori method) will improve student learning. The trouble is that giving too much freedom (which I've alluded to before), such as Independant Study Plans and with Alternative Schools are known to have the highest dropout rates. Yes, as you say, these kids are already the kids that have been kicked out of the normal system, but if they're failing in the normal system due to the "prison-like" environment, should they not respond positively to being given more freedom? You asked for a reference for this, but you can pull the data yourself, if you'd like. The CDE STAR reporting system is all online: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/ For example, Chaparral High (an alternative school - http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2010&lstTestType=C&lstCounty=37&lstDistrict=68130-000&lstSchool=3732559&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1) has a pass rate of between 0% and 16% on the standardized tests, compared with rates that are two or three times higher at Grossmont High (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2585597/posts). You can use the dataquest system on CDE's website to pull dropout rates to study yourself, if you'd like. It c

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I enjoy talking about education. The trouble is, it's very easy to have an opinion about what works and what doesn't work without having rigorous evaluation results supporting your premise. And it's very hard to get good results, because people are so complicated - it's not like administering a drug to someone and seeing how much their rash decreases (http://xkcd.com/790/).

It's important to evaluate claims for merit, otherwise the situation of having *too many* solutions just gets worse. For example, Gatto et al think the problem with schools is that they're part of a secret conspiracy to turn students into docile sheep for the Secret Masters of the Universe to exploit. To use your summation of his stance, he thinks that students need more freedom, and more chance to exercise their freedom, in order to not become these mindless factory slaves. So that's a claim. What evidence is there for it that this approach works?

1) You mention home schooling, and imply that I am against it or something (I'm not - in fact, I'll help my sister out with math and science if she home schools my niece.) This isn't an especially useful alternative, though, since aside from offering vouchers to parents to home school, you can't really implement it in a widespread fashion. Two-working-parent households means you still need to have to have traditional schooling.

2) You mention that students are held at gunpoint and forced to go to school. Well, there's a reason for that. =) Even before the Prussian model was adopted, parents would force their kids to go to the local schoolhouse, if they didn't just have a private tutor. It didn't seem to turn them into mindless drones.

3) The efficacy of private schools and charter schools is also hard to assess cleanly, since by their very nature parents who are actively engaged in their students' education are going to go to the extra effort of researching different educational options in their area, and involved parents are one of the most powerful indicators for educational success. If you disaggregate achievement data just by the socioeconomic status of the parents (rich parents tend to be more engaged in their students' learning than poor parents), this is one of the most consistent predictors of success for students, regardless of if they go to Montessori schools or the local public school. School culture is also important, and even poor kids going to La Jolla High are going to do better than their peers in the ghetto.

4) You claim that giving students more freedom to self-direct studies (such as with the Montessori method) will improve student learning. The trouble is that giving too much freedom (which I've alluded to before), such as Independant Study Plans and with Alternative Schools are known to have the highest dropout rates. Yes, as you say, these kids are already the kids that have been kicked out of the normal system, but if they're failing in the normal system due to the "prison-like" environment, should they not respond positively to being given more freedom? You asked for a reference for this, but you can pull the data yourself, if you'd like. The CDE STAR reporting system is all online: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/ For example, Chaparral High (an alternative school - http://star.cde.ca.gov/star2010/ViewReport.asp?ps=true&lstTestYear=2010&lstTestType=C&lstCounty=37&lstDistrict=68130-000&lstSchool=3732559&lstGroup=1&lstSubGroup=1) has a pass rate of between 0% and 16% on the standardized tests, compared with rates that are two or three times higher at Grossmont High (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2585597/posts). You can use the dataquest system on CDE's website to pull dropout rates to study yourself, if you'd like. It c

Third, porn may be one of the last pillars we have left in this economy. When all the other businesses are starving for customers, people still want their porn.

This is completely wrong. The porno industry is a $13billion industry. Although that number can be disputed, it is not even .1% of the US economy. As a comparison, agriculture in California alone makes $36 billion, and even that only accounts for 2% or so of the state's production. Porn may be big business, but comparatively, it is not important.

Cite please. The only California laws I've read limit the disclosure of SSNs, not the collection.
http://www.privacy.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/ssnrecommendations.pdf Have a look for yourself and tell me I'm wrong

On the other hand, modern studies such as:

http://energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-004/CEC-200-2007-004.PDF

and

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120406767043794825.html
(don't have a link to the article they published, sorry)

These imply that the savings are negligible or, in the case of Indiana, *increased* electric usage. There is no clear answer, since the results depend heavily on the breakdown of electric usage (A/C, eletronics, etc), which varies depending on your region.

Here, I'll save you the trouble...

From http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html

Studies done in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time.

25-33 is common for high school in US public schools, middle school try to get smaller populations.

California law is 20-22

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/cs/mh/
http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R911190850/b

Private schools have much smaller class sizes.

California voters approved a high-speed rail ballot initiative recently that would build really high-speed trains from San Francisco to LA to San Diego, and also to points in between and Sacramento. The initiative approved $10Billion in bonds for construction - but the official estimated cost was about $30B, and the followup Oops-you-mean-the-WHOLE-Cost cost was about $40B, so they're depending on $30B of Federal money to magically fall from the sky.

Well, that would be true if Prop. 1A funds and Federal funds were assumed to be the only funds in the universe that could be used for the project. In fact, according to the High Speed Rail Authority, the current estimate is $45 billion:

$9 billion from Prop. 1A (about $1 billion of the Prop. 1A funds were for conventional rail improvements, not High Speed Rail per se.)
$17-19 billion in federal funds
$4-5 billion in local funds
$10-12 billion in private funds

They've gotten approval for something like $2B of that $8B the Feds want to spend in the whole country,

Not quite true. California was awarded approximately $2.35 billion of the $8 billion in rail awards issued last year -- it had requested something like $3 billion, IIRC, of about $100 billion in requests from across the nation. Of the $2.35 billion California got last year, $2.25 billion was for the High Speed Rail project, and the remainder was for unrelated upgrades to existing rail service.

California has applied for around $1 billion of the $2.5 billion available this year in rail awards, out of $8.5 billion in requests from States (requests are lower this year because this years awards require a minimum 20% state commitment, while last years did not.)

I ride a 600 pound motorcycle, so I use less gas than almost EVERY skinny person that drives their car to work alone. And I get to use the HOV lane, which means I'm not in stop-and-go traffic as often.

You don't drive between cars? In CA, that's specifically legal (though still seems kind of dangerous.)

Slightly off topic, but funny and relating to verifying the above, apparently CA highway patrol gets the frequently asked question "If I'm pregnant, can I use the HOV lane?"

Only in California...

Sorry, that is not the definition of theft. Here is California's definition of theft. The item taken need only be "property", not an object, and includes services. There is no stipulation that the taker have no intent to return the item. In Child's case, if his withholding passwords were indeed thought to be theft, the value of the property would make it grand theft. Interestingly, since he didn't use a firearm, the maximum sentence would be one year. Though, I suppose the state could file a civil suite against him to recoup their losses. Not sure how that works.

"In California, where something like 90% of electricity is generated from burning natural gas, electric vehicles in California would essentially be running on natural gas."

Umm, no.

http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/overview/energy_sources.html

Natural Gas 46.5%
Nuclear 14.9%
Large Hydro 9.6%
Coal* 15.5%
Renewable 13.5%

Where California's NG comes from

In State 12.9%
Canada 22.1%
Rockies 24.2%
Southwest 40.8%

What's your point? We are also committed to building a high-speed train from Barstow to Lodi, at astonishing cost.

Hmm, looks like the planned route goes around Lodi and nowhere near Barstow; make stuff up much?

I do seem to recall that the initial section won't connect any terribly important/large communities, being located somewhere in the Central Valley where construction is expected to be relatively simple, but pretending the line just connects two small towns is pretty egregiously disingenuous.