To create these solar/wind farms is a net loss in terms of environmental impact. Not only do you have to use "fossil fuels" to construct them, you also have to clear large amounts of land.
Couldn't those cute little bunnies and spotted owls use that land better?~
But I digress: Nuclear is much better for the envioronment than wind/solar power. It is that simple.
No. I'm saying that propaganda you have been fed about the dangers of nuclear power are largely untrue, and that there isn't anything to worry about.
Now before I go any further lets step back and compare pictures of coal plants to nuclear plants:
Coal plant: Plant is DWARFED by a MOUNTIAN of coal. This is a 50-60 day supply.
Nuclear plant: Every single ounce of fuel that plant has ever used is still in that picture (in holding tanks).
Now that we've seen the difference, lets talk about it. Most of the fuel used by the coal plant gets released directly into the atmosphere, and we have to breathe it in. In large quantities the gasses released by a coal plant can be harmful--And there are numerous examples of neighborhoods around coal plants having very poor air quality.
Now lets look at the nuclear plant again; Every ounce of fuel it has ever used is contained within the plant--that spent fuel is much denser, and harmful than the gasses released by a coal plant, but the likelyhood of actually coming into such contact with it are slim to none.
Have you ever seen what they did when they tested those containment casks? They placed a trailer carrying a cask across a railway. Then they launched a rocket-train at it. The train hit the trailer at > 70 MPH. the cask was dented, but maintained containment. Then they put it and the train engine next to each other in a pool of jet fuel and let it burn for > 30 minutes. Temperatures on the outside were freakin' hot (as you'd expect) but temperatures on the inside didn't get nearly high enough to melt the spent fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel_shipping_cask
So, basically what I'm saying is that I don't worry about nuclear power because there is nothing to worry about. Aside from one major accident (And that in Russia) there have been no major accidents (where containment was lost) at any nuclear power station.
When you say that CO2 "contribute...to the...global warming" be very careful not to confuse coincidence with causation. The world's oceans are a primary source of the world's CO2--The colder the temperatures are, the more they soak up, the warmer the temperatures are the more they give off. On top of that, there is that massive yellow thing in the sky; they call it "Sol." That star is hotter than you can possibly fathom, and when its activity increases, the temperatures here go up. Looking back at history, this planet has been both much colder, and much warmer than it is today.
Add into that, that throughout recorded history warmer temperatures have been good for us (improving crop yields, for example), and colder temperatures have been bad for us (lower crop yields). I don't understand where these people are coming from saying that warmer temperatures are bad....
I already have nuclear waste in my back yard. I'm within the kill-zone for Nuclear Power Plant in Limerick township, Montgomery County , PA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Nuclear_Power_Plant. And not the "I'll die instantly" zone, the "I'll die a long, painful death due to radiation overdose" zone. All this and I have never lost a wink of sleep worrying about it.
Offsetting one's "carbon footprint" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard in awhile. Its called riding a bicycle. I do it (durring the summer, anyway). I live in the suburbs of Philadelphia, in a comfortable home (4 bedroom, 2.5 bath). Mr. Gore's home is several times the size of mine, and uses more electricity in a month than my home uses in a year.
My comment was not meant to say "Gore does no good" but was meant to say "Gore says there are things you should do, like using fuel-efficient vehicles, and he doesn't even follow his own advice."
I have absolutely no problem with someone telling me that they think I should so something--Like drive a fuel efficient car (I do BTW: 1994 Corola)--just as long as they follow their own advice. Mr. Gore does not but, as you say: Why let the facts get in the way?
If true, that is even worse than I had thought. The cleanest (and cheapest) power plants are nuclear. The problem with wind/solar power generation is the incredible amount of energy required to create the collectors, and the small amount of power they provide on a regular basis--That and you're screwed when its cloudy and windless...
Good call on Gore; People like him disgust me. They run around saying we should do all kinds of things "for the environment," and then at the end of the day don't follow their own advice.
Between his large house (high electricity usage), usage of multiple fuel-ineffecient vehicles (gas guzzlers), and frequent usage of commercial airliners (the horror... the horror...) he is a perfect example of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that one often sees in/with politicians. To top off his outlandish claims, he was captured on camera saying that he "took the inititive in creating the internet."
With all that we had best make sure he stays the hell away from San Fransisco.....
What I was saying with my third point was that, rather than giving them barely enough to survive, that we need to support them into improving their lives; I have a problem giving handouts to people who will never repay that debt (not just monetary) to society--However, if they want to improve their living situation, and are willing to work hard to do so then I have almost no problem with programs to support them in this, I would just prefer that said programs weren't run by the government.
One thing on my fourth point that you missed is that the police treat people with past convictions differently. Because of this, they are more likely to be convicted again in the future. Another big contributer to the higher rates of convictions for drug-related offenses is that there is money in selling drugs--people can make more money selling drugs than they can working fulltime at McDonalds; The risks also much higher.
There are four things that keep the poor in their current income bracket: 1): Not wanting [things] to change; 2): Not believing that they can move upwards in society; 3): Democrats advancing social programs that make people live to be on the dole, and: 4): The prison system (once you've been in once, you're more likely to return to it.).
We can work on (and need to) #'s 2, 3, and 4. #1 is for each individual to work out for themselves; Only they can want to change--We can just tear down some of the roadblocks.
But that requires luck. You have to actually be there to see that the parking lot is relatively full. Unless it is in a convienient place (I.E. you would have to drive past it to get to a more desireable eatery) it is inefficent to do this unless you know when they are at their busiest.
What the data (when they are busy) allows you to do is plan your trip ahead, and not have to drive past the eatery multiple times while wasting your valuable lunch break.
Not really. Basically he worked out when the stores he would visit were at their peak # of customers durring the day, and then go durring that time period. The 40% represents visits where:
A): The branch wasn't as as busy as they sometimes were, and/or
B): The employees weren't slacking off, and/or
C): He missed the peak of business.
Any combination of A, B, and/or C could result in wait times of 5 minutes.
That said, without examining the data he whould have been lucky to get anywhere near 60% without investing alot of time to find out that information himself.
Thanks for stating the obvious. We've know about this for years. The people with the power to fix this just havn't been told by enough of us with enough regularity.
What they were doing is essentially a Man in the Middle attack
Sorry I didn't elaborate--Brainfart... But that is still a DoS attack in that they are using their equipment to deny service.
(and you can bet it was distributed... I'm sure there are multiple Sandvine boxes involved.)
But I'm sure that, while they had multiple machines set to deny service, that only one machine was involved (or perhaps two if both users attempting to handshake were comcast subscribers on different nodes--one at each end) in injecting forged RST packets when two peers tried to connect--That basically when you tried to handshake, only one machine was involved in injecting forged RST packets for that handshake--Thus it wasn't a DDoS in the traditional sense: Using multiple machines to take down a single target.
Comcast was (is?) not doing a distributed denial of service attack against bit-torrent connections. They were doing a plain old Denial of Service.
A DDoS attack is where you get a bunch of nodes teaming up to take down another node--Computers 0-C team up to overwhelm computer F.
What Comcast was (is?) actually doing is using ONE machine to inject forged RST packets into the data streams to both parties attempting to connect to one another. Thus it is a plain old DoS attack.
My home of 17 years has had the same phone number for as long as I can remember (I learned it, and how to use a telephone when I was 4-5), and the only reason it would change is if my parents decided to move (unlikely).
The thing that would surprise me here is that the order to call-back would stay in the right place for 10 years, and not have been lost.
You obviously need to re-read your line; I read it correctly:
a candidate should never lose an election to another candidate whom a larger number of voters support.
A candidate (who gets fewer votes) should never (ever) lose an election to another candidate whom a larger number of voters support.
I assume that by this:
The problem I refer to is that it's possible in the US for a candidate who loses the popular vote to nonetheless win the bulk of the electoral college and thus the election; indeed, we've seen this happen in recent history.
You are referring to the 2000 election, with special regard to Florida. I feel I must point out to you, that George W. Bush won the election, even in EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL and convoluted recounting method dreamed up by Gore's supporters in weeks and months following the election. Again, and again durring that election the news-media (television news, especially) did everything in their power to support Gore, including calling the election for Gore, before the polls had closed, and in doing so, cost Bush tens of thousands of votes. On average, it took the television news stations less time to give Gore states he had lost than it took for them to give Bush states he had won.
Personally, I'm glad Bush won; I know Gore would not have been able to handle certian events nearly as well as Bush has done. Going off topic a bit, but on the subject of the wars that we, The United States of America, are fighting in the middle east: We have a choice, do we want to live in an Islamic theocracy or not? I choose not, and therefore, I wholeheartedly support the continuation of these aforementioned wars, until the governments of the affected countries can stand on their own against the threat of terroristic Islamic opposition. The question of whether or not we should have gone war is, at this point, moot. We made that decision with full support from both major political parties. And, as a consequence of that decision, we must remain until the affected countries can stand on their own. As for bringing in the UN, this is a stupid idea: for proof of this, look no further than the rebuilding from WWII: Japan was sucessfully rebuilt (solely under U.S. supervision) in far less time, and at far lower cost than Europe, which was overseen by the U.S. and her 'allies.'
Back on-topic: As to this "tyranny of the majority" that you mention, I ask this: Which is better, to have a country governed by the will of the majority, or the will of the minority? I would argue, that it is better for the majority to be in charge; to see evidence of this, look no farther than the M.P.A.A./R.I.A.A.: They are a minority doing their best (and succeding for the most part) to effect their will upon the majority (us) to the detriment of the majority (us). If the laws were not in favor of the minority (recording industry), and rather in the favor of the majority (us), we would be much better served.
a candidate should never lose an election to another candidate whom a larger number of voters support.
I'm sorry, WHAT?
It was my understanding, that the entire purpose of democracy was that the majority would rule; All the way back to Athens this has been the rule: The person who gets the most stone (votes) wins. I personally think we should carry this idea further, and have it cover legislation too: Any bill must get at least 50% of voters to vote for it (maybe more?). That way, laws would better represent what the people want.
Are you suggesting that we should abandon this, and give the least popluar candidate the win, even when more people support his opponent?
So *that* explains the 2004 election. It all makes sense now.
I think you just proved your parent comment's sig....
Oh the irony.
Back on-topic; The difference between scientists and politicians is that, by and large, when the result doesn't match the hypothesis, the scientist will retool the experiment around a different hypothesis, while the politician will just stubbornly and hardheadedly insist that the result is non-typical and change nothing.
I'm going to assume also, that you were insinuating that this explains the *Democrats* putting forward an un-electable candidate after they tried it in 2000........
If any of these examples harm people, they do so to people who are able to defend themselves in some way.
So pictures/videos of violent crimes (sleeping bum getting beaten), or acts or terrorism (9/11 or any of the beheading videos) should be illegal to view or possess?
And then what about that guy you have to kill in the first quest for the dark brotherhood in Oblivion? (You find him sleeping in an inn, and it is recommended that you kill him while he is sleeping.)
The fact that you can tell the difference between the top of the slope and the bottom proves it is a fallacious arguement.
.and to be fair, in many cultures material depicting 16 year-olds involved in sexual activity does not warrant any penalty whatsoever. Likewise, in many cultures pictures of children who are merely nude does not make the public assume ill-intent and froth at the mouth with anger.
Another issue here (that parent touches on) has to do with the definition of "pornography." This has proven to be quite hard to define other than "I know it when I see it," but clearly, a picture of little Leslie naked in the tub is != pornography.
Slashdot Mirror
And here is why it is stupid:
To create these solar/wind farms is a net loss in terms of environmental impact. Not only do you have to use "fossil fuels" to construct them, you also have to clear large amounts of land.
Couldn't those cute little bunnies and spotted owls use that land better?~
But I digress: Nuclear is much better for the envioronment than wind/solar power. It is that simple.
No. I'm saying that propaganda you have been fed about the dangers of nuclear power are largely untrue, and that there isn't anything to worry about.
Now before I go any further lets step back and compare pictures of coal plants to nuclear plants:
Coal plant: Plant is DWARFED by a MOUNTIAN of coal. This is a 50-60 day supply.
Nuclear plant: Every single ounce of fuel that plant has ever used is still in that picture (in holding tanks).
Now that we've seen the difference, lets talk about it. Most of the fuel used by the coal plant gets released directly into the atmosphere, and we have to breathe it in. In large quantities the gasses released by a coal plant can be harmful--And there are numerous examples of neighborhoods around coal plants having very poor air quality.
Now lets look at the nuclear plant again; Every ounce of fuel it has ever used is contained within the plant--that spent fuel is much denser, and harmful than the gasses released by a coal plant, but the likelyhood of actually coming into such contact with it are slim to none.
Have you ever seen what they did when they tested those containment casks? They placed a trailer carrying a cask across a railway. Then they launched a rocket-train at it. The train hit the trailer at > 70 MPH. the cask was dented, but maintained containment. Then they put it and the train engine next to each other in a pool of jet fuel and let it burn for > 30 minutes. Temperatures on the outside were freakin' hot (as you'd expect) but temperatures on the inside didn't get nearly high enough to melt the spent fuel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel_shipping_cask
So, basically what I'm saying is that I don't worry about nuclear power because there is nothing to worry about. Aside from one major accident (And that in Russia) there have been no major accidents (where containment was lost) at any nuclear power station.
When you say that CO2 "contribute...to the...global warming" be very careful not to confuse coincidence with causation. The world's oceans are a primary source of the world's CO2--The colder the temperatures are, the more they soak up, the warmer the temperatures are the more they give off. On top of that, there is that massive yellow thing in the sky; they call it "Sol." That star is hotter than you can possibly fathom, and when its activity increases, the temperatures here go up. Looking back at history, this planet has been both much colder, and much warmer than it is today.
Add into that, that throughout recorded history warmer temperatures have been good for us (improving crop yields, for example), and colder temperatures have been bad for us (lower crop yields). I don't understand where these people are coming from saying that warmer temperatures are bad....
I for one, welcome our solar overlord.....~
I already have nuclear waste in my back yard. I'm within the kill-zone for Nuclear Power Plant in Limerick township, Montgomery County , PA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Nuclear_Power_Plant. And not the "I'll die instantly" zone, the "I'll die a long, painful death due to radiation overdose" zone. All this and I have never lost a wink of sleep worrying about it.
Offsetting one's "carbon footprint" is just about the stupidest thing I've heard in awhile. Its called riding a bicycle. I do it (durring the summer, anyway). I live in the suburbs of Philadelphia, in a comfortable home (4 bedroom, 2.5 bath). Mr. Gore's home is several times the size of mine, and uses more electricity in a month than my home uses in a year.
My comment was not meant to say "Gore does no good" but was meant to say "Gore says there are things you should do, like using fuel-efficient vehicles, and he doesn't even follow his own advice."
I have absolutely no problem with someone telling me that they think I should so something--Like drive a fuel efficient car (I do BTW: 1994 Corola)--just as long as they follow their own advice. Mr. Gore does not but, as you say: Why let the facts get in the way?
If true, that is even worse than I had thought. The cleanest (and cheapest) power plants are nuclear. The problem with wind/solar power generation is the incredible amount of energy required to create the collectors, and the small amount of power they provide on a regular basis--That and you're screwed when its cloudy and windless...
Good call on Gore; People like him disgust me. They run around saying we should do all kinds of things "for the environment," and then at the end of the day don't follow their own advice.
Between his large house (high electricity usage), usage of multiple fuel-ineffecient vehicles (gas guzzlers), and frequent usage of commercial airliners (the horror... the horror...) he is a perfect example of the "do as I say, not as I do" mentality that one often sees in/with politicians. To top off his outlandish claims, he was captured on camera saying that he "took the inititive in creating the internet."
With all that we had best make sure he stays the hell away from San Fransisco.....
I wanted him to say it twenty seven times, but he only wanted to say it twenty six.....
What I was saying with my third point was that, rather than giving them barely enough to survive, that we need to support them into improving their lives; I have a problem giving handouts to people who will never repay that debt (not just monetary) to society--However, if they want to improve their living situation, and are willing to work hard to do so then I have almost no problem with programs to support them in this, I would just prefer that said programs weren't run by the government.
One thing on my fourth point that you missed is that the police treat people with past convictions differently. Because of this, they are more likely to be convicted again in the future. Another big contributer to the higher rates of convictions for drug-related offenses is that there is money in selling drugs--people can make more money selling drugs than they can working fulltime at McDonalds; The risks also much higher.
Not quite:
There are four things that keep the poor in their current income bracket:
1): Not wanting [things] to change;
2): Not believing that they can move upwards in society;
3): Democrats advancing social programs that make people live to be on the dole, and:
4): The prison system (once you've been in once, you're more likely to return to it.).
We can work on (and need to) #'s 2, 3, and 4. #1 is for each individual to work out for themselves; Only they can want to change--We can just tear down some of the roadblocks.
But that requires luck. You have to actually be there to see that the parking lot is relatively full. Unless it is in a convienient place (I.E. you would have to drive past it to get to a more desireable eatery) it is inefficent to do this unless you know when they are at their busiest.
What the data (when they are busy) allows you to do is plan your trip ahead, and not have to drive past the eatery multiple times while wasting your valuable lunch break.
No it wouldn't.
Aquiring IBM would just make them brag about how they had something better in the pipeline whenever anyone released anything.
Not really. Basically he worked out when the stores he would visit were at their peak # of customers durring the day, and then go durring that time period. The 40% represents visits where: A): The branch wasn't as as busy as they sometimes were, and/or B): The employees weren't slacking off, and/or C): He missed the peak of business. Any combination of A, B, and/or C could result in wait times of 5 minutes. That said, without examining the data he whould have been lucky to get anywhere near 60% without investing alot of time to find out that information himself.
Thanks for stating the obvious. We've know about this for years. The people with the power to fix this just havn't been told by enough of us with enough regularity.
Alcohol is a diuretic--That'll just compound the problem of long bathroom waits.
Comcast was (is?) not doing a distributed denial of service attack against bit-torrent connections. They were doing a plain old Denial of Service.
A DDoS attack is where you get a bunch of nodes teaming up to take down another node--Computers 0-C team up to overwhelm computer F.
What Comcast was (is?) actually doing is using ONE machine to inject forged RST packets into the data streams to both parties attempting to connect to one another. Thus it is a plain old DoS attack.
My home of 17 years has had the same phone number for as long as I can remember (I learned it, and how to use a telephone when I was 4-5), and the only reason it would change is if my parents decided to move (unlikely).
The thing that would surprise me here is that the order to call-back would stay in the right place for 10 years, and not have been lost.
I assume that by this:You are referring to the 2000 election, with special regard to Florida. I feel I must point out to you, that George W. Bush won the election, even in EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL and convoluted recounting method dreamed up by Gore's supporters in weeks and months following the election. Again, and again durring that election the news-media (television news, especially) did everything in their power to support Gore, including calling the election for Gore, before the polls had closed, and in doing so, cost Bush tens of thousands of votes. On average, it took the television news stations less time to give Gore states he had lost than it took for them to give Bush states he had won.
Personally, I'm glad Bush won; I know Gore would not have been able to handle certian events nearly as well as Bush has done. Going off topic a bit, but on the subject of the wars that we, The United States of America, are fighting in the middle east: We have a choice, do we want to live in an Islamic theocracy or not? I choose not, and therefore, I wholeheartedly support the continuation of these aforementioned wars, until the governments of the affected countries can stand on their own against the threat of terroristic Islamic opposition. The question of whether or not we should have gone war is, at this point, moot. We made that decision with full support from both major political parties. And, as a consequence of that decision, we must remain until the affected countries can stand on their own. As for bringing in the UN, this is a stupid idea: for proof of this, look no further than the rebuilding from WWII: Japan was sucessfully rebuilt (solely under U.S. supervision) in far less time, and at far lower cost than Europe, which was overseen by the U.S. and her 'allies.'
Back on-topic: As to this "tyranny of the majority" that you mention, I ask this: Which is better, to have a country governed by the will of the majority, or the will of the minority? I would argue, that it is better for the majority to be in charge; to see evidence of this, look no farther than the M.P.A.A./R.I.A.A.: They are a minority doing their best (and succeding for the most part) to effect their will upon the majority (us) to the detriment of the majority (us). If the laws were not in favor of the minority (recording industry), and rather in the favor of the majority (us), we would be much better served.
I'm sorry, WHAT?
It was my understanding, that the entire purpose of democracy was that the majority would rule; All the way back to Athens this has been the rule: The person who gets the most stone (votes) wins. I personally think we should carry this idea further, and have it cover legislation too: Any bill must get at least 50% of voters to vote for it (maybe more?). That way, laws would better represent what the people want.
Are you suggesting that we should abandon this, and give the least popluar candidate the win, even when more people support his opponent?
I think you just proved your parent comment's sig....
Oh the irony.
Back on-topic; The difference between scientists and politicians is that, by and large, when the result doesn't match the hypothesis, the scientist will retool the experiment around a different hypothesis, while the politician will just stubbornly and hardheadedly insist that the result is non-typical and change nothing.
I'm going to assume also, that you were insinuating that this explains the *Democrats* putting forward an un-electable candidate after they tried it in 2000........
The fact that you can tell the difference between the top of the slope and the bottom proves it is a fallacious arguement.