1) Generators run their units with minimal loads to keep in sync, so that when it's time to ramp up, sync is not an issue.
Mostly true. Gas turbine plants are made for peaking, and can supply whatever is demanded within a second or two- but their capacity is limited.
Many of the baseline load plants, steam plants, take sometime to change power output. Nuclear power plants are the worst.
I just started working at a nuclear powerplant, so my understanding may not be fully up to speed, but here's what I know so far:
When our plant is disconnected from the grid (not easy, because we have three lines running out on seperated paths, but it happened last year), we have a whole lot of energy in the system, and no place to put it- so we trip the plant. that basically means that the control rods drop into the core within seconds of being disconnected from the grid, and the plant starts to cool down.
We have in-house diesels to safely shut down the plant with, but they can't put out the voltage or power required to run the largest motors in the plant, which are needed to start power generation back up. Essentially, we need to be connected to the grid to start and run the plant.
These large motors, combined with everything else, use up about 3% of our plant capacity. I don't think we can run at 3% capacity, but I'm not positive. Basically, even if we knew ahead of time we where to be disconnected, I don't think we could ramp down the plant far enough to run only house loads off the main generator.
Short version: 1) A nuclear power plant can't start or run without being connected to the grid. 2) Once connected, they take about a day to get up to full power output. 3) Nuke power plants are typically a grid baseline load- meaning they're the last to have to cut production in the face of reduced demand. Nuke plants account for 20% of our electrical consumption.
2) The grid doesn't have to be brought up with all generators and exchanges linked, they can be brought up as islands and rejoined later.
4) Generators can only keep in sync when the grid is there to sync to. If the grid is disconnected, one plant starts, and everyone syncs to that. But I don't believe it takes very long to sync, maybe minutes. Though it is possible that if it's only one plant per 'island' they could drag the sync back to match with other islands.
That's all based on the assumption that other plants work roughly the same as Seabrook Station in Seabrook, NH. I do not claim authorative knowledge.
Tell me, if wealth is a zero sum game, then how did it come to pass that essientially every American lives in comfort unheard of 200 years ago?
How is it a zero sum game when the number one health problem of the poor in this country is obesity- TOO MUCH TO EAT!
If such large numbers of Americans live with comforts only vaugely aproximated by the wealthiest people 200 years ago, were did we steal all that money from? There aren't enough people on the planet to steal all that money from!
So I disagree; wealth is not a zero sum game. The large middle class in america, and even our 'poor', have been lifted out of a farming existence by the massive creation of wealth, and everyone in this country is better off for it.
Every equation must be balanced; mustn't it? So how can general motors, for example, take steel, plastic, and leather, and turn it into a $50,000 cadillac?
Effort. When you work, you add value; wealth- and it's more than the worth of what you ate that day, and the gas and wear and tear on your car so you could get to work. With millions of americans and their hard-core work habits, we add a tremendous amount of wealth every day to the economy.
Socialists whine about the accummulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, yet despite the occasional ups and downs of the economy, life gets better for citizens of a capitilistic country every year. That's because more wealth is created than the wealthiest 0.01% suck up.
It's effort that adds wealth to the equation. Remember that money is an abstract, a tool used to simplify trade. It's only valuable because we believe it has value. And we have more money in circulation now that 50 years ago because we had to print more to increase the supply, as the wealth we create every day continues to strain the money we have in circulation.
Chew on this: If wealth is a zero sum game, then how come pretty much every American, and hundreds of millions of people worldwide, are immuserable better off than the aristocracy 200 years ago? Who the fuck did we take all that money from?
I just started work at a nuclear power plant, so I don't know much yet- somethings I've learned so far-
We sell electricity cheaper than anyone else in the regional grid, so when load goes down, we're the last to have to reduce our capacity. (other nuclear power plants notwithstanding)
The plant was designed to change output on a day-night cycle, but years ago it was decided it was a much better to run at full load all the time.
That's pretty much all I can add, except that I'd like to shoot out the light just outside my apartment window. For now, I'll have to settle for heavy blinds & curtains.
Re:Yeah, Belgium warriors great, UN pansies bad...
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 1
Your email address didn't work, so you revert back to spineless AC. Have a nice day, and when you decide to take ownership for your own words, please let me know.
Re:Yeah, Belgium warriors great, UN pansies bad...
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 1
4-6 billion a month- chump change for the US.
UN- spineless, and innefectual.
1 soldier a day- tragic, but a small price to pay- we'd much rather have the islamic radicals attacking our soldiers, rather than our airliners.
There's a gap between what the UN says, and what it does. That's called credibility. And it's pretty fuckin big gap for the United Nations.
By the way, we brought the UN into this world, and we can take it out. The UN was formed to support US interests abroad. It no longer serves our interests. Tell me, would there be any point to the UN if the US left?
No. Because the UN would have no money, no NY headquaters, and no useful military.
Oh yeah, that's not arrogance, that's pride. Fuckin AC won't even own his words. I don't know why I waste my time.
Re:Yeah, Belgium warriors great, UN pansies bad...
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 1
Here's some of my thoughts on the matter: 1. No one disputes Saddam was a brutal dictator to his own people. For that reason alone, the war was justified. It's true that we don't go around killing every brutal dictator in the world, even though we could- but Saddam made the mistake of getting our attention.
2. He funded palestinian and al-qaieda terrorists. We don't take kindly to those who fund our enemies, or the enemies of our friends.
3. We had to finish what we started in the first gulf war. Bush Sr. was idiotic for humilating Saddam but leaving him in power. Moreover, we owed a moral debt to the Iraqi's who rose up in Rebellion at our request in the dying days of the war, only to abandon them by stopping at the border. But perhaps you think that Saddam was justified invading Kuwait?
There's a few, go read the USS clueless website linked to above for many, many more. If you can seriously refute any of DenBeste's points, do let me know.
Yeah, Belgium warriors great, UN pansies bad....
on
The Beast of Brussels
·
· Score: 1
I'm sure the Belgians fought valiantly in the World Wars- certainly better than the French- but let's get something clear here:
By the way, have they found any WMD's yet in Iraq? Didn't think so...
Tell me, how many other countries in the UN thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Here's a hint: Pretty much all of them. Time after Time, the UN signed many resolutions condemming Iraq and calling for their disarmement- over 12 years! The UN inspectors were periodically kicked out, blocked, slowed, and fucked with, for twelve years. And the UN was screaming bloody murder the entire time!
And now, because we've only found traces in the couple months we've been there (as opposed to nothing in the 12 years the UN fucked around) You're getting all uppity?
Go fuck yourself. The UN would talk until the end of time about how bad Iraq was, but the moment it looked like the United States might actually enforce all the UN carping about Iraq, we see France, Germany, and Russia change their tune. A few other meaningless countries did so as well. I can't remember if Belgium was on that meaningless country list, I'm sure you know. Incidentally, I'd like to remind you that 'unilateral' does not mean 'without france.' We had a couple dozen nations (testicles and morals still intact) backing us on Iraq.
The UN pretends to be for the good, and everything, but as soon as it threatens the profits and sweetheart oil deals of some of its members, that 12 years of tough talk fade into dust. And you're bitching because we can't find in a couple months what was hidden from the UN for 12 years. Do yo ever think what you say through all the way?
And moreover, even if we never find a couple thousand cannisters of VX laying around to wave in the face of morons like you, the war was justified on so many other levels, it doesn't matter.
I think you're just pissed off because the US was the leading nation in a very large group of nations that decided to back words with action- something the UN never does.
As soon as belgium grows a pair of twenty-first century balls, give us a phone call. No one gives a shit how great you were 60 years ago.
Please recheck your copy of the constitution. You'll find that the federal government is empowered to provide for the defense of the country- not the lunch of some kid whose parents can't feed him, and therefor shouldn't have had him.
There's little tolerance for socialism around here, and I wish there would be even less. Socialism in it's various forms has killed over 100 million people in the last century- so what the fuck makes you think you're gonna get it right?
It's not that I have no compassion for people who have fallen on hard times- my parents had to rely on aid from our church for a year or two when I was a kid- it's just that I think the government has no business redistributing my income to those who don't earn it. I'll choose which of my neighbors and friends I help, and the manner and extent to which I help them.
oh, we realize how much we're put down. Eurotrolls such as yourself point that out constantly. It's just that we don't give a shit. You insults and put downs are seen as the plantive mews of those who lack the courage to actually stand and deliver.
Why should we get all whiney and introspective because some has-been cultures can't stand they aren't top dog anymore?
Dispute this, if you can: The United States of America is the most dominant country in the world, politically, militarily, and economically. America is on top of the world, and free to do as we please.
Yeah, maybe we are arrogant. But as long as you and your fellow Eurotroll friends get all haughty about getting the best of some unsuspecting tourist in conversation, instead of kicking ass and taking names like we do here in the "good old US of A," then you'll remain well below the US in any category you choose.
Also remember that European security is paid for by American taxpayers, and has been since WW2. Notice how you haven't had any significant conflicts in mainland europe since we started stationing troops there? That's because no one wants to even think about getting the US involved in any war.
Tell me the last time in history a nation had such a feared military force- and didn't use it to build an empire? And don't give me any of that shit about American Imperialism. If we're so interested in Empires, we sure are bad at collecting tribute. We didn't keep Kuwait after the first Gulf War (Who was to stop us if we wanted to? Certainly not the UN.). We pay a lease for all the bases we keep across the world. Sounds like a bad way to run an empire to me.
The most visible advantage of this is that the pilot cannot 'stall' the airplane. The airplane will not put itself in a situation where it would stop flying. One simply cannot 'pull up' or deccelerate so much that the airplane would crash. Quite amazing technology, an entirely not Microsoft powered
There are times when temporarily approaching a stall is the best thing to do. See a lower post about "hopping" a plane crossing the wrong runway.
Also, because of Airbus' dedication to 'computer has final authority', one of their planes flew into a stand of trees at an airshow. The plane did a low pass, and then at the end of the pass, the pilot increased the throttle and nosed up. Being presumably an experienced pilot (showboating a new plane at an airshow wouldn't be trusted to new pilots I imagine), this would have worked. Unfortunately, this manuever would have put the plane too close to stall for the comptuter's tolerances, so it overided the 'pull up' until the airspeed was sufficient. The plane flew into the woods and crashed. I have it on video, email me if you want to see it.
The pilot couldn't stall the plane, true. He also couldn't even come close enough to save his own ass and a $40 million dollar plane from flying into the woods. The programmers can't think of everything that might happen in flight. Pilots can adapt instantanously to a new situation.
This also leads to an interesting cultural difference: in all Boeing planes (American), the pilot has final authority. The plane will do what it's told, and all thrust management, stall prevention, collision avoidance and autopilot systems are easy to overide or shut off. In fact, because of occasional problems (unforseen circumstances), Boeing reccomends that it's thrust management system be used sparingly.
On the other hand, in all new Airbus (Europe) planes, the computer has final authority over what the plane does, and can overide the pilot. Unfortunately, he's still held responsible for everything that happens, even if he can't control it.
So my thesis is thus: Boeing represents the American ideal of maximum individual freedom, while Airbus shows the European tendancy to defer to an 'authority' (the state, or in this case, the manufacturer) rather than be responsible for oneself, and others.
Newspapers in France, for example, can get away with basically saying 'The masses are too stupid to know what's good for them.' Such a thing would not go over well here in the US.
Well, that's my incoherent rambling for the day.
What are the first and last words of an Airbus pilot?
Why is it so common to refer to people who live in trailer parks as stupid and poor? How about if I said 'slums'? Why is it okay to pick on rural white poor as being stupid and inbred, but not inner city minorities?
Who said it wasn't okay to make fun of welfare-dependant, don't-know-who-the-daddy-is ghetto trash? In fact, i'd put in-bred rural white poor above ghetto trash, because in theory, they at least pay for their own housing, instead of living in a HUD project.
The lower rungs of any particular ethnic group, city, country, or whatever, are always fair game for mockery. If you think there's some kind of limits based on race, then you've been hanging out with far too many pansy-ass 'politically correct' types. Do us all a favor, and piss them off whenever possible.
When it matters, and when you can afford it, it's quite possible to have perfect code. Something tells me that the code for the space shuttle is significantly more complex than any voting booth code would have to be.
Here's my idea of a perfect electronic voting system:
Touch screen input, with a keyboard for write-in votes.
Plain as day listing of choices before final selection is made.
Paper audit trail printed though window visible to voter (window solid enough to prevent tampering, and record on something similar to a register receipt.)
EPROMS are not field-upgradable, and socket used to program eproms is tamper evident.
Hardware checksum of eprom code contents on the screen at all times, made as tamper-proof as possible.
Network programmable in terms of candidates and party affiliations only- nothing else can be changed by network. Results can be read by network.
tamper-evident physical reset counters, indicating the number of times the machine has been zeroed or candidates changed.
An internal hard-drive,cd or tape storage that's tamper-evident, making a permenant record of all activity on that machine.
So that's three records, -eprom for single election results, a printed audit trail, and permanent storage of lifetime activity on a particular machine. Tamper-evident/resistant.
In addition, I think that ID's should be shown before you vote, only to record that you did vote. To avoid allegations of a 'voting tax', non-driver's licenses would have to be free, subject to the same proof standards as a normal driver's license.
Oh yeah, the entire system should be open to everyone for review. If the system is robust enough, it shouldn't matter that everyone knows exactly how it's made, as it should be extremely difficult to scam the system. (This is, of course, the standard open-source mantra.)
Now, as a disclaimer, I'm a mechanical engineer, and my programming knowledge doesn't go much deeper than an introductory C class.
Is anyone wondering if SCO executives are on the take for Microsoft?
Seriously, if companies start to think that using Linux could get them into legal entanglements- like what SCO is starting now, RIAA-style- then they might be more likely to go towards microsoft products, because Microsoft and their army of lawyers will make sure everything is properly licensed. Or so the reasoning should go.
Moreover, Microsoft certainly has the cash and interest to put down bullshit claims that might arise like this, whereas the companies that sell linux products have much smaller resources to put into fights like this. Again, this is the line of thinking that they would hope to instill, to steer customers torwards MS products.
Yeah, yeah, I've got my tinfoil hat right here....
Re:How about Soyuz, then?
on
Shuttle Politics
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Unfortunately, the soyuz, at a 7.5 ton payload capacity, has only a fraction of the shuttle's 25 ton capacity.
The current state of affairs is that only the shuttle fleet can get so much material into space in one shot. Russia had a few heavy launch projects in the works, but i think they've all been canned due to the dismal financial state over there.
Do you honestly think that 90% of musical artists agree with distribution of their music without getting paid for it (regardless of whether they get a lot or a little)?
Well, if they listen to the august Janis Ian they do. Here's a woman whose been around the RIAA block more than once, has released a number of songs freely available for download on her website- and profited from it.
Read it, it's a good article. Also note the follow up link at the top of the page for later consumption.
However, each one of those turbines takes only 36 square meters, meaning that all 1.5 million would take less than 14,000 acres,
I followed your link, but it seems to me that they were only talking about footprint of the devices themselves- 36 sq meters seems reasonable for that.
But there needs to be a significant distance in between the the turbines, or they'll buffet each other horribly- the ones first in line will catch all the wind, and the rest will be worth crap. I couldn't be sure, but it seems to me that to prevent buffeting, you'd need about at least an acre of land per turbine (an acre being something like 200x200 feet, i think.) I know it's not the best source, but in the movie "seven", the finale is located on a wind farm, and there's a whole lot of space between them. Also, don't forget they need room to swing around as well.
Another thing that bothers me is the increase in maintanance- can you imagine having to service 1.5 million turbines? The cost and logistics would be astronomical. A nuke or fossil power plant concentrates a lot more power generation in one system, increasing reliability and easing maintanance.
Certainly, wind power has it's place, in the right areas, but it's not the miracle you seem to attribute to it. My 2 cents anyway.
That's why every government likes to create and maintain a large and comfortable middle class even if there are some people without a job or a roof over their heads. The apathy of the former acts as an effective buffer against the anger of the latter ever gaining enough support to make a significant impact.
I'm going to assume, for the moment, that you mean the United States government, or that of a similarly advanced European or Asian Nation.
What makes you think a government can create and maintain anything of that scale? A massive, and usually inept beuracracy could orchestrate the financial success of at least several hundred million people around the planet- is that what you're saying?
Pardon me if I find this ridicoulous, and say it betrays some variety of socialist hippie attitude you harbor. Hey, again, I could be wrong about your intentions, but I've launched into a rant, so I'm not going to stop.
The rise of the middle class in the United States and other countries is the result of their governments not meddling in economic affairs, and only ensuring rule of law. The middle class wealth was created by the people under a framework of internal peace and law. It was not orchestrated by any government to keep the masses mollified or under control- if that was your wish, Saddam has shown us it's far cheaper to do that with bullets, fear and torture than with governmental propping up of a huge portion of the nation.
In fact, I dare say that the attempts of many European governments to maintain every member of their societies to a minimally accepted level is leading their countries into failure. What I mean is the socialistic redistribution of wealth, and laws that restrict employers and employess from engaging in mutually acceptable terms. A welfare nanny state creates a disincentive to work- in Germany and France, for example, their unemployment rates are double the US rates, and their growth for the past ten years has been half of the US- and it's not getting better anytime soon. The more people on welfare, the higher the rest have to be taxed in order to pay for it, reducing their take home pay, creating even less of an incentive to work, and just go on welfare.... Their jobless benefits are triple what's in the United States, and last longer- also, companies can't lay people off (in Germany anywa), so they have to maintain idle workers until the entire firm goes under- hardly a desirable case for those whose jobs could have been preserved, and only delaying the inevitable for those who would have been cut initially.
You get the idea.
My point is that when Governments try to prop up a middle class, socialist europe has shown this starts to decay within a generation or so. They're headed for trouble, because they've tried to create and artificially maintain a middle class. The US, while not completely lasseiz-faire, has been doing much better (compared to Europe, not the last decade. Things are rough right now.)
If some people are without a job or roof over their heads- that kinda gives them incentive to work, doesn't it? Private charities long served the downtrodden, helping them to get back on their feet, before the government took things over, and screwed it up.
The Government created no middle class. When it comes to meddling in economics, Government projects typically make things worse.
and their internet business, as I recall, is going down the tubes because fewer people need or will tolerate AOL's hand holding nowadays.
SO in order to increase revenues, they decide to offer a product against an established competitor, except with more restrictions, fewer features, and more ads? And they think this will work?
I wonder what the color of the sky is in AOL's world.... cause they don't seem like they're in this one.
...to start with, I just put a little invertor in my car, under the front passenger seat.
I know this is a little offtopic, but don't most computers run off of DC, at varying voltages less than 12? (Well, Nominal car voltage is something like 14V I think, but close enough)
Wouldn't it be possible to wire a computer more directly into the car, maybe with a few resistors and perhaps a DC to DC converter, to 'clean up' the power?
I have a power inverter in my car, and it's great, and the most readily available off the shelf solution, but I'm curious to see what other's thoughts are...
helicopters provided by the United States, spraying gas provided by the United States, ordered by a dictator who was placed into power by the United States.
Even if this was completely true- it isn't- This is just even more justification to persecute the war- shouldn't we clean up our own mistakes?
...By indulging his hypochondriac fantasies. I glanced over his autobiography, and here's what I think (I am not a mental health professional, but I know plenty of mildly crazy people)
1. He's had trouble getting a job because he keeps on bringing up his fantasy 'handicap' (though he surely believes it's real), and he finds no employer wants to deal with a handicapped IT person.... I think it would be more accurate to say no company wants to deal with a crazy employee in any proffession.
2. His entire autobiography, he paints himself a victim of this 'syndrome.' (and peer abuse, and being overweight) Never anything more than that. True, his weblog is about 'non-toxic' housing, so he may want to keep it on topic, but it really seems to be more of an entire 'pity me' diatribe than a tale of his life thus far. Certainly he takes no responsibility for the over-eating and inactivity that made him fat, and is responsible for his low stamina. (News flash: Fat people can't move fast, or far. Remember, KE=M*V^2!)
3. I bet his doting, single mom raised him to think he was always sick- ever heard of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy ? Tell a kid something long enough, and he's likely to believe it. Drag him around to all sorts of doctors starting in infancy, and you might start to think you can never be healthy.
MCS, as many other posters have pointed out, is a fantasy illness. Michael Fumento, a respected health writer, has written a number of articles on the subject that can be found here. Incidentally, I reccomend browsing through his articles for any other topics that might be of interest to you.
So here's my (albeit non-proffessional) advice to this gentleman:
A. Stop eating.
B. Start Exercising. Cardio-Vascular and weight training. Do it till you drop. Guess what? You'll find that every week you keep it up, you'll last just a little bit longer. I'm not slim (6'1", 255lbs so not grossly obese either) but I've started exercising regularly- trust me, it won't be long before you start noticing the improvements. Maybe weeks. The fatter you are, the more you need to start right now.
C. STFU. really. No one cares about your problems, except fellow hypochondriacs who are looking for reciprical support on their bullshit illnesses. Any given ailment can be exploited for a very limited amount of sympathy. Coming up with new ailments all the time will just piss off the people around you, and turn sympathy into mild disgust.
Buddy, it seems to me your mom screwed you up from the start, before you even had a chance to know better. Blame the doctors for prescribing too many anti-biotics? Blame your mom for bringing you to so many doctors and insisting on medication. Up until the mid 90's, anti-biotics, especially weak ones, were the classic 'go-away' prescription, since doctors can't exactly prescribe sugar pills to crazy patients, or patients with crazy moms. Oh yeah, the bad thing about over prescribing anti-biotics is that it makes the pathogens more resistant- they don't do much to you except a little diarehhia, because they kill helpful intestinal bacteria. But you must of missed that news report.
Your mom screwed you up. It's high time you got over it.
Let's say the war costs an astronomical amount of $500,000,000,000. Surely, Kicking Iraq's butt would be cheaper than that, but let's use that for now.
And let's say that is repaid, over a year (a very short amortization), by gasoline purchases only. You can extract 19.5 US gallons from a barrel of oil (the rest of the 44 gallons is for different products.) The United States consumes 18,920,000 Barrels of oil per day. So, to pay for a really expensive war in a year, you'd have to add $3.71 to the price of every gallon of gas, or about $0.92 to every litre/quart (close enough to call the same)
As for the 'cost of pollution,' how, exactly, do you put a price on that? Do you propose to set up huge facilities to process the air, and remove the waste? Send up some huge ozone-repairing blimps to the south pole? Have complete remedition facilities on board every vehicle? All these things are feasible, but certainly would drive prices no where near the vicinity of $1000/liter.
And where do we draw the line between sucking out our own pollution, and undoing nature's own work? Certainly natural cycles have had a much greater impact on weather thousands and millions of years ago (contiunuing today) than any human activities could hope to attain. Can our activities affect the weather? Certainly, especially locally.
More realistically, if the war cost half as much, and the cost was spread out over 10 years over all oil products, the added cost would be well within normal price fluctuations, Even with your 'cost of pollution' fantasy construct.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Generators run their units with minimal loads
to keep in sync, so that when it's
time to ramp up, sync is not an issue.
Mostly true.
Gas turbine plants are made for peaking, and can supply whatever is demanded within a second or two- but their capacity is limited.
Many of the baseline load plants, steam plants, take sometime to change power output. Nuclear power plants are the worst.
I just started working at a nuclear powerplant, so my understanding may not be fully up to speed, but here's what I know so far:
When our plant is disconnected from the grid (not easy, because we have three lines running out on seperated paths, but it happened last year), we have a whole lot of energy in the system, and no place to put it- so we trip the plant. that basically means that the control rods drop into the core within seconds of being disconnected from the grid, and the plant starts to cool down.
We have in-house diesels to safely shut down the plant with, but they can't put out the voltage or power required to run the largest motors in the plant, which are needed to start power generation back up. Essentially, we need to be connected to the grid to start and run the plant.
These large motors, combined with everything else, use up about 3% of our plant capacity. I don't think we can run at 3% capacity, but I'm not positive. Basically, even if we knew ahead of time we where to be disconnected, I don't think we could ramp down the plant far enough to run only house loads off the main generator.
Short version:
1) A nuclear power plant can't start or run without being connected to the grid.
2) Once connected, they take about a day to get up to full power output.
3) Nuke power plants are typically a grid baseline load- meaning they're the last to have to cut production in the face of reduced demand. Nuke plants account for 20% of our electrical consumption.
2) The grid doesn't have to be brought up with
all generators and exchanges linked, they
can be brought up as islands and rejoined later.
4) Generators can only keep in sync when the grid is there to sync to. If the grid is disconnected, one plant starts, and everyone syncs to that. But I don't believe it takes very long to sync, maybe minutes. Though it is possible that if it's only one plant per 'island' they could drag the sync back to match with other islands.
That's all based on the assumption that other plants work roughly the same as Seabrook Station in Seabrook, NH. I do not claim authorative knowledge.
Tell me, if wealth is a zero sum game, then how did it come to pass that essientially every American lives in comfort unheard of 200 years ago?
How is it a zero sum game when the number one health problem of the poor in this country is obesity- TOO MUCH TO EAT!
If such large numbers of Americans live with comforts only vaugely aproximated by the wealthiest people 200 years ago, were did we steal all that money from? There aren't enough people on the planet to steal all that money from!
So I disagree; wealth is not a zero sum game. The large middle class in america, and even our 'poor', have been lifted out of a farming existence by the massive creation of wealth, and everyone in this country is better off for it.
Every equation must be balanced; mustn't it? So how can general motors, for example, take steel, plastic, and leather, and turn it into a $50,000 cadillac?
Effort. When you work, you add value; wealth- and it's more than the worth of what you ate that day, and the gas and wear and tear on your car so you could get to work. With millions of americans and their hard-core work habits, we add a tremendous amount of wealth every day to the economy.
Socialists whine about the accummulation of wealth into fewer and fewer hands, yet despite the occasional ups and downs of the economy, life gets better for citizens of a capitilistic country every year. That's because more wealth is created than the wealthiest 0.01% suck up.
It's effort that adds wealth to the equation.
Remember that money is an abstract, a tool used to simplify trade. It's only valuable because we believe it has value. And we have more money in circulation now that 50 years ago because we had to print more to increase the supply, as the wealth we create every day continues to strain the money we have in circulation.
Chew on this: If wealth is a zero sum game, then how come pretty much every American, and hundreds of millions of people worldwide, are immuserable better off than the aristocracy 200 years ago?
Who the fuck did we take all that money from?
I just started work at a nuclear power plant, so I don't know much yet- somethings I've learned so far-
We sell electricity cheaper than anyone else in the regional grid, so when load goes down, we're the last to have to reduce our capacity. (other nuclear power plants notwithstanding)
The plant was designed to change output on a day-night cycle, but years ago it was decided it was a much better to run at full load all the time.
That's pretty much all I can add, except that I'd like to shoot out the light just outside my apartment window. For now, I'll have to settle for heavy blinds & curtains.
Your email address didn't work, so you revert back to spineless AC. Have a nice day, and when you decide to take ownership for your own words, please let me know.
4-6 billion a month- chump change for the US.
UN- spineless, and innefectual.
1 soldier a day- tragic, but a small price to pay- we'd much rather have the islamic radicals attacking our soldiers, rather than our airliners.
There's a gap between what the UN says, and what it does. That's called credibility. And it's pretty fuckin big gap for the United Nations.
By the way, we brought the UN into this world, and we can take it out. The UN was formed to support US interests abroad. It no longer serves our interests. Tell me, would there be any point to the UN if the US left?
No. Because the UN would have no money, no NY headquaters, and no useful military.
Oh yeah, that's not arrogance, that's pride.
Fuckin AC won't even own his words. I don't know why I waste my time.
Steven DenBeste goes into great detail here.
Here's some of my thoughts on the matter:
1. No one disputes Saddam was a brutal dictator to his own people. For that reason alone, the war was justified. It's true that we don't go around killing every brutal dictator in the world, even though we could- but Saddam made the mistake of getting our attention.
2. He funded palestinian and al-qaieda terrorists. We don't take kindly to those who fund our enemies, or the enemies of our friends.
3. We had to finish what we started in the first gulf war. Bush Sr. was idiotic for humilating Saddam but leaving him in power. Moreover, we owed a moral debt to the Iraqi's who rose up in Rebellion at our request in the dying days of the war, only to abandon them by stopping at the border. But perhaps you think that Saddam was justified invading Kuwait?
There's a few, go read the USS clueless website linked to above for many, many more. If you can seriously refute any of DenBeste's points, do let me know.
I'm sure the Belgians fought valiantly in the World Wars- certainly better than the French- but let's get something clear here:
By the way, have they found any WMD's yet in Iraq? Didn't think so...
Tell me, how many other countries in the UN thought that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?
Here's a hint: Pretty much all of them. Time after Time, the UN signed many resolutions condemming Iraq and calling for their disarmement- over 12 years! The UN inspectors were periodically kicked out, blocked, slowed, and fucked with, for twelve years. And the UN was screaming bloody murder the entire time!
And now, because we've only found traces in the couple months we've been there (as opposed to nothing in the 12 years the UN fucked around) You're getting all uppity?
Go fuck yourself. The UN would talk until the end of time about how bad Iraq was, but the moment it looked like the United States might actually enforce all the UN carping about Iraq, we see France, Germany, and Russia change their tune. A few other meaningless countries did so as well. I can't remember if Belgium was on that meaningless country list, I'm sure you know. Incidentally, I'd like to remind you that 'unilateral' does not mean 'without france.' We had a couple dozen nations (testicles and morals still intact) backing us on Iraq.
The UN pretends to be for the good, and everything, but as soon as it threatens the profits and sweetheart oil deals of some of its members, that 12 years of tough talk fade into dust. And you're bitching because we can't find in a couple months what was hidden from the UN for 12 years. Do yo ever think what you say through all the way?
And moreover, even if we never find a couple thousand cannisters of VX laying around to wave in the face of morons like you, the war was justified on so many other levels, it doesn't matter.
I think you're just pissed off because the US was the leading nation in a very large group of nations that decided to back words with action- something the UN never does.
As soon as belgium grows a pair of twenty-first century balls, give us a phone call. No one gives a shit how great you were 60 years ago.
Please recheck your copy of the constitution. You'll find that the federal government is empowered to provide for the defense of the country- not the lunch of some kid whose parents can't feed him, and therefor shouldn't have had him.
There's little tolerance for socialism around here, and I wish there would be even less. Socialism in it's various forms has killed over 100 million people in the last century- so what the fuck makes you think you're gonna get it right?
It's not that I have no compassion for people who have fallen on hard times- my parents had to rely on aid from our church for a year or two when I was a kid- it's just that I think the government has no business redistributing my income to those who don't earn it. I'll choose which of my neighbors and friends I help, and the manner and extent to which I help them.
oh, we realize how much we're put down. Eurotrolls such as yourself point that out constantly. It's just that we don't give a shit. You insults and put downs are seen as the plantive mews of those who lack the courage to actually stand and deliver.
Why should we get all whiney and introspective because some has-been cultures can't stand they aren't top dog anymore?
Dispute this, if you can: The United States of America is the most dominant country in the world, politically, militarily, and economically. America is on top of the world, and free to do as we please.
Yeah, maybe we are arrogant. But as long as you and your fellow Eurotroll friends get all haughty about getting the best of some unsuspecting tourist in conversation, instead of kicking ass and taking names like we do here in the "good old US of A," then you'll remain well below the US in any category you choose.
Also remember that European security is paid for by American taxpayers, and has been since WW2. Notice how you haven't had any significant conflicts in mainland europe since we started stationing troops there? That's because no one wants to even think about getting the US involved in any war.
Tell me the last time in history a nation had such a feared military force- and didn't use it to build an empire? And don't give me any of that shit about American Imperialism.
If we're so interested in Empires, we sure are bad at collecting tribute. We didn't keep Kuwait after the first Gulf War (Who was to stop us if we wanted to? Certainly not the UN.). We pay a lease for all the bases we keep across the world. Sounds like a bad way to run an empire to me.
There are times when temporarily approaching a stall is the best thing to do. See a lower post about "hopping" a plane crossing the wrong runway.
Also, because of Airbus' dedication to 'computer has final authority', one of their planes flew into a stand of trees at an airshow. The plane did a low pass, and then at the end of the pass, the pilot increased the throttle and nosed up. Being presumably an experienced pilot (showboating a new plane at an airshow wouldn't be trusted to new pilots I imagine), this would have worked. Unfortunately, this manuever would have put the plane too close to stall for the comptuter's tolerances, so it overided the 'pull up' until the airspeed was sufficient. The plane flew into the woods and crashed. I have it on video, email me if you want to see it.
The pilot couldn't stall the plane, true. He also couldn't even come close enough to save his own ass and a $40 million dollar plane from flying into the woods. The programmers can't think of everything that might happen in flight. Pilots can adapt instantanously to a new situation.
This also leads to an interesting cultural difference: in all Boeing planes (American), the pilot has final authority. The plane will do what it's told, and all thrust management, stall prevention, collision avoidance and autopilot systems are easy to overide or shut off. In fact, because of occasional problems (unforseen circumstances), Boeing reccomends that it's thrust management system be used sparingly.
On the other hand, in all new Airbus (Europe) planes, the computer has final authority over what the plane does, and can overide the pilot. Unfortunately, he's still held responsible for everything that happens, even if he can't control it.
So my thesis is thus: Boeing represents the American ideal of maximum individual freedom, while Airbus shows the European tendancy to defer to an 'authority' (the state, or in this case, the manufacturer) rather than be responsible for oneself, and others.
Newspapers in France, for example, can get away with basically saying 'The masses are too stupid to know what's good for them.' Such a thing would not go over well here in the US.
Well, that's my incoherent rambling for the day.
What are the first and last words of an Airbus pilot?
What's it doing now?
It's never done that before!
Why is it so common to refer to people who live in trailer parks as stupid and poor? How about if I said 'slums'? Why is it okay to pick on rural white poor as being stupid and inbred, but not inner city minorities?
Who said it wasn't okay to make fun of welfare-dependant, don't-know-who-the-daddy-is ghetto trash? In fact, i'd put in-bred rural white poor above ghetto trash, because in theory, they at least pay for their own housing, instead of living in a HUD project.
The lower rungs of any particular ethnic group, city, country, or whatever, are always fair game for mockery. If you think there's some kind of limits based on race, then you've been hanging out with far too many pansy-ass 'politically correct' types. Do us all a favor, and piss them off whenever possible.
to implementing power over TCP/IP.
Read the RFC Here.
Every IT-implementation has bugs. Repeat: Every.
I disagree. There is perfect code out there.
When it matters, and when you can afford it, it's quite possible to have perfect code. Something tells me that the code for the space shuttle is significantly more complex than any voting booth code would have to be.
Here's my idea of a perfect electronic voting system:
Touch screen input, with a keyboard for write-in votes.
Plain as day listing of choices before final selection is made.
Paper audit trail printed though window visible to voter (window solid enough to prevent tampering, and record on something similar to a register receipt.)
EPROMS are not field-upgradable, and socket used to program eproms is tamper evident.
Hardware checksum of eprom code contents on the screen at all times, made as tamper-proof as possible.
Network programmable in terms of candidates and party affiliations only- nothing else can be changed by network. Results can be read by network.
tamper-evident physical reset counters, indicating the number of times the machine has been zeroed or candidates changed.
An internal hard-drive,cd or tape storage that's tamper-evident, making a permenant record of all activity on that machine.
So that's three records, -eprom for single election results, a printed audit trail, and permanent storage of lifetime activity on a particular machine. Tamper-evident/resistant.
In addition, I think that ID's should be shown before you vote, only to record that you did vote. To avoid allegations of a 'voting tax', non-driver's licenses would have to be free, subject to the same proof standards as a normal driver's license.
Oh yeah, the entire system should be open to everyone for review. If the system is robust enough, it shouldn't matter that everyone knows exactly how it's made, as it should be extremely difficult to scam the system. (This is, of course, the standard open-source mantra.)
Now, as a disclaimer, I'm a mechanical engineer, and my programming knowledge doesn't go much deeper than an introductory C class.
Whaddya'll think?
Is anyone wondering if SCO executives are on the take for Microsoft?
Seriously, if companies start to think that using Linux could get them into legal entanglements- like what SCO is starting now, RIAA-style- then they might be more likely to go towards microsoft products, because Microsoft and their army of lawyers will make sure everything is properly licensed. Or so the reasoning should go.
Moreover, Microsoft certainly has the cash and interest to put down bullshit claims that might arise like this, whereas the companies that sell linux products have much smaller resources to put into fights like this. Again, this is the line of thinking that they would hope to instill, to steer customers torwards MS products.
Yeah, yeah, I've got my tinfoil hat right here....
Unfortunately, the soyuz, at a 7.5 ton payload capacity, has only a fraction of the shuttle's 25 ton capacity.
The current state of affairs is that only the shuttle fleet can get so much material into space in one shot. Russia had a few heavy launch projects in the works, but i think they've all been canned due to the dismal financial state over there.
Evidently you've missed out on the self-checkout lanes which are starting to become popular.
And you thought you fetish was fucked up.
Do you honestly think that 90% of musical artists agree with distribution of their music without getting paid for it (regardless of whether they get a lot or a little)?
Well, if they listen to the august Janis Ian they do. Here's a woman whose been around the RIAA block more than once, has released a number of songs freely available for download on her website- and profited from it.
Read it, it's a good article. Also note the follow up link at the top of the page for later consumption.
However, each one of those turbines takes only 36 square meters, meaning that all 1.5 million would take less than 14,000 acres,
I followed your link, but it seems to me that they were only talking about footprint of the devices themselves- 36 sq meters seems reasonable for that.
But there needs to be a significant distance in between the the turbines, or they'll buffet each other horribly- the ones first in line will catch all the wind, and the rest will be worth crap. I couldn't be sure, but it seems to me that to prevent buffeting, you'd need about at least an acre of land per turbine (an acre being something like 200x200 feet, i think.) I know it's not the best source, but in the movie "seven", the finale is located on a wind farm, and there's a whole lot of space between them.
Also, don't forget they need room to swing around as well.
Another thing that bothers me is the increase in maintanance- can you imagine having to service 1.5 million turbines? The cost and logistics would be astronomical. A nuke or fossil power plant concentrates a lot more power generation in one system, increasing reliability and easing maintanance.
Certainly, wind power has it's place, in the right areas, but it's not the miracle you seem to attribute to it. My 2 cents anyway.
That's why every government likes to create and maintain a large and comfortable middle class even if there are some people without a job or a roof over their heads. The apathy of the former acts as an effective buffer against the anger of the latter ever gaining enough support to make a significant impact.
I'm going to assume, for the moment, that you mean the United States government, or that of a similarly advanced European or Asian Nation.
What makes you think a government can create and maintain anything of that scale? A massive, and usually inept beuracracy could orchestrate the financial success of at least several hundred million people around the planet- is that what you're saying?
Pardon me if I find this ridicoulous, and say it betrays some variety of socialist hippie attitude you harbor. Hey, again, I could be wrong about your intentions, but I've launched into a rant, so I'm not going to stop.
The rise of the middle class in the United States and other countries is the result of their governments not meddling in economic affairs, and only ensuring rule of law. The middle class wealth was created by the people under a framework of internal peace and law. It was not orchestrated by any government to keep the masses mollified or under control- if that was your wish, Saddam has shown us it's far cheaper to do that with bullets, fear and torture than with governmental propping up of a huge portion of the nation.
In fact, I dare say that the attempts of many European governments to maintain every member of their societies to a minimally accepted level is leading their countries into failure. What I mean is the socialistic redistribution of wealth, and laws that restrict employers and employess from engaging in mutually acceptable terms.
A welfare nanny state creates a disincentive to work- in Germany and France, for example, their unemployment rates are double the US rates, and their growth for the past ten years has been half of the US- and it's not getting better anytime soon. The more people on welfare, the higher the rest have to be taxed in order to pay for it, reducing their take home pay, creating even less of an incentive to work, and just go on welfare.... Their jobless benefits are triple what's in the United States, and last longer- also, companies can't lay people off (in Germany anywa), so they have to maintain idle workers until the entire firm goes under- hardly a desirable case for those whose jobs could have been preserved, and only delaying the inevitable for those who would have been cut initially.
You get the idea.
My point is that when Governments try to prop up a middle class, socialist europe has shown this starts to decay within a generation or so. They're headed for trouble, because they've tried to create and artificially maintain a middle class. The US, while not completely lasseiz-faire, has been doing much better (compared to Europe, not the last decade. Things are rough right now.)
If some people are without a job or roof over their heads- that kinda gives them incentive to work, doesn't it? Private charities long served the downtrodden, helping them to get back on their feet, before the government took things over, and screwed it up.
The Government created no middle class. When it comes to meddling in economics, Government projects typically make things worse.
My $0.02 anyway.
and their internet business, as I recall, is going down the tubes because fewer people need or will tolerate AOL's hand holding nowadays.
SO in order to increase revenues, they decide to offer a product against an established competitor, except with more restrictions, fewer features, and more ads? And they think this will work?
I wonder what the color of the sky is in AOL's world.... cause they don't seem like they're in this one.
I know this is a little offtopic, but don't most computers run off of DC, at varying voltages less than 12? (Well, Nominal car voltage is something like 14V I think, but close enough)
Wouldn't it be possible to wire a computer more directly into the car, maybe with a few resistors and perhaps a DC to DC converter, to 'clean up' the power?
I have a power inverter in my car, and it's great, and the most readily available off the shelf solution, but I'm curious to see what other's thoughts are...
helicopters provided by the United States, spraying gas provided by the United States, ordered by a dictator who was placed into power by the United States.
Even if this was completely true- it isn't- This is just even more justification to persecute the war- shouldn't we clean up our own mistakes?
...By indulging his hypochondriac fantasies. I glanced over his autobiography, and here's what I think (I am not a mental health professional, but I know plenty of mildly crazy people)
1. He's had trouble getting a job because he keeps on bringing up his fantasy 'handicap' (though he surely believes it's real), and he finds no employer wants to deal with a handicapped IT person.... I think it would be more accurate to say no company wants to deal with a crazy employee in any proffession.
2. His entire autobiography, he paints himself a victim of this 'syndrome.' (and peer abuse, and being overweight) Never anything more than that. True, his weblog is about 'non-toxic' housing, so he may want to keep it on topic, but it really seems to be more of an entire 'pity me' diatribe than a tale of his life thus far. Certainly he takes no responsibility for the over-eating and inactivity that made him fat, and is responsible for his low stamina. (News flash: Fat people can't move fast, or far. Remember, KE=M*V^2!)
3. I bet his doting, single mom raised him to think he was always sick- ever heard of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy ? Tell a kid something long enough, and he's likely to believe it. Drag him around to all sorts of doctors starting in infancy, and you might start to think you can never be healthy.
MCS, as many other posters have pointed out, is a fantasy illness. Michael Fumento, a respected health writer, has written a number of articles on the subject that can be found here. Incidentally, I reccomend browsing through his articles for any other topics that might be of interest to you.
So here's my (albeit non-proffessional) advice to this gentleman:
A. Stop eating.
B. Start Exercising. Cardio-Vascular and weight training. Do it till you drop. Guess what? You'll find that every week you keep it up, you'll last just a little bit longer. I'm not slim (6'1", 255lbs so not grossly obese either) but I've started exercising regularly- trust me, it won't be long before you start noticing the improvements. Maybe weeks. The fatter you are, the more you need to start right now.
C. STFU. really. No one cares about your problems, except fellow hypochondriacs who are looking for reciprical support on their bullshit illnesses. Any given ailment can be exploited for a very limited amount of sympathy. Coming up with new ailments all the time will just piss off the people around you, and turn sympathy into mild disgust.
Buddy, it seems to me your mom screwed you up from the start, before you even had a chance to know better. Blame the doctors for prescribing too many anti-biotics? Blame your mom for bringing you to so many doctors and insisting on medication. Up until the mid 90's, anti-biotics, especially weak ones, were the classic 'go-away' prescription, since doctors can't exactly prescribe sugar pills to crazy patients, or patients with crazy moms.
Oh yeah, the bad thing about over prescribing anti-biotics is that it makes the pathogens more resistant- they don't do much to you except a little diarehhia, because they kill helpful intestinal bacteria. But you must of missed that news report.
Your mom screwed you up. It's high time you got over it.
Let's say the war costs an astronomical amount of $500,000,000,000. Surely, Kicking Iraq's butt would be cheaper than that, but let's use that for now.
And let's say that is repaid, over a year (a very short amortization), by gasoline purchases only. You can extract 19.5 US gallons from a barrel of oil (the rest of the 44 gallons is for different products.) The United States consumes 18,920,000 Barrels of oil per day.
So, to pay for a really expensive war in a year, you'd have to add $3.71 to the price of every gallon of gas, or about $0.92 to every litre/quart (close enough to call the same)
As for the 'cost of pollution,' how, exactly, do you put a price on that? Do you propose to set up huge facilities to process the air, and remove the waste? Send up some huge ozone-repairing blimps to the south pole? Have complete remedition facilities on board every vehicle? All these things are feasible, but certainly would drive prices no where near the vicinity of $1000/liter.
And where do we draw the line between sucking out our own pollution, and undoing nature's own work? Certainly natural cycles have had a much greater impact on weather thousands and millions of years ago (contiunuing today) than any human activities could hope to attain. Can our activities affect the weather? Certainly, especially locally.
More realistically, if the war cost half as much, and the cost was spread out over 10 years over all oil products, the added cost would be well within normal price fluctuations, Even with your 'cost of pollution' fantasy construct.