That's a lot of words to say "I expect engineers to know the technical vocabulary plus the business vocabulary, but I don't expect the business guys to both learning the technical side. For reasons."
And the problem is you may be told to cut a corner that you know is dangerous act.
I decided not to reply to him becaus in addition to the length, he's saying that I said that "the suits" are stupid. Nowhere did I say that. Ignorance is not stupidity, but power is what the CEO and CFO have that an engineer doesn't have.
And they have duties that predispose them to what they would like to hear. If I say we need to do thing A, and it will add a week or two to the schedule, and another person tells the boss that I'm being too cautious, the Boss is inclined to listen to the other guy and overrule me. If the Head Accountant is worried about a cost overrun, and I don't want to budge on a safety check or some such, a meeting can be held with questions of "Well in reality, what is the likelihood of this part failing?" And if someone pipes in "Not bloody likely!", then we'll not bother with that test.
This isn't stupidity, as he thinks I am claiming, but humans interacting with each other, bringing all their jobs and fears and hubris together. And it isn't like Engineers don't have their faults either. Sometimes the job isn't done until the boss comes down and tells them it is done. Forcefully.
There were just some really odd and proven to be really bad decisions made in Fukushima, which are not the sort of problems an engineer would perform. The site could have been along a river rather than the ocean in a Tsunami area. Both for tsunami and that reactors don't like salt water. If there was a cooling problem that required water being pumped in, fresh water leaves at least some possibility of recovering. Sea Water turns the reactor into not a reactor any more. The sea walls were obviously not anywhere near high enough, a fact that could be found out in 15 minutes of research. And the emergency generators would not be in an area that the inevitible Tsunami that would swamp the seawalls and then swamp the emergeny power source.
So unless this was a perfect storm of incompetence, and you don't build a nuc power reactor with incompetence, some really bad decisions were made, and if the engineers were competent to build the reactors, the bad decisions probably came form elsewhere.
Nuclear power is proven safe, effective, efficient, and capable of handling base power loads.
Sign us up. I'll fill out the forms if you get them for me. We really need this safe option, and you have convinced us. The forms are here http://tinyurl.com/j3hbdlj Its building three of the proven safe effective, and efficient place. I think it's in the basement, but the people there can tell you.
We already have safe, reliable nuclear power plants. We have them all over the world.
And a couple exceptionally unsafe ones.
The challenge with nuclear is no different from any other project that deals with hazardous processes (and this includes coal and oil power plants among many other things): reasonable standards for building, operation, and inspection free from bribery, corruption, and incompetence, which are rigorously enforced.
You ihave very little choice here tell me of the rigidedness and that you espouse was based on situating a nuclear power plant at sea level in an area that is going to have tsunami unless plate tectonics has stopped. Explain the thought process, and why it made sense to build there.
Next explain how a seawall was constructed that was not remotely high enough for the Tsunami of historical records that were simply going to occur in that place. Explain why some absolute facts were ignored.
Next explain why if you discount the historical record, the geological record of Tsunami rubble that shows that the plant was going to he it with a Tsunami and that was going to breach the seawalls.
Next explain the rationale of putting emergency generators that were going to be swamped when the Tsunami that was 100 percent going to happen breached the seawalls that were not built to the height that this Tsunami was going to have.
I expect you to do no such thing of course. You are the ultimate nucshill, oone who ignres anything negative, and prattles on how nuclear energy is th eonly option that we have. It isn't. It might be a good option if done right, but at this time, who believes ya? The worst part is you expound upon the safety, while people watch the reactor buildings blow up in Fukushima, and you wander why no one is saying - "How do I get some of that awesome Fukushima safety in my town?"
Anyhow, enjoy your delusions.
I am not anti nuc power. I am very anti-your type of attitude, with the constant undertone of anyone not agreeing with you being stupid. Nuc power has a serious credibiity problem, and those of your pursuasion actually make it worse. Remember, those stupid people who just are not smart enough to see theing correctly as you do, are the ones you have to convince, not tell them they are stupid assholes.
This is not rocket science. it's a higly energy dense material that runs best at a level near material limits. The effects of rapid release are rather spectacular, The long term issues of that release are a pretty big issue as well. When you pack that much energy into that small of a space, the people pulling the strings better know exactly what their decisions entail.
You can decide whether to eat and what foods to eat. Your argument is akin to claiming that cheating on your wife isn't your fault because -biology.
My, it's good to see that the person with the definitive answer is here on Slashdot. Have you contacted the people doing this study to tell them it's pointless?
And if you seriously believe that little bit of bullshit equating obesity with infidelity, it looks like we got's us some fresh meat here folks!
You challenge is to prove that people of identical weight will be exactly the same given the same amount of food. This should be exceptionally easy since you know.
Now show that what is in your GI tract has absolutely no effect upon the digestion of food. I've been wondering about this one, since those stupid scientists think the intestinal flora play a big part in us actually being alive, since the dumfuks think the bacteria actually perform the digestion functions.
Now show that the difference in gut bacteria between obese and the better among us is not actually different. That it's like global warming hysteria or something.
Fallback position for you: Explain how a difference in biota will categorically have absolutely no difference in digestion properties.
Most of the this is simple crap is done by fat shamers who want to feel like they are a better person due to the lack of excess fat.
Exactly. Remember though, we can lose weight, but they cannot lose being assholes because it is a terminal condition.
I have lost 50lbs and kept it off for over 3 years myself but it is hard, very hard to do. It was akin to getting my masters degree while working full time hard.
I hear ya brother! Congrats. But it is hard to keep it off, and you find yourself spending a lot more time exercising and avoiding food than the "superior" people. I've been exactly there.
So yes, we should find out whether personalised medicine works and if so, how much more effective it is. Then, as a society, we should choose whether it is worthwhile or not.
I've been sold on personalized medicine ever since I went to the hospital for a broken ankle, and they gave me a corneal transplant.
It doesn't matter WHY it affects them differently, except as trivia.
Personally, I think an interesting research project might be why self sanctimonious assholes feel that weight is a measurable attribute signifying superiority, and as such ridicule of the obese is only right - when in fact it's a manifestation of insecurity.
Your simple Just eat less and exercise more is a truism, and like all truisms is worthless.
I kept my weight in line with a hellava lot of exercise and eating 1 meal a day. Running, weights, bikes, and Ice Hockey. But it took a hellava lot of each. And much more effort than most people would ever make - including th esuperior people who were slender to start with. I'm pretty efficient in my food processing. Put in a starvation situation, I'll be healthy when the naturally slender people are dead. But as it is, I spend a lot of time exercising a lot of will power. How much? In high school and a few years afterward, I smoked cigarettes. I was up to 4 packs a day. Quitting that was much easier than the daily willpower I need to ignore hunger. You can live without cigarettes, but try going cold turkey on food.
And, honestly, it STILL comes down to "YOU need to eat less". Short of individually tailored micromanagement of your gut, you're not going to ever really change what's in there.
In this matter you are wrong. We already do fecal matter transplants in order to treat C. difficile colitis. There are also an interestingly high number of probiotics available for consumption. And then there is that interesting intestinal biota difference between obese and normal people. The fecal transplants for the colitis issue shows how a change in flora can have positive results. So this matter is valid.
What I find odd in this matter is how some people seem to have a need to castigate those who are not slender, have a deep seated need to call the obese out for their failings - the lack of will power, the weakness inherent in anyone not properly slender, and therefore not equal to the properly slender.
Then couple that with a desire that this intestinal flora thing be bogus, a reaction that seems to indicate a need to ridicule the obese. Perhaps it's time to ridicule people with bad insecurity issues?
Do you want this to not work? What if it does? Will the sanctimonious need to find a new target to deride?
Never trust science reporting. Here's a better source, the summary of the paper that was linked to:
In other words, once a mouse has this microbiome signature they are more susceptible to obesity, i.e. it is harder for people who were once obese to remain at normal weight than for someone who was never obese.
We've been edging toward this knowledge more and more recently. The bacterial content of our guts has fascinated people for a long time. Its even used as treatments, as in fecal matter transplants for C. difficile colitis http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org...
Even as far back as the 1940's Theodor Morell, Old Adolph's physician treated him with intestinal bacteria. And despite everyone thinking it was quackery of the highest order, it appeared to work.
Other studies have shown that once people become obese and start dieting their bodies go into a kind of starvation mode, where they need to keep calorie consumption down below normal levels to maintain their weight. In fact for people who were obese (not just overweight) it can be so bad that the number of calories they need to take in can be below the level at which normal western food can supply enough nutrition.
At my adult lightest, I bicycled 20 miles a day, ran 2 miles a day at lunch time, lifted weights before the bicycle trip home, and ate 1 meal which was estimated around 700 calories. And while I was pretty ripped, there was no way I could keep that up, especially after my son was born and the missus wanted me at the house. So the exercise just became the lunchtime work.
With a surprising amount of weight gain.
So if we can find a way to reset that, perhaps by transferring the microbiome from one person to another, we can help people recover and stay at a healthy weight. I imagine it will be more effective than just berating them for being weak minded, at any rate.
A person can diet and lose weight. It can be difficult, but can be done.
A person who feels the need to act all superior because of weight cannot help but be a gaping asshole - a condition for which there is no cure.
Most of those things aren't even Internet-connected, it just happens that those bands are freely available pretty much anywhere in the world without a license. Your microwave works in the same range.
You are going to have to spray a pretty wide group of frequencies, so between that and intermod, you'll be pumping out a lot of RF.
Damn it, point being consumers would have had to pay more for the electricity either way...
Yeah. Of course if they had an off grid solar installation, they wouldn't have to worry so much about post-kaboom subsidization.
Watching this conversation, it looks like the pro nuc zealots are now saying "Well sure, the plants blow up and you have to pay for all the damage - that's just how nuclear works. 200 billion? Of course you have to pay that!" Seems like paying it backwards. P
I'm trying to imagine that might be a rather hard sell to a world that is steadily adapting to solar and wind.
The public is just as obligated to pay for the consequences as Tepco or anyone else involved in Fukushima.
Then don't ask why the public isn't quite so interested in building more Fukushimas. Because when you add 200 billion as a oopsie payment, it makes nuc power not look so damn awesome.
Won't someone think of the Tepco investors? And their children?
I can think of some jobs for them.
This brings up an idea. A way to possibly remove the inherent corruption that makes it difficult to build safe and sensibly built nuc power plants. Require that the CEO's and CFO's, engineers and their families live on site, and not be allowed to leave during problems. IOW, they'd still be there right now.
I suspect that would take care of just about all safety problems.
Yes, Nuclear is a great idea, but one has to be smart about *where* it's built, not *whether* it's built.
there is a little problem, and you just nailed it. Where it is built. And smart. Sorry, but there are humans involved, and perhaps a nuc plant gets built in a certain place because the person who sold the land gave great head, or a fine ass contribution to one of his employees, also known as an elected politician. Added to the mix is the CEO of the project who demands the schedule is met, and the CFO who even thought they don'nt know a thing about niuclear power, knows exactly where to save money by cutting corners.
It's a mighty big damn genie in that bottle, and it wants out really bad. And while corporations are darn good at turning a profit, they aren't so good with genies. Samsung has problems with tiny little genies in their phones. So while they might be great at making sneakers or selling Pizza, corporate culture doesn't like engineers and scientists very much, and doesn't consider their input necessary on the "important matters"
Until that damn genie gets out of the bottle.
In hindsight of course, the Fukushima Power plant was simply going to fail. The walls were 100 percent certain to breach, the water was 100 percent going to settle where the emergency generators were. The design itself however, would still be working today if not for the terrible decisions made on siting and building the place.
Can a safe reliable nuclear based pwer generating plant be built? I'm pretty certain the answer is yes.
Will they be built? Having a pretty good grasp of human nature, my money is on only by accident.
Not just WiFi but pretty much most wireless crap you have around the house. How about your alarm system, central smoke/fire detectors, modern thermostats, pacemakers, Bluetooth.
Bloody hell!!!! How are the Mirai botnets from our wonderful Internet of Things going to work!!
More importantly, my command radio is on 900mhz because I want it to actually propagate more than a tiny ass distance of 2.4ghz or being useless when it rains.
So great, you took out some kids Phantom. But thats about it. A rifle would be just as effective, lighter and cheaper.
You're also assuming that its not in a flight mode that does safe landings/return to home. Take out the RF link on any of my racing quads and you've effectively just turned it into an unguided missile since it isn't that smart and doesn't carry a GPS or altimeter
Well, for civilian use, I wonder how they get around the fact that jamming is illegal. Because if I can jam a drone that I think is spying on my beautiful nubile teen daughter - remember the guy in Tennessee, who claimed that?) or this purpose, then it is equally legal for me to jam cellular phones as I drive down the internet because safety.
You just can't dangle that claim and not tell us how. List the way, otherwise all you have is BS.
My bad - I wrote something that can be interpreted two ways.
The Walton children of the WalMart clan are doing just fine, despite not having a whole lot to do with the company that Sam built. I think you interpreted what I wrote as a basic employee could make money. No, the company has that pretty well locked down.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh! You misspelled it a grain!
Touche'!
That's a lot of words to say "I expect engineers to know the technical vocabulary plus the business vocabulary, but I don't expect the business guys to both learning the technical side. For reasons."
And the problem is you may be told to cut a corner that you know is dangerous act.
I decided not to reply to him becaus in addition to the length, he's saying that I said that "the suits" are stupid. Nowhere did I say that. Ignorance is not stupidity, but power is what the CEO and CFO have that an engineer doesn't have.
And they have duties that predispose them to what they would like to hear. If I say we need to do thing A, and it will add a week or two to the schedule, and another person tells the boss that I'm being too cautious, the Boss is inclined to listen to the other guy and overrule me. If the Head Accountant is worried about a cost overrun, and I don't want to budge on a safety check or some such, a meeting can be held with questions of "Well in reality, what is the likelihood of this part failing?" And if someone pipes in "Not bloody likely!", then we'll not bother with that test.
This isn't stupidity, as he thinks I am claiming, but humans interacting with each other, bringing all their jobs and fears and hubris together. And it isn't like Engineers don't have their faults either. Sometimes the job isn't done until the boss comes down and tells them it is done. Forcefully.
There were just some really odd and proven to be really bad decisions made in Fukushima, which are not the sort of problems an engineer would perform. The site could have been along a river rather than the ocean in a Tsunami area. Both for tsunami and that reactors don't like salt water. If there was a cooling problem that required water being pumped in, fresh water leaves at least some possibility of recovering. Sea Water turns the reactor into not a reactor any more. The sea walls were obviously not anywhere near high enough, a fact that could be found out in 15 minutes of research. And the emergency generators would not be in an area that the inevitible Tsunami that would swamp the seawalls and then swamp the emergeny power source.
So unless this was a perfect storm of incompetence, and you don't build a nuc power reactor with incompetence, some really bad decisions were made, and if the engineers were competent to build the reactors, the bad decisions probably came form elsewhere.
Nuclear power is proven safe, effective, efficient, and capable of handling base power loads.
Sign us up. I'll fill out the forms if you get them for me. We really need this safe option, and you have convinced us. The forms are here http://tinyurl.com/j3hbdlj Its building three of the proven safe effective, and efficient place. I think it's in the basement, but the people there can tell you.
Man, you should quit while you are ahead.
We already have safe, reliable nuclear power plants. We have them all over the world.
And a couple exceptionally unsafe ones.
The challenge with nuclear is no different from any other project that deals with hazardous processes (and this includes coal and oil power plants among many other things): reasonable standards for building, operation, and inspection free from bribery, corruption, and incompetence, which are rigorously enforced.
You ihave very little choice here tell me of the rigidedness and that you espouse was based on situating a nuclear power plant at sea level in an area that is going to have tsunami unless plate tectonics has stopped. Explain the thought process, and why it made sense to build there.
Next explain how a seawall was constructed that was not remotely high enough for the Tsunami of historical records that were simply going to occur in that place. Explain why some absolute facts were ignored.
Next explain why if you discount the historical record, the geological record of Tsunami rubble that shows that the plant was going to he it with a Tsunami and that was going to breach the seawalls.
Next explain the rationale of putting emergency generators that were going to be swamped when the Tsunami that was 100 percent going to happen breached the seawalls that were not built to the height that this Tsunami was going to have.
I expect you to do no such thing of course. You are the ultimate nucshill, oone who ignres anything negative, and prattles on how nuclear energy is th eonly option that we have. It isn't. It might be a good option if done right, but at this time, who believes ya? The worst part is you expound upon the safety, while people watch the reactor buildings blow up in Fukushima, and you wander why no one is saying - "How do I get some of that awesome Fukushima safety in my town?"
Anyhow, enjoy your delusions.
I am not anti nuc power. I am very anti-your type of attitude, with the constant undertone of anyone not agreeing with you being stupid. Nuc power has a serious credibiity problem, and those of your pursuasion actually make it worse. Remember, those stupid people who just are not smart enough to see theing correctly as you do, are the ones you have to convince, not tell them they are stupid assholes.
This is not rocket science. it's a higly energy dense material that runs best at a level near material limits. The effects of rapid release are rather spectacular, The long term issues of that release are a pretty big issue as well. When you pack that much energy into that small of a space, the people pulling the strings better know exactly what their decisions entail.
This is just some of that fake news the Republicans warned us about. Probably from that damned Barney Slanders.
Whoa, tough crowd here today.
Get a sense of humor, good people.
You can decide whether to eat and what foods to eat. Your argument is akin to claiming that cheating on your wife isn't your fault because -biology.
My, it's good to see that the person with the definitive answer is here on Slashdot. Have you contacted the people doing this study to tell them it's pointless?
And if you seriously believe that little bit of bullshit equating obesity with infidelity, it looks like we got's us some fresh meat here folks!
You challenge is to prove that people of identical weight will be exactly the same given the same amount of food. This should be exceptionally easy since you know.
Now show that what is in your GI tract has absolutely no effect upon the digestion of food. I've been wondering about this one, since those stupid scientists think the intestinal flora play a big part in us actually being alive, since the dumfuks think the bacteria actually perform the digestion functions.
Now show that the difference in gut bacteria between obese and the better among us is not actually different. That it's like global warming hysteria or something.
Fallback position for you: Explain how a difference in biota will categorically have absolutely no difference in digestion properties.
All true.
But at the end of the day, it's still your body and you're in control.
Or you're not.
Either way, it's still YOU.
Can you avoid being an asshole? At the end of the day, that defines you, and its still YOU.
Most of the this is simple crap is done by fat shamers who want to feel like they are a better person due to the lack of excess fat.
Exactly. Remember though, we can lose weight, but they cannot lose being assholes because it is a terminal condition.
I have lost 50lbs and kept it off for over 3 years myself but it is hard, very hard to do. It was akin to getting my masters degree while working full time hard.
I hear ya brother! Congrats. But it is hard to keep it off, and you find yourself spending a lot more time exercising and avoiding food than the "superior" people. I've been exactly there.
So yes, we should find out whether personalised medicine works and if so, how much more effective it is. Then, as a society, we should choose whether it is worthwhile or not.
I've been sold on personalized medicine ever since I went to the hospital for a broken ankle, and they gave me a corneal transplant.
It doesn't matter WHY it affects them differently, except as trivia.
Personally, I think an interesting research project might be why self sanctimonious assholes feel that weight is a measurable attribute signifying superiority, and as such ridicule of the obese is only right - when in fact it's a manifestation of insecurity.
Your simple Just eat less and exercise more is a truism, and like all truisms is worthless.
I kept my weight in line with a hellava lot of exercise and eating 1 meal a day. Running, weights, bikes, and Ice Hockey. But it took a hellava lot of each. And much more effort than most people would ever make - including th esuperior people who were slender to start with. I'm pretty efficient in my food processing. Put in a starvation situation, I'll be healthy when the naturally slender people are dead. But as it is, I spend a lot of time exercising a lot of will power. How much? In high school and a few years afterward, I smoked cigarettes. I was up to 4 packs a day. Quitting that was much easier than the daily willpower I need to ignore hunger. You can live without cigarettes, but try going cold turkey on food.
And, honestly, it STILL comes down to "YOU need to eat less". Short of individually tailored micromanagement of your gut, you're not going to ever really change what's in there.
In this matter you are wrong. We already do fecal matter transplants in order to treat C. difficile colitis. There are also an interestingly high number of probiotics available for consumption. And then there is that interesting intestinal biota difference between obese and normal people. The fecal transplants for the colitis issue shows how a change in flora can have positive results. So this matter is valid.
What I find odd in this matter is how some people seem to have a need to castigate those who are not slender, have a deep seated need to call the obese out for their failings - the lack of will power, the weakness inherent in anyone not properly slender, and therefore not equal to the properly slender.
Then couple that with a desire that this intestinal flora thing be bogus, a reaction that seems to indicate a need to ridicule the obese. Perhaps it's time to ridicule people with bad insecurity issues?
Do you want this to not work? What if it does? Will the sanctimonious need to find a new target to deride?
Never trust science reporting. Here's a better source, the summary of the paper that was linked to:
In other words, once a mouse has this microbiome signature they are more susceptible to obesity, i.e. it is harder for people who were once obese to remain at normal weight than for someone who was never obese.
We've been edging toward this knowledge more and more recently. The bacterial content of our guts has fascinated people for a long time. Its even used as treatments, as in fecal matter transplants for C. difficile colitis http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org...
Even as far back as the 1940's Theodor Morell, Old Adolph's physician treated him with intestinal bacteria. And despite everyone thinking it was quackery of the highest order, it appeared to work.
Other studies have shown that once people become obese and start dieting their bodies go into a kind of starvation mode, where they need to keep calorie consumption down below normal levels to maintain their weight. In fact for people who were obese (not just overweight) it can be so bad that the number of calories they need to take in can be below the level at which normal western food can supply enough nutrition.
At my adult lightest, I bicycled 20 miles a day, ran 2 miles a day at lunch time, lifted weights before the bicycle trip home, and ate 1 meal which was estimated around 700 calories. And while I was pretty ripped, there was no way I could keep that up, especially after my son was born and the missus wanted me at the house. So the exercise just became the lunchtime work.
With a surprising amount of weight gain.
So if we can find a way to reset that, perhaps by transferring the microbiome from one person to another, we can help people recover and stay at a healthy weight. I imagine it will be more effective than just berating them for being weak minded, at any rate.
A person can diet and lose weight. It can be difficult, but can be done.
A person who feels the need to act all superior because of weight cannot help but be a gaping asshole - a condition for which there is no cure.
Most of those things aren't even Internet-connected, it just happens that those bands are freely available pretty much anywhere in the world without a license. Your microwave works in the same range.
You are going to have to spray a pretty wide group of frequencies, so between that and intermod, you'll be pumping out a lot of RF.
Recount!
And won't that be interesting?
This is just some of that fake news the Republicans warned us about. Probably from that damned Barney Slanders.
Damn it, point being consumers would have had to pay more for the electricity either way...
Yeah. Of course if they had an off grid solar installation, they wouldn't have to worry so much about post-kaboom subsidization.
Watching this conversation, it looks like the pro nuc zealots are now saying "Well sure, the plants blow up and you have to pay for all the damage - that's just how nuclear works. 200 billion? Of course you have to pay that!" Seems like paying it backwards. P I'm trying to imagine that might be a rather hard sell to a world that is steadily adapting to solar and wind.
The public is just as obligated to pay for the consequences as Tepco or anyone else involved in Fukushima.
Then don't ask why the public isn't quite so interested in building more Fukushimas. Because when you add 200 billion as a oopsie payment, it makes nuc power not look so damn awesome.
Won't someone think of the Tepco investors? And their children?
I can think of some jobs for them.
This brings up an idea. A way to possibly remove the inherent corruption that makes it difficult to build safe and sensibly built nuc power plants. Require that the CEO's and CFO's, engineers and their families live on site, and not be allowed to leave during problems. IOW, they'd still be there right now.
I suspect that would take care of just about all safety problems.
Yes, Nuclear is a great idea, but one has to be smart about *where* it's built, not *whether* it's built.
there is a little problem, and you just nailed it. Where it is built. And smart. Sorry, but there are humans involved, and perhaps a nuc plant gets built in a certain place because the person who sold the land gave great head, or a fine ass contribution to one of his employees, also known as an elected politician. Added to the mix is the CEO of the project who demands the schedule is met, and the CFO who even thought they don'nt know a thing about niuclear power, knows exactly where to save money by cutting corners.
It's a mighty big damn genie in that bottle, and it wants out really bad. And while corporations are darn good at turning a profit, they aren't so good with genies. Samsung has problems with tiny little genies in their phones. So while they might be great at making sneakers or selling Pizza, corporate culture doesn't like engineers and scientists very much, and doesn't consider their input necessary on the "important matters"
Until that damn genie gets out of the bottle.
In hindsight of course, the Fukushima Power plant was simply going to fail. The walls were 100 percent certain to breach, the water was 100 percent going to settle where the emergency generators were. The design itself however, would still be working today if not for the terrible decisions made on siting and building the place.
Can a safe reliable nuclear based pwer generating plant be built? I'm pretty certain the answer is yes.
Will they be built? Having a pretty good grasp of human nature, my money is on only by accident.
Not just WiFi but pretty much most wireless crap you have around the house. How about your alarm system, central smoke/fire detectors, modern thermostats, pacemakers, Bluetooth.
Bloody hell!!!! How are the Mirai botnets from our wonderful Internet of Things going to work!!
Somehow I doubt military drones or even commercial drones for that matter use 2.4 GHz, wide-band control signals.
I wonder is it's possible to make really wideband thingies that broadcast on a lot of frequencies.
Even then, if you do, you're just providing a nice wideband homing signal, so you better not be where the transmitter is.
How long till the Narco-traffickers and coyotes start deploying these to take down the DHS drones patrolling the borders?
Obvious solution: Make the wall higher.
And deeper.
spelt: British past and past participle of spell.
We fought a war aginst you brits so we didn't have to put up with yer silly nanny spelting. Colours and all that pip pip. Carry on.
And yes I spelt metres the way it was intended to be spelt.
... you misspelt spelled.
Spelt is a grain.
More importantly, my command radio is on 900mhz because I want it to actually propagate more than a tiny ass distance of 2.4ghz or being useless when it rains.
So great, you took out some kids Phantom. But thats about it. A rifle would be just as effective, lighter and cheaper.
You're also assuming that its not in a flight mode that does safe landings/return to home. Take out the RF link on any of my racing quads and you've effectively just turned it into an unguided missile since it isn't that smart and doesn't carry a GPS or altimeter
Well, for civilian use, I wonder how they get around the fact that jamming is illegal. Because if I can jam a drone that I think is spying on my beautiful nubile teen daughter - remember the guy in Tennessee, who claimed that?) or this purpose, then it is equally legal for me to jam cellular phones as I drive down the internet because safety.
You just can't dangle that claim and not tell us how. List the way, otherwise all you have is BS.
My bad - I wrote something that can be interpreted two ways.
The Walton children of the WalMart clan are doing just fine, despite not having a whole lot to do with the company that Sam built. I think you interpreted what I wrote as a basic employee could make money. No, the company has that pretty well locked down.