I think it's conceivable that close to nuclear power plants that generate lots of waste heat, they may use that heat for houses, even if they don't do so far away from nuclear power plants. Especially because that is done elsewhere in Europe even with conventional power plants that also generate waste heat.
I can't tell if you are using the word corruption as in accepting bribes or as in general moral corruption. You seemed to be saying that internet access leads to moral corruption of the people who have internet access. Now you seem to be saying that for these people to have internet access is some kind of bribe (so the first sense of corruption), which implies that these people are opposing the government of Cuba in part so that they can have internet access. Both statements seem bizarre and I don't think that's what you really mean.
You are putting yourself in the unenviable position of displaying either that you are unable to understand the definition you yourself quoted or willfully applying it incorrectly. Most usage of the word "hubris" is merely a failed attempt to appear intelligent but your sticking to your guns on this is at least one good example of "pride that blinds". As for "extreme haughtiness and arrogance," we need look little further than:
I get a little tired of all the nuclear power fanbois who want everyone to test the depth of the water with both feet. Their hubris is more irritating than the ignorance of the Greenist Reiigion nuts who oppose any kind of nuclear development.
If you are annoyed by hubris you ought to have some time staring in the mirror coming up.
I get a little tired of people who say breeder reactors are little more than fairy tales. Even worse when people who don't know what hubris means try to use it anyway as a generic insult.
This is supposed to be a supplement to in-person teaching. It enables changing the roles of homework and lecturing so that the students view the lectures at home and do what was previously homework at school with the teacher. Much more time can be spent to prepare and perfect the on-line lectures, especially if this gains wide-spread use so that there could be thousands of teachers giving feedback on what the children are having problems with. So the lectures should be higher quality than what each individual teacher can do. Then the teacher can take care of the atypical questions and misunderstandings that each individual child or each individual class will have that can't all be put into the online lectures. The children can also review old material without being embarrassed about asking for an explanation about something that they should already know. Since there is a teacher involved there is no more potential for gaming this system than any other system, and it makes it so you can do your homework while slouching on the couch in front of the TV.
Smaller plants would be less well protected against the Tsunami and so if you had lots of smaller plants you might find that ALL of them would have been taken out. If these reactors had been modern they would not have been affected by the Tsunami anyway, and indeed other reactors in Japan were also hit and are not damaged. Small distributed power generation has the same kinds of cost problems as would be the case if the only way to get a car was to build one in one's own back yard. The tiny distances in Japan make small plants even less sensible since they would not even help much with transmission losses.
If only our children get to benefit from breeder reactors, that's OK too - then the waste can be stored in a place that only needs to be stable for, say, 100 years. The waste is only a real problem because we think we have to store it for thousands of years and it is very difficult to find a place where you can guarantee that and the engineering involved makes it expensive. Our children will thank us for leaving all this free fuel for them and they'll probably wonder why we didn't use it ourselves when we had the technology. We can leave it at the reactor sites where it is already well contained, which is in fact what is being done. Waste disposal is therefore not much of a cost as of now, and in future it will generate income. There is not a waste problem, there is a waste benefit in that the waste is valuable.
Probably almost all the leadership at Google has some kind of technical knowledge. So the difference in their technical knowledge is also less, meaning that other attributes become more important. The comparison might have been quite different if Google had a bunch of leaders that were completely ignorant of what a computer is, but those kinds of people aren't in the study.
Sure we can eliminate the threat of Tsunamies: just don't have any humans be close to the coast ever. You will be 100% Tsunami proof, just like you will be 100% nuclear reactor accident proof if you don't build any reactors. That is exactly the same kind of approach.
It's strange to have someone argue that something is impossible while it has been done for decades. It's like you were arguing that airplanes are impossible.
The death counts on that page are so low it's mind-blowing. I'm pro-nuclear and even I would have guessed at death counts 100x or 1000x that, and I would have been fine with that. Coal could never attain such low death counts. It's just weird that anyone could think to use a page like that as an argument against nuclear power.
It's not a cost. Build breeder reactors and you can SELL your waste. The waste from the breeder reactors is many times less and it is short-lived, so you don't need to store it in a completely geologically-stable place. There is no waste problem, there is a politician problem based on nuclear proliferation fears.
Nuclear waste is a valuable resource - it is fuel for breeder reactors. There is not a waste expense, there is a waste income. The lack of breeder reactors are driven by politicians.
People die in cars yet we've still moved on from horse carriages. Nuclear is safer than coal - it has an excellent safety record compared to coal. You only perceive an excess of confidence because you dislike the reasons for that confidence. These are ancient relic reactors that have never the less held up pretty well to a catastrophe - this nuclear incident is a minor part of the effects of the Tsunami.
Let's try on your rhetoric for a moment: Probably the most damaging evidence against the anti-nuclear power movement is people like you who fear their own shadow so much that they run off a cliff to escape it - you are dangerous and rational people everywhere recognize your ilk as such. Now don't you think stupid arguments like that are just great?
If your boss does not understand what it is that you do, then that can work out fine, but it requires much more of his leadership skills and of your professionalism to make it work well. If either side is lacking, it'll be a disaster. For one thing, it is difficult for him to know what he can reasonably expect of you, or when you have performed better than could be expected. If both sides of that are excellent, then sure you can have a captain of a ship who doesn't know what a sail is, and it can even work great, but it'll be better if he does know what a sail is. Of course, if you've got someone going "the beatings will continue until morale improves" then hell yeah I'll take another captain even if he doesn't know what a sail is. The distinction is not as sharp as an intelligent person will be able to figure out what a sail is in short order.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's conceivable that close to nuclear power plants that generate lots of waste heat, they may use that heat for houses, even if they don't do so far away from nuclear power plants. Especially because that is done elsewhere in Europe even with conventional power plants that also generate waste heat.
There is a moderator on crack here. -1 troll? really?
If the encouragement was simply providing internet access then calling it subversion doesn't change the question.
If by "no" you mean "yes", then OK.
I can't tell if you are using the word corruption as in accepting bribes or as in general moral corruption. You seemed to be saying that internet access leads to moral corruption of the people who have internet access. Now you seem to be saying that for these people to have internet access is some kind of bribe (so the first sense of corruption), which implies that these people are opposing the government of Cuba in part so that they can have internet access. Both statements seem bizarre and I don't think that's what you really mean.
Your quotes do nothing to change the point of my question.
Providing internet access is corruption of locals?
Yet internet access is grounds for 15 year sentences?
I get a little tired of all the nuclear power fanbois who want everyone to test the depth of the water with both feet. Their hubris is more irritating than the ignorance of the Greenist Reiigion nuts who oppose any kind of nuclear development.
If you are annoyed by hubris you ought to have some time staring in the mirror coming up.
I get a little tired of people who say breeder reactors are little more than fairy tales. Even worse when people who don't know what hubris means try to use it anyway as a generic insult.
This is supposed to be a supplement to in-person teaching. It enables changing the roles of homework and lecturing so that the students view the lectures at home and do what was previously homework at school with the teacher. Much more time can be spent to prepare and perfect the on-line lectures, especially if this gains wide-spread use so that there could be thousands of teachers giving feedback on what the children are having problems with. So the lectures should be higher quality than what each individual teacher can do. Then the teacher can take care of the atypical questions and misunderstandings that each individual child or each individual class will have that can't all be put into the online lectures. The children can also review old material without being embarrassed about asking for an explanation about something that they should already know. Since there is a teacher involved there is no more potential for gaming this system than any other system, and it makes it so you can do your homework while slouching on the couch in front of the TV.
Smaller plants would be less well protected against the Tsunami and so if you had lots of smaller plants you might find that ALL of them would have been taken out. If these reactors had been modern they would not have been affected by the Tsunami anyway, and indeed other reactors in Japan were also hit and are not damaged. Small distributed power generation has the same kinds of cost problems as would be the case if the only way to get a car was to build one in one's own back yard. The tiny distances in Japan make small plants even less sensible since they would not even help much with transmission losses.
Oh, and breeder reactors are old technology - the barrier is purely political. Though I'm sure we can improve on the old tech by now.
If only our children get to benefit from breeder reactors, that's OK too - then the waste can be stored in a place that only needs to be stable for, say, 100 years. The waste is only a real problem because we think we have to store it for thousands of years and it is very difficult to find a place where you can guarantee that and the engineering involved makes it expensive. Our children will thank us for leaving all this free fuel for them and they'll probably wonder why we didn't use it ourselves when we had the technology. We can leave it at the reactor sites where it is already well contained, which is in fact what is being done. Waste disposal is therefore not much of a cost as of now, and in future it will generate income. There is not a waste problem, there is a waste benefit in that the waste is valuable.
Probably almost all the leadership at Google has some kind of technical knowledge. So the difference in their technical knowledge is also less, meaning that other attributes become more important. The comparison might have been quite different if Google had a bunch of leaders that were completely ignorant of what a computer is, but those kinds of people aren't in the study.
The argument still works. Coal mines are still better than nothing at all.
Sure we can eliminate the threat of Tsunamies: just don't have any humans be close to the coast ever. You will be 100% Tsunami proof, just like you will be 100% nuclear reactor accident proof if you don't build any reactors. That is exactly the same kind of approach.
It's strange to have someone argue that something is impossible while it has been done for decades. It's like you were arguing that airplanes are impossible.
The death counts on that page are so low it's mind-blowing. I'm pro-nuclear and even I would have guessed at death counts 100x or 1000x that, and I would have been fine with that. Coal could never attain such low death counts. It's just weird that anyone could think to use a page like that as an argument against nuclear power.
It's not a cost. Build breeder reactors and you can SELL your waste. The waste from the breeder reactors is many times less and it is short-lived, so you don't need to store it in a completely geologically-stable place. There is no waste problem, there is a politician problem based on nuclear proliferation fears.
Nuclear waste is a valuable resource - it is fuel for breeder reactors. There is not a waste expense, there is a waste income. The lack of breeder reactors are driven by politicians.
This is why I favor building a dam in every place where we currently have a power plant. Hell, we should have a dam outside every house!
People die in cars yet we've still moved on from horse carriages. Nuclear is safer than coal - it has an excellent safety record compared to coal. You only perceive an excess of confidence because you dislike the reasons for that confidence. These are ancient relic reactors that have never the less held up pretty well to a catastrophe - this nuclear incident is a minor part of the effects of the Tsunami.
Let's try on your rhetoric for a moment: Probably the most damaging evidence against the anti-nuclear power movement is people like you who fear their own shadow so much that they run off a cliff to escape it - you are dangerous and rational people everywhere recognize your ilk as such. Now don't you think stupid arguments like that are just great?
If your boss does not understand what it is that you do, then that can work out fine, but it requires much more of his leadership skills and of your professionalism to make it work well. If either side is lacking, it'll be a disaster. For one thing, it is difficult for him to know what he can reasonably expect of you, or when you have performed better than could be expected. If both sides of that are excellent, then sure you can have a captain of a ship who doesn't know what a sail is, and it can even work great, but it'll be better if he does know what a sail is. Of course, if you've got someone going "the beatings will continue until morale improves" then hell yeah I'll take another captain even if he doesn't know what a sail is. The distinction is not as sharp as an intelligent person will be able to figure out what a sail is in short order.
Cool, so you agree.