of course not, don't be a retard. Pointing out the fallacy of those posting and how the headlines etc is blatantly WRONG, does not equal support for coal. Coal needs to die the sooner the better, it is poisoning the planet and people, unfortunately the best alternative is Nuclear which while clean and relatively safe has so much stigma and misinformation associated with it that it is currently cost prohibitive in many circumstances.
I'm not so certain - then again, I am a retard as you so intelligently pointed out.
Unfortunately, I know all too many people who believe that solar and wind are liberal lies and impossible technologies, and that believe it or not, coal is being made as we write these words. That there will almost certainly never be another coal age is beyond them, but hey! I'm a retard, so what do I know.
So, is it time to go back to all the nay sayers who have over the past 10 years asserted this point was impossible, and say "I told you so"? Or will they just continue to assert that the numbers are all lies, and only coal can make electricity?
Truth no longer matters. You see the craziest shit put out by the deniers. Even to the point of their lack of understanding the entire power generation physics We still have people who think they are scoring points by pointing out that the sun goes down at night, so you can't use solar.
The Truth is often a troll. I've been told several times in here that solar power will never work because the sun doesn't shine at night. Dead deriously told that.
To add to this I think there is a valid question of demographics as well. Advertisers want young people with disposable income for the most part. What is the average age of Yahoo!'s audience? I bet it skews older now. I mean who created yahoo mail accounts after Gmail was available without an invite?
We're told that young people don't have disposible income. While old, I have quite a bit.
Maybe I'm wrong. I know people have a good association with Yahoo Finance. Do people still use Yahoo webmail or Yahoo Messenger? Is Yahoo Answers used for purposes other than trolling? Are there other services that are popular that I've just lost track of?
I use some of the Yahoo groups. After Usenet collapsed the Yahoo groups filled in and added some file storage ability. It also offered the ability to moderate people who were assholes or got hacked for having lame passwords. That is actually a rather nice service.
Yahoo Sports is actually a professional and nice alternative to the Walt Disney version of sports, ESPN.
Now that being said, on all of the news type pages, fully half of the news links are of the Taboola clickbait variety. Completely worthless and a waste of time, and since they are placed as if they are a legit news story, you can accidentally click on them. So I don't even check the sports stories that much any more. Yahoo as it is isn't worth much.
We need a discussion on whether exact parity is needed in various fields
I think that's just a straw man argument advanced by anti-feminists. It's certainly not mainstream or even radical feminist ideology. What matters is not parity of numbers, it's equality of opportunity.
Asking for a discussion is a strawman argument? Shhesh tough crowd here tonight. Sorry friend, a frank discussion is badly needed. We've had enough bullshit spread about IT and STEM males that trying to turn replies into a straw man is telling us to shut our mouths.
Okay then, remove the "exact" Then let's add in race. You want a (whatever you decide is the appropriate gender mix) and you have an African guy and a female of European descent. All factors are equal - who gets the job?
These are young ladies who were exposed to science and encouraged to be in science and technology
It's only really as we went into the 90s that the push-back started. Having said that I think the reduction of effort, the assumption that the problem was fixed and would continue to self-correct was as big a factor.
I must have been living in an alternative universe. A university environment where we did a hellava lot to recruit and retain women. And this was all through the 1990s and onwards. As noted, I purposely gave up several promotions - including one to a woman who was kinda pissed - maybe upset is a better word - at me when she found out.
I figure much more argument among us is pointless. You think that men are pigs and women are easily turned away from thier passions.
I think that there might just be some career paths that women do not care for. My personal experience in trying to attract and retain women in these fields has shaped that.
I also believe that being the case, forced careers are needed is we are to achieve gender number equity.
The conclusion - men are pigs. From the article, the first and foremost reason :
Overt sexism, unwanted attention and sexual harassment create hostile working conditions.
The biggest problem in our workplace between men and women was the men were concerned that by saying the wrong thing, they were going to be fired. So communications with women were very guarded. That certainly isn't a friendly situation, but completely understandable. If you don't have a reason to talk to someone who can have you fired, you probably won't.
A lack of role models for women in technical fields is discouraging. "When faculty members are looking for the next person to win a Turing Award, which is computer science's Nobel Prize, they tend to look for people like the last ones who won such awards. This usually involves looking in the mirror,” Roberts said.
And if you want yound ladies to have especially physically attractive role models there's always : https://science.jpl.nasa.gov/p... a physicist/Astronomer who manages to not look like the stereotype egghead.
So all I have to say, if Herr Professor hasn't found female role models to present to his students, well - that is his fault not menarepigs
His study is the typical "women are weak" model, where any negativity causes tehm to seek other careers, which presumably have no sexism and all men are perfect gentlemen.
He can rail on about his women's school model for a million years, but it won't cure the problem.
I should come up with a list of links to copy/paste, that lot was just a quick Google search.
So - does this mean that there was something wrong with any woman who did not allow herself to be intimidated out of a science career that she was passionate about, but the passion was killed by anyone that didn't give her positivity?
way to completely miss the point. renewables like solar generate at peak capacity for around 1/3 of a day. a coal plant operating at half the capacity will still outgenerate it on a daily basis.
So all we need is coal, forever and ever, world without end, amen, right?
Here's the thing. Coal might allow men to achieve multiple orgasms, grow an extra 5 inches on our dicks, and women to all become Sophia Vergara just by inhaling the fumes given off, as well as cure all diseases.
But dear friend, it isn't renewable, so what do we do? Dig up all of the coal in the ground, then fuck off and die because there is no more? It was a good run, but now that the last clinker of coal is burned, we just committ mass suicide, eh?
I get much. You get what is 5 minutes in the future.
Your great umbrage over solar and wind also declares that it is already maxxed out, with no gains to be had in the future. I surely don't get much, and you have all of the knowledge as to how the past present and future shall be. I'm not so certain about that.
Go to Youtube, pick a random video and scroll to the comments. They are interesting. Makes the worst here on Slashdot look like Sunday school talk.
Hmmm, I dunno...I think if I want to swim in that kind of environment I'll just go to Brietbart or The Blaze and watch all the goobers like serviscope_minor scream "TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP" and tell me how the gubmint is stealin' our freedomz.
Which is weird, because the government they want is decidedly lacking in freedom.
That reasoning doesn't really work.
Since the load is variable you need at least one power source that can react immediately to variations. Hydroelectric is excellent at that. Thermal based power sources like coal and nuclear are pretty bad at it and solar and wind sort of just generates what they do.
Coal and nuc don't ramp up well, and a big problem is if the load suddenly goes way down. Nasty things happen to the turbines as they spin way past design rpms. There is a bank of big resistors to dump that load into.
Wind power and solar means that on windy and sunny days you don't spend as much energy stored in the dam. Sure, you can use coal and nuclear instead of wind and solar, but none of them are capable of handling load variation.
I think you missed the point. Whoosh. GP is agreeing storage is not an issue.
He's saying capacity and actual output are apples and oranges, and it's not storage that's the problem.
Oh, so he's saying that it is impossible to make enough capacity?
Total capacity and total storage are rather simple problems, perhaps that's the source of my confusion.
Let's take my simple radio station powering scheme. A couple solar panels, charge regulator and a few deep discharge batteries as well as a removable gel-cel bank for portable use.
Wildly varying load - on receive, less than a watt, and several hundred every transmit cycle. Duty cycle is such that I use a few amps charging current, and that takes care of the hotel load. The overnight hours, the station relies on battery power alone, then starts again the next day with charging via the panel. Energy input and storage are well matched.
And it works.
Now this isn't a method to power a large scale system, it's an example of the simplicity of working out the capacity and loading of a system.
That this still needs to be pointed out shows just how dangerous and naive the green left still is.
I'm not left. I do understand that unless you ascribe to the abiotic energy production theory, there is not an infinity of energy sources out there that enrich the coal industry.
Now grow up, your insults are lame and silly, and in true low Information denialist fashion, attempt to paint anyone who isn't in lockstep with you as your favorite hate target.
but coal plants have level output and can run 24/7,
Are you actually asserting that demand is level 24 hours a day?
By the way, what he is asserting for his preferred form of electrical generation is pretty true. Coal powered plants simply love to run at one particular power level. Which means that they have issues with the peak demand. and the same solutions exist for proper coal, and wind and solar.
This is a big problem with renewable deniers, they don't always get the technology of either the existing or new technology.
Yes, it very much is that the power can be stored. Storing power is a present day technology that is in use right now. It is not something that we have to think out because it's a huge technological solar and wind power killing problem. It's been solved, and quite some time ago, because power leveling is a big problem with all formas of electrical generation.
... they overtake coal for amount generated per unit time.
Renewables may have higher total peak, but coal plants have level output and can run 24/7, while sun is only about a third of the day and wind varies with the weather - at a power output proportional to the CUBE of the windspeed.
There are some issues there, perhaps you don't know about them. A turbine generator hates a widely varying load, and designing one for peak power is uneconomical. So many power generation facilities have a method of evening out the load. At night time, when the demand load tends to be much lower, they pump water into reservoirs to be released during the daytime when demand is much higher, running other generators. There is not one reason that a method used for a proper coal fired plant cannot be used for the spawn of the devil solar and wind power. It's already in place in many areas.
So, is it time to go back to all the nay sayers who have over the past 10 years asserted this point was impossible, and say "I told you so"? Or will they just continue to assert that the numbers are all lies, and only coal can make electricity?
Truth no longer matters. You see the craziest shit put out by the deniers. Even to the point of their lack of understanding the entire power generation physics We still have people who think they are scoring points by pointing out that the sun goes down at night, so you can't use solar.
except every Jeep I've ever been in is a dangerous death trap, with crap build quality, and safety, so that would actually make their hatred of Jeeps accurate, and a valid warning to consumers...
I've owned 3 now, and they've actually been literal lifesavers. My first year Grand Cherokee was finally retired with almost 300 K miles, still ran well, but was starting to nickel and dime us at almost 15 years old, the Wife has a compass, and I have a Patriot. She wanted a Jeep that was more crossover like, and I wanted a small Jeep that gets good gas milage along with the Jeep's ability to just go no matter what. That some AC doesn't like them means... well actually nothing.
Companies don't think that women are cheaper. They might pay them a bit less on average, but they see them as potential liabilities because they might get pregnant or leave or reduce hours to have a family.
This brings up my favorite Pregnancy leave story. We are required to allow a woman to take leave after having a child, and some take extended leave, something like a year. I really have no issue with this, seems like a good idea.
But!
We had a staff assist who over a several year period, had three children, and took the max leave. SO out of six plus years, she was there around half of the time.
Well, there was a real need for someone when she was away form work, so they hired a temporary replacement. three of them.
Guess who lost their job every time this woman came back to work? Three women lost their jobs because of her legitimate and legal extended maternity leave. I guess that is the law of unintended consequences.
No particular political import, just something the thread reminded me of.
You might wish to consider how outside factors must necessarily influence what your real interest is.
Before you go further, define "outside factors".
My wife has found the outside factors to be other women who discourage women. There is a lod faction of women who loathe sucessful women, and altogether too many women listen to them.
Don't be ignorant yourself there is not and was never a push to get more men into nursing, there was a push get more PEOPLE into nursing. Nursing is a case where there were at least at one point a lot of job openings and not a lot of licensed nurses to fill them.
The problem as expressed at our local nursing school is that while a lot of ladies become nurses, they tend to leave the field quickly. Turnover is a big problem.
Slashdot Mirror
of course not, don't be a retard. Pointing out the fallacy of those posting and how the headlines etc is blatantly WRONG, does not equal support for coal. Coal needs to die the sooner the better, it is poisoning the planet and people, unfortunately the best alternative is Nuclear which while clean and relatively safe has so much stigma and misinformation associated with it that it is currently cost prohibitive in many circumstances.
I'm not so certain - then again, I am a retard as you so intelligently pointed out.
Unfortunately, I know all too many people who believe that solar and wind are liberal lies and impossible technologies, and that believe it or not, coal is being made as we write these words. That there will almost certainly never be another coal age is beyond them, but hey! I'm a retard, so what do I know.
So, is it time to go back to all the nay sayers who have over the past 10 years asserted this point was impossible, and say "I told you so"? Or will they just continue to assert that the numbers are all lies, and only coal can make electricity?
Truth no longer matters. You see the craziest shit put out by the deniers. Even to the point of their lack of understanding the entire power generation physics We still have people who think they are scoring points by pointing out that the sun goes down at night, so you can't use solar.
The Truth is often a troll. I've been told several times in here that solar power will never work because the sun doesn't shine at night. Dead deriously told that.
Has Slashdot been taken over by the alt-right?
To add to this I think there is a valid question of demographics as well. Advertisers want young people with disposable income for the most part. What is the average age of Yahoo!'s audience? I bet it skews older now. I mean who created yahoo mail accounts after Gmail was available without an invite?
We're told that young people don't have disposible income. While old, I have quite a bit.
Maybe I'm wrong. I know people have a good association with Yahoo Finance. Do people still use Yahoo webmail or Yahoo Messenger? Is Yahoo Answers used for purposes other than trolling? Are there other services that are popular that I've just lost track of?
I use some of the Yahoo groups. After Usenet collapsed the Yahoo groups filled in and added some file storage ability. It also offered the ability to moderate people who were assholes or got hacked for having lame passwords. That is actually a rather nice service.
Yahoo Sports is actually a professional and nice alternative to the Walt Disney version of sports, ESPN.
Now that being said, on all of the news type pages, fully half of the news links are of the Taboola clickbait variety. Completely worthless and a waste of time, and since they are placed as if they are a legit news story, you can accidentally click on them. So I don't even check the sports stories that much any more. Yahoo as it is isn't worth much.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
Getting a little snarky are we?
I touched a hot ember once nd burned my finger.
But that's an anecdote, not data, so you better confirm that because I might be lying to ya.
We need a discussion on whether exact parity is needed in various fields
I think that's just a straw man argument advanced by anti-feminists. It's certainly not mainstream or even radical feminist ideology. What matters is not parity of numbers, it's equality of opportunity.
Asking for a discussion is a strawman argument? Shhesh tough crowd here tonight. Sorry friend, a frank discussion is badly needed. We've had enough bullshit spread about IT and STEM males that trying to turn replies into a straw man is telling us to shut our mouths.
Okay then, remove the "exact" Then let's add in race. You want a (whatever you decide is the appropriate gender mix) and you have an African guy and a female of European descent. All factors are equal - who gets the job?
These are young ladies who were exposed to science and encouraged to be in science and technology
It's only really as we went into the 90s that the push-back started. Having said that I think the reduction of effort, the assumption that the problem was fixed and would continue to self-correct was as big a factor.
I must have been living in an alternative universe. A university environment where we did a hellava lot to recruit and retain women. And this was all through the 1990s and onwards. As noted, I purposely gave up several promotions - including one to a woman who was kinda pissed - maybe upset is a better word - at me when she found out.
I figure much more argument among us is pointless. You think that men are pigs and women are easily turned away from thier passions.
I think that there might just be some career paths that women do not care for. My personal experience in trying to attract and retain women in these fields has shaped that.
I also believe that being the case, forced careers are needed is we are to achieve gender number equity.
Overview: http://web.stanford.edu/dept/n...
The conclusion - men are pigs. From the article, the first and foremost reason : Overt sexism, unwanted attention and sexual harassment create hostile working conditions.
The biggest problem in our workplace between men and women was the men were concerned that by saying the wrong thing, they were going to be fired. So communications with women were very guarded. That certainly isn't a friendly situation, but completely understandable. If you don't have a reason to talk to someone who can have you fired, you probably won't.
A lack of role models for women in technical fields is discouraging. "When faculty members are looking for the next person to win a Turing Award, which is computer science's Nobel Prize, they tend to look for people like the last ones who won such awards. This usually involves looking in the mirror,” Roberts said.
Seriously? a lack of women in technical role models? Here's 90 of them http://womenshistory.about.com... Here's 90 of them http://discovermagazine.com/20...
http://www.mnn.com/leaderboard... Some random ted talks, all by female scientists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
And if you want yound ladies to have especially physically attractive role models there's always : https://science.jpl.nasa.gov/p... a physicist/Astronomer who manages to not look like the stereotype egghead.
So all I have to say, if Herr Professor hasn't found female role models to present to his students, well - that is his fault not menarepigs
His study is the typical "women are weak" model, where any negativity causes tehm to seek other careers, which presumably have no sexism and all men are perfect gentlemen. He can rail on about his women's school model for a million years, but it won't cure the problem.
Study on one aspect: https://depts.washington.edu/s...
So the problem appears that if a female encounters any stereotype that she disagrees with, it completely destroys her interest.
Movie: http://www.bigdreammovement.co...
I should come up with a list of links to copy/paste, that lot was just a quick Google search.
So - does this mean that there was something wrong with any woman who did not allow herself to be intimidated out of a science career that she was passionate about, but the passion was killed by anyone that didn't give her positivity?
I don't know specifically
Absolutely true. It will produce almost infinitely more mercury, sulphur dioxide, sooth particles etc. Clearly a the better alternative!
Radioactivity as well. Coal power generation releases much more radioactivity than a nuc plant http://science.sciencemag.org/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I'd much rather live beside a nuc power plant than a coal fired one.
way to completely miss the point. renewables like solar generate at peak capacity for around 1/3 of a day. a coal plant operating at half the capacity will still outgenerate it on a daily basis.
So all we need is coal, forever and ever, world without end, amen, right?
Here's the thing. Coal might allow men to achieve multiple orgasms, grow an extra 5 inches on our dicks, and women to all become Sophia Vergara just by inhaling the fumes given off, as well as cure all diseases.
But dear friend, it isn't renewable, so what do we do? Dig up all of the coal in the ground, then fuck off and die because there is no more? It was a good run, but now that the last clinker of coal is burned, we just committ mass suicide, eh?
I get much. You get what is 5 minutes in the future.
Your great umbrage over solar and wind also declares that it is already maxxed out, with no gains to be had in the future. I surely don't get much, and you have all of the knowledge as to how the past present and future shall be. I'm not so certain about that.
That's because you're a fucking retarded sack of shit.
.
Meth is a powerful drug.
Go to Youtube, pick a random video and scroll to the comments. They are interesting. Makes the worst here on Slashdot look like Sunday school talk.
Hmmm, I dunno...I think if I want to swim in that kind of environment I'll just go to Brietbart or The Blaze and watch all the goobers like serviscope_minor scream "TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP" and tell me how the gubmint is stealin' our freedomz.
Which is weird, because the government they want is decidedly lacking in freedom.
That reasoning doesn't really work. Since the load is variable you need at least one power source that can react immediately to variations. Hydroelectric is excellent at that. Thermal based power sources like coal and nuclear are pretty bad at it and solar and wind sort of just generates what they do.
Coal and nuc don't ramp up well, and a big problem is if the load suddenly goes way down. Nasty things happen to the turbines as they spin way past design rpms. There is a bank of big resistors to dump that load into.
Wind power and solar means that on windy and sunny days you don't spend as much energy stored in the dam. Sure, you can use coal and nuclear instead of wind and solar, but none of them are capable of handling load variation.
Here's the idea for folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
All of this is to say, we've been using hybrid sources for years.
I think you missed the point. Whoosh. GP is agreeing storage is not an issue.
He's saying capacity and actual output are apples and oranges, and it's not storage that's the problem.
Oh, so he's saying that it is impossible to make enough capacity?
Total capacity and total storage are rather simple problems, perhaps that's the source of my confusion.
Let's take my simple radio station powering scheme. A couple solar panels, charge regulator and a few deep discharge batteries as well as a removable gel-cel bank for portable use.
Wildly varying load - on receive, less than a watt, and several hundred every transmit cycle. Duty cycle is such that I use a few amps charging current, and that takes care of the hotel load. The overnight hours, the station relies on battery power alone, then starts again the next day with charging via the panel. Energy input and storage are well matched.
And it works.
Now this isn't a method to power a large scale system, it's an example of the simplicity of working out the capacity and loading of a system.
That this still needs to be pointed out shows just how dangerous and naive the green left still is.
I'm not left. I do understand that unless you ascribe to the abiotic energy production theory, there is not an infinity of energy sources out there that enrich the coal industry.
Now grow up, your insults are lame and silly, and in true low Information denialist fashion, attempt to paint anyone who isn't in lockstep with you as your favorite hate target.
but coal plants have level output and can run 24/7,
Are you actually asserting that demand is level 24 hours a day?
By the way, what he is asserting for his preferred form of electrical generation is pretty true. Coal powered plants simply love to run at one particular power level. Which means that they have issues with the peak demand. and the same solutions exist for proper coal, and wind and solar.
This is a big problem with renewable deniers, they don't always get the technology of either the existing or new technology.
The power can be stored,
The issue is not that the power can be stored.
Yes, it very much is that the power can be stored. Storing power is a present day technology that is in use right now. It is not something that we have to think out because it's a huge technological solar and wind power killing problem. It's been solved, and quite some time ago, because power leveling is a big problem with all formas of electrical generation.
... they overtake coal for amount generated per unit time.
Renewables may have higher total peak, but coal plants have level output and can run 24/7, while sun is only about a third of the day and wind varies with the weather - at a power output proportional to the CUBE of the windspeed.
There are some issues there, perhaps you don't know about them. A turbine generator hates a widely varying load, and designing one for peak power is uneconomical. So many power generation facilities have a method of evening out the load. At night time, when the demand load tends to be much lower, they pump water into reservoirs to be released during the daytime when demand is much higher, running other generators. There is not one reason that a method used for a proper coal fired plant cannot be used for the spawn of the devil solar and wind power. It's already in place in many areas.
So, is it time to go back to all the nay sayers who have over the past 10 years asserted this point was impossible, and say "I told you so"? Or will they just continue to assert that the numbers are all lies, and only coal can make electricity?
Truth no longer matters. You see the craziest shit put out by the deniers. Even to the point of their lack of understanding the entire power generation physics We still have people who think they are scoring points by pointing out that the sun goes down at night, so you can't use solar.
They kicked Dog-Cow off of the Youtube comments for just that.
I confess, I don't know what that means. (??)
Go to Youtube, pick a random video and scroll to the comments. They are interesting. Makes the worst here on Slashdot look like Sunday school talk.
except every Jeep I've ever been in is a dangerous death trap, with crap build quality, and safety, so that would actually make their hatred of Jeeps accurate, and a valid warning to consumers...
I've owned 3 now, and they've actually been literal lifesavers. My first year Grand Cherokee was finally retired with almost 300 K miles, still ran well, but was starting to nickel and dime us at almost 15 years old, the Wife has a compass, and I have a Patriot. She wanted a Jeep that was more crossover like, and I wanted a small Jeep that gets good gas milage along with the Jeep's ability to just go no matter what. That some AC doesn't like them means... well actually nothing.
Companies don't think that women are cheaper. They might pay them a bit less on average, but they see them as potential liabilities because they might get pregnant or leave or reduce hours to have a family.
This brings up my favorite Pregnancy leave story. We are required to allow a woman to take leave after having a child, and some take extended leave, something like a year. I really have no issue with this, seems like a good idea.
But!
We had a staff assist who over a several year period, had three children, and took the max leave. SO out of six plus years, she was there around half of the time.
Well, there was a real need for someone when she was away form work, so they hired a temporary replacement. three of them.
Guess who lost their job every time this woman came back to work? Three women lost their jobs because of her legitimate and legal extended maternity leave. I guess that is the law of unintended consequences.
No particular political import, just something the thread reminded me of.
You might wish to consider how outside factors must necessarily influence what your real interest is.
Before you go further, define "outside factors".
My wife has found the outside factors to be other women who discourage women. There is a lod faction of women who loathe sucessful women, and altogether too many women listen to them.
They are avoiding computer science because they don't have an interest. Pretending otherwise is avoiding the truth.
But it has been determined that men are the problem. So we need a solution that works by men being the problem.
No one is being forced. We know that they want to are interested in tech, but they tell us that there are barriers.
Why is my frontline experience 100 percent incorrect? Can you direct me to the research that shows that?
Don't be ignorant yourself there is not and was never a push to get more men into nursing, there was a push get more PEOPLE into nursing. Nursing is a case where there were at least at one point a lot of job openings and not a lot of licensed nurses to fill them.
The problem as expressed at our local nursing school is that while a lot of ladies become nurses, they tend to leave the field quickly. Turnover is a big problem.