Anyway, they aren't forced to build anything. They could build a thorium reactor if they wanted to, but the R&D cost and the risk of it failing to work properly is so great that no investor will lend them the money or allow them to risk their own cash on it.
Android is more like MacOS/webOS example. Obviously you can change the launcher to anything you like, but the default one has the home screen which is similar to the dock and an app tray where less used apps live. The app tray is searchable, or you can use the search box right on the home screen. Minor/common settings are on the swipe down menu, less used ones in the settings screen.
It's only really iOS that is built around the idea of shitting out every app onto the home screen, as well as a few of the more badly designed 3rd party launchers for Android.
Android also focuses on "window" management by having the app switching button be one of the three that are always on-screen or assigned to physical buttons. Long press to flip back to the last app, or tap to bring up the switch screen. I use this a lot as I often need to flip between one app and Google Translate. Newer versions of Android support split screen.
I take your point about it being a little more effort to switch apps on Android, but it's about as good as it could possibly be on a small screen with no keyboard or mouse.
Apple specifically singled out the outline shape of the phones during the trial. They also compared Apple and Samsung tablets in a related case, even though the iPad was a blatant rip-off of an earlier Samsung device. Apple made it about rounded corners and a flat, featureless slab.
There are plenty of other examples of ridiculous Apple design patents. Bouncing at the end of scrolling, slide to unlock (which fortunately was destroyed by prior art, likely where they ripped it off from) and other stupid things that previously everyone just thought of as the shared evolution of UI design language but which Apple wanted to be some exclusive shiny bullshit for their fashion boutiques.
I hope you are right, but Fukushima style tsunamis are not the only problem for nuclear power in Japan. In the decades since some of those reactors were build, geological survey equipment has improved a lot. Previously unknown faults have been discovered under some plants, as well as other issues like questions over the availability of emergency power for cooling systems or fixes to the cooling system to avoid it failing in the way Fukushima did.
Japan is in a difficult position. It has few natural resources, little room for solar and wind on-shore. Off-shore wind is now starting to become price competitive, but even so... There has been a huge focus on energy efficiency.
For your argument to work you have to assume that the engineers building this vast solar farm are morons. If you use a more realistic plan it falls apart completely.
This 700MW farm is just the start. It will be mixed with on-shore wind, off-shore wind, batteries and maybe tidal. This will happen over many years, similar to how the nuclear plant won't just spring forth from the ground one day and then disappear down the same hole with all its waste.
If France was not there they would simply do things a bit differently. Their transition is not dependent on France, it's just sensible to make use of available resources. Maybe without it might take them an extra few years.
The German releases twice as much CO2 per capita as us Swedes, and that's with similar standard of living and similar industrial mix. And yet, they're the green example to emulate, while we're the "backward ones".
I wouldn't use that phrase. However, the point is that Germany is transitioning, it's making a huge effort. They should be applauded for that.
Anti-nuke hysteria has kept the industry from moving forward with new and better ideas.
What is the evidence for this?
In the UK we realized that nuclear was too expensive, not least because we picked the wrong reactor type. In France they did better but in the last 20 years have got fed up with energy companies using nuclear as a welfare programme. Germany just decided that the risk wasn't worth it and there was a huge economic opportunity to become world leaders in renewable energy.
China cancelled all new nuclear plants not already under construction after Fukushima. I suppose you could argue that it was unfounded worries about safety, although this is China which doesn't have a particularly stellar record on such things. It seems more likely that they came to the same conclusion as Germany though - the nuclear renaissance was dead, renewables were going to become the cheapest option in the next decade, and most of the big new markets that were developing were not going to select nuclear as their technology of choice.
Westinghouse went bust because the economics didn't work out, nearly dragging Tosihba down with it... There is a story on the front page about Duke Energy realizing that cheap gas was making nuclear a poor investment, to the point where they are willing to sink nearly a billion dollars they have already spent.
I'm just not seeing the anti-nuke hysteria angle having much effect, it's all economics.
Is that why they are digging a big hole to put the nuclear not-waste in, and trying to figure out how to post warnings not to go down there that will be intelligible in 100,000 years time?
Finland actually passed laws requiring knowledge of the nuclear waste storage sites to be taught in school, so it becomes impossible to forget about them on a national level. They are taking it extremely seriously, which seems odd if as you say they don't really have any nuclear waste.
It seems like people don't understand the problems with reprocessing. The main danger is from accidents when handling the nuclear waste, so it's safer to bury it and make new fuel than it is to try to reprocess the old fuel in many cases. Often cheaper too, even with the cost of disposal. The Chinese are trying to make it work economically, but it's not going very well and the cancellation of most of their new capacity basically screwed any chance it had of being a good option.
You could suck-it-up and simply admit to yourself that user moderation on a mass scale is inevitably going to gravitate toward a middle-of-the-road lowest-common-denominator, and minority opinons, even sizeable minorities like Trumpsters or Chomskities or what not, are likely to be dismissed.
Slashdot proves that isn't the case. Reddit does too, but in a different way - it has ghettos for those people to create their little echo chambers in, with sympathetic moderators.
You could rely entire on hired, vetted moderators who are instructed on how to enforce a certain standard of intellectual integrity (and yes, probably "politeness", much as that crap drives me up the wall).
That would likely exclude a lot of of the "rationals" and especially the alt-right. The rationals tend to just google stuff that supports their established view and fall for obvious fake news and memes. The alt-right generates a lot of that fake news and memes. Any kind of intellectual integrity standard would have to set the bar incredibly low to avoid them tripping over it.
It was a demonstration for TV, but it is backed up by rigorous studies into the area. They did actually interview a scientist studying human development to confirm that, and you can search out the studies yourself.
I try to resist creating copy/paste lists of references because they are usually just a stifling/spamming tactic and I kind of expect Slashdot to show some curiosity instead of just accepting the established groupthink. In fact, in the past when I have posted links to studies, they have been modded "troll"... I guess facts and science are trolling now. But maybe I'll have to keep trying.
By that logic, you are running a witch hunt too. Anyone speaking up with a contrary opinion is condemned and added to the naughty list of public enemies, nay enemies of civilization according to this thread.
You want to control what we see on TV and the internet. You demand your standards are upheld and stuck to.
Or maybe you just have an opinion like everyone else and are free to state it, and people are free to listen or even solicit your advice.
The frustration many of us feel is that if all the money invested into nuclear was instead invested into renewables it would see a reduction in fossil fuel use too.
Look at Germany. Closing coal plans, and the new ones being opened are burning less of it and with cleaner output. It's not perfect but the net result is that by the mid 2020s they will not only have cancelled all new nuclear but closed all the current ones, and reduced coal and gas consumption, and developed a world-leading and highly profitable green energy sector.
Note how they have effectively wasted close to $1bn and are not going to invest anything like as much in the new solar plant as they were in the nuclear plant. It's disappointing to say the least.
From TFS: "With cheap natural gas in 2013, Duke Energy Florida became nervous that it might not recuperate costs spent on the nuclear plant"
Cheap gas, the expectation that renewables and batteries will keep getting cheaper... It doesn't make economic sense to build, operate and decomission a nuclear plant now.
The point here is that people take cues from other people, especially children looking to adults for guidance. In the programme they actually tried giving older children (age 7) toys meant for the opposite gender, and again they enjoyed playing with them.
One striking observation was that girls seemed to have less ability than boys when it came to working with construction toys and spacial puzzles. Boys tended to have trouble expressing emotions other than anger, lacking the vocabulary. Both of those things changed with relatively little effort and in a relatively short time - both girls and boys just needed practice and some encouragement to do things that they assumed their gender was not good at.
The BBC did a programme called "No More Boys and Girls" recently. Among other things, they took a baby boy, dressed in him girls' clothing and told the carer that his name was Emily.
The carer gave him girls' toys and he happily played with them. Dolls, cuddly toys, that sort of thing.
Then they repeated with a girl dressed as a boy.
Girls and boys brains are fairly similar at birth. A lot of what we think is genetic is actually just us influencing the unscientific test. I imagine the monkeys, which will have been interacting with humans their whole lives, are being influenced similarly.
On the one hand these slactivists are ineffective and cowardly. On the other hand, they are so powerful and dominating that they are bringing about the end of western civilization.
No. Look at the shows they gave advice too. Do they seem like social justice propaganda to you? Not from what I've seen. They just seem normal, like my actual experience of working in tech.
I guess young people often don't really appreciate just how expensive places like SV are at first. It's the same in the UK, you see jobs offering 50k to live in London and expecting experience. Maybe that's okay if you can live in a single room and eat only pot noodles.
But what is the alternative? Voat isn't very popular, quickly devolved into a cesspit and bans any wrongthink left leaning boards.
Same with PewTube. The number one video on that site was about communism, and was quickly banned along with all left leaning channels.
Seems to be like you can have Reddit which allows 99.9% of material including some very extreme stuff like the "incel" boards and far right politics, or you can have a right wing echo chamber that bans anything contrary to the approved narrative.
I'm coming up to 40 and I've found that there are plenty of well paid jobs than ever for someone with my experience and skills. Then again this is the EU... Maybe the US has more age discrimination.
Slashdot Mirror
20 years is "might as well say never"? Definitely better not build any nuclear plants then.
I don't think greens are happy about it at all.
Anyway, they aren't forced to build anything. They could build a thorium reactor if they wanted to, but the R&D cost and the risk of it failing to work properly is so great that no investor will lend them the money or allow them to risk their own cash on it.
How do you know the outcome is worse when they won't finish the transition until the early 2020s?
Android is more like MacOS/webOS example. Obviously you can change the launcher to anything you like, but the default one has the home screen which is similar to the dock and an app tray where less used apps live. The app tray is searchable, or you can use the search box right on the home screen. Minor/common settings are on the swipe down menu, less used ones in the settings screen.
It's only really iOS that is built around the idea of shitting out every app onto the home screen, as well as a few of the more badly designed 3rd party launchers for Android.
Android also focuses on "window" management by having the app switching button be one of the three that are always on-screen or assigned to physical buttons. Long press to flip back to the last app, or tap to bring up the switch screen. I use this a lot as I often need to flip between one app and Google Translate. Newer versions of Android support split screen.
I take your point about it being a little more effort to switch apps on Android, but it's about as good as it could possibly be on a small screen with no keyboard or mouse.
Apple specifically singled out the outline shape of the phones during the trial. They also compared Apple and Samsung tablets in a related case, even though the iPad was a blatant rip-off of an earlier Samsung device. Apple made it about rounded corners and a flat, featureless slab.
There are plenty of other examples of ridiculous Apple design patents. Bouncing at the end of scrolling, slide to unlock (which fortunately was destroyed by prior art, likely where they ripped it off from) and other stupid things that previously everyone just thought of as the shared evolution of UI design language but which Apple wanted to be some exclusive shiny bullshit for their fashion boutiques.
I hope you are right, but Fukushima style tsunamis are not the only problem for nuclear power in Japan. In the decades since some of those reactors were build, geological survey equipment has improved a lot. Previously unknown faults have been discovered under some plants, as well as other issues like questions over the availability of emergency power for cooling systems or fixes to the cooling system to avoid it failing in the way Fukushima did.
Japan is in a difficult position. It has few natural resources, little room for solar and wind on-shore. Off-shore wind is now starting to become price competitive, but even so... There has been a huge focus on energy efficiency.
For your argument to work you have to assume that the engineers building this vast solar farm are morons. If you use a more realistic plan it falls apart completely.
This 700MW farm is just the start. It will be mixed with on-shore wind, off-shore wind, batteries and maybe tidal. This will happen over many years, similar to how the nuclear plant won't just spring forth from the ground one day and then disappear down the same hole with all its waste.
If France was not there they would simply do things a bit differently. Their transition is not dependent on France, it's just sensible to make use of available resources. Maybe without it might take them an extra few years.
The German releases twice as much CO2 per capita as us Swedes, and that's with similar standard of living and similar industrial mix. And yet, they're the green example to emulate, while we're the "backward ones".
I wouldn't use that phrase. However, the point is that Germany is transitioning, it's making a huge effort. They should be applauded for that.
Anti-nuke hysteria has kept the industry from moving forward with new and better ideas.
What is the evidence for this?
In the UK we realized that nuclear was too expensive, not least because we picked the wrong reactor type. In France they did better but in the last 20 years have got fed up with energy companies using nuclear as a welfare programme. Germany just decided that the risk wasn't worth it and there was a huge economic opportunity to become world leaders in renewable energy.
China cancelled all new nuclear plants not already under construction after Fukushima. I suppose you could argue that it was unfounded worries about safety, although this is China which doesn't have a particularly stellar record on such things. It seems more likely that they came to the same conclusion as Germany though - the nuclear renaissance was dead, renewables were going to become the cheapest option in the next decade, and most of the big new markets that were developing were not going to select nuclear as their technology of choice.
Westinghouse went bust because the economics didn't work out, nearly dragging Tosihba down with it... There is a story on the front page about Duke Energy realizing that cheap gas was making nuclear a poor investment, to the point where they are willing to sink nearly a billion dollars they have already spent.
I'm just not seeing the anti-nuke hysteria angle having much effect, it's all economics.
they don't really have nuclear waste
Is that why they are digging a big hole to put the nuclear not-waste in, and trying to figure out how to post warnings not to go down there that will be intelligible in 100,000 years time?
Finland actually passed laws requiring knowledge of the nuclear waste storage sites to be taught in school, so it becomes impossible to forget about them on a national level. They are taking it extremely seriously, which seems odd if as you say they don't really have any nuclear waste.
It seems like people don't understand the problems with reprocessing. The main danger is from accidents when handling the nuclear waste, so it's safer to bury it and make new fuel than it is to try to reprocess the old fuel in many cases. Often cheaper too, even with the cost of disposal. The Chinese are trying to make it work economically, but it's not going very well and the cancellation of most of their new capacity basically screwed any chance it had of being a good option.
You could suck-it-up and simply admit to yourself that user moderation on a mass scale is inevitably going to gravitate toward a middle-of-the-road lowest-common-denominator, and minority opinons, even sizeable minorities like Trumpsters or Chomskities or what not, are likely to be dismissed.
Slashdot proves that isn't the case. Reddit does too, but in a different way - it has ghettos for those people to create their little echo chambers in, with sympathetic moderators.
You could rely entire on hired, vetted moderators who are instructed on how to enforce a certain standard of intellectual integrity (and yes, probably "politeness", much as that crap drives me up the wall).
That would likely exclude a lot of of the "rationals" and especially the alt-right. The rationals tend to just google stuff that supports their established view and fall for obvious fake news and memes. The alt-right generates a lot of that fake news and memes. Any kind of intellectual integrity standard would have to set the bar incredibly low to avoid them tripping over it.
It was a demonstration for TV, but it is backed up by rigorous studies into the area. They did actually interview a scientist studying human development to confirm that, and you can search out the studies yourself.
I try to resist creating copy/paste lists of references because they are usually just a stifling/spamming tactic and I kind of expect Slashdot to show some curiosity instead of just accepting the established groupthink. In fact, in the past when I have posted links to studies, they have been modded "troll"... I guess facts and science are trolling now. But maybe I'll have to keep trying.
By that logic, you are running a witch hunt too. Anyone speaking up with a contrary opinion is condemned and added to the naughty list of public enemies, nay enemies of civilization according to this thread.
You want to control what we see on TV and the internet. You demand your standards are upheld and stuck to.
Or maybe you just have an opinion like everyone else and are free to state it, and people are free to listen or even solicit your advice.
The frustration many of us feel is that if all the money invested into nuclear was instead invested into renewables it would see a reduction in fossil fuel use too.
Look at Germany. Closing coal plans, and the new ones being opened are burning less of it and with cleaner output. It's not perfect but the net result is that by the mid 2020s they will not only have cancelled all new nuclear but closed all the current ones, and reduced coal and gas consumption, and developed a world-leading and highly profitable green energy sector.
Note how they have effectively wasted close to $1bn and are not going to invest anything like as much in the new solar plant as they were in the nuclear plant. It's disappointing to say the least.
From TFS: "With cheap natural gas in 2013, Duke Energy Florida became nervous that it might not recuperate costs spent on the nuclear plant"
Cheap gas, the expectation that renewables and batteries will keep getting cheaper... It doesn't make economic sense to build, operate and decomission a nuclear plant now.
Can't you just make a counter point in a debate without being a cunt?
I have a feeling they didn't lob Lego into the monkey enclosure.
The point here is that people take cues from other people, especially children looking to adults for guidance. In the programme they actually tried giving older children (age 7) toys meant for the opposite gender, and again they enjoyed playing with them.
One striking observation was that girls seemed to have less ability than boys when it came to working with construction toys and spacial puzzles. Boys tended to have trouble expressing emotions other than anger, lacking the vocabulary. Both of those things changed with relatively little effort and in a relatively short time - both girls and boys just needed practice and some encouragement to do things that they assumed their gender was not good at.
The BBC did a programme called "No More Boys and Girls" recently. Among other things, they took a baby boy, dressed in him girls' clothing and told the carer that his name was Emily.
The carer gave him girls' toys and he happily played with them. Dolls, cuddly toys, that sort of thing.
Then they repeated with a girl dressed as a boy.
Girls and boys brains are fairly similar at birth. A lot of what we think is genetic is actually just us influencing the unscientific test. I imagine the monkeys, which will have been interacting with humans their whole lives, are being influenced similarly.
On the one hand these slactivists are ineffective and cowardly. On the other hand, they are so powerful and dominating that they are bringing about the end of western civilization.
Have you seen Silicon Valley? It has both those characters.
What are you doing to fix this sick society you are so worried about? Ranting about Google on Slashdot?
No. Look at the shows they gave advice too. Do they seem like social justice propaganda to you? Not from what I've seen. They just seem normal, like my actual experience of working in tech.
I guess young people often don't really appreciate just how expensive places like SV are at first. It's the same in the UK, you see jobs offering 50k to live in London and expecting experience. Maybe that's okay if you can live in a single room and eat only pot noodles.
But what is the alternative? Voat isn't very popular, quickly devolved into a cesspit and bans any wrongthink left leaning boards.
Same with PewTube. The number one video on that site was about communism, and was quickly banned along with all left leaning channels.
Seems to be like you can have Reddit which allows 99.9% of material including some very extreme stuff like the "incel" boards and far right politics, or you can have a right wing echo chamber that bans anything contrary to the approved narrative.
I'm coming up to 40 and I've found that there are plenty of well paid jobs than ever for someone with my experience and skills. Then again this is the EU... Maybe the US has more age discrimination.