Oh, I see. According to you, NASA is both not competent to do the job, and competently doing the job.
You'll probably counter that NASA needs the private industry's help to do it. But of course that would be NASA's option if it were doing what I said, which you refuse to accept.
What you said is nonsense. Stop posting until you can at least make sense.
Yeah, I saw months of underwater robots working extremely poorly on the spill. I'd like to see them work a lot better. NASA has a much better track record than the oil industry that threw those inadequate robots at the predictable problem.
Except that NASA's got better technology for longterm human occupation of undersea environments, and better technology for automated human operations in inaccessible environments, and better technology overall. As well as a better track record in tech transfer to industry for boosting the US economy and industrial capabilities.
Yes, that is the point at which you admit that nukes are too expensive to adequately protect, and instead spend the money on a better energy system. You don't just write off all the damage as inevitable - because it's not. You can get the energy in other ways that are less expensive to protect against. And which have all kinds of other benefits better than nukes' liabilities.
The manufacture of Fukushima's reactor vessel was screwed up, and the company and government ignored it to cut the costs of making a new one, according to Mitsuhiko Tanaka, the engineer who helped the company cover it up and reports how the government ignored his eventual whistleblowing.
Technical arguments are meaningless when the real problem is the greed and incompetence of the nuke industry and its respective governments which refuse to limit nuke plants even when they're clearly built wrong. It's the people who aren't capable of safely deploying this technology, not the technology itself.
Along with Three Mile Island and now Fukishima as proof that the global nukes industry is incapable of properly running a plant to prevent meltdowns, we also have you as proof that the people in the industry are in denial of its incapability to do so.
You are self-selected to believe the denial required to work in the nuke power industry. People who are honest about the risks and damage who are interested in a career in nuke power select jobs to change the industry. You are among those who buy into the status quo, and keep it unsafe but growing.
No, they're talking about the "boom" of a meltdown gone critical, not the H2 "boom" that damages the buildings and ability to work to contain the disaster. The meltdown "boom" is a much vaster explosion, spewing radioactive material over a wide area. In most cases, an area filled with many thousands or millions of people, and upstream/upwind from large areas that get terribly poisoned. Like "Ukraine" or "Europe" or "the East Coast" or "the northeast quarter of Japan", etc.
If you're going to talk about "boom" in Three Mile Island, you should get your sense of proportion correct first.
TMI's meltdown wasn't supposed to happen, either. You're claiming that TMI was safe, yet it melted down. That's not safe. Therefore, by the most basic logic, TMI is unsafe. TMI was not unique, and therefore was and is a good example of how nuclear power is unsafe.
Except they didn't shut it down or replace it. Just like everyone else. Including the US, where practically any time our 104 plants is due for replacement/shutdown, instead it just magically gets relicensed.
I'd like to see a lab like this support operations in deepwater commercial activities like exploration and drilling. When BP's Macondo well exploded on the Gulf floor last year, we all learned suddenly that BP and the oil industry was unprepared for what is an obvious risk in that business. NASA's research should give us much better remote vehicles for monitoring and taking control of undersea operations. Establish normal monitoring to reduce risk and stop catastrophes as they barely get started. Supply technology, techniques and qualified staff during a breakdown. And deliver forensics after a breakdown to assign liability and strategies for recovery.
The $4B+ the Federal government gifts the 5 biggest petrocorps each year would be better spent improving NASA's undersea research to benefit that industry and protect it all from its damages. And in fact that $4B+ should be paid for by the industry, using a small fraction of its current profits (and an even tinier fraction of its gross revenues). $4-8B spent on NASA's underwater research would give us the skills we need to colonize and exploit the seas sustainably, instead of the nearly blind, haphazard and disastrous way we're doing it now.
The oil corps have proven over and again they're never going to do disaster preparedness and mitigation on their own. NASA is as usual spending public money in one of the best investments of all time. The match in NASA filling that vacuum is compelling.
Yes, the guy who was a good engineer 40 years ago when he was in the right place at the right time to properly design a fundamental internet protocol that has stayed relevant ever since.
That's why he's a Google evangelist, not a Google engineer.
Besides, I spent all afternoon in his DC office about 5 years ago. He's also a top Google bullshitter. His position on Microsoft's monopoly effect is entirely based on whatever lobbying position Google has taken this week.
He certainly doesn't have indisputable assertion powers.
Microsoft's dominance over the desktop, especially office desktops, still gives it too much monopoly power for Microsoft to compete fairly when combined with Skype's net phone dominance.
No, it's obvious that you don't have a Google TV unit. Especially not one integrated into the TV. The difference in form factor is everything to the mass market. And the difference in open platform from what you do understand is also obviously unknown to you. Nobody's developing apps for Apple TV except Apple, but the Android that is Google TV is where all the developers are and are going.
Google TV doesn't have to take up the whole screen. Picture in picture is standard in the HW, OS and default apps. And the API lets any mixture, whether PIP or (transparent) layers, work under the whole OS.
I expect that Apple will have Google TV apps that are as big in the GTV platform as MS apps have been on Macs. Or else, if Apple is as unable to compete without a platform lockin crutch, that 3rd parties will copy Apple's techniques into GTV apps. Probably MS will do it eventually, when its desktop business isn't as big as its Xbox (gaming/media) business.
Google built (or rather designed for partners like Sony and Logitech etc to build) Google TV for lonely nerds. Who are the people who Google relies on to produce Internet and media apps and content, which evolve winning ways that big app/media corps copy (and acquire). Which has done extremely well for Google on desktops and mobiles. It will do even better on TV. Especially since Google will now have complete coverage everywhere people are networked together.
Yes, because Kinect can't distinguish between highly specific hand gestures and cheering for a football game. It's just like 1970s ultrasonic TV remote technology. Typos make keyboards useless. Slippery joysticks prevent gaming. The mouse is too imprecise for drawing.
I don't see why a basic hand vocabulary of 5-20 gestures from American Sign Language couldn't be the global standard for "talking" to Kinect. Why would children need school for that when they'd learn it earlier, faster and better just "watching TV"?
In the begining of the computer revolution, when there was nearly no competition
When was that? Except for the late 1990s - early 2000s, when the MS monopoly killed practically all competition, there has always been extremely fierce competition through the entire past 35+ years of "the beginning of the computer revolution".
No, they could just issue the next gen Xbox that does exactly what Google TV does. The Xbox brand would just mean everything on your TV, from TV to Web to gaming to movies to personal desktops.
And then Google TV would probably just beat it in the market with the far better integration with the Internet by the far more open platform.
So the least liked mobile OS on the least liked mobile HW will destroy the second most popular mobile platform? No, Android (#1) will force the iPhone into the same proportion that Macs are going against Windows this decade. While those two will push MS/Nokia into the position Macs had vs Windows in the 1990s. While pushing Windows/Macs into the same position vs mobiles.
Nobody needs native Exchange support when Zimbra and other platforms replace and open Exchange - except people staying locked into the MS monopoly, which is not necessary on mobile. And FYI, MS servers are far behind Linux in general, while MS cloud solutions barely exist, and don't even register against Amazon and other actual cloud platforms.
Kinect was a good idea that MS bought, and dumbed down with the MS SW driving it. Only when it was hacked open by other people did it become a good idea that worked really well for more than just a niche of Xbox gamers.
Just because you're entitled to have your opinion doesn't mean it's worth sharing. Liquid gold cars cheaper than oil is actually not possible. Kinect eliminating TV/media/Web remotes for everyone is clearly completely possible, except that Microsoft is probably not capable of doing it.
BTW, just because you're entitled to have a limited HCI interface design imagination doesn't mean it's worth expecting that from good designers.
It's obvious that the miraculous "convergence" of TV and Internet people (especially financial people) have been talking about for over a decade is simply Kinect + Google TV.
It's also pretty obvious that monopolism and patents (monopolism) will prevent Microsoft and Google from allowing that. At least, Microsoft's desperate clutch on monopoly rather than value will prevent its Kinect from putting Google atop that converged platform, leaving MS doing the dirty work while Google's brand and revenues shoot up on it.
If only Google had bought Kinect to market it instead of Microsoft. Maybe it's not too late for Google to get "3D movie recognition" to the masses on a more open platform. Microsoft will fight that literally to its dying day.
No, the point of using simple dollar GDP is that the stuff produced in China could be produced in the US instead and sell for the same amount, whether it's produced for "the West" or anywhere else. But when produced in China it produces more CO2 per dollar than in the US. The actual reality.
It's not the GDP impact on pollution. If anything it's the reverse: more stuff is produced and sold because Chinese GDP per retail price is smaller than if the US produced it at higher prices. Because Chinese GDP doesn't have labor and environment costs added to it the way they are in the US. So more is produced, at higher emissions per production. That 5.25x rate is therefore also on a larger amount than the alternative scenario of US production. The PPP version of GDP is not relevant to these giant exporters, whose "emitting GDP" is measured in flat international dollars.
Yes the US GDP includes a lot of pure finance, but even in just the total manufacturing fraction of domestic production the US is far better than China. In (2008) the US the manufacturing GDP per emissions is ($13,178.35B * 13%) / 5,752,289Kt = 297.826743 $:Kt. In China it's ($2,657,840,000 * 32%) / 6,103,493Kt = $139.347878:Kt. The US manufactures 213.72894% of China's production of what's consumed by the world. When you count their respective mining and transportation emissions, the US is far better than China in emissions controls. Which is why China's air, water and soil (and the people, animals and plants in them) is far filthier than in the US.
Keep the proper perspective. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people are counted against their lowish per capita emissions, but they have nothing to do with it, while the US' far more integrated economy must count every person against its middlish per capita emissions. Counting emissions per energy consumed is a better measure, in which the US does much better than China. But ultimately those emissions are produced for global consumption, which is bought in equal dollars. But at far higher emissions when produced in China. Which is precisely why they're produced there: emissions are far cheaper for manufacturers when emitted in China. Which is what we're actually talking about in this thread.
I just waggled a pen in front of one with all the others off, and saw no distinct lines, "freeze frames" or anything like that. And I have quite acute vision.
TVs flicker at 60Hz, and cinema at 24Hz, but most people don't care.
Slashdot Mirror
"Stigmatized words"? Meltdowns are bad, whatever you want to call them.
So is bothering to argue with a religious zealot nuke fetishist who'd try to convince anyone with such nonsense.
Goodbye.
Oh, I see. According to you, NASA is both not competent to do the job, and competently doing the job.
You'll probably counter that NASA needs the private industry's help to do it. But of course that would be NASA's option if it were doing what I said, which you refuse to accept.
What you said is nonsense. Stop posting until you can at least make sense.
Goodbye.
Yeah, I saw months of underwater robots working extremely poorly on the spill. I'd like to see them work a lot better. NASA has a much better track record than the oil industry that threw those inadequate robots at the predictable problem.
Except that NASA's got better technology for longterm human occupation of undersea environments, and better technology for automated human operations in inaccessible environments, and better technology overall. As well as a better track record in tech transfer to industry for boosting the US economy and industrial capabilities.
Coal and nuke plants are both bad, and both should be phased out instead of building a single new one of either type.
No, uranium mining is toxic, and the poison lasts effectively forever.
Nuke fetishists will just lie about the most easily researched facts.
Yes, that is the point at which you admit that nukes are too expensive to adequately protect, and instead spend the money on a better energy system. You don't just write off all the damage as inevitable - because it's not. You can get the energy in other ways that are less expensive to protect against. And which have all kinds of other benefits better than nukes' liabilities.
The manufacture of Fukushima's reactor vessel was screwed up, and the company and government ignored it to cut the costs of making a new one, according to Mitsuhiko Tanaka, the engineer who helped the company cover it up and reports how the government ignored his eventual whistleblowing.
Technical arguments are meaningless when the real problem is the greed and incompetence of the nuke industry and its respective governments which refuse to limit nuke plants even when they're clearly built wrong. It's the people who aren't capable of safely deploying this technology, not the technology itself.
Along with Three Mile Island and now Fukishima as proof that the global nukes industry is incapable of properly running a plant to prevent meltdowns, we also have you as proof that the people in the industry are in denial of its incapability to do so.
You are self-selected to believe the denial required to work in the nuke power industry. People who are honest about the risks and damage who are interested in a career in nuke power select jobs to change the industry. You are among those who buy into the status quo, and keep it unsafe but growing.
No, they're talking about the "boom" of a meltdown gone critical, not the H2 "boom" that damages the buildings and ability to work to contain the disaster. The meltdown "boom" is a much vaster explosion, spewing radioactive material over a wide area. In most cases, an area filled with many thousands or millions of people, and upstream/upwind from large areas that get terribly poisoned. Like "Ukraine" or "Europe" or "the East Coast" or "the northeast quarter of Japan", etc.
If you're going to talk about "boom" in Three Mile Island, you should get your sense of proportion correct first.
TMI's meltdown wasn't supposed to happen, either. You're claiming that TMI was safe, yet it melted down. That's not safe. Therefore, by the most basic logic, TMI is unsafe. TMI was not unique, and therefore was and is a good example of how nuclear power is unsafe.
Except they didn't shut it down or replace it. Just like everyone else. Including the US, where practically any time our 104 plants is due for replacement/shutdown, instead it just magically gets relicensed.
So no, nobody else can either.
I'd like to see a lab like this support operations in deepwater commercial activities like exploration and drilling. When BP's Macondo well exploded on the Gulf floor last year, we all learned suddenly that BP and the oil industry was unprepared for what is an obvious risk in that business. NASA's research should give us much better remote vehicles for monitoring and taking control of undersea operations. Establish normal monitoring to reduce risk and stop catastrophes as they barely get started. Supply technology, techniques and qualified staff during a breakdown. And deliver forensics after a breakdown to assign liability and strategies for recovery.
The $4B+ the Federal government gifts the 5 biggest petrocorps each year would be better spent improving NASA's undersea research to benefit that industry and protect it all from its damages. And in fact that $4B+ should be paid for by the industry, using a small fraction of its current profits (and an even tinier fraction of its gross revenues). $4-8B spent on NASA's underwater research would give us the skills we need to colonize and exploit the seas sustainably, instead of the nearly blind, haphazard and disastrous way we're doing it now.
The oil corps have proven over and again they're never going to do disaster preparedness and mitigation on their own. NASA is as usual spending public money in one of the best investments of all time. The match in NASA filling that vacuum is compelling.
Yes, the guy who was a good engineer 40 years ago when he was in the right place at the right time to properly design a fundamental internet protocol that has stayed relevant ever since.
That's why he's a Google evangelist, not a Google engineer.
Besides, I spent all afternoon in his DC office about 5 years ago. He's also a top Google bullshitter. His position on Microsoft's monopoly effect is entirely based on whatever lobbying position Google has taken this week.
He certainly doesn't have indisputable assertion powers.
Microsoft's dominance over the desktop, especially office desktops, still gives it too much monopoly power for Microsoft to compete fairly when combined with Skype's net phone dominance.
No, it's obvious that you don't have a Google TV unit. Especially not one integrated into the TV. The difference in form factor is everything to the mass market. And the difference in open platform from what you do understand is also obviously unknown to you. Nobody's developing apps for Apple TV except Apple, but the Android that is Google TV is where all the developers are and are going.
Google TV doesn't have to take up the whole screen. Picture in picture is standard in the HW, OS and default apps. And the API lets any mixture, whether PIP or (transparent) layers, work under the whole OS.
I expect that Apple will have Google TV apps that are as big in the GTV platform as MS apps have been on Macs. Or else, if Apple is as unable to compete without a platform lockin crutch, that 3rd parties will copy Apple's techniques into GTV apps. Probably MS will do it eventually, when its desktop business isn't as big as its Xbox (gaming/media) business.
Google built (or rather designed for partners like Sony and Logitech etc to build) Google TV for lonely nerds. Who are the people who Google relies on to produce Internet and media apps and content, which evolve winning ways that big app/media corps copy (and acquire). Which has done extremely well for Google on desktops and mobiles. It will do even better on TV. Especially since Google will now have complete coverage everywhere people are networked together.
Yes, because Kinect can't distinguish between highly specific hand gestures and cheering for a football game. It's just like 1970s ultrasonic TV remote technology. Typos make keyboards useless. Slippery joysticks prevent gaming. The mouse is too imprecise for drawing.
I don't see why a basic hand vocabulary of 5-20 gestures from American Sign Language couldn't be the global standard for "talking" to Kinect. Why would children need school for that when they'd learn it earlier, faster and better just "watching TV"?
When was that? Except for the late 1990s - early 2000s, when the MS monopoly killed practically all competition, there has always been extremely fierce competition through the entire past 35+ years of "the beginning of the computer revolution".
No, they could just issue the next gen Xbox that does exactly what Google TV does. The Xbox brand would just mean everything on your TV, from TV to Web to gaming to movies to personal desktops.
And then Google TV would probably just beat it in the market with the far better integration with the Internet by the far more open platform.
So the least liked mobile OS on the least liked mobile HW will destroy the second most popular mobile platform? No, Android (#1) will force the iPhone into the same proportion that Macs are going against Windows this decade. While those two will push MS/Nokia into the position Macs had vs Windows in the 1990s. While pushing Windows/Macs into the same position vs mobiles.
Nobody needs native Exchange support when Zimbra and other platforms replace and open Exchange - except people staying locked into the MS monopoly, which is not necessary on mobile. And FYI, MS servers are far behind Linux in general, while MS cloud solutions barely exist, and don't even register against Amazon and other actual cloud platforms.
Kinect was a good idea that MS bought, and dumbed down with the MS SW driving it. Only when it was hacked open by other people did it become a good idea that worked really well for more than just a niche of Xbox gamers.
Just because you're entitled to have your opinion doesn't mean it's worth sharing. Liquid gold cars cheaper than oil is actually not possible. Kinect eliminating TV/media/Web remotes for everyone is clearly completely possible, except that Microsoft is probably not capable of doing it.
BTW, just because you're entitled to have a limited HCI interface design imagination doesn't mean it's worth expecting that from good designers.
It's obvious that the miraculous "convergence" of TV and Internet people (especially financial people) have been talking about for over a decade is simply Kinect + Google TV.
It's also pretty obvious that monopolism and patents (monopolism) will prevent Microsoft and Google from allowing that. At least, Microsoft's desperate clutch on monopoly rather than value will prevent its Kinect from putting Google atop that converged platform, leaving MS doing the dirty work while Google's brand and revenues shoot up on it.
If only Google had bought Kinect to market it instead of Microsoft. Maybe it's not too late for Google to get "3D movie recognition" to the masses on a more open platform. Microsoft will fight that literally to its dying day.
No, the point of using simple dollar GDP is that the stuff produced in China could be produced in the US instead and sell for the same amount, whether it's produced for "the West" or anywhere else. But when produced in China it produces more CO2 per dollar than in the US. The actual reality.
It's not the GDP impact on pollution. If anything it's the reverse: more stuff is produced and sold because Chinese GDP per retail price is smaller than if the US produced it at higher prices. Because Chinese GDP doesn't have labor and environment costs added to it the way they are in the US. So more is produced, at higher emissions per production. That 5.25x rate is therefore also on a larger amount than the alternative scenario of US production. The PPP version of GDP is not relevant to these giant exporters, whose "emitting GDP" is measured in flat international dollars.
Yes the US GDP includes a lot of pure finance, but even in just the total manufacturing fraction of domestic production the US is far better than China. In (2008) the US the manufacturing GDP per emissions is ($13,178.35B * 13%) / 5,752,289Kt = 297.826743 $:Kt. In China it's ($2,657,840,000 * 32%) / 6,103,493Kt = $139.347878:Kt. The US manufactures 213.72894% of China's production of what's consumed by the world. When you count their respective mining and transportation emissions, the US is far better than China in emissions controls. Which is why China's air, water and soil (and the people, animals and plants in them) is far filthier than in the US.
Keep the proper perspective. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people are counted against their lowish per capita emissions, but they have nothing to do with it, while the US' far more integrated economy must count every person against its middlish per capita emissions. Counting emissions per energy consumed is a better measure, in which the US does much better than China. But ultimately those emissions are produced for global consumption, which is bought in equal dollars. But at far higher emissions when produced in China. Which is precisely why they're produced there: emissions are far cheaper for manufacturers when emitted in China. Which is what we're actually talking about in this thread.
I just waggled a pen in front of one with all the others off, and saw no distinct lines, "freeze frames" or anything like that. And I have quite acute vision.
TVs flicker at 60Hz, and cinema at 24Hz, but most people don't care.