nothing is immune to colossal management screwups. Nuclear suffered particularly bad, and combined with NIMBY, resulted in the cessation of production.
However, modern techniques have advanced quite a bit since then, and on the non-polluting front is a strong contender.
As for cheaper than wind or solar, it certainly is once you figure in the limited capacity factor for turbines or panels. This might change, especially for relatively limited 'prime' areas with good natural circumstances.
True for a conventional system, but it's also for a power source involving a highly flammable, even explosive, liquid that requires at least a little attention during fueling, as well as large tanks to hold it(unless you want to deal with long pipes).
A cassettes/VHS tape at least used to have advantages over CD/DVDs, but CD/DVDs won despite being different.
For example, people might only be willing to wait 5-10 minutes while gassing up their car, but that's partially because it's their primary activity during that time.
Let's say that Olive Garden sticks chargers in their parking lot. In which case they hook their car up, go inside and have a meal while their car is charging. So it could take 30-60 minutes and they wouldn't care, because that's how long it takes to eat there, and it's just charging out in the lot. Same with charging at home. It can take 8 hours to charge because they're in bed.
Now, for long trips, I'd say 300 mile range at highway speeds and a half hour charge is the 'magic point', at least for more relaxed drivers. 300miles@75mph is 4 hours of range, or enough that you start driving, have breakfast, lunch, and early dinner - driving up to another 300 miles before going to bed - traveling up to 1200 miles over the course of 16 hours, not including stops. Add some 'charging' 15 minute rest breaks every 2 hours like you're supposed to, and range isn't a problem anymore.
Once you have the half hour charge down, I'd concentrate on increasing range more than speeding up charge times. 400 mile range would give you quite a bit of margin.
I keep hearing about EEStor's excellet ultracapacitor, but I have one problem with it: It's still vaporware from what I've seen.
No independent tests of an actual device, no products available for purchase incorporating it, etc...
The other issue with it is that for those crazy energy densities it requires crazy voltage levels... Not exactly tame for a portable consumer device. At least a car can incorporate additional insulation and devices to regulate the high voltages.
As a bonus, with a 48V power system you'd be able to use telecom systems to charge it in a pinch.;)
48V power supplies are readily available, not too expensive, and connectors aren't too bad.
Though this might end up pushing, at least for stuff like laptops, to put the power supply on/in the computer itself. Somebody mentioned a sled - might not be a bad idea.
His example was actually a fairly poor one. A: Water broke isn't actually cause for a screamer to the hospital, and in most areas help isn't actually far away. In a city, an ambulance should be there in five minutes.
Though I'll note that some check engine lights will come on for something as simple as a incorrectly closed fuel cap. The check engine light is generally a lower concern than 'low oil pressure' or 'engine overheat'
Here's another: During a camping trip, your son got hurt. Let's say that he was cut pretty badly. Despite your bandaging, he's still bleeding. You're out in the boonies, around 20 minutes from cellphone coverage, much less an ambulance or a hospital.
Now, are you going to pay attention to that check engine light? Especially if it's just a light, and not something blaringly as obvious as a malfunctioning braking system. Though in the given situation I'd still drive, even with the brakes out. I'll use reverse to stop if necessary - my engine only has to make it to cell phone coverage, then preferably on the way to meet the ambulance.
If you believe in open market solutions, nuclear just doesn't cut it. If you believe in -incredibly- huge subsidies, well...
While the ease of delaying nuclear reactor construction and inefficiency/changing safety standards resulted in huge cost overruns, for actually generating power Nuclear is pretty cheap.
Today, ANY new power is expensive. They were looking at building 'clean coal' plants down in texas - until increasing emission standards raised their expected cost to something like $3/watt - at which point they transformed into nuclear plants($1-2.5/watt).
Wind and solar are still more expensive, even with government subsidies that will often pay 50% or more of the install cost.
It sounds like they performed a risk management exercise:
What are the odds of a properly maintained and inspected* 50 year old reactor melting down and causing human injury/death or even released radiation during the 120 days this exception gives it, in a fashion that the modification to include additional safety measures(backup pumps) would prevent? Given that the backup pumps were optional in the original design, it's very likely that the plant can maintain sufficient cooling through passive convection, at least in a shut down state, to prevent meltdown.
Answer: Not very likely at all.
What will the health effects be if the isotopes aren't produced?
Answer: Bad. 8000 patients already had to have tests delayed in Ontario alone. 430,000 people in the Canada and USA have scans each week. We're talking about life-threatening stuff here.
Conclusion: Turn the thing back on, make the safety upgrades when possible.
Liberal MP Omar Alghabra noted that resolving the crisis should not come at the cost of lowering nuclear safety standards.
At least to me, this seems to be disregarding reality on the part of a politician. Sometimes corners have to be cut. For example, you couldn't just mandate cars get 100mpg without there being serious consequences - like features and safety being cut, cars suddenly costing $100k, etc...
Note I'm not saying that the safety upgrades shouldn't be done, just that doing them in a phased manner is a smarter move given the medical necessity of the plant.
the movie is actually used as one by certain companies...
Youtube is blocked at work here, but yep, I've had it shown as a safety video.
Of course, we also distributed pictures of the hand of an electrician who had his finger blown off when he was working with flourescent ballasts and some wires hit his wedding ring...
As well as some rather nasty pictures of DUI accidents...
Still, I think that there's a big difference between continuing to supply power to the grid and producing isotopes used in medical treatment.
One generally doesn't cost lives. The other will start having a human toll fairly quickly.
And the trees at Chernobyl aren't radioactive enough to harm you in a statistically significant way even if you burned them in a campfire.
Now, being a paranoid and not liking having all my eggs in one basket, yes, I think somebody should consider building a new reactor, or perhaps modifying a test reactor somewhere to produce the needed isotopes.
Build that one to the new, more paranoid standards, then retrofit/replace the current one.
Just remember that as a medical reactor, it's quite possible that it's small enough that with the proper actions they could scram the thing and have it still not melt down through the use of passive cooling even with a pump failure.
Think of it like the difference between a over-volted, overclocked quad core processor(power plant) that needs to be water cooled, and a lower voltage, low wattage CPU that can be run by a simple heat sink/fan combo, and can even avoid damage by underclocking itself even more if the CPU fan fails.
To put it into more perspective, there's the '10 most deadly jobs' list. Careers like fishing(142), professional pilots and flight engineers(88), logging(82), Iron and Steel workers(61), etc...
The US active duty force is about 1,426,700 active duty military members, with an additional 1,259,000 in the various reserve and guard units. There were 882 military deaths in Iraq in 2006. This would be a mix of active and reserve members though, and wouldn't count deaths otherwise. Afghanistan would add some, but outside of combat military members are about as likely to be killed at work as office workers.
Counting just the active duty members, that gives us 61.8 deaths per 100,000, or right around being a steel worker, plenty of whom make it to retirement.
I wonder if they properly accounted for the accidents from people still driving cars with drivers side now on the outside, inexperience with the new rules, etc... Before blaming right eye dominance.
Single flashing red light is the same as a stop sign. Single flashing yellow is caution. This most commonly involves malfunctioning stop lights, though I've also seen them around schools and some other special areas where they want to be a little more obvious. Flashing yellow light with 'school zone' sign and a speed limit means that the lower speed limit is in effect while the light is flashing.
Two horizontal red lights flashing alternately and various train crossing signs = stop, train is coming or passing.
This might sound strange, but my parents* each have individual credit cards, not a group account.
They both have excellent credit, so there's no problem with one not being able to get a card. From watching court tv, joint credit cards is a big way to get in trouble. Person A of reasonable financial management and income hooks up with person B of no financial management and no income. Person A lends, cosigns loans and credit cards because B can't get them, then wonders why B gets in trouble, overspends, and otherwise doesn't pay anything. My thought is that 'Credit card companies and lenders obviously know something if they're not going to give B any credit'.
About all they share is a joint checking account, though they also have individual accounts.
*both accountants, which might explain why I'm screwed up.
1. Complain 2. Upgrade service 3. Move to another ISP(if possible) 4. Create your own ISP
etc...
I'll fully admit that I'm lucky with my ISP. I love the service I get, despite living so far in the boonies that it's a 45 minute drive to the closest movie theater.
Are we sure though? I mean, we don't do things like study excess cancer cases for most chemical accidents - and yet chemicals can cause cancer. What about premature death due to a weakened respitory system from the accident combined with a case of flu, later on?
On the wiki article it mentions that the average dose was 8 millirem(chest x-ray) and the highest 100 millirem(1/3rd average annual background dosage). So the estimated 1 fatal cancer caused by the release is likely based on the linear harm model - which is in dispute.
Heck, the article mentions that the higher cancer rate for the region could be due to it having more radon on average than surrounding counties.
Basically, I'm just trying to say that an immediate death counts higher than a 'statistical' death an unknown time in the future.
This all ends up getting rolled into my view - that nuclear power might not be perfectly safe, but it is far safer than coal power, which kills thousands from their pollution each year.
We got lucky with 3 mile island
Did we really get lucky there, or was it because we were already more paranoid about nuclear power than the USSR, causing us to build containment structures around all reactors? Structures that, in case of a Chernobyl style event, would be far more secure than the sarcophagus? That we build reactors, to use a clich, that's safe(r) by design?
nuclear plants will always present targets for bombing.
This made me think of another case: California banning.50BMG rifles(classifying them as 'assault rifles') partially because of their 'possible usage by terrorists'.
Terrorists have overwhelmingly shown that they like going after crowded, vulnerable targets like planes, malls, and schools. Not hard targets like a nuclear plant that has it's reactor shielded by a thick concrete dome. Car bomb, even a truck bomb would have to deal with the fact that that's where the containment dome is the thickest - multiple meters.
You already mostly can. Get ahold of their address, there are sites that will tell you information about who lives there. For a few bucks more, they'll do background checks on them, giving previous addresses, any convictions, etc...
Heck, you can find my speeding ticket from five years ago online.
Just be aware that these sites will frequently mix up people of same/similar name. Accuracy is fairly suspect.
well, other than that person's relatives coming after you with THEIR free kill.
Some tribal systems are somewhat like this; the family of the victim holds the power of forgiveness or execution. After much wailing and mourning, they have to decide whether to kill the guilty, demand some sort of compensation, or forgive.
I don't know whether to class it as good or not, but rape somebody in my family likely prison is the safest place for you.
I'd try reading their article(wasn't slashdotted for me); they specifically address that they considered the Dewey Decimal System and point out the problems they had with it.
Of course, I have enough books to practically count as another 4" of insulation around my house...
Yeah, I have to be in a really nasty mood about somebody who has done something horrible to wish that.
When I'm in a better mood, I simply wish for them to be put down like a rabid dog.
In this case, there's simply not the motivation - though I do think the man should face trial for what he's done. Even death penalty if that's an option for his crime in the area.
Xaxa, you've showed a pretty much textbook case of basic poll manipulation.
How you ask your questions can have a major effect on how people vote.
For example, the first case: "Which punishment do you prefer for people convicted of murder?"
The guy who kills his wife/her lover when he discovers them in bed together is a murder. At least some areas, getting into a bar fight and killing somebody can count as murder. Killing your drug dealer is a murder.
So we're looking at the average case here. On average, I favor life in prison for murder, so that would be how I vote.
Do you favour or oppose the death penalty for people convicted of murder? Is that strongly favour/oppose or somewhat favour/oppose?
This makes it much more conditional. At least to me, it makes me think of it as an optional punishment, for particularly bad murders. I might support LiP for 'average' murder, but I want the death penalty available for particularly heinious or obvious cases. Stuff like the NE bank murders a few years back - they walked in, cased the place, shot/executed everybody, then fled without taking any money. The cases of rape/torture/murder that happened - where they did stuff like force the woman to drink drain cleaner after raping her and burning her and stuff.
Exactly. A publicly accessable database has both the problems of fearmongering and being outright incorrect. At LEAST two innocent people have died because of stuff like this article. I mean, somebody like that construction worker and you could have found your face being beaten in for something you had no clue about.
The police can already find know who all the offenders in an area are rather easily. If an incident occurs, they can look them up.
As for preventing an incident - you should remember that the people on the list had to do something and be convicted of it to end up on the list.
So somebody isn't safe just because they aren't on the list.
I think the other devices associated with solar panels (charge controllers and desulphators primarily) are of such good a quality.
In other words, it's not just the solar panels, is like talking about how great a surge protector is, then only mentioning that there's also an UPS in the circuit.
Don't get me wrong, next time I'm looking at a long trip I'll probably get one of those solar float chargers to keep my car battery alive(went dead last time).
It's just that something that's constantly hooked up and using commercial power should probably use that to keep the starter battery charged - if you have a solar float, no need for the tap from commercial power.
I think our society would be well served right now to stop wasting so much good silicon on crap like cellphones that get thrown away every year (I bet everyone here has a box full of them)
I, at least, am not party to that. I've owned three of them, and have only upgraded voluntarily once. I bought my first cellphone in Germany, and it wouldn't work in the USA, so I got a different one.
Of course, I'm the exact opposite of the 'thin&pretty crowd'. I want a cell phone that's got a big enough antenna(and transmitter) to reach a state away, armored enough to beat somebody trying to steal it to death, with enough battery that even in a remote area it won't die for a week. Oh yeah, and extended range(or whatever it's called) bluetooth so I can dump the beast on the passanger seat, my belt, desk, or whatever and still be able to make a phone call.
and throw away music players and *forced computer upgrades from operating system bloat-age* and so on. That's the biggest problem the solar manufacturers are having now, and what is keeping prices high, they have orders up the wazoo, demand is just fantastic, but they can't get the silicon because of throw away cheap gadgets sucking it up.
I'm still using my original 256MB thumb drive(it's a pretty big thumb, too), 1 GB MP3 player with a broken screen(I just play it on random/repeat), and my 5 year old machine.
Still, a dedicated fab or ten might be able to drop the price of solar quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
nothing is immune to colossal management screwups. Nuclear suffered particularly bad, and combined with NIMBY, resulted in the cessation of production.
However, modern techniques have advanced quite a bit since then, and on the non-polluting front is a strong contender.
As for cheaper than wind or solar, it certainly is once you figure in the limited capacity factor for turbines or panels. This might change, especially for relatively limited 'prime' areas with good natural circumstances.
Nuclear is extremely well suited for baseload.
Just remember that IC cars aren't particularly efficient - so an IC car capable of 40kW can be replaced with a 15kW one for most uses.
True for a conventional system, but it's also for a power source involving a highly flammable, even explosive, liquid that requires at least a little attention during fueling, as well as large tanks to hold it(unless you want to deal with long pipes).
A cassettes/VHS tape at least used to have advantages over CD/DVDs, but CD/DVDs won despite being different.
For example, people might only be willing to wait 5-10 minutes while gassing up their car, but that's partially because it's their primary activity during that time.
Let's say that Olive Garden sticks chargers in their parking lot. In which case they hook their car up, go inside and have a meal while their car is charging. So it could take 30-60 minutes and they wouldn't care, because that's how long it takes to eat there, and it's just charging out in the lot. Same with charging at home. It can take 8 hours to charge because they're in bed.
Now, for long trips, I'd say 300 mile range at highway speeds and a half hour charge is the 'magic point', at least for more relaxed drivers. 300miles@75mph is 4 hours of range, or enough that you start driving, have breakfast, lunch, and early dinner - driving up to another 300 miles before going to bed - traveling up to 1200 miles over the course of 16 hours, not including stops. Add some 'charging' 15 minute rest breaks every 2 hours like you're supposed to, and range isn't a problem anymore.
Once you have the half hour charge down, I'd concentrate on increasing range more than speeding up charge times. 400 mile range would give you quite a bit of margin.
I keep hearing about EEStor's excellet ultracapacitor, but I have one problem with it: It's still vaporware from what I've seen.
No independent tests of an actual device, no products available for purchase incorporating it, etc...
The other issue with it is that for those crazy energy densities it requires crazy voltage levels... Not exactly tame for a portable consumer device. At least a car can incorporate additional insulation and devices to regulate the high voltages.
As a bonus, with a 48V power system you'd be able to use telecom systems to charge it in a pinch. ;)
48V power supplies are readily available, not too expensive, and connectors aren't too bad.
Though this might end up pushing, at least for stuff like laptops, to put the power supply on/in the computer itself. Somebody mentioned a sled - might not be a bad idea.
His example was actually a fairly poor one. A: Water broke isn't actually cause for a screamer to the hospital, and in most areas help isn't actually far away. In a city, an ambulance should be there in five minutes.
Though I'll note that some check engine lights will come on for something as simple as a incorrectly closed fuel cap. The check engine light is generally a lower concern than 'low oil pressure' or 'engine overheat'
Here's another: During a camping trip, your son got hurt. Let's say that he was cut pretty badly. Despite your bandaging, he's still bleeding. You're out in the boonies, around 20 minutes from cellphone coverage, much less an ambulance or a hospital.
Now, are you going to pay attention to that check engine light? Especially if it's just a light, and not something blaringly as obvious as a malfunctioning braking system. Though in the given situation I'd still drive, even with the brakes out. I'll use reverse to stop if necessary - my engine only has to make it to cell phone coverage, then preferably on the way to meet the ambulance.
If you believe in open market solutions, nuclear just doesn't cut it. If you believe in -incredibly- huge subsidies, well...
While the ease of delaying nuclear reactor construction and inefficiency/changing safety standards resulted in huge cost overruns, for actually generating power Nuclear is pretty cheap.
Today, ANY new power is expensive. They were looking at building 'clean coal' plants down in texas - until increasing emission standards raised their expected cost to something like $3/watt - at which point they transformed into nuclear plants($1-2.5/watt).
Wind and solar are still more expensive, even with government subsidies that will often pay 50% or more of the install cost.
What are the odds of a properly maintained and inspected* 50 year old reactor melting down and causing human injury/death or even released radiation during the 120 days this exception gives it, in a fashion that the modification to include additional safety measures(backup pumps) would prevent? Given that the backup pumps were optional in the original design, it's very likely that the plant can maintain sufficient cooling through passive convection, at least in a shut down state, to prevent meltdown.
Answer: Not very likely at all.
What will the health effects be if the isotopes aren't produced?
Answer: Bad. 8000 patients already had to have tests delayed in Ontario alone. 430,000 people in the Canada and USA have scans each week. We're talking about life-threatening stuff here.
Conclusion: Turn the thing back on, make the safety upgrades when possible.
At least to me, this seems to be disregarding reality on the part of a politician. Sometimes corners have to be cut. For example, you couldn't just mandate cars get 100mpg without there being serious consequences - like features and safety being cut, cars suddenly costing $100k, etc...
Note I'm not saying that the safety upgrades shouldn't be done, just that doing them in a phased manner is a smarter move given the medical necessity of the plant.
the movie is actually used as one by certain companies...
Youtube is blocked at work here, but yep, I've had it shown as a safety video.
Of course, we also distributed pictures of the hand of an electrician who had his finger blown off when he was working with flourescent ballasts and some wires hit his wedding ring...
As well as some rather nasty pictures of DUI accidents...
Still, I think that there's a big difference between continuing to supply power to the grid and producing isotopes used in medical treatment.
One generally doesn't cost lives. The other will start having a human toll fairly quickly.
And the trees at Chernobyl aren't radioactive enough to harm you in a statistically significant way even if you burned them in a campfire.
Now, being a paranoid and not liking having all my eggs in one basket, yes, I think somebody should consider building a new reactor, or perhaps modifying a test reactor somewhere to produce the needed isotopes.
Build that one to the new, more paranoid standards, then retrofit/replace the current one.
Just remember that as a medical reactor, it's quite possible that it's small enough that with the proper actions they could scram the thing and have it still not melt down through the use of passive cooling even with a pump failure.
Think of it like the difference between a over-volted, overclocked quad core processor(power plant) that needs to be water cooled, and a lower voltage, low wattage CPU that can be run by a simple heat sink/fan combo, and can even avoid damage by underclocking itself even more if the CPU fan fails.
To put it into more perspective, there's the '10 most deadly jobs' list. Careers like fishing(142), professional pilots and flight engineers(88), logging(82), Iron and Steel workers(61), etc...
The US active duty force is about 1,426,700 active duty military members, with an additional 1,259,000 in the various reserve and guard units. There were 882 military deaths in Iraq in 2006. This would be a mix of active and reserve members though, and wouldn't count deaths otherwise. Afghanistan would add some, but outside of combat military members are about as likely to be killed at work as office workers.
Counting just the active duty members, that gives us 61.8 deaths per 100,000, or right around being a steel worker, plenty of whom make it to retirement.
With that being said, it was easily the worst job I ever had. I ran all day and barely ate. In a 2-3 week period I lost 15 pounds.
;)
Hmm... That might help explain why most of the longer service UPS delivery people have been thin and fit looking.
Sounds like a great weight loss plan - work out while they're paying you!
I wonder if they properly accounted for the accidents from people still driving cars with drivers side now on the outside, inexperience with the new rules, etc... Before blaming right eye dominance.
Single flashing red light is the same as a stop sign. Single flashing yellow is caution. This most commonly involves malfunctioning stop lights, though I've also seen them around schools and some other special areas where they want to be a little more obvious. Flashing yellow light with 'school zone' sign and a speed limit means that the lower speed limit is in effect while the light is flashing.
Two horizontal red lights flashing alternately and various train crossing signs = stop, train is coming or passing.
This might sound strange, but my parents* each have individual credit cards, not a group account.
They both have excellent credit, so there's no problem with one not being able to get a card. From watching court tv, joint credit cards is a big way to get in trouble. Person A of reasonable financial management and income hooks up with person B of no financial management and no income. Person A lends, cosigns loans and credit cards because B can't get them, then wonders why B gets in trouble, overspends, and otherwise doesn't pay anything. My thought is that 'Credit card companies and lenders obviously know something if they're not going to give B any credit'.
About all they share is a joint checking account, though they also have individual accounts.
*both accountants, which might explain why I'm screwed up.
1. Complain
2. Upgrade service
3. Move to another ISP(if possible)
4. Create your own ISP
etc...
I'll fully admit that I'm lucky with my ISP. I love the service I get, despite living so far in the boonies that it's a 45 minute drive to the closest movie theater.
So, we've got 1 person dead in both cases.
.50BMG rifles(classifying them as 'assault rifles') partially because of their 'possible usage by terrorists'.
Are we sure though? I mean, we don't do things like study excess cancer cases for most chemical accidents - and yet chemicals can cause cancer. What about premature death due to a weakened respitory system from the accident combined with a case of flu, later on?
On the wiki article it mentions that the average dose was 8 millirem(chest x-ray) and the highest 100 millirem(1/3rd average annual background dosage). So the estimated 1 fatal cancer caused by the release is likely based on the linear harm model - which is in dispute.
Heck, the article mentions that the higher cancer rate for the region could be due to it having more radon on average than surrounding counties.
Basically, I'm just trying to say that an immediate death counts higher than a 'statistical' death an unknown time in the future.
This all ends up getting rolled into my view - that nuclear power might not be perfectly safe, but it is far safer than coal power, which kills thousands from their pollution each year.
We got lucky with 3 mile island
Did we really get lucky there, or was it because we were already more paranoid about nuclear power than the USSR, causing us to build containment structures around all reactors? Structures that, in case of a Chernobyl style event, would be far more secure than the sarcophagus? That we build reactors, to use a clich, that's safe(r) by design?
nuclear plants will always present targets for bombing.
This made me think of another case: California banning
Terrorists have overwhelmingly shown that they like going after crowded, vulnerable targets like planes, malls, and schools. Not hard targets like a nuclear plant that has it's reactor shielded by a thick concrete dome. Car bomb, even a truck bomb would have to deal with the fact that that's where the containment dome is the thickest - multiple meters.
You already mostly can. Get ahold of their address, there are sites that will tell you information about who lives there. For a few bucks more, they'll do background checks on them, giving previous addresses, any convictions, etc...
Heck, you can find my speeding ticket from five years ago online.
Just be aware that these sites will frequently mix up people of same/similar name. Accuracy is fairly suspect.
Well, I think I can guess how the 'ex' part came about.
;)
By the way, are you still married to her mother?
well, other than that person's relatives coming after you with THEIR free kill.
Some tribal systems are somewhat like this; the family of the victim holds the power of forgiveness or execution. After much wailing and mourning, they have to decide whether to kill the guilty, demand some sort of compensation, or forgive.
I don't know whether to class it as good or not, but rape somebody in my family likely prison is the safest place for you.
I'd try reading their article(wasn't slashdotted for me); they specifically address that they considered the Dewey Decimal System and point out the problems they had with it.
Of course, I have enough books to practically count as another 4" of insulation around my house...
Yeah, I have to be in a really nasty mood about somebody who has done something horrible to wish that.
When I'm in a better mood, I simply wish for them to be put down like a rabid dog.
In this case, there's simply not the motivation - though I do think the man should face trial for what he's done. Even death penalty if that's an option for his crime in the area.
Xaxa, you've showed a pretty much textbook case of basic poll manipulation.
How you ask your questions can have a major effect on how people vote.
For example, the first case:
"Which punishment do you prefer for people convicted of murder?"
The guy who kills his wife/her lover when he discovers them in bed together is a murder. At least some areas, getting into a bar fight and killing somebody can count as murder. Killing your drug dealer is a murder.
So we're looking at the average case here. On average, I favor life in prison for murder, so that would be how I vote.
Do you favour or oppose the death penalty for people convicted of murder? Is that
strongly favour/oppose or somewhat favour/oppose?
This makes it much more conditional. At least to me, it makes me think of it as an optional punishment, for particularly bad murders. I might support LiP for 'average' murder, but I want the death penalty available for particularly heinious or obvious cases. Stuff like the NE bank murders a few years back - they walked in, cased the place, shot/executed everybody, then fled without taking any money. The cases of rape/torture/murder that happened - where they did stuff like force the woman to drink drain cleaner after raping her and burning her and stuff.
Exactly. A publicly accessable database has both the problems of fearmongering and being outright incorrect. At LEAST two innocent people have died because of stuff like this article. I mean, somebody like that construction worker and you could have found your face being beaten in for something you had no clue about.
The police can already find know who all the offenders in an area are rather easily. If an incident occurs, they can look them up.
As for preventing an incident - you should remember that the people on the list had to do something and be convicted of it to end up on the list.
So somebody isn't safe just because they aren't on the list.
I think the other devices associated with solar panels (charge controllers and desulphators primarily) are of such good a quality.
In other words, it's not just the solar panels, is like talking about how great a surge protector is, then only mentioning that there's also an UPS in the circuit.
Don't get me wrong, next time I'm looking at a long trip I'll probably get one of those solar float chargers to keep my car battery alive(went dead last time).
It's just that something that's constantly hooked up and using commercial power should probably use that to keep the starter battery charged - if you have a solar float, no need for the tap from commercial power.
I think our society would be well served right now to stop wasting so much good silicon on crap like cellphones that get thrown away every year (I bet everyone here has a box full of them)
I, at least, am not party to that. I've owned three of them, and have only upgraded voluntarily once. I bought my first cellphone in Germany, and it wouldn't work in the USA, so I got a different one.
Of course, I'm the exact opposite of the 'thin&pretty crowd'. I want a cell phone that's got a big enough antenna(and transmitter) to reach a state away, armored enough to beat somebody trying to steal it to death, with enough battery that even in a remote area it won't die for a week. Oh yeah, and extended range(or whatever it's called) bluetooth so I can dump the beast on the passanger seat, my belt, desk, or whatever and still be able to make a phone call.
and throw away music players and *forced computer upgrades from operating system bloat-age* and so on. That's the biggest problem the solar manufacturers are having now, and what is keeping prices high, they have orders up the wazoo, demand is just fantastic, but they can't get the silicon because of throw away cheap gadgets sucking it up.
I'm still using my original 256MB thumb drive(it's a pretty big thumb, too), 1 GB MP3 player with a broken screen(I just play it on random/repeat), and my 5 year old machine.
Still, a dedicated fab or ten might be able to drop the price of solar quite a bit.