It was once thought that life was an incredibly fragile thing, able to exist only in stringent bounds. Turns out that it's not nearly the case, that life can adapt to many different conditions. Only the individuals, even species are that fragile. Life itself can adapt to many conditions. And when it gets to a global level it modifies the very planet, leading to different life.
Using USA transport, it's like $8k per pound to LEO. It's nearly $20k to GEO. The 10k might be an 'averaging' to a higher orbit, if not all the way to GEO.
We already are, and have been for years. How many transformers do you think end up in junkyards? Just about zero. How many Cars are stored in special ones, to be stripped of usefull parts before they're finally crushed and sold for their metal?
The only things going to landfills are those that aren't worth the effort to recycle right now. Consumer waste that's not worth it to seperate for recycling. Ultra-cheap cans and plastics. Some people and areas recycle even those, but it costs energy and time to sort and ship the waste to the recycling plant. If it takes more oil to move the plastic bottles to the plant than to just make new ones, why would you bother to do so?
Still, there's people looking at building plants capable of automatically seperating, sorting and such at some of the larger 'full' landfills. You just have to wait for the value of the contents of the landfill to rise and the cost of exploiting them to drop(through new technology) to the point of profitability. Heck, they've set up methane plants over some of them, so they're essentially mining them for resources even now.
If we received a credible threat of a GPS guided enemy missile attack, the president would likely degrade GPS's accuracy in the area.
Sure, it's going to be a problem, but if the choice is between that and a nuke hitting a major city...
On the other hand, I feel that a container nuke is the bigger threat. Put a nuke in a sealed container, and pay to have it transhipped through a major port, and set it off while there.
The USA isn't requiring anyone but itself to issue these new passports. However, it's promised more hassle to travelers without the new passports in the near future. There are a few other countries that have signed on as well. Thus, NZ has reached the conclusion that it's better to issue the new passports, easing a major segment of it's international traveler's transitions.
Jay, I'll agree with you. It's not really a liberty bill, it's a self defense bill, adjusting law. And I disagree with all the no carry zones. I feel that the locations listed as prohibitied should, like all other places, have the option of banning carry on their premesis. I just think that if they do, they should be responsible for my safety while I'm on the premisis. IE armed guards and metal detecters.
AM, I've read the bill, it seems clear enough, if not perfect. I'd consider the bill much better if it had recognition of other state's permits(I'm a holder of a ND permit), and didn't ban carry in so many areas.
However, law enforcement officials also learn when to use their weapon
I draw your attention to section six, part F: Knowledge of federal, state,and local laws pertaining to the use of a handgun, including, but not limited to, use of a handgun for self-defense and laws relating to justifiable homicide and the various degrees of assault
The rest of your arguments have been stated time and time again in the other 46 states with concealed carry, including the 38 with mandatory issue. None have proven true. When CCW passed in Texas, there were howls predicting a "return to the wild west". When CCW passed in Florida, the predictions were that "The streets will run red with blood". The murder and violent crime rate dropped. Road Rage? Do you think that I am going to risk loosing my permit and my right to own a gun over a traffic squabble? Part of obtaining the permit is training on the laws involved.
Tasers and mace are often not effective. A civilian taser is a contact weapon, and has less voltage than the police model. Incapacitation after the shock is very limited, and often not effective against an attacker in heavy clothing. Mace? It's effective only about 50% of the time. Meanwhile, 90% of the time, just the presentation of a firearm is enough to stop the assault. They're a useful option for the police, who still have the option of the firearm when it's appropriate. But criminals will often continue their attack against a taser or pepper spray armed assailent, confident that they won't be killed or seriously hurt.
As for a robber just making off with money, do you really want to take the chance that they're after money only? Remember the bank shooting in Norfolk? None of the victims there had a gun, yet they all died.
Not all of the plant's pools are full. However, a number of them are. Some plants just built an additional pool. A number of others have built above ground casks and stored the oldest rods there.
Thing about waste rods is that when they come out of the reactor is that they're still producing heat. A ton of waste rods* is generating 12,300 watts worth. If it wasn't for tendency of the radiation damaging things, you'd be able to scavange power off of them. This means that you need active cooling. After 20 years, you're down to 950 watts/ton, which can be handled cheaply without active cooling. After 50 you're down to 572, and I've heard people talking about reprocessing it at that point. It's cheaper to do it at that point because you don't have to take as many radiation precautions.
*It's not as big as you might think. Heavy metals are dense.
Well, I for one ain't buying it until it's cracked.
And as for the rest of the public, it took 5 years from the release of DVD before my parents got one. My grandparents still have a VCR, but not a DVD player.
It's going to be past 2011 before DVD stops having shelves in the major stores.
Given the success of cloning, it could be argued that any cell culture could be reformed into a complete animal. We can't do that quite yet with humans, but we're pretty close.
Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human?
Wouldn't be me. Obviously you're a member of the soul on fertilization camp. Which would you rather be? Part of a cell culture that's saved the life of another human, allowed somebody to see, to walk, etc or to be incinerated with half a dozen others as 'medical waste' because you didn't happen to be the one implanted?
Besides, for actual treatment they're more likely to use cloned or artificial stem cells to prevent rejection by the immune system.
Somebody should probably mod this guy up. I don't agree with him, but he's a perfect example of the anti-stemcell viewpoint.
Yes, and that's exactly the problem: nuclear power creates large quantities of isotopes with half-lives of the order of millennia--highly radioactive and dangerous isotopes that do not occur naturally and that still require safe and secure long-term storage.
Did you miss his point entirely? The longer the half life the less radioactive the material. And the isotopes all exist naturally, if in different proportions. Heck, a few million years ago there were some natural piles around.
The high level waste from 50 years ago, currently stored in casks, is a fraction as radioactive as when it first came out of the reactor. I've already heard proposals for recycling it back into reactor fuel.
Things would be significantly better if nations built breeder reactors, reducing the amount of highly radioactive waste significantly. But not even that is being done out of concerns over proliferation.
I'll agree with you here. Efficiency is always good, and the radioactive byproducts of a breeder reactor have shorter halflifes, so end up degrading faster. They need more containment initially, but due to the faster degredation the long term storage doesn't need to last as long.
1. Many people who sit for long periods of time have difficulty standing and moving afterwards. 2. Figure it out on the plane. I'll take the top, the old woman can have the bottom(or next to the bottom). In the booking process have a checkbox for 'needs lower capsule'. 3. Replace the pad during the servicing and wipe down the alcove. We're talking international flights here, refueling takes some time in those cases all by itself. 4. If it reduces your capacity, charge first class, or other appropriate rates for them. 5. If they're going to be eating, drinking, or not sleeping, have them get a traditional seat ticket. 6. And how much space is available for people 'stretching their legs' on traditional flights? People sitting generally need to stand more than those laying down. 7. How'll they fit two into there for sex? And yes, people will barf in them, etc. But then, people to that anyways and the airline manages.
As a shiftworker and an international traveler, with it's attendant odd hours, I'll say that I value high-quality artificial lighting that I can turn off over a window which has light streaming in no matter what I do any day.
There's a reason that I've foiled my bedroom window.
And I'll agree with the sentiment that a cheap place, within negligable travel distance of the airport, without complicated and time consuming check-in procedure.
Let's put it this way: I've been up for almost 48 hours straight, excepting not-very restfull snoozes on the plane, I've reached Boston and have a 6 hour layover until my connecting flight leaves at 8 or 10 am.
The sooner I get a shower and into a bed, the happier I'll be. I'll even take a twin, and only need enough floor space for my luggage.
Any other services are secondary at that point. Phone, TV, internet service are nice, but not necessary. They're cheap to provide though, so many places provide them as people are willing to pay $20 more a night to get them.
How automated are they, really? I assume they still have an attendant come around to clean and change out the sheets/towels.
Automated room rental could and have been done years ago. The only reason for not doing that is to have somebody watch over the place and fulfill odd jobs, like renting out rooms to people too drunk to handle a machine, make sure nobody's stealing or setting fire to the stuff in the lobby, helping with old people's luggage, etc...
What pfdietz said, but with the added mention that electricity is electricity.
The study found that, at least for that location, producing electricity is more expensive than for other sources such as nuclear and coal.
Another point would be that we've developed a high-efficiency way to produce hydrogen with a nuclear reactor. Part of the process utilizes waste heat for the system. Depending on the details, you could use this process as a make up, ceasing hydrogen production to cover peak demands.
It's still more 'on demand' than wind, of which you're at the mercy of the weather to provide.
Of all power generation methods, gas is one of the most expensive. Natural Gas goes much higher and it'd be cheaper to waste power with one of the cheaper base load solutions.
It becomes an equation:
Wind Solution: Capital costs: Wind mills gas turbine backups Maybe an energy storage solution to stretch wind power during calm periods Ongoing costs: Maintenance for large numbers of wind mills* Maintenance for the gas turbines Natural gas to make up shortfalls when wind is too calm or too fast for generator operation(70% of the time in Lincoln, NE)
Nuclear Solution: Capital Costs: Nuclear power plant. Maybe an energy storage solution to store power for peaks(only has to cover ~half hour until more power plants can ramp up). Ongoing costs: Maintenance for 1 large plant Fuel: expensive, but you only need 1 truckload a year, and if it's a breeder plant, it's more like 1 a decade. Waste storage/disposal: In ~50 years the 'waste' can be refined again to yield more fuel. Meanwhile the equivalent of a large swimming pool keeps the stuff safe.
*One of the reasons dad's electric company isn't expanding the project is that maintenance for the windmills is considered 'excessive', outweighing the elimination of fuel costs.
I'll agree with you that China's emission laws, at least by most standards, likely aren't 'tougher' than Europes. But emissions laws can be quite difficult to quantify as 'tougher'. There's many basic methods to quantify pollution, and thus many methods can be taken to reduce said pollution. Raw: X tons is X tons By Population: X tons per person By Economic Productivity: X tons per $ By Material Productivity: X tons per product produced By Efficiency: X% compared to average per product.
China's vast rural population that are living little better than midieval peasants can distort pollution levels that scale by population.
The USA is actually one of the best by Economic/Material productivity.
I just talked with my father yesterday, and he let me know that the local power company has decided against expanding their wind turbines, as there's only usable wind 30% of the time, and the maintenance costs make the cost of it's electricity exceed that of other power sources.
At least nuclear power is an on demand system which doesn't produce pollution, but containable waste. Combining breeding reactors and an intelligent waste management system* would fix problems so that even the flawed yucca mountain repository would be sufficient.
The pursuit of happiness is described that way in the US Constitution. Then there's the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and its protections for free speech.
While I would argue that the second amendment does indeed protect freedom of speech, the first amendment does so in a far more direct fashion.
The second is only effective in that you generally don't try to violently silence somebody who's got a gun.
1st: Freedom of Speech and Religion 2nd: Keep and Bear Arms 3rd: They can't force you to keep me in your house(military), unless it's wartime and congress approves it. 4th: The cops/government needs a warrent to search you and/or seize anything. 5th: You're guarenteed a trail, protected from double jepardy 6th: You have the right to defend yourself in court. 7th: Another double jepardy protection, and if the lawsuit is more than $20 bucks you're allowed to demand a jury trial. 8th: They're not supposed to beat your ass(cruel and unusual), or fine you everything for something minor. 9th: This list isn't complete 10th: If it's not authorized in the constitution, the federal government can't do it. That doesn't mean that the state can't. If the state doesn't do it, it's for the people.
Yes, communism has been tried. In the USA. It works well enough in a small community, with selected participants, for a single generation. You can extend this longer through the extensive usage of banishment, where you simply kick out trouble cases.
But I have never heard of a successful large scale, internally managed communist country.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe this sounds wierd to people, but what about oxygen depletion if we keep burning coal and just burying the CO2?
I remember reading somewhere that oxygen levels are measurably lower now than they were a hundred years ago.
It was once thought that life was an incredibly fragile thing, able to exist only in stringent bounds. Turns out that it's not nearly the case, that life can adapt to many different conditions. Only the individuals, even species are that fragile. Life itself can adapt to many conditions. And when it gets to a global level it modifies the very planet, leading to different life.
Using USA transport, it's like $8k per pound to LEO. It's nearly $20k to GEO. The 10k might be an 'averaging' to a higher orbit, if not all the way to GEO.
I think it's the estimated cost per pound for using the shuttle to deliver supplies to the space station.
Ah, here we go:
NASA has notified companies that commercial experiments on ISS will cost $10,000 per pound, $15,000 an hour if it requires an astronaut's attention, and data sent back to Earth will cost $100 a minute. Estimated cost of a 680 kilogram (1500 pound) experiment with 2,800 kilowatt hours of electrical energy is $20.8 million dollars. NASA warned, however, that since these prices are market driven they could rise depending on demand.
We already are, and have been for years. How many transformers do you think end up in junkyards? Just about zero. How many Cars are stored in special ones, to be stripped of usefull parts before they're finally crushed and sold for their metal?
The only things going to landfills are those that aren't worth the effort to recycle right now. Consumer waste that's not worth it to seperate for recycling. Ultra-cheap cans and plastics. Some people and areas recycle even those, but it costs energy and time to sort and ship the waste to the recycling plant. If it takes more oil to move the plastic bottles to the plant than to just make new ones, why would you bother to do so?
Still, there's people looking at building plants capable of automatically seperating, sorting and such at some of the larger 'full' landfills. You just have to wait for the value of the contents of the landfill to rise and the cost of exploiting them to drop(through new technology) to the point of profitability. Heck, they've set up methane plants over some of them, so they're essentially mining them for resources even now.
On the other hand, the planet will fall towards the apple faster, but then, we have a hard time measuring that acceleration.
If we received a credible threat of a GPS guided enemy missile attack, the president would likely degrade GPS's accuracy in the area.
Sure, it's going to be a problem, but if the choice is between that and a nuke hitting a major city...
On the other hand, I feel that a container nuke is the bigger threat. Put a nuke in a sealed container, and pay to have it transhipped through a major port, and set it off while there.
The USA isn't requiring anyone but itself to issue these new passports. However, it's promised more hassle to travelers without the new passports in the near future. There are a few other countries that have signed on as well. Thus, NZ has reached the conclusion that it's better to issue the new passports, easing a major segment of it's international traveler's transitions.
And cost should drop with time as well.
Jay, I'll agree with you. It's not really a liberty bill, it's a self defense bill, adjusting law. And I disagree with all the no carry zones. I feel that the locations listed as prohibitied should, like all other places, have the option of banning carry on their premesis. I just think that if they do, they should be responsible for my safety while I'm on the premisis. IE armed guards and metal detecters.
AM, I've read the bill, it seems clear enough, if not perfect. I'd consider the bill much better if it had recognition of other state's permits(I'm a holder of a ND permit), and didn't ban carry in so many areas.
However, law enforcement officials also learn when to use their weapon
I draw your attention to section six, part F:
Knowledge of federal, state,and local laws pertaining to the use of a handgun, including, but not limited to, use of a handgun for self-defense and laws relating to justifiable homicide and the various degrees of assault
The rest of your arguments have been stated time and time again in the other 46 states with concealed carry, including the 38 with mandatory issue. None have proven true.
When CCW passed in Texas, there were howls predicting a "return to the wild west". When CCW passed in Florida, the predictions were that "The streets will run red with blood". The murder and violent crime rate dropped. Road Rage? Do you think that I am going to risk loosing my permit and my right to own a gun over a traffic squabble? Part of obtaining the permit is training on the laws involved.
Tasers and mace are often not effective. A civilian taser is a contact weapon, and has less voltage than the police model. Incapacitation after the shock is very limited, and often not effective against an attacker in heavy clothing. Mace? It's effective only about 50% of the time. Meanwhile, 90% of the time, just the presentation of a firearm is enough to stop the assault. They're a useful option for the police, who still have the option of the firearm when it's appropriate. But criminals will often continue their attack against a taser or pepper spray armed assailent, confident that they won't be killed or seriously hurt.
As for a robber just making off with money, do you really want to take the chance that they're after money only? Remember the bank shooting in Norfolk? None of the victims there had a gun, yet they all died.
Then you whitelist it prior to subscribing, or in parallel therein.
Still, rather than a micro-payment scheme, I'd much prefer burning a few of the worst offenders at the stake.
Not all of the plant's pools are full. However, a number of them are. Some plants just built an additional pool. A number of others have built above ground casks and stored the oldest rods there.
Thing about waste rods is that when they come out of the reactor is that they're still producing heat. A ton of waste rods* is generating 12,300 watts worth. If it wasn't for tendency of the radiation damaging things, you'd be able to scavange power off of them. This means that you need active cooling. After 20 years, you're down to 950 watts/ton, which can be handled cheaply without active cooling. After 50 you're down to 572, and I've heard people talking about reprocessing it at that point. It's cheaper to do it at that point because you don't have to take as many radiation precautions.
*It's not as big as you might think. Heavy metals are dense.
Well, I for one ain't buying it until it's cracked.
And as for the rest of the public, it took 5 years from the release of DVD before my parents got one. My grandparents still have a VCR, but not a DVD player.
It's going to be past 2011 before DVD stops having shelves in the major stores.
Given the success of cloning, it could be argued that any cell culture could be reformed into a complete animal. We can't do that quite yet with humans, but we're pretty close.
Would you want to be used as a treatment into someones body, instead of growing into a human?
Wouldn't be me. Obviously you're a member of the soul on fertilization camp. Which would you rather be? Part of a cell culture that's saved the life of another human, allowed somebody to see, to walk, etc or to be incinerated with half a dozen others as 'medical waste' because you didn't happen to be the one implanted?
Besides, for actual treatment they're more likely to use cloned or artificial stem cells to prevent rejection by the immune system.
Somebody should probably mod this guy up. I don't agree with him, but he's a perfect example of the anti-stemcell viewpoint.
I just looked at a house up here in North Dakota. I was a bit suprised, it was listed as having electric heat...
My first thought was: "I'll have to get a heat pump installed".
Yes, and that's exactly the problem: nuclear power creates large quantities of isotopes with half-lives of the order of millennia--highly radioactive and dangerous isotopes that do not occur naturally and that still require safe and secure long-term storage.
Did you miss his point entirely? The longer the half life the less radioactive the material. And the isotopes all exist naturally, if in different proportions. Heck, a few million years ago there were some natural piles around.
The high level waste from 50 years ago, currently stored in casks, is a fraction as radioactive as when it first came out of the reactor. I've already heard proposals for recycling it back into reactor fuel.
Things would be significantly better if nations built breeder reactors, reducing the amount of highly radioactive waste significantly. But not even that is being done out of concerns over proliferation.
I'll agree with you here. Efficiency is always good, and the radioactive byproducts of a breeder reactor have shorter halflifes, so end up degrading faster. They need more containment initially, but due to the faster degredation the long term storage doesn't need to last as long.
1. Many people who sit for long periods of time have difficulty standing and moving afterwards.
2. Figure it out on the plane. I'll take the top, the old woman can have the bottom(or next to the bottom). In the booking process have a checkbox for 'needs lower capsule'.
3. Replace the pad during the servicing and wipe down the alcove. We're talking international flights here, refueling takes some time in those cases all by itself.
4. If it reduces your capacity, charge first class, or other appropriate rates for them.
5. If they're going to be eating, drinking, or not sleeping, have them get a traditional seat ticket.
6. And how much space is available for people 'stretching their legs' on traditional flights? People sitting generally need to stand more than those laying down.
7. How'll they fit two into there for sex? And yes, people will barf in them, etc. But then, people to that anyways and the airline manages.
Here's a discussion about the idea of a 'coffin hotel' plane
As a shiftworker and an international traveler, with it's attendant odd hours, I'll say that I value high-quality artificial lighting that I can turn off over a window which has light streaming in no matter what I do any day.
There's a reason that I've foiled my bedroom window.
And I'll agree with the sentiment that a cheap place, within negligable travel distance of the airport, without complicated and time consuming check-in procedure.
Let's put it this way: I've been up for almost 48 hours straight, excepting not-very restfull snoozes on the plane, I've reached Boston and have a 6 hour layover until my connecting flight leaves at 8 or 10 am.
The sooner I get a shower and into a bed, the happier I'll be. I'll even take a twin, and only need enough floor space for my luggage.
Any other services are secondary at that point. Phone, TV, internet service are nice, but not necessary. They're cheap to provide though, so many places provide them as people are willing to pay $20 more a night to get them.
How automated are they, really? I assume they still have an attendant come around to clean and change out the sheets/towels.
Automated room rental could and have been done years ago. The only reason for not doing that is to have somebody watch over the place and fulfill odd jobs, like renting out rooms to people too drunk to handle a machine, make sure nobody's stealing or setting fire to the stuff in the lobby, helping with old people's luggage, etc...
What pfdietz said, but with the added mention that electricity is electricity.
The study found that, at least for that location, producing electricity is more expensive than for other sources such as nuclear and coal.
Another point would be that we've developed a high-efficiency way to produce hydrogen with a nuclear reactor. Part of the process utilizes waste heat for the system. Depending on the details, you could use this process as a make up, ceasing hydrogen production to cover peak demands.
It's still more 'on demand' than wind, of which you're at the mercy of the weather to provide.
Of all power generation methods, gas is one of the most expensive. Natural Gas goes much higher and it'd be cheaper to waste power with one of the cheaper base load solutions.
It becomes an equation:
Wind Solution:
Capital costs:
Wind mills
gas turbine backups
Maybe an energy storage solution to stretch wind power during calm periods
Ongoing costs:
Maintenance for large numbers of wind mills*
Maintenance for the gas turbines
Natural gas to make up shortfalls when wind is too calm or too fast for generator operation(70% of the time in Lincoln, NE)
Nuclear Solution:
Capital Costs:
Nuclear power plant.
Maybe an energy storage solution to store power for peaks(only has to cover ~half hour until more power plants can ramp up).
Ongoing costs:
Maintenance for 1 large plant
Fuel: expensive, but you only need 1 truckload a year, and if it's a breeder plant, it's more like 1 a decade.
Waste storage/disposal: In ~50 years the 'waste' can be refined again to yield more fuel. Meanwhile the equivalent of a large swimming pool keeps the stuff safe.
*One of the reasons dad's electric company isn't expanding the project is that maintenance for the windmills is considered 'excessive', outweighing the elimination of fuel costs.
I'll agree with you that China's emission laws, at least by most standards, likely aren't 'tougher' than Europes. But emissions laws can be quite difficult to quantify as 'tougher'. There's many basic methods to quantify pollution, and thus many methods can be taken to reduce said pollution.
Raw: X tons is X tons
By Population: X tons per person
By Economic Productivity: X tons per $
By Material Productivity: X tons per product produced
By Efficiency: X% compared to average per product.
China's vast rural population that are living little better than midieval peasants can distort pollution levels that scale by population.
The USA is actually one of the best by Economic/Material productivity.
I just talked with my father yesterday, and he let me know that the local power company has decided against expanding their wind turbines, as there's only usable wind 30% of the time, and the maintenance costs make the cost of it's electricity exceed that of other power sources.
At least nuclear power is an on demand system which doesn't produce pollution, but containable waste. Combining breeding reactors and an intelligent waste management system* would fix problems so that even the flawed yucca mountain repository would be sufficient.
*Our current system isn't intelligent.
The pursuit of happiness is described that way in the US Constitution. Then there's the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and its protections for free speech.
While I would argue that the second amendment does indeed protect freedom of speech, the first amendment does so in a far more direct fashion.
The second is only effective in that you generally don't try to violently silence somebody who's got a gun.
1st: Freedom of Speech and Religion
2nd: Keep and Bear Arms
3rd: They can't force you to keep me in your house(military), unless it's wartime and congress approves it.
4th: The cops/government needs a warrent to search you and/or seize anything.
5th: You're guarenteed a trail, protected from double jepardy
6th: You have the right to defend yourself in court.
7th: Another double jepardy protection, and if the lawsuit is more than $20 bucks you're allowed to demand a jury trial.
8th: They're not supposed to beat your ass(cruel and unusual), or fine you everything for something minor.
9th: This list isn't complete
10th: If it's not authorized in the constitution, the federal government can't do it. That doesn't mean that the state can't. If the state doesn't do it, it's for the people.
Yes, communism has been tried. In the USA. It works well enough in a small community, with selected participants, for a single generation. You can extend this longer through the extensive usage of banishment, where you simply kick out trouble cases.
But I have never heard of a successful large scale, internally managed communist country.
If you pay any attention, you'll see that politicians love passing unenforcable and ineffective laws all the time, around the world.
China also passes 'human rights' laws to please the rest of the world, and then totally ignores them internally.
Naw, it should come out of the proposer's re-election funds. That'd stop alot of this.
This is a case of congresscritters wanting to appear to be doing something, knowing full well that it'll create a stir but ultimately change nothing.