I don't want to do the work to create unique tests, so how can I keep them from getting outside information? Oh, I also want to allow them to get outside information.
Look, there training to be engineers, you can not prevent them from access 'part' of the internet.
Don't let them access the internet at all. THEY are there to learn that subject. As such they should figure it out. ANY engineer that has to look up everything its a crappy engineer.
"Somehow being anti-nuclear is being equated with the anti-technology ignoramuses. " because the point they bring up are often stupid.
"well, he did plasma work for fusion so maybe he is not a nuclear physicist." It's not his expertise, so his opinion shouldn't really care weight based on that.
"In the DECADE before those plants are built, solar and wind will be less than HALF the cost they are today," You DO NOT KNOW THAT. You have nothing to base that on. My friends who actually design, engineer, and manufacturer solar cells would love to know how that can guarantee that, and it still doesn't solve the available land issue. of COURSE we should implement solar as is appropriate. I'm not sure iof this is your thinking, but if it is I want to shut it down right now: Moore's law does not apply to solar cells. So please don't compare it to the silicone cost from 1950-2005
" How about a smarter grid that doesn't LOSE 10-20% of the power?" our grid does not loose that much power, sheesh. On average 6.5% and it's not just inefficiency, its power theft, loss during natural disaster as well.
7 billion for plant that can run 160 years isn't really that bad.
Are you sure the AP1000 uses graphite as the moderator? Are you positive it's not light water? Think carefully.
" (burning graphite is what spread the Chernobyl radiation)."
using tin for the shed was the real cause, FYI.
"with its bargain-basement containment design." no it isn't. In fact the shell is 3-5 times thicker then other reactors. But, of course you read the design information and already new that? RIGHT?
Three mile island cause exactly zero deaths. not turning the other generates on and relying on coal has caused 50+ death, statistically.
Chernobyl was a disaster. One the is no longer possible with any current reactor. Fukushima, yes, be the problem that happen there can NOT happen in these reactors. They don't rely on human intervention, generators, or need a power source to shut down.
we learned to have reactor that can shut down with gravity, instead of relying on external power source and generators. I mena, sine you have such a strong opinion, you DID compare bother reactor types, right? RIGHT?
Or maybe you are too stupid to realize how ignorant you are.
Actually, you just need to compare all know sources with use.
which eliminates 1 and 3
2, not that much more. Yes the world is a big place, it isn't infinite in size.
Lets say we took all the known oil, and at out current rate of use it will be depleted in 100 year.(Just a number used for this example, based on, exactly, nothing)
So, even if the amount of know moil double, it won't) we would be out in 200 years; which isn't a long time to have a complete replacement, and ignore new consumers usage.
" has actually been increasing in volume faster than we've been using it." interesting, do you have a citation, or are you just remembering from that time where you read nothing?
Basing it on money is not a good guideline in any industry that basis most of it's product on marketing and exploiting urban myths.
You can only compare technical feature.
I could build a 50 dollar speaker that will sound as good, if not better, the many 5000 dollar speaker.
"Regarding some of the colorful adjectives that you often see audiophiles using (e.g. "warm", "bright", "muddy", "tinny", "deep", "full"): " no. They are what people ignorant of the actual engineering say. They are also used because they are an 'opinion' , where as release actual information about range, response, etc can be tested.
"frequency ranges and amplitudes gets old pretty fast," Spoken like someone who doesn't like his statements to be testable.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't want to do the work to create unique tests, so how can I keep them from getting outside information?
Oh, I also want to allow them to get outside information.
Look, there training to be engineers, you can not prevent them from access 'part' of the internet.
Don't let them access the internet at all.
THEY are there to learn that subject. As such they should figure it out. ANY engineer that has to look up everything its a crappy engineer.
No. Fascism is the purging of the state from any foreign influence, vie a police force.
Fascism is HARMFULL to corporations in a global economy.
What we are seeing is corporation doing what they do when not properly regulated.
The "Corporation are people" is corporatism.
don't conflate a corporation backing a power that can make them money, with anything more then it is.
" that can be proven to have downloaded music,"
distributed music, not downloaded.
Important distinction.
I like how you completely ignore that the DoE cost was before addition items where added, like airplane impact safety; which was not cheap.
Gosh, new data came in, and the results changed. I'm shocked.
to provide enough power to keep new seasons of Archer coming out.
"Somehow being anti-nuclear is being equated with the anti-technology ignoramuses. "
because the point they bring up are often stupid.
"well, he did plasma work for fusion so maybe he is not a nuclear physicist."
It's not his expertise, so his opinion shouldn't really care weight based on that.
"In the DECADE before those plants are built, solar and wind will be less than HALF the cost they are today,"
You DO NOT KNOW THAT. You have nothing to base that on. My friends who actually design, engineer, and manufacturer solar cells would love to know how that can guarantee that, and it still doesn't solve the available land issue.
of COURSE we should implement solar as is appropriate.
I'm not sure iof this is your thinking, but if it is I want to shut it down right now: Moore's law does not apply to solar cells. So please don't compare it to the silicone cost from 1950-2005
" How about a smarter grid that doesn't LOSE 10-20% of the power?"
our grid does not loose that much power, sheesh. On average 6.5% and it's not just inefficiency, its power theft, loss during natural disaster as well.
7 billion for plant that can run 160 years isn't really that bad.
It's a far superior design, not minor tweaks.
And yes, I want 4th gen testing to resume.
Not that it shouldn't be better designed.
"mention that uranium is a finite source and that we WILL eventually deal with a depletion in the same way we're facing oil"
move to thorium?
" highlight that it takes DECADES to get a plant to operating status "
that's false.
"to us NOW that can reduce emissions and is not nearly as expensive (environmentally or economically) as nuclear will be."
no, we don't.
Nuclear is expensive compare to what? remember, these plants will have an operation life time of 80 to 160 year.
Anyone who quotes comedian as have some kind of relevant point is being stupid...espcially George Carlin.
He intentionally overlooks the point, and pretends like human can't drive a species to extinction.
He pretty much went crazy.
I don't think you understand what skeptical means.
and understand why? HINT, it's not because of cooling or creating more ice.
It's because of more rain fall over land.
'Normal' cycles would indicate that they should be increasing; the fact that they remain 0 is still a concern.
yes, because gravity might stop working~
Are you sure the AP1000 uses graphite as the moderator? Are you positive it's not light water? Think carefully.
" (burning graphite is what spread the Chernobyl radiation)."
using tin for the shed was the real cause, FYI.
"with its bargain-basement containment design."
no it isn't. In fact the shell is 3-5 times thicker then other reactors. But, of course you read the design information and already new that? RIGHT?
Three mile island cause exactly zero deaths. not turning the other generates on and relying on coal has caused 50+ death, statistically.
Chernobyl was a disaster. One the is no longer possible with any current reactor.
Fukushima, yes, be the problem that happen there can NOT happen in these reactors. They don't rely on human intervention, generators, or need a power source to shut down.
yes, massive spills is exactly like slow leaks.
we learned to have reactor that can shut down with gravity, instead of relying on external power source and generators. I mena, sine you have such a strong opinion, you DID compare bother reactor types, right? RIGHT?
Or maybe you are too stupid to realize how ignorant you are.
Actually, you just need to compare all know sources with use.
which eliminates 1 and 3
2, not that much more. Yes the world is a big place, it isn't infinite in size.
Lets say we took all the known oil, and at out current rate of use it will be depleted in 100 year.(Just a number used for this example, based on, exactly, nothing)
So, even if the amount of know moil double, it won't) we would be out in 200 years; which isn't a long time to have a complete replacement, and ignore new consumers usage.
" has actually been increasing in volume faster than we've been using it."
interesting, do you have a citation, or are you just remembering from that time where you read nothing?
Um.. no. If they are put their intentionally, then they are part of the music.
Just like some music intentionally puts amp buzz into their recording.
Can't decide if you are being funny or stupid...I'll go with funny.
Don't be stupid. Most is crap, some is well produced. Just like it's always been.
If you believe that, then the company you work for can get you to do ANYTHING.
Some of us aren't self deluded bitches.
Stop it.
It's not like that for all recordings.
" Yes, maybe I am missing out on some peolpe with real talent, NOT likely..."
what a douche.
If you don't know Pink Floyd, then you do live under a rock, or most likely a Liar.
And I actually pity people like you who refuse to listen to different things and walk around never goig to enjoy anything new.
Pity.
And yes.I enjoy Sinatra, Big Band, and yes I know who Anne MIller is.
I just don't let the thing I enjoy define what I can enjoy.
You have a sad life.
ask 100 people if the know who Alan Parsons Anyone who recognizes the name will know he was involved with Pink Floyd.
Actually you can't.
Basing it on money is not a good guideline in any industry that basis most of it's product on marketing and exploiting urban myths.
You can only compare technical feature.
I could build a 50 dollar speaker that will sound as good, if not better, the many 5000 dollar speaker.
"Regarding some of the colorful adjectives that you often see audiophiles using (e.g. "warm", "bright", "muddy", "tinny", "deep", "full"): "
no. They are what people ignorant of the actual engineering say. They are also used because they are an 'opinion' , where as release actual information about range, response, etc can be tested.
"frequency ranges and amplitudes gets old pretty fast,"
Spoken like someone who doesn't like his statements to be testable.
IT helps you find music your friends like. That's an echo chamber. Experiencing things outside your echo chamber is a good thing.