But do you really see it as a reason to immediately stop using the plants currently operational? Because if not, I don't think we're actually disagreeing.
Nuclear plants are *far* from perfect, but they're better than coal and I suspect all other previously available tech in a lot of ways (including death tolls). Now that solar panels and wind turbines are as good as they are, we absolutely should go down that path. We even already largely are thanks to green subsidies.
We should be fixing the plants that we have while replacing them as quickly as is reasonable. I'm pretty sure that if we do, Chernobyl will be the only major disaster on human's scorecard for nuclear power. That's actually a really good record compared to a lot of our endeavours.
Sure, but what does this add to the discussion that wasn't already present in the original (and quite interesting) discussion on the topic?
They haven't clarified anything, nor offered any explanations. They're pretty much saying "we've rechecked and what we said earlier is still just as likely to be true as it was when we said it"
I really don't see that as adding anything to the conversation or being of any real interest.
FermiLab at least seems to believe they can check it. Admittedly, from what I've read they plan to use old data to check it which is a little sketch from the whole scientific method standpoint.
Yes, there are risks. The number of people killed by nuclear power is still dwarfed by any other cause of death. That hardly makes for a compelling reason to shut it down.
Wind and solar are safer, and are becoming viable. We should be moving to them, we should not do anything so silly as stopping all current nuclear generation.
Oh and by the way, the CDC facilities where they keep smallpox and anthrax and god knows what else... THOSE are some of the deadliest materials known to man. Nuclear fuel is a baby toy by comparison. We still have the CDC facilities because it's a necessary risk.
It's good that they've rechecked themselves, but unless they come up with:
a) an explanation of why they're superluminal
b) an explanation of what they screwed up on the measurements
I don't really care what CERN has to say on the subject anymore. They've come up with a result that is highly suspect but possibly legitimate. Now that result needs to be repeated and confirmed or falsified by (preferably) other scientists using other equipment.
I'm not saying they shouldn't publish that they're still working at it, but it's hardly news.
Well since I don't have detailed design specs handy for currently planned nuclear plants you know as well as I do I can't provide that.
However, what I can say is this:
1. In many places around the world, the utilities are private companies.
2. Companies tend not to pass up opportunities to make the same product cheaper.
Those 2 premises alone really ought to be enough to convince you that if wind and solar really were cheaper, they'd be the standard.
Note that within the next ten years (and it's entirely possible that the tipping point is already being created in a lab somewhere) solar and wind *will* be cheaper. I have never seen any information to suggest that it is *currently* cheaper.
One. They were all nuclear reactors... perhaps absolutely nothing was a hair too much. They also all resided on earth, were active within the last century and man made objects comprised of mostly inorganic compounds.
But using those as some sort of "argument" would make me a pretentious jackass, like you.
If you want to say that human error is the other, then I have far more devastating examples we could discuss regarding human error. The actual errors were entirely, completely different in every way.
I propose to fix the human error exactly as it has been, with automated failsafes (which are exactly what stopped TMI from "going nuclear" as it were).
Fukashima was well documented that it was unsafe (walls were not as high as they were supposed to be) before the disaster, and those in charge chose to do nothing. You don't blame nuclear power for bad politics.
Also, the only cited resources in that article are
a) predictions for 2016, at which point there is a good chance solar panels will have improved as they have continued to do for decades
b) in complete agreement with what I said, and complete opposition of what you said.
Yes, the non-cited sources agree with you, oddly enough there's a reason they're non-cited.
Building new nuclear plants would be short-sighted given viable options that have come available in the last decade or two. I never said otherwise; I did say that bashing nuclear power based on misinformation is a really shitty way to try and make a point.
The issue isn't direct here, the problem with antibac soaps is that they encourage people to be sick more often (since they don't get small periodic immune responses they're pretty much defenceless)
So yes, indirectly antibac soap is increasing drug resistant strains, but there's very little (no) danger of alcohol suddenly not killing bacteria.
You're confused about a couple things, although overall the sentiment isn't entirely misplaced.
1. wind power is NOT cheaper than nuclear. Because of recent green subsidies it is "cheaper" (notice the quotes)
2. Fukashima had absolutely nothing in common with three mile island or chernobyl. TMI and chernobyl had absolutely nothing to do with each other either. TMI was a coolent leak by human error that automated systems and redundancies brought under control. Chernobyl was human error on a scale so massive that they even managed to screw up the redundancies (which have been improved because of that incident).
So you should get your facts straight, being uninformed won't help when trying to sway people about nuclear power.
With that said, solar and wind power are excellent sources of energy that can be harvested nearly the world over and do not need massive power grids running across country. For those reasons alone they are what we should be using. Domestic/commercial use should be governed by what can be generated; Industry and research would need to be augmented but there's nothing wrong with hydroelectric and geothermal energy either.
Ever used any of the thousands of i(Phone/Pad/Pod) accessories on the market? Everything that uses the dock connector is licensing that from Apple.
What they don't go for is people who flagrantly ignore their patents and then try to make nice after the fact (the HyperJuice guys found that out the hard way, which is why you now have to cut your apple magsafe adapter up to make their product work like it used to).
That doesn't apply here, as it's a newly reissued patent. Saying Apple doesn't license anything is complete FUD though
I'm just jumping in here, but I don't think any of this stuff stifles innovation, nor competition.
This relates very specifically to passing a location tag in a URL to a website to get location specific information.
There are other ways to do this, and it's noteworthy that the most common way of doing this currently is NOT covered under the patent (HTML 5 location stuff, where the page actively requests the information).
If you want to do this exact thing in exactly this way, you have deal with the person that created it. You could argue that it doesn't count as an "innovation", and I'd definitely consider a well formed argument. Just saying it stifles innovation and competition doesn't cut it for me though.
The location information system of claim 1, wherein the location identification information is associated with web pages having the location specific information residing thereon, the web pages residing on at least one of a local node and a remote node.
I'm pretty sure maps aren't "web pages"... well except google maps, but they're already so fucked over android infringements it's not funny
Although you're right re: voting every few years, it's worth considering that an election for the US is rather immanent. I suspect at this point getting a different president elected would be quicker than doing any serious damage to the banks (not to mention cleaner... destabilizing the entire economy wouldn't just be bad for the top 1%)
The bigger problem (though what you say is quite true) is that most of "the 99%" just don't vote at all. With that said, for the exact reasons you gave more votes most likely wouldn't change the distribution of them.
I'd be willing to bet that the number of voters within the occupy movement is well below the nation average. If they really wanted change, they could conceivably muster the support required to elect a president of the movements choosing in the next election.
Mmm, yes it isn't so much the notifications that annoy me... It's that "intelligently" isn't intelligent enough. It'll shut down the networking sometimes while downloading a large app (1GB+), and resuming app downloads isn't exactly graceful
I have an iPad now, and frankly I charge it every day (that I use it) anyways.
Also I've gotta say that the iPad shutting down networking intelligently pisses me off on a semi-regular basis, even if it does make standby last a legitimately long time
Well you've convinced me to keep tabs on its release.
The only thing left is for me to see it running Android truly well. I don't really doubt that it will but I've been surprised at how poorly some devices have in the past.
So I can assume from what you say that they're basing the 6 hours dock life on having a constant 500mW load from the USB port? (I say that because the dock would seem to draw an effective ~600mW overall and I can't imagine the keyboard itself using much)
If 12 hours is an honest assessment of the battery life, then I'm going to buy the shit out of it when it comes out...
12 hours; 25Wh Li-polymer Battery 18 hours pad with dock; 25Wh (pad) & 22Wh (mobile dock) Li-polymey Battery
If 22Wh gets me 6 (extra) hours battery, then 25Wh will get me ~7 hours.
7 hours is nearly enough, assuming that 7 hours is full wireless productivity. I'm guessing though, that as with most battery life estimates that's high and you'll get more like 6 (aka. not enough for a work day).
If I'm right about this, it means that I can't really go without the dock and this is a laptop that the screen can detach from. That's neat in and of itself and might be a product worth looking at but it's somewhat distinct from a tablet that happens to have a keyboard dock.
"My phone doesn't work" is *just* as valid as "The power's out" in terms of describing the situation.
My phone, which has Siri as a feature, is not working to it's full advertised functionality. Therefore, saying my phone isn't working is no less valid than the options I provided.
People who get all high and mighty because they know a little bit about computers are assholes.
Slashdot Mirror
But do you really see it as a reason to immediately stop using the plants currently operational? Because if not, I don't think we're actually disagreeing.
Nuclear plants are *far* from perfect, but they're better than coal and I suspect all other previously available tech in a lot of ways (including death tolls). Now that solar panels and wind turbines are as good as they are, we absolutely should go down that path. We even already largely are thanks to green subsidies.
We should be fixing the plants that we have while replacing them as quickly as is reasonable. I'm pretty sure that if we do, Chernobyl will be the only major disaster on human's scorecard for nuclear power. That's actually a really good record compared to a lot of our endeavours.
Sure, but what does this add to the discussion that wasn't already present in the original (and quite interesting) discussion on the topic?
They haven't clarified anything, nor offered any explanations. They're pretty much saying "we've rechecked and what we said earlier is still just as likely to be true as it was when we said it"
I really don't see that as adding anything to the conversation or being of any real interest.
The problem with all nuclear reactors is that they all contain tons of some of the deadliest materials known to man
What was that about arguing with yourself?
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-09/fermilab-physicists-will-help-check-revolutionary-faster-light-claim
FermiLab at least seems to believe they can check it. Admittedly, from what I've read they plan to use old data to check it which is a little sketch from the whole scientific method standpoint.
Yes, there are risks. The number of people killed by nuclear power is still dwarfed by any other cause of death. That hardly makes for a compelling reason to shut it down.
Wind and solar are safer, and are becoming viable. We should be moving to them, we should not do anything so silly as stopping all current nuclear generation.
Oh and by the way, the CDC facilities where they keep smallpox and anthrax and god knows what else... THOSE are some of the deadliest materials known to man. Nuclear fuel is a baby toy by comparison. We still have the CDC facilities because it's a necessary risk.
It's good that they've rechecked themselves, but unless they come up with:
a) an explanation of why they're superluminal
b) an explanation of what they screwed up on the measurements
I don't really care what CERN has to say on the subject anymore. They've come up with a result that is highly suspect but possibly legitimate. Now that result needs to be repeated and confirmed or falsified by (preferably) other scientists using other equipment.
I'm not saying they shouldn't publish that they're still working at it, but it's hardly news.
Well since I don't have detailed design specs handy for currently planned nuclear plants you know as well as I do I can't provide that.
However, what I can say is this:
1. In many places around the world, the utilities are private companies.
2. Companies tend not to pass up opportunities to make the same product cheaper.
Those 2 premises alone really ought to be enough to convince you that if wind and solar really were cheaper, they'd be the standard.
Note that within the next ten years (and it's entirely possible that the tipping point is already being created in a lab somewhere) solar and wind *will* be cheaper. I have never seen any information to suggest that it is *currently* cheaper.
One. They were all nuclear reactors... perhaps absolutely nothing was a hair too much. They also all resided on earth, were active within the last century and man made objects comprised of mostly inorganic compounds.
But using those as some sort of "argument" would make me a pretentious jackass, like you.
If you want to say that human error is the other, then I have far more devastating examples we could discuss regarding human error. The actual errors were entirely, completely different in every way.
I propose to fix the human error exactly as it has been, with automated failsafes (which are exactly what stopped TMI from "going nuclear" as it were).
Fukashima was well documented that it was unsafe (walls were not as high as they were supposed to be) before the disaster, and those in charge chose to do nothing. You don't blame nuclear power for bad politics.
Also, the only cited resources in that article are
a) predictions for 2016, at which point there is a good chance solar panels will have improved as they have continued to do for decades
b) in complete agreement with what I said, and complete opposition of what you said.
Yes, the non-cited sources agree with you, oddly enough there's a reason they're non-cited.
Building new nuclear plants would be short-sighted given viable options that have come available in the last decade or two. I never said otherwise; I did say that bashing nuclear power based on misinformation is a really shitty way to try and make a point.
antibacterial soap as others have stated.
The issue isn't direct here, the problem with antibac soaps is that they encourage people to be sick more often (since they don't get small periodic immune responses they're pretty much defenceless)
So yes, indirectly antibac soap is increasing drug resistant strains, but there's very little (no) danger of alcohol suddenly not killing bacteria.
Oh if only I had mod points for you sir... if only
You're confused about a couple things, although overall the sentiment isn't entirely misplaced.
1. wind power is NOT cheaper than nuclear. Because of recent green subsidies it is "cheaper" (notice the quotes)
2. Fukashima had absolutely nothing in common with three mile island or chernobyl. TMI and chernobyl had absolutely nothing to do with each other either. TMI was a coolent leak by human error that automated systems and redundancies brought under control. Chernobyl was human error on a scale so massive that they even managed to screw up the redundancies (which have been improved because of that incident).
So you should get your facts straight, being uninformed won't help when trying to sway people about nuclear power.
With that said, solar and wind power are excellent sources of energy that can be harvested nearly the world over and do not need massive power grids running across country. For those reasons alone they are what we should be using. Domestic/commercial use should be governed by what can be generated; Industry and research would need to be augmented but there's nothing wrong with hydroelectric and geothermal energy either.
Yes, well I can clearly see you've put a lot of thought and care into that argu.... oh, no you're just being thick
Bullshit.
Ever used any of the thousands of i(Phone/Pad/Pod) accessories on the market? Everything that uses the dock connector is licensing that from Apple.
What they don't go for is people who flagrantly ignore their patents and then try to make nice after the fact (the HyperJuice guys found that out the hard way, which is why you now have to cut your apple magsafe adapter up to make their product work like it used to).
That doesn't apply here, as it's a newly reissued patent. Saying Apple doesn't license anything is complete FUD though
I'm just jumping in here, but I don't think any of this stuff stifles innovation, nor competition.
This relates very specifically to passing a location tag in a URL to a website to get location specific information.
There are other ways to do this, and it's noteworthy that the most common way of doing this currently is NOT covered under the patent (HTML 5 location stuff, where the page actively requests the information).
If you want to do this exact thing in exactly this way, you have deal with the person that created it. You could argue that it doesn't count as an "innovation", and I'd definitely consider a well formed argument. Just saying it stifles innovation and competition doesn't cut it for me though.
You could try reading
The location information system of claim 1, wherein the location identification information is associated with web pages having the location specific information residing thereon, the web pages residing on at least one of a local node and a remote node.
I'm pretty sure maps aren't "web pages"... well except google maps, but they're already so fucked over android infringements it's not funny
Although you're right re: voting every few years, it's worth considering that an election for the US is rather immanent. I suspect at this point getting a different president elected would be quicker than doing any serious damage to the banks (not to mention cleaner... destabilizing the entire economy wouldn't just be bad for the top 1%)
The bigger problem (though what you say is quite true) is that most of "the 99%" just don't vote at all. With that said, for the exact reasons you gave more votes most likely wouldn't change the distribution of them.
I'd be willing to bet that the number of voters within the occupy movement is well below the nation average. If they really wanted change, they could conceivably muster the support required to elect a president of the movements choosing in the next election.
Actually, when in doubt get more information.
Implementing drastic reductions to various sectors that will cause economic instability is just as bat-shit insane as doing nothing.
Doing research until you can actually predict what will happen and what will fix it (because CO2 will do absolutely fuck all) is the right approach.
Mmm, yes it isn't so much the notifications that annoy me... It's that "intelligently" isn't intelligent enough. It'll shut down the networking sometimes while downloading a large app (1GB+), and resuming app downloads isn't exactly graceful
I have an iPad now, and frankly I charge it every day (that I use it) anyways.
Also I've gotta say that the iPad shutting down networking intelligently pisses me off on a semi-regular basis, even if it does make standby last a legitimately long time
Well you've convinced me to keep tabs on its release.
The only thing left is for me to see it running Android truly well. I don't really doubt that it will but I've been surprised at how poorly some devices have in the past.
So I can assume from what you say that they're basing the 6 hours dock life on having a constant 500mW load from the USB port? (I say that because the dock would seem to draw an effective ~600mW overall and I can't imagine the keyboard itself using much)
If 12 hours is an honest assessment of the battery life, then I'm going to buy the shit out of it when it comes out...
12 hours; 25Wh Li-polymer Battery
18 hours pad with dock; 25Wh (pad) & 22Wh (mobile dock) Li-polymey Battery
If 22Wh gets me 6 (extra) hours battery, then 25Wh will get me ~7 hours.
7 hours is nearly enough, assuming that 7 hours is full wireless productivity. I'm guessing though, that as with most battery life estimates that's high and you'll get more like 6 (aka. not enough for a work day).
If I'm right about this, it means that I can't really go without the dock and this is a laptop that the screen can detach from. That's neat in and of itself and might be a product worth looking at but it's somewhat distinct from a tablet that happens to have a keyboard dock.
You're as dumb as he was.
"My phone doesn't work" is *just* as valid as "The power's out" in terms of describing the situation.
My phone, which has Siri as a feature, is not working to it's full advertised functionality. Therefore, saying my phone isn't working is no less valid than the options I provided.
People who get all high and mighty because they know a little bit about computers are assholes.
I was right, you were both wrong. Go figure.