Dude, I guess your Kool-Aid says to trust in nothing. Fortunately, we no longer require flagmen to walk in front of automobiles to ward off pedestrians and horses. This, in spite of 10's of thousands killed in automobiles every year in the USA alone. Why? the risk/reward ratio favors it. Again, it is as illogical to automatically reject technological advances as it is to blindly trust it.
And as for TMI, the whole thing was an ACCIDENT, caused by chance occurrences. It just so happened that this accident revealed a number of weaknesses in the physical plant and operating procedures that now made fission power plants MUCH safer. Internal combustion engines are "inherently unsafe", using your same criteria.
It's so typical to see people eschew simple logic in order to push their personal agenda, and then try to marginalize people with better sense that disagree with them.
Based on what logic, exactly? Just because an unanticipated event happened at TMI, it doesn't prove that ANY unanticipated event could have happened.
Anyway, TMI is ancient history as far as new reactor designs go. It's like saying a Prius is unsafe because a 1973 Pinto can explode.
Which is worse, a few tons of dangerous solid that needs to be permanently sequestered decades from now, or untold millions of tons of CO2 and trace metals being released into the atmosphere continuously?
The big ugly guy on Top Gear burned through two sets of tires in minutes, drifting a fancy Mercedes
around a race track. Does that tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the car (other than it's
fast and powerful)?
At top speed, a Bugatti Veryron will run out of gas in just a few minutes. Does that mean that
the car is deficient in some way?
The fact that you CAN burn through the battery charge of a Tesla on a race track is not
in and of itself a negative. Anyone spending $100,000 plus for a car already knows
that an EV is not (yet) a full replacement for a gas or diesel vehicle. A two-seater makes
a poor vehicle choice for a soccer mom. This does not make two-seaters defective.
There is a market for used "supercomputers". Yale recently purchased one.
http://dailybulletin.yale.edu/article.aspx?id=8382
It was number 146 in the list of top 500 supercomputers, and they got it
for a fraction of the cost when new.
Yes, but that happened in the past as well. Read about JMRI vs. Katzer:
http://jmri.org/k/Recent.shtml#2010-02-17
The troll was eventually defeated, but only after years in court and $100,000's
spent.
You humans and your base-10 arithmetic. I use base-pi arithmetic. So pi = 1, and pi squared = 1. Computed in a nanosecond.
Of course, it makes other computations slightly more complex. For example, I have about 3.183095825842514 fingers, more or less...
Whether you are "re-charging" your car with gasoline or electricity, the procedure of transferring all of that energy is dangerous. With liquid fuel, there are the obvious flammability issues - nobody would ever consider putting a fueling station inside their home. And while electric charging is much safer, it is not perfectly safe. There are potential fire and explosion hazards from electrical malfunctions, incorrect or damaged batteries, cabling and connectors, interference from foreign objects, including rain, snow and other chemicals, and in-home hazards from wiring inadequacies and overloads. I for one would not sleep as soundly knowing that there is such a highly powered energy transfer going on in the garage attached to my house every night. Adding supersonic flywheels or redundant battery packs just increases that risk. Right now, electric vehicles are rare, and so are EV battery "events". The potential of these mishaps occurring will always be part of the risk of owning one.
Really? There are transmitters for up to four tower frequencies. There's WiFi. There's Bluetooth. Radios, PCs, microprocessors and the like all emit RF from internal clocks and crystals, PLL frequency synthesizers, local oscillators, etc. They don't need to "transmit" in order to detect them.
Years ago when they were cracking down on police radar detectors, the police were equipped with sniffers that picked up the RFI from the local oscillators in your typical RADAR detector, and that doesn't have a transmitter at all.
So all the bad guys need to do is come up with a cell phone sniffer to set off their booby traps? Bad idea.
If a science education is so important to Obama, why did he essentially cancel NASA's manned space program, which along with the premature cancellation of the Shuttle has resulted in over 1500 NASA lay-offs so far, with many 1000's more coming in the future for NASA and its contractors? Aside from stunts on TV, Obama is doing nothing to encourage a career in science and is instead sending a concrete message that ones efforts would be better spent in areas of "public service".
Of course, the intention in the former case was to prevent a detonation and the intention in the latter case was to cause one. Kinda flips that "what if" scenario around.
It's self-evident that there are GTC orders in place, and also obvious that many were triggered by this spike. So it's the other side of the argument that requires proof. Funny I don't see an "UNDO TRADE" button on my on-line brokerage account. So if you're saying that every illicit trade requires a petition of the SEC for reversal, it's guaranteed that not everyone got their losses reversed.
Proof? The uncertainty and doubt remains, but there never was any fear. And what makes you think I'm out of the market? My problem was with GTC stop-loss orders causing unwarranted sales, that's all.
The real crime here was not the market orders that were improperly executed.
The real crime were all the subsequent day or GTC limit orders that were triggered by the plunge that were executed at the artificially low prices. Remember that many brokerages can fill customer orders without going to the market - they can use the current market price tick, but execute the trade from their own inventory. Thus, the price does not change due to the trade, bypassing market buy/sell corrections.
This was another attack against the sucker individual stock trader. And what was the eTrade "talking baby" commercial that was running incessantly? The "smart" baby on the plane who had GTC limit orders in place, so he could "rest easy" when he was on the road. And what happened to the smart baby? His $50 stock, with a $45 GTC limit order was triggered and his $50 stock sold for $35 by the time the "market" order was placed. And by the time the smart baby got off his plane, the stock that he sold at $35 was now selling at $45. Untold $billions were lost that way.
What's it worth? Depends upon who you are referring to. Some solar users are the recipients of cash gifts from other people in the form of government subsidies. So everyone else is participating in paying a small group of other people. When assessing solar's economic viability, one should make a distinction between the actual costs vs. the subsidized costs borne by the public via government subsidies.
As for multiples, there's an EPA solar calculator form that will predict the solar output in a given location. My location in the northeast has a solar multiplier of less than 3, while much of the southwest has a multiplier over 7. To me, that's a "multiple".
For decades I've been hearing about these miracle solar cells that will be available "real soon now", but they are all based on this precious technology to make them smaller and more efficient. Why the overwhelming focus on efficiency? Better to focus on manufacturability. The current cells are incredibly fragile and fussy, so they get put on the roof, which makes everything more complicated - efficiency is then inordinately important, maintenance and installation are more complicated, and nobody will be admiring that NASA hardware cluttering up the neighborhood.
So let's come up with a solar cell that is 1% efficient, but that can be laid by the truckload like asphalt or cement. Imagine if we could tap solar power from our driveways, patios, and streets? Get it off the roof. Maybe make a net that can overlay a grass lawn and handle typical lawn use? Overcome the precious nature of current solar cells with a simple system that can make up for those disadvantages by being ubiquitous.
First, California is far from a typical location when it comes to solar radiation. The same setup up north would be multiples of that size, plus all you are doing is matching 100% of the load, but over a 24 hour period, you only get 30-40% of the rated output. So don't forget those batteries and the expensive inverters.
And I've got one, too! More of a novelty than a seriously playable machine. It's got six flippers arranged in two columns of three, Here's the entry for Humpty Dumpty on the definitive pinball machine database - IPDB:
http://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=1254
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, I guess your Kool-Aid says to trust in nothing. Fortunately, we no longer require flagmen to walk in front of automobiles to ward off pedestrians and horses. This, in spite of 10's of thousands killed in automobiles every year in the USA alone. Why? the risk/reward ratio favors it. Again, it is as illogical to automatically reject technological advances as it is to blindly trust it. And as for TMI, the whole thing was an ACCIDENT, caused by chance occurrences. It just so happened that this accident revealed a number of weaknesses in the physical plant and operating procedures that now made fission power plants MUCH safer. Internal combustion engines are "inherently unsafe", using your same criteria. It's so typical to see people eschew simple logic in order to push their personal agenda, and then try to marginalize people with better sense that disagree with them.
Based on what logic, exactly? Just because an unanticipated event happened at TMI, it doesn't prove that ANY unanticipated event could have happened. Anyway, TMI is ancient history as far as new reactor designs go. It's like saying a Prius is unsafe because a 1973 Pinto can explode.
Which is worse, a few tons of dangerous solid that needs to be permanently sequestered decades from now, or untold millions of tons of CO2 and trace metals being released into the atmosphere continuously?
There are over 1800 measurable sources of gamma radiation in space. Just because something is measurable, doesn't necessarily mean it's dangerous.
The retard is the one who initially replied. He's the one that bows down to lies and witchcraft, and calls anyone who disagrees an idiot.
Sucker!
Nobody should be concerned about global warming as long as the current data remains manipulated, fabricated and motivated by political agenda.
The big ugly guy on Top Gear burned through two sets of tires in minutes, drifting a fancy Mercedes around a race track. Does that tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the car (other than it's fast and powerful)? At top speed, a Bugatti Veryron will run out of gas in just a few minutes. Does that mean that the car is deficient in some way? The fact that you CAN burn through the battery charge of a Tesla on a race track is not in and of itself a negative. Anyone spending $100,000 plus for a car already knows that an EV is not (yet) a full replacement for a gas or diesel vehicle. A two-seater makes a poor vehicle choice for a soccer mom. This does not make two-seaters defective.
There is a market for used "supercomputers". Yale recently purchased one. http://dailybulletin.yale.edu/article.aspx?id=8382 It was number 146 in the list of top 500 supercomputers, and they got it for a fraction of the cost when new.
Yes, but that happened in the past as well. Read about JMRI vs. Katzer: http://jmri.org/k/Recent.shtml#2010-02-17 The troll was eventually defeated, but only after years in court and $100,000's spent.
Of course I had to simplify my example for your terrans to be able to understand it. But don't you wish you knew how many fingers I really have?
You humans and your base-10 arithmetic. I use base-pi arithmetic. So pi = 1, and pi squared = 1. Computed in a nanosecond. Of course, it makes other computations slightly more complex. For example, I have about 3.183095825842514 fingers, more or less...
I had a grandfather that invented a time machine. But he went back in time and killed himself. Now he's gone.
Whether you are "re-charging" your car with gasoline or electricity, the procedure of transferring all of that energy is dangerous. With liquid fuel, there are the obvious flammability issues - nobody would ever consider putting a fueling station inside their home. And while electric charging is much safer, it is not perfectly safe. There are potential fire and explosion hazards from electrical malfunctions, incorrect or damaged batteries, cabling and connectors, interference from foreign objects, including rain, snow and other chemicals, and in-home hazards from wiring inadequacies and overloads. I for one would not sleep as soundly knowing that there is such a highly powered energy transfer going on in the garage attached to my house every night. Adding supersonic flywheels or redundant battery packs just increases that risk. Right now, electric vehicles are rare, and so are EV battery "events". The potential of these mishaps occurring will always be part of the risk of owning one.
Really? There are transmitters for up to four tower frequencies. There's WiFi. There's Bluetooth. Radios, PCs, microprocessors and the like all emit RF from internal clocks and crystals, PLL frequency synthesizers, local oscillators, etc. They don't need to "transmit" in order to detect them. Years ago when they were cracking down on police radar detectors, the police were equipped with sniffers that picked up the RFI from the local oscillators in your typical RADAR detector, and that doesn't have a transmitter at all. So all the bad guys need to do is come up with a cell phone sniffer to set off their booby traps? Bad idea.
If a science education is so important to Obama, why did he essentially cancel NASA's manned space program, which along with the premature cancellation of the Shuttle has resulted in over 1500 NASA lay-offs so far, with many 1000's more coming in the future for NASA and its contractors? Aside from stunts on TV, Obama is doing nothing to encourage a career in science and is instead sending a concrete message that ones efforts would be better spent in areas of "public service".
Of course, the intention in the former case was to prevent a detonation and the intention in the latter case was to cause one. Kinda flips that "what if" scenario around.
It's self-evident that there are GTC orders in place, and also obvious that many were triggered by this spike. So it's the other side of the argument that requires proof. Funny I don't see an "UNDO TRADE" button on my on-line brokerage account. So if you're saying that every illicit trade requires a petition of the SEC for reversal, it's guaranteed that not everyone got their losses reversed.
Proof? The uncertainty and doubt remains, but there never was any fear. And what makes you think I'm out of the market? My problem was with GTC stop-loss orders causing unwarranted sales, that's all.
The real crime here was not the market orders that were improperly executed. The real crime were all the subsequent day or GTC limit orders that were triggered by the plunge that were executed at the artificially low prices. Remember that many brokerages can fill customer orders without going to the market - they can use the current market price tick, but execute the trade from their own inventory. Thus, the price does not change due to the trade, bypassing market buy/sell corrections. This was another attack against the sucker individual stock trader. And what was the eTrade "talking baby" commercial that was running incessantly? The "smart" baby on the plane who had GTC limit orders in place, so he could "rest easy" when he was on the road. And what happened to the smart baby? His $50 stock, with a $45 GTC limit order was triggered and his $50 stock sold for $35 by the time the "market" order was placed. And by the time the smart baby got off his plane, the stock that he sold at $35 was now selling at $45. Untold $billions were lost that way.
What's it worth? Depends upon who you are referring to. Some solar users are the recipients of cash gifts from other people in the form of government subsidies. So everyone else is participating in paying a small group of other people. When assessing solar's economic viability, one should make a distinction between the actual costs vs. the subsidized costs borne by the public via government subsidies. As for multiples, there's an EPA solar calculator form that will predict the solar output in a given location. My location in the northeast has a solar multiplier of less than 3, while much of the southwest has a multiplier over 7. To me, that's a "multiple".
For decades I've been hearing about these miracle solar cells that will be available "real soon now", but they are all based on this precious technology to make them smaller and more efficient. Why the overwhelming focus on efficiency? Better to focus on manufacturability. The current cells are incredibly fragile and fussy, so they get put on the roof, which makes everything more complicated - efficiency is then inordinately important, maintenance and installation are more complicated, and nobody will be admiring that NASA hardware cluttering up the neighborhood. So let's come up with a solar cell that is 1% efficient, but that can be laid by the truckload like asphalt or cement. Imagine if we could tap solar power from our driveways, patios, and streets? Get it off the roof. Maybe make a net that can overlay a grass lawn and handle typical lawn use? Overcome the precious nature of current solar cells with a simple system that can make up for those disadvantages by being ubiquitous.
First, California is far from a typical location when it comes to solar radiation. The same setup up north would be multiples of that size, plus all you are doing is matching 100% of the load, but over a 24 hour period, you only get 30-40% of the rated output. So don't forget those batteries and the expensive inverters.
The guy at Yahoo later calculated the 10^100th digit of pi, and some guy from the marketing department came up behind him and whacked him with a 2x4.
And I've got one, too! More of a novelty than a seriously playable machine. It's got six flippers arranged in two columns of three, Here's the entry for Humpty Dumpty on the definitive pinball machine database - IPDB: http://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=1254