As I understood it, the idea was to process fuel from older reactors into something with a lower half life. Fact is, we have a lot of waste to deal with and the lower the half life the better.
In any case I think freezing R&D on fission because some 30+ year old reactors had fairly well contained accidents might be a bad idea. Just because the older reactors or even current ones aren't as foolproof as we'd like doesn't mean they can't be.
Nuclear plants can be safe if and only if you don't rely on designs from the 60s.... Look up Thorium cycle reactors. Their waste products, not so much, but modern ones produce less of the above.
But don't let facts get in the way of your rant. Carry on...
Have a look at the graphs of the 3 scenarios in the paper. While I know it is unusual to RTFA, I did. I'm not saying that control would necessarily work in the real world (then again, if the model is any good, it might), just that their model looks a lot like a step test on a first or second order process. Probably the model isn't very good, but hey, I am not an economist.
I know it is sarcasm, but last time it was tried, the population was not armed with modern weapons. This time around, they are both well armed and adept at guerrilla warfare. South Africa officially is the only country to give up their nuclear program voluntarily, but who knows, there may be a couple of nukes someone forgot to mention somewhere. They were suspected of running a test or two, so they might even work.
In summary, good luck with that - the suggestion isn't particularly amusing.
The energy input to produce each calorie of food, must either stop or rise to reflect the scarcity price.
You do realize that the primary energy input for agriculture is the Sun, right?
The primary energy input for almost everything is the sun - if you go back a little ways (though not too far cosmologically). Sure you can plow fields with oxen. You might struggle to keep up with demand (oxen are slower than tractors) and harvesting will also be labour intensive. In America, I suppose you could just use your corn to make bio-diesel, but in other places in the world, this may prove unpractical.
But you are very correct, we have not run out of cheap oil, and can even make more. South Africa makes both petrol and diesel from coal. I am not sure how economically viable it is(I never looked that closely), but it is the same price at the pump.
Africa is a little more complex than that, and in some parts (southern Africa mostly - I cannot comment on anything north of Malawi or so...), workers are already fairly expensive and environmental controls can be very strict. Ineffective often, but strict never-the-less.
I suppose the best solution there would be to contrive a solution that appeared to be in their best interests. I would assume that anyone able to do so would be both powerful and affluent or soon to become so.
A control mechanism need not involve only limiting something (showing restraint). It may be active, and add to the process as well.
Any decent engineer could probably put together a PID loop or two (possibly cascaded) to keep stability in the system, but what would you use as a control mechanism?
I really just don't see the point of continuing to argue with you. In the space of two posts you have basically called me a simpleton, implied I can't distinguish fact and opinion and ignored my point and let us not even mention your towering condescension. Honestly, would you debate someone like that? Have you read your own posts?
Perhaps my phrase "confirmation bias filters" brings this out in you? If so, I will happily apologies to OP for that phrase - as I noted elsewhere, I see his (and probably yours) point, but I do think the bias in the discovery article is noteworthy and obvious, which is why I posted in the first place.
In any case I could filter all this out of your posts, as I did when I read the article, and address the meat of your argument. We could discuss literary styles, marketing and modern journalism, slants both obvious and buried. This all could be worth something and interesting. On the weight of things, given your debating style, I just don't think it is worth the effort. So, I'll wish you a good day, and be on my way.
Those systems are easy to disable, and difficult to retrieve (for example if you drop the black box into a deep part of the ocean). Where the plane went is useful. Why it went there stops other planes doing the same thing... Or hopefully anyway.
So, "the author's personal opinion is given to create bias." and " overall article make it pretty clear that nothing outside of an opinion suggests that[belief has something to do with it]". Your words, not mine.
Ok. I am not one of those people who needs to be right all the time, nor am I someone who needs to prove it. It is my considered opinion that both the OP's interpretation and yours ignore the bias completely for most likely the reason given, but that is neither here nor there. I am going to leave it as this.
Since the OP was considering specifically the discovery article, I see no problem in questioning his interpretation. The article is almost certainly biased, but I was commenting on the statement that "The Discovery article makes it pretty clear towards the end that..."
Nothing has "worked on me", I am just saying the article does not make it pretty clear. Perhaps OP read the actual study, and commented from that point of view. Perhaps not.
The article does not actually cite much at all. I see your point and your take on it, but I still think the article slants the other direction, taken as a whole. It isn't insignificant that they end with Fotuhi's quote. Journalism is what journalism is. I would not go as far as to state that the article makes it clear it is religious activity not belief. The author's bias may be showing a bit there.
I am not sure we read the same article. Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible. It even ends with '“My personal belief is that having a strong belief is key to getting the benefits,” Fotuhi said.'
Right or wrong, the article says what it says.. The fact that you missed this would suggest you may need to check your confirmation bias filters a bit.
I am saying privacy is important within the workplace (I am not actually technically in IT). By extension, even though there are some things I don't care if I'm monitored on (gaming being a trivial example), because there are some things I have to care about, I must care always. It may not be clear enough from my post, but at the time, I thought the contrast was obvious. OP does not care at all.
Slashdot Mirror
As I understood it, the idea was to process fuel from older reactors into something with a lower half life. Fact is, we have a lot of waste to deal with and the lower the half life the better.
In any case I think freezing R&D on fission because some 30+ year old reactors had fairly well contained accidents might be a bad idea. Just because the older reactors or even current ones aren't as foolproof as we'd like doesn't mean they can't be.
Call it a minimum requirement. If nuclear plants run on 1960s tech they will not be safe. Fukushima complied with the safety requirements of the day.
Nuclear plants can be safe if and only if you don't rely on designs from the 60s.... Look up Thorium cycle reactors. Their waste products, not so much, but modern ones produce less of the above.
But don't let facts get in the way of your rant. Carry on...
Evidence may suggest otherwise:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-10/sasol-profit-rises-26-as-currency-gain-counters-gas-writedown.html
Never said it was noble... But it was voluntary.
Have a look at the graphs of the 3 scenarios in the paper. While I know it is unusual to RTFA, I did. I'm not saying that control would necessarily work in the real world (then again, if the model is any good, it might), just that their model looks a lot like a step test on a first or second order process. Probably the model isn't very good, but hey, I am not an economist.
I know it is sarcasm, but last time it was tried, the population was not armed with modern weapons. This time around, they are both well armed and adept at guerrilla warfare. South Africa officially is the only country to give up their nuclear program voluntarily, but who knows, there may be a couple of nukes someone forgot to mention somewhere. They were suspected of running a test or two, so they might even work.
In summary, good luck with that - the suggestion isn't particularly amusing.
The energy input to produce each calorie of food, must either stop or rise to reflect the scarcity price.
You do realize that the primary energy input for agriculture is the Sun, right?
The primary energy input for almost everything is the sun - if you go back a little ways (though not too far cosmologically). Sure you can plow fields with oxen. You might struggle to keep up with demand (oxen are slower than tractors) and harvesting will also be labour intensive. In America, I suppose you could just use your corn to make bio-diesel, but in other places in the world, this may prove unpractical.
But you are very correct, we have not run out of cheap oil, and can even make more. South Africa makes both petrol and diesel from coal. I am not sure how economically viable it is(I never looked that closely), but it is the same price at the pump.
next will be Africa as the new China.
Africa is a little more complex than that, and in some parts (southern Africa mostly - I cannot comment on anything north of Malawi or so...), workers are already fairly expensive and environmental controls can be very strict. Ineffective often, but strict never-the-less.
I suppose the best solution there would be to contrive a solution that appeared to be in their best interests. I would assume that anyone able to do so would be both powerful and affluent or soon to become so.
A control mechanism need not involve only limiting something (showing restraint). It may be active, and add to the process as well.
Any decent engineer could probably put together a PID loop or two (possibly cascaded) to keep stability in the system, but what would you use as a control mechanism?
I really just don't see the point of continuing to argue with you. In the space of two posts you have basically called me a simpleton, implied I can't distinguish fact and opinion and ignored my point and let us not even mention your towering condescension. Honestly, would you debate someone like that? Have you read your own posts?
Perhaps my phrase "confirmation bias filters" brings this out in you? If so, I will happily apologies to OP for that phrase - as I noted elsewhere, I see his (and probably yours) point, but I do think the bias in the discovery article is noteworthy and obvious, which is why I posted in the first place.
In any case I could filter all this out of your posts, as I did when I read the article, and address the meat of your argument. We could discuss literary styles, marketing and modern journalism, slants both obvious and buried. This all could be worth something and interesting. On the weight of things, given your debating style, I just don't think it is worth the effort. So, I'll wish you a good day, and be on my way.
Cheers.
Those systems are easy to disable, and difficult to retrieve (for example if you drop the black box into a deep part of the ocean). Where the plane went is useful. Why it went there stops other planes doing the same thing... Or hopefully anyway.
It may be useful to have data capture from internal systems - things like engine temperatures, control positions, etc.
If you think the Discovery article is A-OK, take it up with this guy down the thread: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
So, "the author's personal opinion is given to create bias." and " overall article make it pretty clear that nothing outside of an opinion suggests that[belief has something to do with it]". Your words, not mine.
Ok. I am not one of those people who needs to be right all the time, nor am I someone who needs to prove it. It is my considered opinion that both the OP's interpretation and yours ignore the bias completely for most likely the reason given, but that is neither here nor there. I am going to leave it as this.
Since the OP was considering specifically the discovery article, I see no problem in questioning his interpretation. The article is almost certainly biased, but I was commenting on the statement that "The Discovery article makes it pretty clear towards the end that ..."
Nothing has "worked on me", I am just saying the article does not make it pretty clear. Perhaps OP read the actual study, and commented from that point of view. Perhaps not.
And yet, here we are, posting on /. On a Saturday.
The article does not actually cite much at all. I see your point and your take on it, but I still think the article slants the other direction, taken as a whole. It isn't insignificant that they end with Fotuhi's quote. Journalism is what journalism is. I would not go as far as to state that the article makes it clear it is religious activity not belief. The author's bias may be showing a bit there.
A fair point, looking more closely. I'll go check my own filters... :P
Though it may be worth considering whether such activities might produce strong belief of strong belief produces such activities.
I am not commenting on the correctness of the article, merely OP's interpretation.
I am not sure we read the same article. Not to invoke an argument, but the TFA talks about listening to sermons and reading the bible. It even ends with '“My personal belief is that having a strong belief is key to getting the benefits,” Fotuhi said.'
Right or wrong, the article says what it says.. The fact that you missed this would suggest you may need to check your confirmation bias filters a bit.
You are correct. I had misread your post.
No worries. Apparently I was unclear anyway - given the moderation, I don't think anyone else got it either...
I am saying privacy is important within the workplace (I am not actually technically in IT). By extension, even though there are some things I don't care if I'm monitored on (gaming being a trivial example), because there are some things I have to care about, I must care always. It may not be clear enough from my post, but at the time, I thought the contrast was obvious. OP does not care at all.