In most cases, the tech is called in to clean up the smoldering remains of what was put there before he was in the scene.
This had been put into a small machine shop to link the PCs in the office with the CNC machines to transfer files (late 1980s/early 90s).
An employee of the place had hooked it up, and with at most a couple hundred feet, they normally got away with it. Even in an electrically noisy environment like a machine shop.
The owner was of the mindset "Just fix it. It works for us."
There's been a lot of work done in using microbes that already exist in soils to break a lot of contaminants down in situ. You just have to give them the right environment to do it in. Sometimes you have to add water, or hydrogen, or methane in the areas they're working.
Terry Hazen at the Department of Energy is one of the people involved in using it during the nuclear site cleanups. It's been pretty successful.
In the method outlined here, they do it directly by adding finely divided iron, letting it react with water giving Fe(II), hydrogen and OH-. It then breaks down chlorinated hydrocarbons without microbes.
(Though, my sneaky suspicion is that whenever you give some of the microbes that are already present in the soil iron(II) and hydrogen they'll do a lot of the work of reducing chlorine compounds too.)
I'm not a socialist. Neither are a lot of supporters of foreign aid programs of various stripes.
I could go into a longwinded justification based on US self interest and keeping problems away from our doorstep, but I doubt you'd "get" it.
Suffice it to say, though foreign aid is a perrenial target for scorn, once in power all administrations and congresses have kept it. It may be in different forms (Arms on one side, food aid on the other. Though usually both by both sides), but it's one of the few universals of American politics.
Nice black and white, yes/no ideologies are fine for chattering over a few beers, but running an actual major country is a lot different than theory.
It still has to pass both the house and senate. The house may still be a problem.
Until it does and is signed, "the check is in the mail".
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
"Which class taught you how to balance a checkbook, because I don't recall ever taking it."
In my high school, it was called Family Living. IIRC, most people took it sophomore year. But, that was in the mid 70s and a few school consolidations ago. Who knows what's replaced it by now.
My main memory is that the gal who taught it was seriously hot.
The problem is not finding a community that wants the site.
It's that as soon as they say they want it, no matter how well informed they are, interest groups will descend saying "We must save these poor ignorant people who are being used by the nuclear lobby". Or, "We must save these people from being deceived by the anti-nukes"
I'm sure they'd say that about Los Alamos where large numbers of the people work for a nuclear weapons lab and know more about rad hazards than almost any other community save for perhaps Arzamas-16 (Now called Sarov again.) .
I've seen this happen before in New Mexico when I lived there. The chief of the Mescalero tribe started making a deal to have a rad waste site on some of their land. Parts of it are some of the most inhospitable you can find in the US.
All of a sudden, groups showed up saying that the Mescaleros were just too uninformed to understand what they were doing and had to be protected. (It was amazingly patronizing.)
Now, the problem was taken care of by the tribe itself. They put it to a vote and voted it down. That's fine. That's how democracy works.
But you can bet that the carpetbaggers on both sides of the issue will turn up like flies around roadkill.
I'd already suspected something like that would happen with the Mescaleros. My company processed credit cards and such for Ski Apache and Inn of the Mountain Gods, two of the tribal businesses, So, I'd dealt with them a good bit and knew they were no fools regardless of how they decided it.
"So, Mr. Secretary, you're telling us you were carrying the 5 trillion dollar coin in your pocket and you think you lost it when you pulled out coins for a soda machine?"
It's not. It's just massive quantitative easing under another guise.
The only difference with this is there are statutes governing how much paper money you can print. This particular law on minting platinum coins apparently has no limitations built into it.
But, if you institute a policy reminiscent of Zimbabwe, expect the world to value your debt in the same way they value Zimbabwe's.
Guess I don't understand things. I thought that the mantra last year was Republicans were large numbers of ignorant rural tea party types in the flyover states like the one I live in. And that they were the unwashed hoards that eroded Democrat numbers in the elections last year.
But now, you're saying that they're old rich whites and few in number.
Or is it all the result of vote fraud. Like the well known legacy of vote fraud in that Republican bastion of Chicago?
(Actually, I think it proves you have a somewhat distorted view of the electorate, and what the voters in both parties are really like. Here's a clue. You likely met at least one of each in the past day and thought them quite unremarkable. i.e. "They", whichever "they" you're referencing are us.)
You might as well blame the wetsuit manufacturer for making the wet suit he was photographed in for a youtube video, as it made him feel too much like James Bond.
The problem is not that he's a violent politically motivated murderer that plays video games.
The problem is that he's a violent politically motivated murderer.
It was saying that even those politicians that agree on needing to restrict immigration reject his actions. Wilders was an example.
If I were to write: "Even Ted Kennedy rejected the actions of the group that blew up the Army Math Center". It takes quite a leap to say I was intimating that Kennedy would be expected to sympathize with an act of murder.
No one ever said politics was easy. Unless you're cheerleading for something most people already believe.
I'd say it's still easier to keep using the ballot box rather than the bullet box. Take a look at Mr. Anders Breivik in Norway. Two days ago, he was very successful in using the bullet box option. A body count of more than 90 is better than most such do.
But, so far, he's an abject failure in terms of getting others to go along with him. Even Geert Wilders (noted anti-immigrant Dutch politician) is condemning him at this point.
Yes, violent acts can be converted into political influences that lead to major change in the direction the perpetrator wanted. Look at the start of many revolutions. But, it's rare compared to how many fizzle out and takes an existing political structure/organization even if ad hoc.
"So who really did it? I can't wait to hear this."
Well, you see the FBI agents working at the Murrah Building had all sampled some of the Three Mile Island class chili that one of them had brought in that morning. Then someone tried to sneak a smoke, and, well, you know what happens with lots of "natural gas" and a Zippo...
"It's very clear to all who take things seriously"
There's an old joke that when you see a phrase like that in a paper, it means "I think so."
The biggest problem with the currently running reactors in the US is that promises that were made about storing, reprocessing or otherwise dealing with the waste were unfullfilled here.
Purex processing wasn't an ideal solution, but was a possible one. It was made impossible for political/arms control reasons.
Entombment at Yucca Mountain wasn't an ideal solution but was a possible one. It was made impossible due to the majority leader of the senate being from the state it's located in.
Going to a more advanced fuel cycle like the Integral Fast Reactor and pyroprocessing wasn't an ideal solution, at least partly because there was still a good bit of engineering work that needed to be done on it. But, it was a possible one. That work was cancelled, because as Bill Clinton said in his first state of the union address "We will never need it.". (It'd be nice if that were followed up on again now that we know "we might need it".)
If you have to have an example, SNUPPS was largely "good enough". Ditto CANDU. The EPR may be "good enough" but obviously like AP1000 isn't online yet, so we don't know. We'll see how the ones that are in construction do after the current delays.
Ideal? No. But if you want perfection, you better stick to studying mathematics or divinity.
So, if that makes me ignorant in your eyes, so be it. It's interesting that you so blythely call people ignorant about nuclear power when you apparently had no idea France was still actively reprocessing commercial fuel and thought they'd stopped in 2005 (as pointed out in another part of the thread).
As to thinking nuclear power is a solved problem: Do you usually try arguing against positions that someone else didn't take? Can I put words in your mouth too?
Slashdot Mirror
No, not at all. On slashdot, it's all about evil large corporations that control the government.
You're behind on your accepted dogma.
*shrug* "It's a living."
I think this is how Fred Flintstone's instant camera worked.
In most cases, the tech is called in to clean up the smoldering remains of what was put there before he was in the scene.
This had been put into a small machine shop to link the PCs in the office with the CNC machines to transfer files (late 1980s/early 90s).
An employee of the place had hooked it up, and with at most a couple hundred feet, they normally got away with it. Even in an electrically noisy environment like a machine shop.
The owner was of the mindset "Just fix it. It works for us."
As Nitrozac wrote: Tubes Rock!
(I wore out my t-shirt.)
"When it does it can get ... messy. :)"
I'm often amazed at all the weird failures even when lightning doesn't hit directly and just induces currents.
Used to see long RS232 runs that woudn't fail instantly, but would act flakey soon after a near strike, and then take a day or two to fail completely.
"we can't just say "FOX NEWS sucks and people that watch it are idiots!""
Of coure you can say that. About every fourth post on this article says something quite similar to that.
People can say anything they want.
I know people who say that crystals channel orgone energy and can heal all manner of ills.
Doesn't make it a well thought out viewpoint.
But it makes for great 50s style sci fi flicks.
There's been a lot of work done in using microbes that already exist in soils to break a lot of contaminants down in situ. You just have to give them the right environment to do it in. Sometimes you have to add water, or hydrogen, or methane in the areas they're working.
Terry Hazen at the Department of Energy is one of the people involved in using it during the nuclear site cleanups. It's been pretty successful.
In the method outlined here, they do it directly by adding finely divided iron, letting it react with water giving Fe(II), hydrogen and OH-. It then breaks down chlorinated hydrocarbons without microbes.
(Though, my sneaky suspicion is that whenever you give some of the microbes that are already present in the soil iron(II) and hydrogen they'll do a lot of the work of reducing chlorine compounds too.)
"The socialists will hate this, but I don't care"
I'm not a socialist. Neither are a lot of supporters of foreign aid programs of various stripes.
I could go into a longwinded justification based on US self interest and keeping problems away from our doorstep, but I doubt you'd "get" it.
Suffice it to say, though foreign aid is a perrenial target for scorn, once in power all administrations and congresses have kept it. It may be in different forms (Arms on one side, food aid on the other. Though usually both by both sides), but it's one of the few universals of American politics.
Nice black and white, yes/no ideologies are fine for chattering over a few beers, but running an actual major country is a lot different than theory.
It still has to pass both the house and senate. The house may still be a problem.
Until it does and is signed, "the check is in the mail".
"Which class taught you how to balance a checkbook, because I don't recall ever taking it."
In my high school, it was called Family Living. IIRC, most people took it sophomore year. But, that was in the mid 70s and a few school consolidations ago. Who knows what's replaced it by now.
My main memory is that the gal who taught it was seriously hot.
The problem is not finding a community that wants the site.
It's that as soon as they say they want it, no matter how well informed they are, interest groups will descend saying "We must save these poor ignorant people who are being used by the nuclear lobby". Or, "We must save these people from being deceived by the anti-nukes"
I'm sure they'd say that about Los Alamos where large numbers of the people work for a nuclear weapons lab and know more about rad hazards than almost any other community save for perhaps Arzamas-16 (Now called Sarov again.) .
I've seen this happen before in New Mexico when I lived there. The chief of the Mescalero tribe started making a deal to have a rad waste site on some of their land. Parts of it are some of the most inhospitable you can find in the US.
All of a sudden, groups showed up saying that the Mescaleros were just too uninformed to understand what they were doing and had to be protected. (It was amazingly patronizing.)
Now, the problem was taken care of by the tribe itself. They put it to a vote and voted it down. That's fine. That's how democracy works.
But you can bet that the carpetbaggers on both sides of the issue will turn up like flies around roadkill.
I'd already suspected something like that would happen with the Mescaleros. My company processed credit cards and such for Ski Apache and Inn of the Mountain Gods, two of the tribal businesses, So, I'd dealt with them a good bit and knew they were no fools regardless of how they decided it.
In the congressional hearings sure to ensue:
"So, Mr. Secretary, you're telling us you were carrying the 5 trillion dollar coin in your pocket and you think you lost it when you pulled out coins for a soda machine?"
It's not. It's just massive quantitative easing under another guise.
The only difference with this is there are statutes governing how much paper money you can print. This particular law on minting platinum coins apparently has no limitations built into it.
But, if you institute a policy reminiscent of Zimbabwe, expect the world to value your debt in the same way they value Zimbabwe's.
"I live in a major oil producing country"
The United States is a major oil producing country.
It's just also a major oil importing country.
Guess I don't understand things. I thought that the mantra last year was Republicans were large numbers of ignorant rural tea party types in the flyover states like the one I live in. And that they were the unwashed hoards that eroded Democrat numbers in the elections last year.
But now, you're saying that they're old rich whites and few in number.
Or is it all the result of vote fraud. Like the well known legacy of vote fraud in that Republican bastion of Chicago?
(Actually, I think it proves you have a somewhat distorted view of the electorate, and what the voters in both parties are really like. Here's a clue. You likely met at least one of each in the past day and thought them quite unremarkable. i.e. "They", whichever "they" you're referencing are us.)
Paul Kelly's song is an anthem to most people's lives.
If I don't do several dumb things before I get my morning coffee, it's an unusual day.
The usual silliness.
You might as well blame the wetsuit manufacturer for making the wet suit he was photographed in for a youtube video, as it made him feel too much like James Bond.
The problem is not that he's a violent politically motivated murderer that plays video games.
The problem is that he's a violent politically motivated murderer.
It was saying that even those politicians that agree on needing to restrict immigration reject his actions. Wilders was an example.
If I were to write: "Even Ted Kennedy rejected the actions of the group that blew up the Army Math Center". It takes quite a leap to say I was intimating that Kennedy would be expected to sympathize with an act of murder.
So, by noting that Wilders is condemning him, I was saying I expected Wilders to rally behind him?
What planet are you on?
Can I read wild things like that into what you say? I'm sure you'd have no problem with that.
Get a clue.
"Not if the majority is against you."
Then convince them otherwise.
No one ever said politics was easy. Unless you're cheerleading for something most people already believe.
I'd say it's still easier to keep using the ballot box rather than the bullet box. Take a look at Mr. Anders Breivik in Norway. Two days ago, he was very successful in using the bullet box option. A body count of more than 90 is better than most such do.
But, so far, he's an abject failure in terms of getting others to go along with him. Even Geert Wilders (noted anti-immigrant Dutch politician) is condemning him at this point.
Yes, violent acts can be converted into political influences that lead to major change in the direction the perpetrator wanted. Look at the start of many revolutions. But, it's rare compared to how many fizzle out and takes an existing political structure/organization even if ad hoc.
Normal politics is easier, IMHO.
There was never any doubt that saying that was perfectly legal.
This case dealt with the special situation of threats made against the President which is covered by additional law.
Of course, the 9th circuit can be a bit odd at times. It gets overturned on appeal more often than most circuits.
"So who really did it? I can't wait to hear this."
Well, you see the FBI agents working at the Murrah Building had all sampled some of the Three Mile Island class chili that one of them had brought in that morning.
Then someone tried to sneak a smoke, and, well, you know what happens with lots of "natural gas" and a Zippo...
"It's very clear to all who take things seriously"
There's an old joke that when you see a phrase like that in a paper, it means "I think so."
The biggest problem with the currently running reactors in the US is that promises that were made about storing, reprocessing or otherwise dealing with the waste were unfullfilled here.
Purex processing wasn't an ideal solution, but was a possible one. It was made impossible for political/arms control reasons.
Entombment at Yucca Mountain wasn't an ideal solution but was a possible one. It was made impossible due to the majority leader of the senate being from the state it's located in.
Going to a more advanced fuel cycle like the Integral Fast Reactor and pyroprocessing wasn't an ideal solution, at least partly because there was still a good bit of engineering work that needed to be done on it. But, it was a possible one. That work was cancelled, because as Bill Clinton said in his first state of the union address "We will never need it.". (It'd be nice if that were followed up on again now that we know "we might need it".)
If you have to have an example, SNUPPS was largely "good enough". Ditto CANDU. The EPR may be "good enough" but obviously like AP1000 isn't online yet, so we don't know. We'll see how the ones that are in construction do after the current delays.
Ideal? No. But if you want perfection, you better stick to studying mathematics or divinity.
So, if that makes me ignorant in your eyes, so be it. It's interesting that you so blythely call people ignorant about nuclear power when you apparently had no idea France was still actively reprocessing commercial fuel and thought they'd stopped in 2005 (as pointed out in another part of the thread).
As to thinking nuclear power is a solved problem: Do you usually try arguing against positions that someone else didn't take? Can I put words in your mouth too?