As I mentioned, a major requirement for a martian base is going to be rocket propellant production, which is an activity that can work intermittently quite well. In addition, you could siphon off a little bit of the hydrogen for fuel cell usage. Chances are that the total mass of the system would be quite a bit lower than if you had to use a nuclear unit.
the thing about why they got it so early and why they stagnated now, is that as you might remember if you read slashdot and wasnt a total fanboi, you can't make a technology company if you can't make things either cheaper or better and preferably both.
I had no idea that Tesla was going to be the world leader in Driverless vehicles. Well as last in this race, time to shut them down, sell the proceeds forj the bankruptcy sale and open some coal mines.
Really. Since "marketing" and "staying power" count for more than "working and deployed technology", Tesla should be proud to be last on the list.
This is one of those articles where it is clear that the journalist made the list first, putting Tesla last to get more clicks, and then made up BS numbers to justify it.
Hell, I didn't even know there was a race! How many laps?
A lack of water will stunt the growth of trees... What exactly are the qualifications for being an ecologist again? Are they hiring?
I'm no botanist, but I do know that if you put water on plants, they grow.
The article is badly flawed. Water isn't going to be the determinant. I'm not certain how they projected that the Northeast of North America is goint to turn into a desert anyhow.
The point is rather than if you plan for a commercial maple outfit, how many trees on what kind of acreage can you possibly water without (1) running out of that free water from the stream you'll be needing, (2) keeping the young trees watered long enough to become of a size you can squeeze for sap.
Scale matters, you should get some.
Warmth and the way the winter weather breaks is a bigger issue AFAIAC. The Maple trees will slowly work their way north. The question is will they supplant other trees, and will there be people to harvest the sap when it rises in late winter early spring? These issues will be a bigger problem.
Another thing interesting is there is a claim that the climate will be drier. I hope they are not talking about climate overall. If they are, they have it backwards. Some areas will be drier, others will be a lot wetter. Average temps going up equals higher rate of water evaporating, so unless it disappears like the water that covered the entire earth by several miles after the Noahchian flood, therre's going to be more rainfall overall.
For the love of God, won't somebody please think of the pancakes?!?
I am! Please leave the maple syrup off it!
There is something about Maple Syrup that is really off-putting to me. I can't stand to be in the same room as anyone who is using it.
Tase and smell being related, have some wide variations. I have never heard of maple syrup issues, but if you have a problem, it's real. I have a sharp sense of smell, but I cannot smell bayberries. I also can smell distinct differences between males and females that others don't seem to notice. Just to be certain, I'm talking about clean and unperfurmed of either. Some times I think people react by way of their sexual preferences even if they aren't concious of it.
I can't see how anyone can put that in their mouth... but we're all different. There are even some weirdos out there that don't like pineapple on pizza.
It's sort of unfortunate, because for most of us, maple syrup is a sweet and mellow taste that is just this side of heaven.
I agree on the pineapple on pizza. A pineapple and ham pizza is my favorite, but I don't get it too often because no one else in my circle likes it. Jerks, the lot of them!
I would imagine that it seems like we have more free will than we do, but agree that we have at least some.
Humans will certainly come with a preset number of likely responses. I look at psychotic breaks and schizophrenia as what happens when expected actions and reactions don't happen. And heaven help us if we were to all act on our impulses. I know I would have been killed by hundreds of people at this point (I'm what they call an irritating bastard)
I've seen neuroscience articles (and I will admit I don't know how solid they are) that indicate that via MRI studies, people make decisions before they are conscious of this, and appear to post hoc build a rationale to agree with what their subconscious decided. So, you may actually have an easier time at getting the AI to spit out its parameters than a human.
I've listened to a radio program on the same subject. This jibes with the concept of impulse control. I suppose a good example might be heterosexual men. If a man sees a woman he finds attractive, in most cases he will think about having sexual intercourse with her. A fleeting thought. But sensible impulse control will have him not do that. In relation to other crimes, a person might see a laptop sitting unattended and yes, there might be a thought of "Hey, I could grab this and walk off. Again, a thought so fleeting that a normal person would laugh and try to find the person who left it there or possibly just walk on.
The part I didn't agree with in this program was some people were trying to use this "pre thought" as evidence that there is no such thing as free will. Whereas I think that impulse control is one of the best manifestations of free will and civil behavior.
They are trying to solve the wrong problem. Rather than trying to quantify people, the solution to people reoffending is to provide better support to everyone. Stop wasting money on software and start investing in programmes that help reform offenders.
Reform programmes are also a much better way to evaluate people, because their progress in the programme is much easier to measure and requires them to meet goals that change their behaviour and future life chances. That's why sensible systems hand out a sentence which can then be reduced through participation and good behaviour.
They are trying to solve the wrong problem. Rather than trying to quantify people, the solution to people reoffending is to provide better support to everyone. Stop wasting money on software and start investing in programmes that help reform offenders.
Support does work. California's Folsom Prison is an example. At one point it had low recidivism numbers, and a lot of prisoner support. The we got "tough on crime" overcrowded the place, eliminated help for the prisoners, and now the place is a holding area between crimes.
Reform programmes are also a much better way to evaluate people, because their progress in the programme is much easier to measure and requires them to meet goals that change their behaviour and future life chances.
There are some more physical factors that are obvious. Age is one. Given that most prisoners are men, testosterone level will lower as they age. But I think there is one issue that is really important - impulse control.
Impulse control is one aspect of a person's personality that can be observed and improved in most cases. It is also involved in crimes of opportunity.
The impulse control or lack of it is probably involved in the second selection criteria of criminal record.
But the concept of treating prisoners well and providing education and needed treatment does work.
No. They aren't that stupid. If they were, they'd have to deal with the constant deficit.
.
Ahh, but tha's the secret sauce of Government by corporation. They get to determine how they profit without putting back. We're in the pecuniary extraction phase of the US now. No need to worry though, as soon as we are finished, they will move on to the next country to extract it's wealth - so they will be just fine.
Is that why we wasted 20 billion on two nuclear plants
No, much of that $20 billion was wasted on fighting anti-nuke protesters, eco-nutter lawsuits, over-regulation, NIMBYism, fossil-fuel lobbyists and their pet politicos, and general irrational fears that the anti-nuke people have incubated for decades using mis- and dis-information and outright lies.
There are many forces, both domestic and foreign, who do not want the US to have cheap, safe, and reliable nuclear power, and who have been working for decades to make nuclear power plants as expensive and difficult as possible to build and maintain.
Strat
Doood, you forgot to add that all of these other methods of generating power are depleting our precious bodily fluids.
Dude, solar is now the single cheapest way to generate power in the US, with no subsidies.
Stop living in 1995
Nuclear and hydroelectric are the cheapest, by far.
He was saying no subsidies, maybe hydro, but not nuclear. You can't even insure a nuc plant without th eGuvmint assuring that if it goes south they will pick up the tab.
Loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation, surcharge to bills for construction in progress, property tax abatements, Uranium mining fuel depletion allowance, cooling water a no cost. produsction tax credits, Price-Anderson Taxpayer subsidy of risk, End of life taxpayers picking up the cost.
Yeah, I would love to see a nuc plant built and opertated with the zero subsidies claimed by the nucbois.
Look at the people. Isn't it amazing that the apparent most needed aspect for singing is to be attractive?
Now lookk at 15 years ago. While there were attractive people, there were also some barkers as well.
Given that modern Pop Music is written by computer, the voices are aoutotuned and most lyrics mean nothing, and damn, those sure are a bunch of hotties who can twerk and dance, and the biggest takeaway is:
Everything else matters a lot more than the actual music.
Gerrymandering starts as population shifts in an area. So the districts change size depending on how the census plays out. That makes sense.
Where it starts getting weird is when the party that is iin the majority at the moment starts looking at the voting results and arranging the districts in such a manner that is advantageous to the party.
At this point, might as well issue the disclaimer that both parties do this
The interesting thing is that it can be used in an opposite manner, of grouping a lot of likeminded voters together so they don't affect others. Case in point is in North Carolina, the Democrats wanted a Black elected to state government, so they gerrymandered a district that would ensure that.. When the Republicans took over, they realized that the white population in other districts was pretty racist and could be counted on to vote for the people who shared their views, so they cut their losses and allowed the few blacks who would be sure of election.
The problem isn't Republican or Democrat, it's that gerrymandering exists in re-districting. It has the tendency to elect extremist candidates who vote by party line. In a computer age, this redistricting can be done without purposeful gerrymandering.
But the one thing you _can't_ argue is that they're ruling by fiat. America got exactly what we voted for. And if you didn't vote for it, well, this is what happens when you don't show up to the polls.
I think this may have been hammered home forcefully in 2016. There are still some big issues regarding what happens to those votes once they enter networld, but iit is batshit crazy that the party that has more registered voters gets hammered at the ballot box.
And yes, for what I hope is the last bloody time this _is_ a partisan issue. When a Dems was in the Whitehouse we had NN. When the Dem left a Republican appointed an additional Anti-Net Neutrality FCC chair who did exactly what he was appointed to do. Hell, the Republicans central plank is eliminating regulation, of which NN is one. Meanwhile every Democrat Senator just signed on to undo the FCC ruling. When one party supports an issue and another party doesn't that _is_ partisan politics.
The whole "They are all the same" mantra is just that. A handy way for the supporters of the guilty to deflect responsibility. Note even in this case, the Republican deniers note that Pai was appointed by OBlama. They conveniently forget that he was just another member of the ruling group, not the guy driving the bus
You almost had it right and then you ruined it by saying they should look at companies. They should not. It is "For the people, by the people." Thinking of the companies brought us in this mess.
This will cause lightning to descend from the skies to smite my heresy.
While the profit motive works well for many things, it does not follow that it works for everything. There are some things that should not be run by profit. Health care should not be a profit center, Government should not be a profit center. Churches should not be a profit center.
With all three being profit centers at this time - how's that workin' out for us?
Yup, it's about money. The free market in action. You'd expect that the fiscal conservatives would rejoice that things are working, but I suspect they'll be asking for more coal subsidies.
What is amazing is that a lot of people who vote for those so called fiscal conservatives don't realize that they are anything but. They merely have different beneficiaries for their socialism, and their subsidy and welfare programs. And the useful idiots still vote for them.
The Airbus crash you're taking about is, I assume, Air France Flight 296? If so, this was not a software problem either; while some controversy exists, the official cause was pilot error.
The third crash you mentioned... I have no clue what you're referring to there; I'm not familiar with any such crash and the details you've given sound like bullshit. If you can provide an actual reference on that one I would love to check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Yeah, this is the one. Kinda weird that the pilots couldn't tell there were trees in front of them. Regardless, there is a level of controversy there. It certainly looked like a highly controlled flight into the trees.
Operating from memory, I used the wrong plane as an example, and I knew it right after I posted it. Mea Maxima culpas all around. It was an MD-80, Scandanavian airlines Flight 751, leaving Stockholm airport to Denmark in 1991. hhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6oJUt4WWdQ There's your reference, and sorry for the error.
Point was that depending on automated processes might not always bring optimum results. While flight 751's problems were initially caused by a flawed de-icing process, the automation on the plane prevented the pilots from using the best practices - reducing power to the minimum needed - that might have allowed them to return safely to the airport. The people who determined that reducing power right after takeoff was a bad thing because pilots often tried to mitigate noise after takeoff just contributed to the destruction of the engines and plane, and it surely would have been helpful if they told the pilots about it. I don't know exactly the MD-80 control scheme, but do know that there was a level of automation involved since pilot input could be ignored. I'm pretty certain you would agree that damaged engines that are surging shouldn't be run at takeoff power. Point is also it is really nice if the plane obeys the pilots in an emergency.
And where is the solution to storage of CO2 from natgas? I Don't give a flying F about coal but Cal isn't replacing nuclear energy with Coal, they are replacing it with Natgas (according to you) and using the "concept" of "externalities" supported by people doing the "sum" on "risks" until there is a solution to the problems of using Natgas it should be banned.
Oh, something tells me you don't care all that much about CO2, but just want to promote your pro-nuclear narrative. Natural Gas is a transition energy source, that is all. It certainly isn't perfect, but the alternatives require massive social upheaval. I'm all about renewables, big on wind and solar, but do not deceive myself - they are not sufficiently advanced to take on the load, yet.
Of course I'm not the one promting such concepts and making poor decisions on analysis that doesn't treat "extternalites" the same in order to come up with answers they like.
Speaking of externalities, does your narrative include people simply dropping off-grid? At this point, the only thing that has kept me on mains power is my spa, and I'm not even far from that. Despite having a room full of computers, and televisions all over the place, I use a lot less energy then in the mid 90's when I moved in. A few more tweaks and I'm there, or better stated, not there. Meanwhile, I'm happy to see the Wind Power stations on the mountaintops. Construction of new ones has slowed a bit, because at present, we don't need the extra power.
The direct use of nuclear power produces no CO2 and the waste is easily manageable, unless of course you set up unreasonable expectatio nd of "management" that no other power source, not even solar has to meet.
Seriously? speaking of flawed analysis and ignoring externalities, nuclear certainly has more issues than waste management. It has a horrible PR problem that it's fans simply dismiss with a wave of the hand and a smug variation of "new ones are safe, those bad accidents were because of old ones, and besides, they were not bad accidents, ad if you don't agree that nuc power is best, you are stupid!".
Such an attitude simply confirms what a lot of people think about nuc power. They were told that this was perfectly safe before, and then there were the accidents. So they figured they were either lied to, or that the proponents weren't as smart as they said they were. Regardless, they don't believe the zealots.
I'm not remotely afraid of nuclear power in and of itself.. The elements that comprise the power source are merely poisons, and can be managed. They do have the added property of acting over a distance rather having to directly touch you, but that's a detail.
A bigger problem with nuc power is energy density. That's a lot of power we are confining in a small place. Letting that genie out of the bottle has proven that the genie is very angry and destructive. Don't deny it.
But the number one problem with nuc plants is people. Chernobyl, for all of it's inherent design flaws, would still be operating today except for a badly conceived experiment. Fukushima would be just another power generating plant on the pacific coast of Japan if not for the stupid decision of building a seawall that was obviously and provably too low based on historical records,, and placing emergency power sources in an area that was simply going to be flooded when the inevitable tsunami wave overtopped the seawalls.
The problem is people. People making bad decisions to save money or meet schedules. People with "perfectly safe" syndrome. People who belittle every accident that has happened. People who think anyone opposing them is irredeemably stupid. The consequences of a wind turbine falling over are simple. Even the consequences of a standard NatGas or coal plant going up in flames don't preclude building a new one on site, or evacuating towns for decades or more. People are the problem.
Your thinking is exactly what produced this system. Physical switches are so 1968! We can trigger the alert through a menu, and since we need a shortcut we'll use Ctrl+D so it will be easy.
Ctrl-D? For what, Dumbass? It has to be mnemonic, M is for Missile, so make the missle-alert hotkey Ctrl-M. As soon as anyone hits Ctrl-M on the keyboard, a nuke warning goes out. That'll make it practically immune to errors.
Slashdot Mirror
As I mentioned, a major requirement for a martian base is going to be rocket propellant production, which is an activity that can work intermittently quite well. In addition, you could siphon off a little bit of the hydrogen for fuel cell usage. Chances are that the total mass of the system would be quite a bit lower than if you had to use a nuclear unit.
Yikes! Those are some pretty grim nummbers
a compact fission reactor will give you a lot more power per ton hauled up from Earth
No, not really. The power per weight of small fission reactors is terrible (and so are your heat rejection options on the Moon).
You will also need some pretty specialized workers servicing the reactor.
tesla is last due to technology though.
the thing about why they got it so early and why they stagnated now, is that as you might remember if you read slashdot and wasnt a total fanboi, you can't make a technology company if you can't make things either cheaper or better and preferably both.
I had no idea that Tesla was going to be the world leader in Driverless vehicles. Well as last in this race, time to shut them down, sell the proceeds forj the bankruptcy sale and open some coal mines.
Really. Since "marketing" and "staying power" count for more than "working and deployed technology", Tesla should be proud to be last on the list.
This is one of those articles where it is clear that the journalist made the list first, putting Tesla last to get more clicks, and then made up BS numbers to justify it.
Hell, I didn't even know there was a race! How many laps?
I'm no botanist, but I do know that if you put water on plants, they grow.
The article is badly flawed. Water isn't going to be the determinant. I'm not certain how they projected that the Northeast of North America is goint to turn into a desert anyhow.
The point is rather than if you plan for a commercial maple outfit, how many trees on what kind of acreage can you possibly water without (1) running out of that free water from the stream you'll be needing, (2) keeping the young trees watered long enough to become of a size you can squeeze for sap.
Scale matters, you should get some.
Warmth and the way the winter weather breaks is a bigger issue AFAIAC. The Maple trees will slowly work their way north. The question is will they supplant other trees, and will there be people to harvest the sap when it rises in late winter early spring? These issues will be a bigger problem.
Another thing interesting is there is a claim that the climate will be drier. I hope they are not talking about climate overall. If they are, they have it backwards. Some areas will be drier, others will be a lot wetter. Average temps going up equals higher rate of water evaporating, so unless it disappears like the water that covered the entire earth by several miles after the Noahchian flood, therre's going to be more rainfall overall.
Maybe that's a USA thing. Real maple syrup is actually quite common in restaurants in Québec.
Yeah, I've always been amazed when going to Supermarkets in Canada. Freaking big cans of it, and not all that expensive. I always bring several back.
For the love of God, won't somebody please think of the pancakes?!?
I am! Please leave the maple syrup off it!
There is something about Maple Syrup that is really off-putting to me. I can't stand to be in the same room as anyone who is using it.
Tase and smell being related, have some wide variations. I have never heard of maple syrup issues, but if you have a problem, it's real. I have a sharp sense of smell, but I cannot smell bayberries. I also can smell distinct differences between males and females that others don't seem to notice. Just to be certain, I'm talking about clean and unperfurmed of either. Some times I think people react by way of their sexual preferences even if they aren't concious of it.
I can't see how anyone can put that in their mouth... but we're all different. There are even some weirdos out there that don't like pineapple on pizza.
It's sort of unfortunate, because for most of us, maple syrup is a sweet and mellow taste that is just this side of heaven.
I agree on the pineapple on pizza. A pineapple and ham pizza is my favorite, but I don't get it too often because no one else in my circle likes it. Jerks, the lot of them!
For the love of God, won't somebody please think of the CANADIANS?!?
Fixed that for you.
I understand Canadians now that I know they are pancakes.
I would imagine that it seems like we have more free will than we do, but agree that we have at least some.
Humans will certainly come with a preset number of likely responses. I look at psychotic breaks and schizophrenia as what happens when expected actions and reactions don't happen. And heaven help us if we were to all act on our impulses. I know I would have been killed by hundreds of people at this point (I'm what they call an irritating bastard)
I've seen neuroscience articles (and I will admit I don't know how solid they are) that indicate that via MRI studies, people make decisions before they are conscious of this, and appear to post hoc build a rationale to agree with what their subconscious decided. So, you may actually have an easier time at getting the AI to spit out its parameters than a human.
I've listened to a radio program on the same subject. This jibes with the concept of impulse control. I suppose a good example might be heterosexual men. If a man sees a woman he finds attractive, in most cases he will think about having sexual intercourse with her. A fleeting thought. But sensible impulse control will have him not do that. In relation to other crimes, a person might see a laptop sitting unattended and yes, there might be a thought of "Hey, I could grab this and walk off. Again, a thought so fleeting that a normal person would laugh and try to find the person who left it there or possibly just walk on.
The part I didn't agree with in this program was some people were trying to use this "pre thought" as evidence that there is no such thing as free will. Whereas I think that impulse control is one of the best manifestations of free will and civil behavior.
They are trying to solve the wrong problem. Rather than trying to quantify people, the solution to people reoffending is to provide better support to everyone. Stop wasting money on software and start investing in programmes that help reform offenders.
Reform programmes are also a much better way to evaluate people, because their progress in the programme is much easier to measure and requires them to meet goals that change their behaviour and future life chances. That's why sensible systems hand out a sentence which can then be reduced through participation and good behaviour.
They are trying to solve the wrong problem. Rather than trying to quantify people, the solution to people reoffending is to provide better support to everyone. Stop wasting money on software and start investing in programmes that help reform offenders.
Support does work. California's Folsom Prison is an example. At one point it had low recidivism numbers, and a lot of prisoner support. The we got "tough on crime" overcrowded the place, eliminated help for the prisoners, and now the place is a holding area between crimes.
Reform programmes are also a much better way to evaluate people, because their progress in the programme is much easier to measure and requires them to meet goals that change their behaviour and future life chances.
There are some more physical factors that are obvious. Age is one. Given that most prisoners are men, testosterone level will lower as they age. But I think there is one issue that is really important - impulse control.
Impulse control is one aspect of a person's personality that can be observed and improved in most cases. It is also involved in crimes of opportunity.
The impulse control or lack of it is probably involved in the second selection criteria of criminal record.
But the concept of treating prisoners well and providing education and needed treatment does work.
No. They aren't that stupid. If they were, they'd have to deal with the constant deficit.
.
Ahh, but tha's the secret sauce of Government by corporation. They get to determine how they profit without putting back. We're in the pecuniary extraction phase of the US now. No need to worry though, as soon as we are finished, they will move on to the next country to extract it's wealth - so they will be just fine.
Is that why we wasted 20 billion on two nuclear plants
No, much of that $20 billion was wasted on fighting anti-nuke protesters, eco-nutter lawsuits, over-regulation, NIMBYism, fossil-fuel lobbyists and their pet politicos, and general irrational fears that the anti-nuke people have incubated for decades using mis- and dis-information and outright lies.
There are many forces, both domestic and foreign, who do not want the US to have cheap, safe, and reliable nuclear power, and who have been working for decades to make nuclear power plants as expensive and difficult as possible to build and maintain.
Strat
Doood, you forgot to add that all of these other methods of generating power are depleting our precious bodily fluids.
Dude, solar is now the single cheapest way to generate power in the US, with no subsidies.
Stop living in 1995
Nuclear and hydroelectric are the cheapest, by far.
He was saying no subsidies, maybe hydro, but not nuclear. You can't even insure a nuc plant without th eGuvmint assuring that if it goes south they will pick up the tab. Loan guarantees, accelerated depreciation, surcharge to bills for construction in progress, property tax abatements, Uranium mining fuel depletion allowance, cooling water a no cost. produsction tax credits, Price-Anderson Taxpayer subsidy of risk, End of life taxpayers picking up the cost.
Yeah, I would love to see a nuc plant built and opertated with the zero subsidies claimed by the nucbois.
Look at the people. Isn't it amazing that the apparent most needed aspect for singing is to be attractive?
Now lookk at 15 years ago. While there were attractive people, there were also some barkers as well.
Given that modern Pop Music is written by computer, the voices are aoutotuned and most lyrics mean nothing, and damn, those sure are a bunch of hotties who can twerk and dance, and the biggest takeaway is:
Everything else matters a lot more than the actual music.
Where it starts getting weird is when the party that is iin the majority at the moment starts looking at the voting results and arranging the districts in such a manner that is advantageous to the party.
At this point, might as well issue the disclaimer that both parties do this
The interesting thing is that it can be used in an opposite manner, of grouping a lot of likeminded voters together so they don't affect others. Case in point is in North Carolina, the Democrats wanted a Black elected to state government, so they gerrymandered a district that would ensure that.. When the Republicans took over, they realized that the white population in other districts was pretty racist and could be counted on to vote for the people who shared their views, so they cut their losses and allowed the few blacks who would be sure of election.
The problem isn't Republican or Democrat, it's that gerrymandering exists in re-districting. It has the tendency to elect extremist candidates who vote by party line. In a computer age, this redistricting can be done without purposeful gerrymandering.
But the one thing you _can't_ argue is that they're ruling by fiat. America got exactly what we voted for. And if you didn't vote for it, well, this is what happens when you don't show up to the polls.
I think this may have been hammered home forcefully in 2016. There are still some big issues regarding what happens to those votes once they enter networld, but iit is batshit crazy that the party that has more registered voters gets hammered at the ballot box.
And yes, for what I hope is the last bloody time this _is_ a partisan issue. When a Dems was in the Whitehouse we had NN. When the Dem left a Republican appointed an additional Anti-Net Neutrality FCC chair who did exactly what he was appointed to do. Hell, the Republicans central plank is eliminating regulation, of which NN is one. Meanwhile every Democrat Senator just signed on to undo the FCC ruling. When one party supports an issue and another party doesn't that _is_ partisan politics.
The whole "They are all the same" mantra is just that. A handy way for the supporters of the guilty to deflect responsibility. Note even in this case, the Republican deniers note that Pai was appointed by OBlama. They conveniently forget that he was just another member of the ruling group, not the guy driving the bus
You almost had it right and then you ruined it by saying they should look at companies. They should not. It is "For the people, by the people." Thinking of the companies brought us in this mess.
This will cause lightning to descend from the skies to smite my heresy.
While the profit motive works well for many things, it does not follow that it works for everything. There are some things that should not be run by profit. Health care should not be a profit center, Government should not be a profit center. Churches should not be a profit center.
With all three being profit centers at this time - how's that workin' out for us?
Yes, how dare governments work for its people instead of its corporations! Don't they know who pays them?
Corporations are the Government.
Yup, it's about money. The free market in action. You'd expect that the fiscal conservatives would rejoice that things are working, but I suspect they'll be asking for more coal subsidies.
What is amazing is that a lot of people who vote for those so called fiscal conservatives don't realize that they are anything but. They merely have different beneficiaries for their socialism, and their subsidy and welfare programs. And the useful idiots still vote for them.
TWA 800 was not a software problem.
The Airbus crash you're taking about is, I assume, Air France Flight 296? If so, this was not a software problem either; while some controversy exists, the official cause was pilot error.
The third crash you mentioned ... I have no clue what you're referring to there; I'm not familiar with any such crash and the details you've given sound like bullshit. If you can provide an actual reference on that one I would love to check it out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Yeah, this is the one. Kinda weird that the pilots couldn't tell there were trees in front of them. Regardless, there is a level of controversy there. It certainly looked like a highly controlled flight into the trees. Operating from memory, I used the wrong plane as an example, and I knew it right after I posted it. Mea Maxima culpas all around. It was an MD-80, Scandanavian airlines Flight 751, leaving Stockholm airport to Denmark in 1991. hhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6oJUt4WWdQ There's your reference, and sorry for the error.
Point was that depending on automated processes might not always bring optimum results. While flight 751's problems were initially caused by a flawed de-icing process, the automation on the plane prevented the pilots from using the best practices - reducing power to the minimum needed - that might have allowed them to return safely to the airport. The people who determined that reducing power right after takeoff was a bad thing because pilots often tried to mitigate noise after takeoff just contributed to the destruction of the engines and plane, and it surely would have been helpful if they told the pilots about it. I don't know exactly the MD-80 control scheme, but do know that there was a level of automation involved since pilot input could be ignored. I'm pretty certain you would agree that damaged engines that are surging shouldn't be run at takeoff power. Point is also it is really nice if the plane obeys the pilots in an emergency.
You just hate the idea of "redneck" "white trash" coal miners having enough money to feed and shelter their families.
Hah, you have no idea of my roots and family.
I think you might be having arguments with the voices in your head though.
And where is the solution to storage of CO2 from natgas? I Don't give a flying F about coal but Cal isn't replacing nuclear energy with Coal, they are replacing it with Natgas (according to you) and using the "concept" of "externalities" supported by people doing the "sum" on "risks" until there is a solution to the problems of using Natgas it should be banned.
Oh, something tells me you don't care all that much about CO2, but just want to promote your pro-nuclear narrative. Natural Gas is a transition energy source, that is all. It certainly isn't perfect, but the alternatives require massive social upheaval. I'm all about renewables, big on wind and solar, but do not deceive myself - they are not sufficiently advanced to take on the load, yet.
Of course I'm not the one promting such concepts and making poor decisions on analysis that doesn't treat "extternalites" the same in order to come up with answers they like.
Speaking of externalities, does your narrative include people simply dropping off-grid? At this point, the only thing that has kept me on mains power is my spa, and I'm not even far from that. Despite having a room full of computers, and televisions all over the place, I use a lot less energy then in the mid 90's when I moved in. A few more tweaks and I'm there, or better stated, not there. Meanwhile, I'm happy to see the Wind Power stations on the mountaintops. Construction of new ones has slowed a bit, because at present, we don't need the extra power.
The direct use of nuclear power produces no CO2 and the waste is easily manageable, unless of course you set up unreasonable expectatio nd of "management" that no other power source, not even solar has to meet.
Seriously? speaking of flawed analysis and ignoring externalities, nuclear certainly has more issues than waste management. It has a horrible PR problem that it's fans simply dismiss with a wave of the hand and a smug variation of "new ones are safe, those bad accidents were because of old ones, and besides, they were not bad accidents, ad if you don't agree that nuc power is best, you are stupid!".
Such an attitude simply confirms what a lot of people think about nuc power. They were told that this was perfectly safe before, and then there were the accidents. So they figured they were either lied to, or that the proponents weren't as smart as they said they were. Regardless, they don't believe the zealots.
I'm not remotely afraid of nuclear power in and of itself.. The elements that comprise the power source are merely poisons, and can be managed. They do have the added property of acting over a distance rather having to directly touch you, but that's a detail.
A bigger problem with nuc power is energy density. That's a lot of power we are confining in a small place. Letting that genie out of the bottle has proven that the genie is very angry and destructive. Don't deny it.
But the number one problem with nuc plants is people. Chernobyl, for all of it's inherent design flaws, would still be operating today except for a badly conceived experiment. Fukushima would be just another power generating plant on the pacific coast of Japan if not for the stupid decision of building a seawall that was obviously and provably too low based on historical records,, and placing emergency power sources in an area that was simply going to be flooded when the inevitable tsunami wave overtopped the seawalls.
The problem is people. People making bad decisions to save money or meet schedules. People with "perfectly safe" syndrome. People who belittle every accident that has happened. People who think anyone opposing them is irredeemably stupid. The consequences of a wind turbine falling over are simple. Even the consequences of a standard NatGas or coal plant going up in flames don't preclude building a new one on site, or evacuating towns for decades or more. People are the problem.
So yeah, Nuc p
Your thinking is exactly what produced this system. Physical switches are so 1968! We can trigger the alert through a menu, and since we need a shortcut we'll use Ctrl+D so it will be easy.
Ctrl-D? For what, Dumbass? It has to be mnemonic, M is for Missile, so make the missle-alert hotkey Ctrl-M. As soon as anyone hits Ctrl-M on the keyboard, a nuke warning goes out. That'll make it practically immune to errors.
Whoosh!