From what I've seen the Amish actually like technology, their religion just told them they can't use it. They happily accept lifts in cars driven by other people, for example.
Reminds me of some Jews who won't turn electronics or cooking equipment on for one day a week. God said not to, but that's really inconvenient so they buy a 24 hour timer and set it the day before. The rule says don't light a fire, if one happens to start on your stove then apparently it's fine to cook with it.
Which also reminds me of my cat when he sits in the fruit bowl, then looks at me like "what? I'm not ON the table!"
I call this the Head Up Arse Effect. While scepticism is generally a good thing, we long ago reached the point where some people dismiss all science out of hand.
Obviously since you posted such a detailed rebuttal of their claims this doesn't apply to you. I look forward to your paper refuting these jokers'.
Fingerprints seem to be pretty good in the real world. The FBI can't seem to crack them. UK security forces can't reliably crack them, so they have taken to following people until they unlock their phone and then staging a fake mugging to grab it in that state.
Okay, maybe the NSA can get in, but for most people a good fingerprint scanner seems to be a reasonable option. The main issue is the lack of a panic button on some of them, i.e. something you do to disable it and require require the passcode. Apple lets you press the power button 5 times quickly, on most Android devices holding the power button for a few seconds works.
An act of god has to be unpredictable. The flaws that lead to Fukushima going to accident to disaster were known and even corrected by GE in later designs, but they didn't retrofit to older reactors or tell the operators to stop using them. Doing so would have been incredibly expensive.
the only thing standing in the way of replacing all those old reactors with reactors based on newer, safer designs are NIMBY pseudo-environmentalists
Really, it has nothing to do with the huge cost of writing off those older reactors and decommissioning them, and then building brand new ones?
To give you an idea, the new nuclear plant at Hinkly in the UK is the most expensive object on earth. They couldn't find anyone interested in building it until they offered unprecedented subsidies for its entire lifetime, and even then it wasn't until the Chinese decided to invest that it went ahead. During that time, environmental protests were almost non-existent and there were no environmental lawsuits, not least because it is being build on the site of an existing plant (which is also cheaper because it has infrastructure in place).
I think you will find the problem is economics, not opposition from environmentalists.
There are no new nuclear plants being built in Japan at the moment. Everything was put on hold in 2011. There was one plant that was due to start construction in 2016 as an extension of an existing one, but it is still paused.
They had emergency power on site, in the form of batteries and mobile generators, fairly quickly. They had emergency pumps (fire engines) on site quickly too, certainly in time to stop the disaster. They failed to work because of earthquake/tsunami damage.
Which proposal specifically are you talking about? From what I can tell the delays have been mostly due to expensive accidents at other plants needing to be understood and mitigated, not to mention changing the economics of the new plant each time.
Economics are what has killed off the nuclear renascence. Renewable energy got cheap really fast, nuclear just gets more expensive as new failure modes are found, and the promises of new designs and things like thorium don't pan out.
The US is middle of the pack, not too dissimilar to several European countries. I must admit I'm surprised. Places like the UK where big gains have been made must have started from a much worse position.
The nuclear parts of the plant itself survived both the earthquake and tsunami just fine even though both events were well beyond the plant's design specifications.
That is incorrect. The plumbing for the cooling system was damaged by the earthquake. The tsunami damage made it impossible to check it in the aftermath, and the fault went unnoticed until it was too late.
That fault, specifically a key valve stuck in the wrong position, meant that the water that was pumped in to cool the reactors from fire engines was diverted to storage tanks. If it had reached the reactors then the explosions and meltdowns might have been avoided.
Fukushima wasn't a failure of nuclear power. It was a failure of backup (non)redundancy which had nuclear consequences.
To two are inseparable and for all intents and purposes one and the same.
But because any airplane crash gets disproportionate news coverage, we spend billions of dollars trying to reduce the couple hundred airliner deaths per year even further.
Is it that, or is it because the potential consequences of a disaster, like an aircraft going down over a city, are very serious? Also, the cost is relatively small compared to the profitability of running an airline. The main issues they have are fuel/pollution, noise and airport capacity. Safety costs come pretty far down the list.
I've been testing it out too. It's good, I'm just not sure if there is any reason to switch from Chromium.
Chromium seems to have a better security model, at least based on how much it gets hacked at pwn2own or in terms of CVEs/year. Firefox is a bit more flexible with the UI and has some privacy features built in that Chromium needs add-ons for.
What other compelling features does Firefox have to make me switch back?
Fukushima had other interesting effects that are hardly ever mentioned.
The "nuclear renaissance" died that day. It was already looking shaky because of high costs and increasing competition from renewables, but Fukushima really was the death knell. In the short term everything paused while people tried to figure out what went wrong and make sure it couldn't happen again, and in the longer term it caused the focus for clean energy to move elsewhere.
Japan lost all its nuclear power in one day. All plants offline for an extended period of time. It wasn't the economic disaster some predicted, and while it did result in additional pollution it also resulted in some very significant energy savings through improved efficiency. It actually gave many manufacturers a boost as energy saving features became major selling points and people bought new gear to help their country.
Of course given the choice you wouldn't do it that way, but it proved something important. It proved that nuclear was not essential, which greatly strengthened the anti-nuclear movement's arguments.
The problem is that nuclear plants are so expensive there is great reluctance to shut them down when it becomes apparent that they are not as safe as was originally thought. It's still happening with other plants, where re-examination after the March 2011 disaster has determined that there were previously unknown faults or flood risk in the area.
It's the poor people who need BTC to pay ransoms or unlock their Macs that I feel sorry for. What was a $250 ransom a few weeks ago is over $1500 now, and climbing. Do the criminals adjust their demands daily to account for the exchange rate?
One of the reasons other countries have better general levels of fitness is because they spend more money on prevention, ranging from fitness classes to assistance to stop smoking to higher standards and better labelling for food.
The idea was to make it possible for the residents of nearby towns to go back. Aside from anything else that is the cheaper option; if people can't go back then they will have to be compensated for everything. Property, businesses, jobs, farms...
Until the plant is safe that can't happen. There is also the decontamination, which has been going pretty badly. But since legal decisions are making it look like full compensation is the only option anyway you could be right, it might just become a write off. I'm not so sure though, I think national pride will require it to be cleaned up.
Why was it not upgraded or decommissioned when the flaws became known? The manufacturer said it was okay to keep it running. The regulator said it was okay. It wasn't.
That's some really interesting insight. Shame most people here aren't interested.
My first thought was to wonder how much is to do with the organisations you mention being more progressive and inclusive to start with, but I suppose maybe it's not that important.
Google is an odd one. Some aspects sound great, others like the hiring process sound like hell.
Slashdot Mirror
What we want is booster spice, that keeps you from ageing. Start taking it in your 20s and stay young forever.
Even better, figure out how to reverse ageing so us poor buggers over the age of 30 can be young again.
If you read her account of it, he was the one trying (and failing) to have sex with her.
Of course, if this person ever comes forward to provide a different account it should be fully investigated.
I claimed he was inadvertently helping the KKK. That word is important.
From what I've seen the Amish actually like technology, their religion just told them they can't use it. They happily accept lifts in cars driven by other people, for example.
Reminds me of some Jews who won't turn electronics or cooking equipment on for one day a week. God said not to, but that's really inconvenient so they buy a 24 hour timer and set it the day before. The rule says don't light a fire, if one happens to start on your stove then apparently it's fine to cook with it.
Which also reminds me of my cat when he sits in the fruit bowl, then looks at me like "what? I'm not ON the table!"
I call this the Head Up Arse Effect. While scepticism is generally a good thing, we long ago reached the point where some people dismiss all science out of hand.
Obviously since you posted such a detailed rebuttal of their claims this doesn't apply to you. I look forward to your paper refuting these jokers'.
Fingerprints seem to be pretty good in the real world. The FBI can't seem to crack them. UK security forces can't reliably crack them, so they have taken to following people until they unlock their phone and then staging a fake mugging to grab it in that state.
Okay, maybe the NSA can get in, but for most people a good fingerprint scanner seems to be a reasonable option. The main issue is the lack of a panic button on some of them, i.e. something you do to disable it and require require the passcode. Apple lets you press the power button 5 times quickly, on most Android devices holding the power button for a few seconds works.
An act of god has to be unpredictable. The flaws that lead to Fukushima going to accident to disaster were known and even corrected by GE in later designs, but they didn't retrofit to older reactors or tell the operators to stop using them. Doing so would have been incredibly expensive.
Try installing uBlock Origin. It will replace all of the following:
Adblock Origin
NoCoin
Google Analytics Opt-out
WebRTC Leak Prevent
Google Analytics Parameter Stripper
Tracking Token Stripper
Then try adding Disable WebGL. You should see better performance - for me at least Chromium is lighting fast.
the only thing standing in the way of replacing all those old reactors with reactors based on newer, safer designs are NIMBY pseudo-environmentalists
Really, it has nothing to do with the huge cost of writing off those older reactors and decommissioning them, and then building brand new ones?
To give you an idea, the new nuclear plant at Hinkly in the UK is the most expensive object on earth. They couldn't find anyone interested in building it until they offered unprecedented subsidies for its entire lifetime, and even then it wasn't until the Chinese decided to invest that it went ahead. During that time, environmental protests were almost non-existent and there were no environmental lawsuits, not least because it is being build on the site of an existing plant (which is also cheaper because it has infrastructure in place).
I think you will find the problem is economics, not opposition from environmentalists.
Do you have links to these "initial releases" giving him a pass?
All new nuclear approvals in China were put on hold indefinitely in 2011. The only plants being built there were approved and started before 2011.
There are no new nuclear plants being built in Japan at the moment. Everything was put on hold in 2011. There was one plant that was due to start construction in 2016 as an extension of an existing one, but it is still paused.
They had emergency power on site, in the form of batteries and mobile generators, fairly quickly. They had emergency pumps (fire engines) on site quickly too, certainly in time to stop the disaster. They failed to work because of earthquake/tsunami damage.
Which proposal specifically are you talking about? From what I can tell the delays have been mostly due to expensive accidents at other plants needing to be understood and mitigated, not to mention changing the economics of the new plant each time.
Economics are what has killed off the nuclear renascence. Renewable energy got cheap really fast, nuclear just gets more expensive as new failure modes are found, and the promises of new designs and things like thorium don't pan out.
List of countries by cigarette consumption per person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The US is middle of the pack, not too dissimilar to several European countries. I must admit I'm surprised. Places like the UK where big gains have been made must have started from a much worse position.
The nuclear parts of the plant itself survived both the earthquake and tsunami just fine even though both events were well beyond the plant's design specifications.
That is incorrect. The plumbing for the cooling system was damaged by the earthquake. The tsunami damage made it impossible to check it in the aftermath, and the fault went unnoticed until it was too late.
That fault, specifically a key valve stuck in the wrong position, meant that the water that was pumped in to cool the reactors from fire engines was diverted to storage tanks. If it had reached the reactors then the explosions and meltdowns might have been avoided.
Fukushima wasn't a failure of nuclear power. It was a failure of backup (non)redundancy which had nuclear consequences.
To two are inseparable and for all intents and purposes one and the same.
But because any airplane crash gets disproportionate news coverage, we spend billions of dollars trying to reduce the couple hundred airliner deaths per year even further.
Is it that, or is it because the potential consequences of a disaster, like an aircraft going down over a city, are very serious? Also, the cost is relatively small compared to the profitability of running an airline. The main issues they have are fuel/pollution, noise and airport capacity. Safety costs come pretty far down the list.
I've been testing it out too. It's good, I'm just not sure if there is any reason to switch from Chromium.
Chromium seems to have a better security model, at least based on how much it gets hacked at pwn2own or in terms of CVEs/year. Firefox is a bit more flexible with the UI and has some privacy features built in that Chromium needs add-ons for.
What other compelling features does Firefox have to make me switch back?
Fukushima had other interesting effects that are hardly ever mentioned.
The "nuclear renaissance" died that day. It was already looking shaky because of high costs and increasing competition from renewables, but Fukushima really was the death knell. In the short term everything paused while people tried to figure out what went wrong and make sure it couldn't happen again, and in the longer term it caused the focus for clean energy to move elsewhere.
Japan lost all its nuclear power in one day. All plants offline for an extended period of time. It wasn't the economic disaster some predicted, and while it did result in additional pollution it also resulted in some very significant energy savings through improved efficiency. It actually gave many manufacturers a boost as energy saving features became major selling points and people bought new gear to help their country.
Of course given the choice you wouldn't do it that way, but it proved something important. It proved that nuclear was not essential, which greatly strengthened the anti-nuclear movement's arguments.
The problem is that nuclear plants are so expensive there is great reluctance to shut them down when it becomes apparent that they are not as safe as was originally thought. It's still happening with other plants, where re-examination after the March 2011 disaster has determined that there were previously unknown faults or flood risk in the area.
It's the poor people who need BTC to pay ransoms or unlock their Macs that I feel sorry for. What was a $250 ransom a few weeks ago is over $1500 now, and climbing. Do the criminals adjust their demands daily to account for the exchange rate?
People in Europe slack off a lot too. I keep a Slashdot window open at work, no one cares because I get my work done and the results are good.
Good bosses don't treat people like kids.
One of the reasons other countries have better general levels of fitness is because they spend more money on prevention, ranging from fitness classes to assistance to stop smoking to higher standards and better labelling for food.
The idea was to make it possible for the residents of nearby towns to go back. Aside from anything else that is the cheaper option; if people can't go back then they will have to be compensated for everything. Property, businesses, jobs, farms...
Until the plant is safe that can't happen. There is also the decontamination, which has been going pretty badly. But since legal decisions are making it look like full compensation is the only option anyway you could be right, it might just become a write off. I'm not so sure though, I think national pride will require it to be cleaned up.
Why was it not upgraded or decommissioned when the flaws became known? The manufacturer said it was okay to keep it running. The regulator said it was okay. It wasn't.
That's some really interesting insight. Shame most people here aren't interested.
My first thought was to wonder how much is to do with the organisations you mention being more progressive and inclusive to start with, but I suppose maybe it's not that important.
Google is an odd one. Some aspects sound great, others like the hiring process sound like hell.