I think it has to due with the massively parallel operations. You can't pipeline stuff as far. Of course, I'm just guessing.
Basically, due to the parallelization it's more efficient to add more streams/'processors' than to ramp up the overall speed of the system - for example, the referenced 4890 has 800.
In order to have all the stream processors work, you might have to be a bit more conservative in your timing.
Until you can guarantee that no person will *ever* be subjected to a punishment which is irreversible, *no one* should be subjected to it.
News flash: NO punishment, except maybe fines, are reversible. Spend 20 years behind bars for a crime you didn't commit? That's 20 years you're never getting back.
Personally, I LIKE that extra resources are spent in a DP trial to help ensure justice. Life in Prison is 'cheap' ethically, but it costs a life just the same.
I'm not convinced that solar panels alone can power the train at all times, but I really do like the idea.
Eh, too much power? Feed it to the grid. Too Little? Pull some from the grid.
Not a real issue.
Whether the solar panels would be able to support the train's operation, at least on a net basis, would require a lot of information that's just too variable at this point - How much electricity will the various train options take? How many routes a day? What efficiency solar panels are they using? Have they planned for vandalism/theft? How wide of a install are we looking at, and how long? How many square meters of panel per kilometer, and so on...
Take, for example, the police involved in the Kathryn Johnston murder. I'm completely unaware of any cop involved getting more than 10 years. They lied to obtain a warrant, shot a woman and planted drugs in her house while she bled to death. What do you think the punishment would be for failing to secure a warrant? 1-day paid suspension?
In the case of the cops in the example, I'd have made it a death penalty case. 1. Lying to obtain a warrant should be a felony 2. Killing somebody in the course of executing a warrant obtained by felony pergury mades it premeditated murder 3. Planting evidence afterwards only makes it more obvious
As for securing a warrant, I think it depends on the circumstances. If they believed they didn't need a warrant or had a valid one(that they didn't lie to get), then the punishment should be less severe.
Think of the exclusionary rule like asset forfeiture. When a person engages in an illegal act, the tools they used as well as any assets acquired as a result are seized. It should remain the same way for evidence-if the government breaks the law by not securing a warrant, any rewards are removed. Thus, there is no incentive in not following procedure.
I absolutely, utterly hate asset forfeiture. It only encourages the drunks to buy cheap vehicles that cost the cops more to haul off than the drunk driver paid for it. A person shouldn't lose their car because a friend/relative borrowed it to buy some weed and got caught. It's also been the cause of at least one murder by cops.
No, any assets forfieted should be part of the punishment set by the court - and still limited to any criminal gains and potential fines.
Still, I understand where you're coming from. I'm just aware that cops can ruin somebody via legal harrasement. That's part of what I'd fix - Cause more damage looking for drugs than the fine for that half gram of weed(because you slashed all the furniture of the house before finding the ditch weed in the good-will couch in the basement)? Guess what, the cops are stuck paying for the difference. Bust down Granny's door by mistake? Well, you'd better fix it*.
*Actually happened, the sheriff posted a deputy there the rest of the night, the carpenter fixed it that day, the Sheriff actually apologized, and the old lady didn't sue.
If that means guilty people getting off, so be it, in the end, denying government actors the use of illegally obtained evidence in the end is the ONLY way we have giving them a disincentive to conduct illegal searches and seizures.
I tend to disagree. In our current system, it is indeed normally the only way. But what if the police STILL don't care? 'We'll get him next time!'.
Personally, I'd add firing, fining, even criminal charges if the violation was deliberate. But I have to somewhat agree with Pulse - mistakes have let too many real criminals go.
Most likely. Vehicles today aren't constructed much different world wide.
In the USA, as noted, the brake lines for the front wheels and back wheels are seperate, for safety. You don't want to hook the left/right up seperately because uneven braking can sometimes be worse than no braking.
The parking/emergency brake can be used to stop you if the main brakes fail completely, but isn't really recommended at high speeds. Use engine braking first.
Why would you not have one of the wheel brakes be activated when you press the main brake? That significantly reduces stopping power.
All of my vehicles(I'm one of the weird americans who actually drive a manual), as well as all the ones I've driven have the main brakes use all four wheels.
The parking/emergency brake is more a term for the same thing, I tend to use 'parking brake' for the manuals and 'emergency brake' for the automatics.
I've never paid much attention to the exact mechanics, but I was always under the impression it wasn't a hydraulic system, but a cable. Just in case the hydraulics go out...
As for circuits, the main brakes in the USA are normally on at least two circuits as well. The idea being that if something fails you still have braking power.
Your response is limited only by your imagination. And your paranoia such that you actually find the device...
I wonder if US cars still have an emergency brake that is not made by dual-circuit the main brakes, and which is consequentially always broken.
Huh? Are you talking about a parking/emergency brake that doesn't use the main braking system? Perhaps some sort of direct linkage instead of the hydraulic that the main brake does?
1 Cop putting $1k GPS tracker on your vehicle, $50.
6 man EOD team response, more like $10k. What are they going to do, NOT respond when you call about a potential bomb on your car?
Then keep the tracker if you can(just remove the batteries).
Otherwise, if you can get an excuse, visit a military base during an exercise where they do a search. Bring a book. It might take a while. I figure 50-50 they end up blowing it up. Also fun - they'll probably terminate the exercise.
NONE of these new houses built here in the US are worth a quarter of the prices they're going for, even today, considering the shoddy construction and crap materials. Anyone with have a clue can build a bigger, better, cheaper, more energy-efficient, and more permanent home than the pile of matchsticks that comprises a typical new american home.
Don't normally respond to ACs, but you have a point. I suggest you get an account, or not post AC if you already do.
My house has a lot of problems, but it's approaching a hundred years old, and was probably built by some farmer. It's not in the best location, but there's no crime in the area, and I don't have to worry that much about disputes with the neighbors. What can I say? I paid cash, less than most down payments, don't have much in the way of property taxes. Heating might be a tad cheaper with newer in-town houses, but the property taxes kill that. I don't have AC, but I've thought about a window AC unit on occasion.
I look around today, we have such opportunities to build NEW homes that beat the old ones all to heck. Still, I've learned that most homes have always been built cheap - it's the good ones that survive through the years, much more so than the poorly constructed ones. Personally, I figure on contracting the building of my own home, and choosing the slightly more expensive options that lead to a much better home.
Over here in downtown Toronto $300k will get you a postage stamp of a condo (less than 700 square feet, if not less than 500 square feet), if you're lucky.
location, location, location. You're not really paying for the postage stamp of a condo, you're paying for the land it's on. If it's a multistory building, especially one over 3 stories, much less something over 25, there's substantial infrastructure costs to build that high.
Meanwhile I'm living in a house that's 3 bedrooms, 2 car garage, that I paid $15k for.
Have you seen how they build the average home? A normal priced home in my area is around $300k and if you see how they build them I don't see how these cheap structures could be much worse and remain standing.
Do you have any idea of the markup they have(had) on those homes? Are you thinking of a prebubble-burst price?
How much is tied up in impact fees, taxes, other miscellaneous hardware, not to mention the land?
What's the square footage of these homes? A 4k square foot monster? 2k 3 bedroom with a huge kitchen?
People don't NEED* that much space. In poorer areas, that 2k square foot house would be a multifamily structure. India is still poorer.
So everything costs less - labor, materials, land, etc... And the resources required for a 'McMansion' - a cheaply constructed large house, can instead be used to build smaller homes much better.
These are likely to be cheap and small though - but still better than what the renters/buyers would otherwise have.
Like with the Tata car - you have to realize that even though the car isn't safe compared to other cars, the market for the most part consists of those that would otherwise be riding mopeds/motorcycles, which aren't safer than the car, especially when you consider the things they do with it - like the pictures where they have seven people on the same bike at the same time, or are carrying a huge load of ducks or firewood.
Risk management and resource usage wise, the Tata is a good choice.
Good point. By the same token, they're busily working on finding more uses for glycerin now that the price has dropped. New ways of making products that use it instead of other things. Moisturizing soaps are a lot cheaper now.;)
It clogs fuel injectors and gels up in cold weather.
Are you sure you're thinking about Biodiesel, or SVO(Straight Vegetable Oil)?
Proper BD shouldn't clog injectors, and even regular Diesel gels up if it gets cold enough. The gel point for BD depends on the source, but if we have to cut it in winter, well, we'll cut it in winter. Might even cut it with ethanol.
As for the dirt, well, that's because BD, like ethanol, is a better solvent than the stuff it replaces. Tends to free stuff up.
Yes, but is it sufficient to cover if ALL the power plants started doing this?
A similar thing happened with Glycerin due to biodiesel production. As a byproduct of biodiesel, it was sold at market rates, eventually shutting down the old methods of artificially making it due to the price drop.
Now they're getting to the point they don't know quite what to do with it all.
hitting healthy individuals hard in Mexico, although not repeating that behaviour elsewhere.
The suppression of the immune system might explain the greater toll in Mexico compared to other countries. The other countries might be doing a better job at otherwise preventing exposure to the secondary diseases.
Going by AIDS - HIV doesn't kill you, it's the opportunistic diseases that would be otherwise controlled by the immune system that kills you.
And, to put said cost into scope, you also need to know how many 'leads' said facility generates, how many turn into recruitments, and the average/median quality of the troops recruited from said center.
Think about the cost of those national 'go army' recruiting TV ads. Recruiting is expensive.
It looks like you have a different definition of militarism than khallow was using, or at least are looking at a different meaning.
I'd describe your definition as 'military skills' - If you're going to have a military, best to have it be as effective as possible.
On the other hand, Khallow's 'militarism' is a philosophy of using the military in the most offensive way possible, of looking at the military as first and last solution to any international problem.
They're substantially different things. Even the Marine Core wants their Marines to be violent only when the situation calls for it.
As for Cadences, didn't you figure out that they're supposed to be dirty/politically incorrect?
And your source for this is three commercial t-shirt sites, sites with no actual ties to the army?
They look crafted to sell to military wanna-bes. I'm not going to say that NO military member wears those shirts, because the military IS drawn from the population, and there's over a million in uniform between all the services, and you do have the occasional gung-ho type.
Thing is, the Army only wants you to be so gung ho, and a few who wear those shirts do it as a sort of exageration of their position, or to 'look tough'.
If the Academy had him chanting 'kill 'em all', then there's a serious problem with the academy. Especially today, the army wants a very discriminating killer.
No highschool graduate is going to know exactly what they're getting into when they join the army, but then, they aren't going to know what they're getting into with college or anything else. Still, joining the army, the recruit is generally going to know(if they paid attention), these important items: 1. You may be called upon to kill somebody 2. You may come under fire and even be killed 3. The standard contract is for 8 years, of which your 'active' commitment may vary. All bets are off during wartime/combat operations. 4. You will serve the needs of the Military, within the terms of the contract. You may get your preferred career field, assuming you pass the training, but that doesn't mean they can't cross train you later to a different field
In return: 1. Average to sucky pay compared to your civilian equivalent 2. Free training 3. Free medical care, if with the occasional bureaucratic nightmare or incompetent doctor 4. Tax advantaged income 5. Retirement eligible, with pay and benefits, after only 20 years
The game center is an excuse to get people in to see the recruiters. That doesn't mean that the recruiters are stuffing them into burlap sacks and shipping them to boot camp. They still have to cross all the ts in regards to paperwork, contracts, eligibility, ASVAB results, etc...
Well, good that you don't need to use it, just looking at it.
The real copy is kept in my safety deposit box, on the premise that if something happens such that I need said paperwork, there's a good chance of it having been destroyed along with the house. Ergo, keep it in an alternet location.
I'm not visiting the box for an internet arguement, sorry.
It also increases the odds that an accident will occur and moves the liability into the future. That's effectively a hidden inter-generational tax, it's magnifies the costs to our children.
Except we don't know the true odds of an accident yet with post TMI/Chernobyl designs. Not enough reactor-years, apparently.
There are serious design flaws within the AP-1000
Hmm... I think I know what part of the problem is. I'm practicing risk management, you're trying to practice risk avoidance. Now, when dealing with incidents as expensive* as a nuclear incident, they often look the same. The thing with the measures you list is that, in a risk management scenario, are they going to avoid, on average, as much or more damage expense than what they'll cost? If not, then you don't do it. Some of the things you're suggesting are VERY EXPENSIVE, and given that the AP1000 isn't going to be producing as much power as the EPR, probably not as essential - IE will avoid less damage for the dollar.
For example - seperating the reactor buildings. Just off hand, that has implications to cost, efficiency, security, etc... Seperating things is not always the best plan. Just because seperation might be a good idea for the 1.6GW EPR, doesn't mean that it'd be a good, safe and economical decision for the 1.0 GW APR.
At some point you do have to economize.
The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste". So the most appropriate way to move the Nuclear Industry forward is to develop a geologically stable containment facility (I am reluctant to call plutonium 'waste')
Yucca Mountain is indeed a screwup(I'd use less polite words, but I try to be polite), of monumental proportions. I DO agree with you in that I think that 90% of what's in those used fuel rods isn't 'waste'. If we'd get off our butts and put the effort into recycling/reprocessing instead, we'd be a lot better off. Even if we do wait a hundred years or so for them to cool off to make said reprocessing cheaper.
are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the decay rate of fissile ash. What we need a reactor design that lasts 1000 years at least and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out.
Might want to check your words - Current reactors use Uranium, not plutonium. Plutonium is either a 'waste' or a transitory product that will be 'burned' in place to generate even more power depending on reactor design. If Uranium becomes too expensive, there's other options for fuels.
As for lasting a thousand years, that'd be great, but I'd kinda like to address the pollution problems NOW.
And we've gotten more than 40 years of life out of most of the OLD reactors, much less the new ones. They might end up lasting over a hundred years with regular rebuilds.
At that point you don't 'greenfield' at all unless you no longer need/want eletricity generation there for some reason. You just rebuild the plant more or less from scratch as necessary.
*Because honestly enough, we could suffer a Chernobyl every year and it'd STILL kill fewer people than coal
Slashdot Mirror
I think it has to due with the massively parallel operations. You can't pipeline stuff as far. Of course, I'm just guessing.
Basically, due to the parallelization it's more efficient to add more streams/'processors' than to ramp up the overall speed of the system - for example, the referenced 4890 has 800.
In order to have all the stream processors work, you might have to be a bit more conservative in your timing.
Until you can guarantee that no person will *ever* be subjected to a punishment which is irreversible, *no one* should be subjected to it.
News flash: NO punishment, except maybe fines, are reversible. Spend 20 years behind bars for a crime you didn't commit? That's 20 years you're never getting back.
Personally, I LIKE that extra resources are spent in a DP trial to help ensure justice. Life in Prison is 'cheap' ethically, but it costs a life just the same.
I'm not convinced that solar panels alone can power the train at all times, but I really do like the idea.
Eh, too much power? Feed it to the grid. Too Little? Pull some from the grid.
Not a real issue.
Whether the solar panels would be able to support the train's operation, at least on a net basis, would require a lot of information that's just too variable at this point - How much electricity will the various train options take? How many routes a day? What efficiency solar panels are they using? Have they planned for vandalism/theft? How wide of a install are we looking at, and how long? How many square meters of panel per kilometer, and so on...
Take, for example, the police involved in the Kathryn Johnston murder. I'm completely unaware of any cop involved getting more than 10 years. They lied to obtain a warrant, shot a woman and planted drugs in her house while she bled to death.
What do you think the punishment would be for failing to secure a warrant? 1-day paid suspension?
In the case of the cops in the example, I'd have made it a death penalty case.
1. Lying to obtain a warrant should be a felony
2. Killing somebody in the course of executing a warrant obtained by felony pergury mades it premeditated murder
3. Planting evidence afterwards only makes it more obvious
As for securing a warrant, I think it depends on the circumstances. If they believed they didn't need a warrant or had a valid one(that they didn't lie to get), then the punishment should be less severe.
Think of the exclusionary rule like asset forfeiture. When a person engages in an illegal act, the tools they used as well as any assets acquired as a result are seized. It should remain the same way for evidence-if the government breaks the law by not securing a warrant, any rewards are removed. Thus, there is no incentive in not following procedure.
I absolutely, utterly hate asset forfeiture. It only encourages the drunks to buy cheap vehicles that cost the cops more to haul off than the drunk driver paid for it. A person shouldn't lose their car because a friend/relative borrowed it to buy some weed and got caught. It's also been the cause of at least one murder by cops.
No, any assets forfieted should be part of the punishment set by the court - and still limited to any criminal gains and potential fines.
Still, I understand where you're coming from. I'm just aware that cops can ruin somebody via legal harrasement. That's part of what I'd fix - Cause more damage looking for drugs than the fine for that half gram of weed(because you slashed all the furniture of the house before finding the ditch weed in the good-will couch in the basement)? Guess what, the cops are stuck paying for the difference. Bust down Granny's door by mistake? Well, you'd better fix it*.
*Actually happened, the sheriff posted a deputy there the rest of the night, the carpenter fixed it that day, the Sheriff actually apologized, and the old lady didn't sue.
If that means guilty people getting off, so be it, in the end, denying government actors the use of illegally obtained evidence in the end is the ONLY way we have giving them a disincentive to conduct illegal searches and seizures.
I tend to disagree. In our current system, it is indeed normally the only way. But what if the police STILL don't care? 'We'll get him next time!'.
Personally, I'd add firing, fining, even criminal charges if the violation was deliberate. But I have to somewhat agree with Pulse - mistakes have let too many real criminals go.
I remember it being defective, but not solar powered.
Perhaps it is simply a matter of terminology.
Most likely. Vehicles today aren't constructed much different world wide.
In the USA, as noted, the brake lines for the front wheels and back wheels are seperate, for safety. You don't want to hook the left/right up seperately because uneven braking can sometimes be worse than no braking.
The parking/emergency brake can be used to stop you if the main brakes fail completely, but isn't really recommended at high speeds. Use engine braking first.
Why would you not have one of the wheel brakes be activated when you press the main brake? That significantly reduces stopping power.
All of my vehicles(I'm one of the weird americans who actually drive a manual), as well as all the ones I've driven have the main brakes use all four wheels.
The parking/emergency brake is more a term for the same thing, I tend to use 'parking brake' for the manuals and 'emergency brake' for the automatics.
I've never paid much attention to the exact mechanics, but I was always under the impression it wasn't a hydraulic system, but a cable. Just in case the hydraulics go out...
As for circuits, the main brakes in the USA are normally on at least two circuits as well. The idea being that if something fails you still have braking power.
Eh, stick it on a undercover cop car... ;)
Your response is limited only by your imagination. And your paranoia such that you actually find the device...
I wonder if US cars still have an emergency brake that is not made by dual-circuit the main brakes, and which is consequentially always broken.
Huh? Are you talking about a parking/emergency brake that doesn't use the main braking system? Perhaps some sort of direct linkage instead of the hydraulic that the main brake does?
Much more fun to call the bomb squad.
1 Cop putting $1k GPS tracker on your vehicle, $50.
6 man EOD team response, more like $10k. What are they going to do, NOT respond when you call about a potential bomb on your car?
Then keep the tracker if you can(just remove the batteries).
Otherwise, if you can get an excuse, visit a military base during an exercise where they do a search. Bring a book. It might take a while. I figure 50-50 they end up blowing it up. Also fun - they'll probably terminate the exercise.
NONE of these new houses built here in the US are worth a quarter of the prices they're going for, even today, considering the shoddy construction and crap materials. Anyone with have a clue can build a bigger, better, cheaper, more energy-efficient, and more permanent home than the pile of matchsticks that comprises a typical new american home.
Don't normally respond to ACs, but you have a point. I suggest you get an account, or not post AC if you already do.
My house has a lot of problems, but it's approaching a hundred years old, and was probably built by some farmer. It's not in the best location, but there's no crime in the area, and I don't have to worry that much about disputes with the neighbors. What can I say? I paid cash, less than most down payments, don't have much in the way of property taxes. Heating might be a tad cheaper with newer in-town houses, but the property taxes kill that. I don't have AC, but I've thought about a window AC unit on occasion.
I look around today, we have such opportunities to build NEW homes that beat the old ones all to heck. Still, I've learned that most homes have always been built cheap - it's the good ones that survive through the years, much more so than the poorly constructed ones. Personally, I figure on contracting the building of my own home, and choosing the slightly more expensive options that lead to a much better home.
Over here in downtown Toronto $300k will get you a postage stamp of a condo (less than 700 square feet, if not less than 500 square feet), if you're lucky.
location, location, location. You're not really paying for the postage stamp of a condo, you're paying for the land it's on. If it's a multistory building, especially one over 3 stories, much less something over 25, there's substantial infrastructure costs to build that high.
Meanwhile I'm living in a house that's 3 bedrooms, 2 car garage, that I paid $15k for.
Have you seen how they build the average home? A normal priced home in my area is around $300k and if you see how they build them I don't see how these cheap structures could be much worse and remain standing.
Do you have any idea of the markup they have(had) on those homes? Are you thinking of a prebubble-burst price?
How much is tied up in impact fees, taxes, other miscellaneous hardware, not to mention the land?
What's the square footage of these homes? A 4k square foot monster? 2k 3 bedroom with a huge kitchen?
People don't NEED* that much space. In poorer areas, that 2k square foot house would be a multifamily structure. India is still poorer.
So everything costs less - labor, materials, land, etc... And the resources required for a 'McMansion' - a cheaply constructed large house, can instead be used to build smaller homes much better.
These are likely to be cheap and small though - but still better than what the renters/buyers would otherwise have.
Like with the Tata car - you have to realize that even though the car isn't safe compared to other cars, the market for the most part consists of those that would otherwise be riding mopeds/motorcycles, which aren't safer than the car, especially when you consider the things they do with it - like the pictures where they have seven people on the same bike at the same time, or are carrying a huge load of ducks or firewood.
Risk management and resource usage wise, the Tata is a good choice.
*I will admit that it can be nice
Toner isn't so much the issue as inkjet ink.
As you specify HP toner, not just generic toner, I find it unlikely to get much cheaper.
Good point. By the same token, they're busily working on finding more uses for glycerin now that the price has dropped. New ways of making products that use it instead of other things. Moisturizing soaps are a lot cheaper now. ;)
Heh, also, with a name of "American Terrorist", should I really expect him to be all that close to reality?
It's somewhat sobering to think that I'm within the first 10% registered at slashdot today...
It clogs fuel injectors and gels up in cold weather.
Are you sure you're thinking about Biodiesel, or SVO(Straight Vegetable Oil)?
Proper BD shouldn't clog injectors, and even regular Diesel gels up if it gets cold enough. The gel point for BD depends on the source, but if we have to cut it in winter, well, we'll cut it in winter. Might even cut it with ethanol.
As for the dirt, well, that's because BD, like ethanol, is a better solvent than the stuff it replaces. Tends to free stuff up.
there is a large market for carbon black
Yes, but is it sufficient to cover if ALL the power plants started doing this?
A similar thing happened with Glycerin due to biodiesel production. As a byproduct of biodiesel, it was sold at market rates, eventually shutting down the old methods of artificially making it due to the price drop.
Now they're getting to the point they don't know quite what to do with it all.
hitting healthy individuals hard in Mexico, although not repeating that behaviour elsewhere.
The suppression of the immune system might explain the greater toll in Mexico compared to other countries. The other countries might be doing a better job at otherwise preventing exposure to the secondary diseases.
Going by AIDS - HIV doesn't kill you, it's the opportunistic diseases that would be otherwise controlled by the immune system that kills you.
Yes, but any situation that requires marines requires violence
You mean guarding embassies requires violence? It's marines providing all the guards at the embassies.
Then there's Beirut, Kosovo, a number of places in Africa, etc...
Violence required? Yes, but directed violence.
If the violence needed is indirect violence, or indirect violence is 'good enough', that's a call for bombs and artillery, not marines.
And, to put said cost into scope, you also need to know how many 'leads' said facility generates, how many turn into recruitments, and the average/median quality of the troops recruited from said center.
Think about the cost of those national 'go army' recruiting TV ads. Recruiting is expensive.
It looks like you have a different definition of militarism than khallow was using, or at least are looking at a different meaning.
I'd describe your definition as 'military skills' - If you're going to have a military, best to have it be as effective as possible.
On the other hand, Khallow's 'militarism' is a philosophy of using the military in the most offensive way possible, of looking at the military as first and last solution to any international problem.
They're substantially different things. Even the Marine Core wants their Marines to be violent only when the situation calls for it.
As for Cadences, didn't you figure out that they're supposed to be dirty/politically incorrect?
And your source for this is three commercial t-shirt sites, sites with no actual ties to the army?
They look crafted to sell to military wanna-bes. I'm not going to say that NO military member wears those shirts, because the military IS drawn from the population, and there's over a million in uniform between all the services, and you do have the occasional gung-ho type.
Thing is, the Army only wants you to be so gung ho, and a few who wear those shirts do it as a sort of exageration of their position, or to 'look tough'.
If the Academy had him chanting 'kill 'em all', then there's a serious problem with the academy. Especially today, the army wants a very discriminating killer.
No highschool graduate is going to know exactly what they're getting into when they join the army, but then, they aren't going to know what they're getting into with college or anything else. Still, joining the army, the recruit is generally going to know(if they paid attention), these important items:
1. You may be called upon to kill somebody
2. You may come under fire and even be killed
3. The standard contract is for 8 years, of which your 'active' commitment may vary. All bets are off during wartime/combat operations.
4. You will serve the needs of the Military, within the terms of the contract. You may get your preferred career field, assuming you pass the training, but that doesn't mean they can't cross train you later to a different field
In return:
1. Average to sucky pay compared to your civilian equivalent
2. Free training
3. Free medical care, if with the occasional bureaucratic nightmare or incompetent doctor
4. Tax advantaged income
5. Retirement eligible, with pay and benefits, after only 20 years
The game center is an excuse to get people in to see the recruiters. That doesn't mean that the recruiters are stuffing them into burlap sacks and shipping them to boot camp. They still have to cross all the ts in regards to paperwork, contracts, eligibility, ASVAB results, etc...
Oh yeah - Here we go.
AP1000 has a maximum core damage frequency of 2.41 × 10-7 per plant per year.
The EPR has a design maximum core damage frequency of 6.1 × 10-7 per plant per year.
In other words, the EPR is more than twice as likely to have a serious incident. So it needs more of those safety features.
In addition, things like burying the reactor has implications as far as cooling and such go.
Well, good that you don't need to use it, just looking at it.
The real copy is kept in my safety deposit box, on the premise that if something happens such that I need said paperwork, there's a good chance of it having been destroyed along with the house. Ergo, keep it in an alternet location.
I'm not visiting the box for an internet arguement, sorry.
It also increases the odds that an accident will occur and moves the liability into the future. That's effectively a hidden inter-generational tax, it's magnifies the costs to our children.
Except we don't know the true odds of an accident yet with post TMI/Chernobyl designs. Not enough reactor-years, apparently.
There are serious design flaws within the AP-1000
Hmm... I think I know what part of the problem is. I'm practicing risk management, you're trying to practice risk avoidance. Now, when dealing with incidents as expensive* as a nuclear incident, they often look the same. The thing with the measures you list is that, in a risk management scenario, are they going to avoid, on average, as much or more damage expense than what they'll cost? If not, then you don't do it. Some of the things you're suggesting are VERY EXPENSIVE, and given that the AP1000 isn't going to be producing as much power as the EPR, probably not as essential - IE will avoid less damage for the dollar.
For example - seperating the reactor buildings. Just off hand, that has implications to cost, efficiency, security, etc... Seperating things is not always the best plan. Just because seperation might be a good idea for the 1.6GW EPR, doesn't mean that it'd be a good, safe and economical decision for the 1.0 GW APR.
At some point you do have to economize.
The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste". So the most appropriate way to move the Nuclear Industry forward is to develop a geologically stable containment facility (I am reluctant to call plutonium 'waste')
Yucca Mountain is indeed a screwup(I'd use less polite words, but I try to be polite), of monumental proportions. I DO agree with you in that I think that 90% of what's in those used fuel rods isn't 'waste'. If we'd get off our butts and put the effort into recycling/reprocessing instead, we'd be a lot better off. Even if we do wait a hundred years or so for them to cool off to make said reprocessing cheaper.
are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the decay rate of fissile ash. What we need a reactor design that lasts 1000 years at least and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out.
Might want to check your words - Current reactors use Uranium, not plutonium. Plutonium is either a 'waste' or a transitory product that will be 'burned' in place to generate even more power depending on reactor design. If Uranium becomes too expensive, there's other options for fuels.
As for lasting a thousand years, that'd be great, but I'd kinda like to address the pollution problems NOW.
And we've gotten more than 40 years of life out of most of the OLD reactors, much less the new ones. They might end up lasting over a hundred years with regular rebuilds.
At that point you don't 'greenfield' at all unless you no longer need/want eletricity generation there for some reason. You just rebuild the plant more or less from scratch as necessary.
*Because honestly enough, we could suffer a Chernobyl every year and it'd STILL kill fewer people than coal