Thermal pollution has been a problem with nuclear power plants. Whenever you change the conditions in a chaotic system the results are not usually predictable. You may force the system into whole new orbits or it may fly away to some other orbit or it may just shoot off to infinite. Mathematically speaking that is. In this case, warm water expelled from the plant caused lifeforms that do well in warm water to do better. They started moving closer to the source because they thrive in even warmer water yet. There are numerous other problems this warm water in an otherwise stable environment caused, but the only one the news is talking about is the one that directly affects humans over + or - 2 weeks.
We are creating or have created similar problems. Consider the fact that crab and lobster fishing requires you throw away crabs/lobsters below a certain size. That is selective pressure on their species to encourage smaller animals. Also consider that in my home state (Montana) they introduced the Mysis which killed all the salmon. Furthermore, Americans want to eat fish that other nations import. We may care about what happens in our waters but we certainly don't bitch too much about where or how certain major importers of seafood get their fish.
Ive read that Jellyfish thrive more in oxygen depleted waters, and I have not read about the carbonic acid problem. However I still think overfishing is the main problem for fishes. Since carbon dioxide is produced by pretty much any decaying or burning matter and we make up a minority portion of that (albeit significant since its beyond homeostasis) I am pretty sure the fact that people are eating fish far far beyond sustainable levels is the culprit. http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800 . We are talking about 70 percent of species that will be fished out of existence in the next 50 years if we don't do something. Im not against extinctions, and human beings are pretty much guaranteeing their own if they don't stop being short sighted twats.
See Guppy's post below. You can eat jellyfish, but the nutritional content is almost nil. You have to heavily process jellyfish to make it nutritional, and even then it is nowhere near the same level of nutrition as fish. You can catch a single fish like a Salmon and feed a man for a few days, or catch several hundred jellyfish and feed the same man for a couple hours.
Many Jellyfish and Fish compete in their ecological niche. Because people the world over are over-fishing the sea, it leaves room for more jellyfish to snatch the food the fish would otherwise eat. Furthermore, Jellyfish are also nearly nutrition-less so people do not try to catch them. So, we have a collection of species of animal that have less predation vs. their main competitor and more food to eat, so they tend to thrive. Its not really a good idea for us to continue to ravage the sea life without regard to their continued survival. Coal and Oil plants really don't affect the Jellyfish as much.
Agreed. I stopped for about a year and a half and recovered my health. However, as time went on my social and work circle as well as my family were too difficult to be around since they all are either wine snobs, after work happy hour drinkers, or simply unwilling to not drink around me. I didn't feel the desire to drink as strongly as before, but I felt left out of pretty much everything they were doing. It seems like a stupid reason, but it was extraordinarily difficult to want to hang out with any one of the aforementioned people without the possibility of going downward spiral again. I looked into other options and found something called the "Sinclair Method" which uses an opioid antagonist (opioid receptor blocker) to do something called "pharmacological extinction" which beats addiction by removing the positive feedback you get in your limbic system (which is responsible for a lot of addictions). It has a much higher success rate as a treatment VS. AA so I tried it. AA only has about a 15 percent retention rate, and maybe slightly higher of a success rate. Studies actually show that most people do what you did, and that is grow out of it, or they eventually die from it. The Sinclair method worked for me, but I would not recommend trying it if you are already comfortable as a teetotaler. Its not worth the risks and possible problems with your family unless you have extreme family and/or spousal support as well as a doctor willing to take you through the process.
Which shouldn't be a reason to get rid of the internet. It should be a reason to go get laid so you stop obsessing about it. A) Get a hooker. OR B) screw your wife/girlfriend. If shes not willing, see A). OR C) Go out and find a girlfriend. If you can't get one see A).
I used to have dial-up internet that was so bad I may as well have not had internet. I found plenty of uses for my computer. Mainly, buying games at the store and playing them for hours a day. When Duke Nukem 3D came along I would just direct-dial my friend's modem and play against him.
If you know you can't control your drinking you don't burn down all the liquor stores within 5 miles of your house, forcing yourself to go 6 miles away to get booze when you need it. You go get treatment for the problem itself. I used to have a bad drinking problem, mostly due to a combination of genetics and depression. I went the in-patient and out-patient treatment route with AA. It never sat well with me because I am an atheist and the whole higher power thing seems ridiculous to me since there are medical reasons for addiction. Then, I discovered a little pill called Naltrexone and I drink moderately about 90 percent of the time. Since it blocks the dopamine receptors in my brain I do not get positive feedback from drinking (or eating). Lesson? You can do things to control your problem through medical and psychiatric treatment. In his case, maybe he needs to get a porn blocker or some software that only allows internet to be on a few times a day.
presenting photos of people publicly without seeking permission from the person(s) in the photo is where it gets debatable unless the subject happens to be a person of general public interest (e.g., a politician, celebrity, etc.) or the event in the photo is of public interest.
Im more for a diversified approach. Go nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal. That way if something on Earth changes, like a meteor impact or a super-volcano explosion, or maybe the climate changes making an area where wind power was implemented useless, at least we have some other sources of power.
Man. You need to leave. You accept coal power because "they aren't lying as much" as the nuclear power industry in spite of knowing coal power is actually worse for the environment and for peoples health. Someone told you independent statistics exist that PROVE nuclear power is safer than all other options short of solar/wind. Another thing, your retirement fund probably is partially made up of stocks whether you know it or not. Should you be forced to pay 1000 bucks out of your pocket because some company in your portfolio made a bad decision? Get real.
Uhh. Ok. So coal and gas mining companies can be trusted to not pollute the environment and dispose of the waste products produced by burning? See http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/22/coal-ash-slurry-pond-bursts-in-tennessee/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire . No matter what, companies cannot be trusted without government oversight and a wealthy middle class that hold their government accountable. What happened at Fukushima was a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami that hit an old plant design. This is damn near unfathomable, and if people like you would quite complaining and fear-mongering newer, safer plants could be built that would shut themselves down when they lose coolant or power. Nuclear reactors in existence today are old, how can you expect them to be as safe as a modern reactor? Anti-nuclear philosophy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as you people prevent reactors from being built you will continue to force people to use older reactors that are not as safe and more likely to meltdown. Furthermore, when Haiti had a magnitude 7 earthquake they lost 200,000 people. When Japan had a magnitude 9 earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear meltdown only 18000 people died. A magnitude 9 earthquake is ten-thousand times more powerful than a magnitude 7. What does that tell you? Japan is a modernized, technologically advanced society with the ability to handle its own problems, including nuclear oversight. They don't need to butting into their business.
Try driving through the north half of Texas some time. They really got it down. Sometimes it looks like they planted a bunch of bushes specifically so they could park cars behind them while obfuscating the speed limit signs. The tickets are about 180 bucks for 1-9 miles over the limit.
Im sure there are other uses for this other than just mining the obvious out of the data. There will be correlations that aren't so obvious that it may bring to light. Just because it probably will find the obvious doesn't mean it wont find the not so obvious.
Meme's are not distortions necessarily. They are just popular and catchy ideas or phrases. Oddly enough, the US dollar has been dominated by other currencies recently, hence the high oil prices, commodity prices, etc. Our purchasing power is being eroded. As a consequence, nations like Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. can now buy more in the US for their money then they could 5-10 years ago. It makes us look more attractive as a manufacturing base when you consider exchange of currency and purchasing power. The US is only as powerful as it is due to being the one of the only two manufacturing centers since WWII to a little past Vietnam (i.e. the other is USSR). The Germans, Japs and our ancestors bombed the majority of the rest of the developed world's major industrial infrastructure to the ground. We had the only remaining centers of industry, and our nation became rich since if someone wanted a tractor for their farm, they couldn't get one anywhere else. We existed as a manufacturing monopoly. Now, people aren't use to being efficient or even working that hard to make a living so we are suffering in light of the globalization of supply/demand. However, the US still has vast tracts of land, vast amounts of resources, and a huge military. We have nothing to worry about accept for the economy shoveling most of the money to the already rich rather than sharing it with the other "more-than-willing-to-work" Americans. The US still has better manufacturing capacity than most places in the world save Germany, Japan and some others I may not be aware of. To this day Chinese goods still are inferior quality but usually functional (at least for short term).
Not for the same price per kWH. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html . Nuclear generation is almost the same cost as wind and solar, and can be used at our convenience rather than whenever its windy or when the suns out. Keep in mind wind and solar energy sources need to have their energy stored when the energy is generated. The peak generation time for the power is always out of sync with the peak energy use time for the energy consumer. Right now you can use batteries, which hurt the environment through their production and disposal, or you need to come up with some other method. Right now a company in Montana is suggesting using wind/solar energy to pump water up a mountain to a holding pool then releasing it back down the mountain during peak energy use times. The problem with this is it damages the wilderness they put it in. A nuclear plant can be put almost anywhere, like in the middle of an uninhabited desert. This is true especially the new ones that use sodium as coolant and recycle 99 percent of their radioactive waste in a breeder reactor. You know, the ones the environmental nut-jobs and nuclear fear-mongers wont allow to be built in spite of bitching about how bad all our other energy sources are while offering no other feasible solutions.
A real quant is supposed to be a mathematician, and they should not have much faith in the models most "quants" use on Wallstreet. PS. It wasn't their fault that the economy collapsed. It was the bankers, sub-prime mortgage holders, and large financial firms. Quants give advice and trade small amounts of capital in comparison to the big boys. They don't get to manipulate markets and come up with scams like the big boys do.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't really care to watch shit as it slides down sandpaper.
Thermal pollution has been a problem with nuclear power plants. Whenever you change the conditions in a chaotic system the results are not usually predictable. You may force the system into whole new orbits or it may fly away to some other orbit or it may just shoot off to infinite. Mathematically speaking that is. In this case, warm water expelled from the plant caused lifeforms that do well in warm water to do better. They started moving closer to the source because they thrive in even warmer water yet. There are numerous other problems this warm water in an otherwise stable environment caused, but the only one the news is talking about is the one that directly affects humans over + or - 2 weeks.
We are creating or have created similar problems. Consider the fact that crab and lobster fishing requires you throw away crabs/lobsters below a certain size. That is selective pressure on their species to encourage smaller animals. Also consider that in my home state (Montana) they introduced the Mysis which killed all the salmon. Furthermore, Americans want to eat fish that other nations import. We may care about what happens in our waters but we certainly don't bitch too much about where or how certain major importers of seafood get their fish.
Ive read that Jellyfish thrive more in oxygen depleted waters, and I have not read about the carbonic acid problem. However I still think overfishing is the main problem for fishes. Since carbon dioxide is produced by pretty much any decaying or burning matter and we make up a minority portion of that (albeit significant since its beyond homeostasis) I am pretty sure the fact that people are eating fish far far beyond sustainable levels is the culprit. http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800 . We are talking about 70 percent of species that will be fished out of existence in the next 50 years if we don't do something. Im not against extinctions, and human beings are pretty much guaranteeing their own if they don't stop being short sighted twats.
See Guppy's post below. You can eat jellyfish, but the nutritional content is almost nil. You have to heavily process jellyfish to make it nutritional, and even then it is nowhere near the same level of nutrition as fish. You can catch a single fish like a Salmon and feed a man for a few days, or catch several hundred jellyfish and feed the same man for a couple hours.
Uhh, do it anyway? Just because something is illegal doesn't mean its immoral. Civil Disobedience my friend.
Many Jellyfish and Fish compete in their ecological niche. Because people the world over are over-fishing the sea, it leaves room for more jellyfish to snatch the food the fish would otherwise eat. Furthermore, Jellyfish are also nearly nutrition-less so people do not try to catch them. So, we have a collection of species of animal that have less predation vs. their main competitor and more food to eat, so they tend to thrive. Its not really a good idea for us to continue to ravage the sea life without regard to their continued survival. Coal and Oil plants really don't affect the Jellyfish as much.
Agreed. I stopped for about a year and a half and recovered my health. However, as time went on my social and work circle as well as my family were too difficult to be around since they all are either wine snobs, after work happy hour drinkers, or simply unwilling to not drink around me. I didn't feel the desire to drink as strongly as before, but I felt left out of pretty much everything they were doing. It seems like a stupid reason, but it was extraordinarily difficult to want to hang out with any one of the aforementioned people without the possibility of going downward spiral again. I looked into other options and found something called the "Sinclair Method" which uses an opioid antagonist (opioid receptor blocker) to do something called "pharmacological extinction" which beats addiction by removing the positive feedback you get in your limbic system (which is responsible for a lot of addictions). It has a much higher success rate as a treatment VS. AA so I tried it. AA only has about a 15 percent retention rate, and maybe slightly higher of a success rate. Studies actually show that most people do what you did, and that is grow out of it, or they eventually die from it. The Sinclair method worked for me, but I would not recommend trying it if you are already comfortable as a teetotaler. Its not worth the risks and possible problems with your family unless you have extreme family and/or spousal support as well as a doctor willing to take you through the process.
Which shouldn't be a reason to get rid of the internet. It should be a reason to go get laid so you stop obsessing about it. A) Get a hooker. OR B) screw your wife/girlfriend. If shes not willing, see A). OR C) Go out and find a girlfriend. If you can't get one see A).
I used to have dial-up internet that was so bad I may as well have not had internet. I found plenty of uses for my computer. Mainly, buying games at the store and playing them for hours a day. When Duke Nukem 3D came along I would just direct-dial my friend's modem and play against him.
but also grab anything you have a professional interest in, e.g. all the O'Reilly books
WHAT!? Are we talking about Bill here?
If you know you can't control your drinking you don't burn down all the liquor stores within 5 miles of your house, forcing yourself to go 6 miles away to get booze when you need it. You go get treatment for the problem itself. I used to have a bad drinking problem, mostly due to a combination of genetics and depression. I went the in-patient and out-patient treatment route with AA. It never sat well with me because I am an atheist and the whole higher power thing seems ridiculous to me since there are medical reasons for addiction. Then, I discovered a little pill called Naltrexone and I drink moderately about 90 percent of the time. Since it blocks the dopamine receptors in my brain I do not get positive feedback from drinking (or eating). Lesson? You can do things to control your problem through medical and psychiatric treatment. In his case, maybe he needs to get a porn blocker or some software that only allows internet to be on a few times a day.
presenting photos of people publicly without seeking permission from the person(s) in the photo is where it gets debatable unless the subject happens to be a person of general public interest (e.g., a politician, celebrity, etc.) or the event in the photo is of public interest.
Just another hypocrisy of America.
Ive had plenty of experiences with corrupt cops to know that power corrupts people.
Im more for a diversified approach. Go nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal. That way if something on Earth changes, like a meteor impact or a super-volcano explosion, or maybe the climate changes making an area where wind power was implemented useless, at least we have some other sources of power.
Man. You need to leave. You accept coal power because "they aren't lying as much" as the nuclear power industry in spite of knowing coal power is actually worse for the environment and for peoples health. Someone told you independent statistics exist that PROVE nuclear power is safer than all other options short of solar/wind. Another thing, your retirement fund probably is partially made up of stocks whether you know it or not. Should you be forced to pay 1000 bucks out of your pocket because some company in your portfolio made a bad decision? Get real.
I want honesty and real accountability.
Funny thing to say. There are nuclear organizations that are NOT part of industry who came up with most of the statistics. Grow a brain.
Uhh. Ok. So coal and gas mining companies can be trusted to not pollute the environment and dispose of the waste products produced by burning? See http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/12/22/coal-ash-slurry-pond-bursts-in-tennessee/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_seam_fire . No matter what, companies cannot be trusted without government oversight and a wealthy middle class that hold their government accountable. What happened at Fukushima was a magnitude 9 earthquake and a tsunami that hit an old plant design. This is damn near unfathomable, and if people like you would quite complaining and fear-mongering newer, safer plants could be built that would shut themselves down when they lose coolant or power. Nuclear reactors in existence today are old, how can you expect them to be as safe as a modern reactor? Anti-nuclear philosophy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as you people prevent reactors from being built you will continue to force people to use older reactors that are not as safe and more likely to meltdown. Furthermore, when Haiti had a magnitude 7 earthquake they lost 200,000 people. When Japan had a magnitude 9 earthquake, a tsunami, and a nuclear meltdown only 18000 people died. A magnitude 9 earthquake is ten-thousand times more powerful than a magnitude 7. What does that tell you? Japan is a modernized, technologically advanced society with the ability to handle its own problems, including nuclear oversight. They don't need to butting into their business.
I support replacing police officers with robots. Police officers are universally corrupt.
Try driving through the north half of Texas some time. They really got it down. Sometimes it looks like they planted a bunch of bushes specifically so they could park cars behind them while obfuscating the speed limit signs. The tickets are about 180 bucks for 1-9 miles over the limit.
Im sure there are other uses for this other than just mining the obvious out of the data. There will be correlations that aren't so obvious that it may bring to light. Just because it probably will find the obvious doesn't mean it wont find the not so obvious.
Not necessarily unsustainable, but less and less people will benefit as they get richer.
Meme's are not distortions necessarily. They are just popular and catchy ideas or phrases. Oddly enough, the US dollar has been dominated by other currencies recently, hence the high oil prices, commodity prices, etc. Our purchasing power is being eroded. As a consequence, nations like Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. can now buy more in the US for their money then they could 5-10 years ago. It makes us look more attractive as a manufacturing base when you consider exchange of currency and purchasing power. The US is only as powerful as it is due to being the one of the only two manufacturing centers since WWII to a little past Vietnam (i.e. the other is USSR). The Germans, Japs and our ancestors bombed the majority of the rest of the developed world's major industrial infrastructure to the ground. We had the only remaining centers of industry, and our nation became rich since if someone wanted a tractor for their farm, they couldn't get one anywhere else. We existed as a manufacturing monopoly. Now, people aren't use to being efficient or even working that hard to make a living so we are suffering in light of the globalization of supply/demand. However, the US still has vast tracts of land, vast amounts of resources, and a huge military. We have nothing to worry about accept for the economy shoveling most of the money to the already rich rather than sharing it with the other "more-than-willing-to-work" Americans. The US still has better manufacturing capacity than most places in the world save Germany, Japan and some others I may not be aware of. To this day Chinese goods still are inferior quality but usually functional (at least for short term).
Not for the same price per kWH. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html . Nuclear generation is almost the same cost as wind and solar, and can be used at our convenience rather than whenever its windy or when the suns out. Keep in mind wind and solar energy sources need to have their energy stored when the energy is generated. The peak generation time for the power is always out of sync with the peak energy use time for the energy consumer. Right now you can use batteries, which hurt the environment through their production and disposal, or you need to come up with some other method. Right now a company in Montana is suggesting using wind/solar energy to pump water up a mountain to a holding pool then releasing it back down the mountain during peak energy use times. The problem with this is it damages the wilderness they put it in. A nuclear plant can be put almost anywhere, like in the middle of an uninhabited desert. This is true especially the new ones that use sodium as coolant and recycle 99 percent of their radioactive waste in a breeder reactor. You know, the ones the environmental nut-jobs and nuclear fear-mongers wont allow to be built in spite of bitching about how bad all our other energy sources are while offering no other feasible solutions.
A real quant is supposed to be a mathematician, and they should not have much faith in the models most "quants" use on Wallstreet. PS. It wasn't their fault that the economy collapsed. It was the bankers, sub-prime mortgage holders, and large financial firms. Quants give advice and trade small amounts of capital in comparison to the big boys. They don't get to manipulate markets and come up with scams like the big boys do.