The reason it is called ISS is because it an International Space Station & not just to avoid offending... In the same narrow minded vein you display I point out that ISS's heart is russian, so I fail to see an American Space station.
The fact is, after having wasted billions & failing to produce flying hardware, Nasa went hat in hand to the rest of the world to help them define a space station & exit the design/redesign/redesign/redesign/redesign/... infinite loop they had fallen into. It's THAT political bullshit that has cost the US trillions & decades. It's a major part of why Nasa should no longer be developing their own launch hardware. Redesigning for the sake of redesigning is for haute couture, not for flying hardware. Move Nasa out of the way & let the US commercial space launchers find ways to bring the kg/$ to orbit down. That way what is left of Nasa's knowhow of how to get the most science out of the smallest budget (aka the people working on payloads) will be free to flower once again.
How is the coming hiatus any different that that between the end of Saturn V & the first Shuttle or for that matter the multi-year launch stoppage after Columbia? Why MUST it be a NASA developped rocket? Is it because parts NASA have turned into the aerospace work assurance administration?
I'm a manned space exploration fan but I have come to the conclusion that it would be better off for Manned space explorattion were Nasa to get out of the development of it's own launchers & buy from SpaceX or whoever else develops a reliable launcher without falling into the trap of growing a self justifying administration.
A) True, waiting to see how it will turn out as well. Maybe McKinnon & the lulzsec guy will share the plane ride or maybe Obama wants McKinnon to fade away. Extraditing the lulzsec guy without getting closure on McKinnon is almost certainly not going to happen so we may learn fairly quickly. B) Much ls to be said for being tried in the country where the crime has taken place rather than where the person was when it was comitted. If the UK decides on the second point predominating they will be surrendering all soveriegnty in future case where the UK is affected over the internet from countries with less stringent laws (like say the rest of europe who already look askance at the super injunctions "protecting" UK football stars & politicians from the press). C) Aspergers was immediately seized upon by McKinnon's lawyers as soon as it was suspected as a lifeline to avoid extradition. McKinnon has lost every public appeal he has made so far
So, have you stopped beating your Wife?
If you failed to recognize ther reference, a common social engineering trick is to accuse your adversary of something heinous in order to side-track him into defending against the unproven allegation instead of the main point. McKinnon's less intelligent defenders use this technique when they accuse the US of wanting to toss Mckinnon into "the worst prison system on the planet".
Having lived in both the US & Europe, I'd rather be incarcerated in one of the country club prisons McKinnon will be spending time in rather than the prisons at 400% of capacity thet is the norm in much of Europe. As for prisons in the thirld world, if you think that prison in the US is bad you clearly have no idea how badly prisoners are treated elsewhere.
McKinnon's lawyers tried everything they could including insanity (Good for them, that is their role). Every public recourse against extradition was rejected. As evidenced by the man who stole $1 to attempt to be treated in jail, the health care is also much better than you attempt to portray it, especially for someone like futre inmate Mkkinnon.
As noted elsewhere in the thread, Aspergers may reinforce the tendancy for those affected to try to impose a fantasy world upon RL. It still doesn't equate to a get out of jail free card.
Gary McKinnon based much of his appeal to be exempted from extradition to the US on Aspergers & failed. Aspergers makes people mal-adapted to much of society but does not affect their comprehension of right/wrong & so is irrelevant.
If you're getting your news filtered through the brain of a journalist just pulled off stories of cats in trees to report on Fukashima you suffer from their inability to understand the technologies involved. The first lines of your link are: "The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government.". The "outer containment vessel" the "journalist" referred to is part of the pressure vessel. The fuel is still in the pressure vessels so there have been melt-downs but no melt-throughs.
mdsolar has a history of posting articles on nuclear power filled with ignorant FUD. Why should Lunix pointing this out be a problem for you?
You are "afraid of an industry that fights every safety requirement". I've watched the US nuclear industry smother under the anti-nuke crowds avowed tactic of death by a thousand cuts. They discovered early on that by pushing as every safety regulation they could imagine onto the pile that they could block the creation of newer, safer plants. It's not a question of safety, it's a question of principle & they're using safety as a smokescreen much like the censorship crowd uses child porn to push their agenda.
There were no melt throughs at Fukashima, there were melt downs of the core but these all were contained. See the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log.
<sarcasm> Of course If it happened in 1927 there is no way of avoiding it close to a century later as there's no way anyone could have learned any lessons. No, if there is ANY chance of the worst occurring, IT WILL HAPPEN!!! </sarcasm>
I've been dunked in Hudson, Niagra, St Laurent, Mississippi, Ohio, Thames & Seine without a problem but I've seen also seen people develop nasty skin rashes after swimming in waters that were nominally safe.
Now look behind that curtain over there Dorothy...
The point you keep missing it that the source of many of the doomsday predictions for +5 degrees by 2100 were taken from models using data that biased the data using a start date in the LIA. If the models were as reliable as you claim, picking random start dates wouldn't matter as the predictions would converge but as I said in my initial post, they do not.
The climate models I've seen lose contact with what historical data is available before 1800 & are so-far unable to account for the LIA.
Zurich, Geneva, Toronto, Chicago or even Detroit don't make the cut as they are either directly on a lake or the river is directly fed from one. In Zurich's case it's called "Lake Zurich". Find a major city on a river that suffered heavy industrial polution during the early 20th century that has brought the river back to a consistently safe to swim state. There may be a few exceptions but either their rivers were never heavily polluted or they've done a herculean task over decades.
Even though the first world has cleaned up immensely over the past 50-70 years I have major doubts of there being a safely swimmable river flowing through ANY major city, first world or not. Being on the shore of a major lake or by the ocean doesn't count and cleanup takes multiple decades before levels of toxic chemicals fall enough to become safe again. Even with advanced sewage treatment all it takes is a rainstorm for the coastal waters to be off limits for a week or so.
I think you need to suffer the consequences of drinking the diluted shit of a few million people a few times before hopping on your high horse.
It's a render of historical data up to the presnent & not a graph from a model that they used to predict from historical data to the future. Models that attempt to predict future temps will only be credible when they can also reliably predict back into the past using a subset of the more recent data.
Regardless of that if there is a physical basis to the study rather than just statistical modeling they should converge on reality.
Except that by choosing a start date smack dab in the middle of the LIA had the effect of doubling the temperature rise. Had the rise been sensibly the same with a start date 50 years later we would have seen convergence but this was not the case. We're back to where I came in: It was a clear example of data manipulation.
It is globally admitted that China spies on the west in order to help their home grown industries. Huawei has been determined to be the beneficiary of spying by the Chines Govt dozens of times by western governments & corporations. Huawei & the Chinese Govt brush the claims off as false but you don't need to convict them in a court to see governments informally outlawing the use of Huawei on any secure networks. The pattern is quite clear & is a major factor in why no RFP that I have ever seen has ever accepted Huawei on any potentially sensitive networks. Governments in western Europe do not ban for no cause & corporations have taken note of the bans & now commonly refuse Huawei on their own nets for similar reasons.
China & Huawei can wail & gnash their teeth all they want but they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar far to often for their declarations of innocence to be taken seriously anymore. China has thrown it's weight around enough (See their use of Rare-Earths to Japan) to dissuade anyone from publicly publishing their proof but just as China is standing behind the curtain claiming "You can't prove it" the west now generally says "we don't have to".
Oh, get over your wounded pride for having been caught in a hypocritical error will you? The chosen start date for almost every long term climate study is smack dab in the middle of the LIA so your statement is provably false. These start dates were chosen in part due to it being when reliable temperature measurements became widespread but it's also because it makes global warming spike upwards much more than it would otherwise. Original studies using the LIA as a start date predicts +5 degrees by 2100. The same studies using just the post LIA data & the same methodology predicted less than 2 degrees. Finding the start dates for long term studies isn't hard & I'm not your wonkie. Go look them up yourself..
Using just the recent data from 1960 is also a bad idea. First off, it doesn't give enough data points. You also need to prove that your model can correctly work back from the present & reliably model the past before you can seriously pretend to have any confidence in how well it predicts the future. Finding a model that correctly "predicts" the LIA without outside manipulation has not happened to my knowledge so there is little confidence that current models will be able to predict a new one.
Really? Cherry picking your start date is a sign that the data is being manipulated? How interesting that Global Warming almost always uses the Little Ice Age in the 1700s as it's starting point. The global warming trend is still there but is much less dramatic if the start date is 1850...
It doesn't take a nuclear engineering degree, you needed only to read any of the hundreds of serious reports or even the comments here on the fukashima incident here on/. to learn that power is needed for months to continue cooling the by-products of the initial power-producing fission in a reactor after it has been shut-down. Without the cooling, the waste heat is sufficient to boil off the water, then melt the fuel assemblies. If the fuel then falls to the bottom of the reactor in it can restart criticality. Instead of presenting yourself like you were an authority saying "i've been saying this from day-1" and embarrassing yourself, you'd have been better off lurking & learning.
Go here to get the IAEA's reports on the state of Fukashima. It used to be updated daily and you can see what state the cores were in at the time. Core damage was revealed early & updated as the state of the reactors became better known.
One point you can bank on: At no point did the fuel melt through the primary containment. The damage to the core assemblies means that the fuel rods overheated to the point where the pellets have certainly fallen to the bottom of the reactor, but that also means that they fell back into the water and were cooled. The continual injection of water has prevented the pellets from overheating once again and the addition of boron to the water has prevented a restart of criticality in the pellets.
If the fuel had melted through the primary containment, there would have been many more isotopes detectable than the Iodine & Cesium found in and around the secondary containment than has been found up to date. There is certainly some damage to the bottom of the reactor vessel but to find out how much will take access to it. That won't happen until they are able to evacuate the contaminated water in the basements, reestablish a closed cooling loop & decontaminate the buildings enough to send in video cameras. A reasonable timescale for answers seems to be 1-2 years.
Trolls use statements like "Why do you beat your wife?" because it inevitably tars the target as a wife-beater. You said: "That's a really bad excuse for removing a port that people were buying extremely expensive hardware to use." Said port is present on all new macs other than the airs. Only hairy little trolls say that Apple needs any excuse removing a port which they have not. Billy Goat Gruff has been notified.
Slashdot Mirror
You are clearly confused. It is precisely the people who are the most religious who rewrite the Bible -- Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, etc.
The reason it is called ISS is because it an International Space Station & not just to avoid offending... In the same narrow minded vein you display I point out that ISS's heart is russian, so I fail to see an American Space station.
The fact is, after having wasted billions & failing to produce flying hardware, Nasa went hat in hand to the rest of the world to help them define a space station & exit the design/redesign/redesign/redesign/redesign/... infinite loop they had fallen into. It's THAT political bullshit that has cost the US trillions & decades. It's a major part of why Nasa should no longer be developing their own launch hardware. Redesigning for the sake of redesigning is for haute couture, not for flying hardware. Move Nasa out of the way & let the US commercial space launchers find ways to bring the kg/$ to orbit down. That way what is left of Nasa's knowhow of how to get the most science out of the smallest budget (aka the people working on payloads) will be free to flower once again.
How is the coming hiatus any different that that between the end of Saturn V & the first Shuttle or for that matter the multi-year launch stoppage after Columbia? Why MUST it be a NASA developped rocket? Is it because parts NASA have turned into the aerospace work assurance administration?
I'm a manned space exploration fan but I have come to the conclusion that it would be better off for Manned space explorattion were Nasa to get out of the development of it's own launchers & buy from SpaceX or whoever else develops a reliable launcher without falling into the trap of growing a self justifying administration.
A) True, waiting to see how it will turn out as well. Maybe McKinnon & the lulzsec guy will share the plane ride or maybe Obama wants McKinnon to fade away. Extraditing the lulzsec guy without getting closure on McKinnon is almost certainly not going to happen so we may learn fairly quickly.
B) Much ls to be said for being tried in the country where the crime has taken place rather than where the person was when it was comitted. If the UK decides on the second point predominating they will be surrendering all soveriegnty in future case where the UK is affected over the internet from countries with less stringent laws (like say the rest of europe who already look askance at the super injunctions "protecting" UK football stars & politicians from the press).
C) Aspergers was immediately seized upon by McKinnon's lawyers as soon as it was suspected as a lifeline to avoid extradition. McKinnon has lost every public appeal he has made so far
So, have you stopped beating your Wife? If you failed to recognize ther reference, a common social engineering trick is to accuse your adversary of something heinous in order to side-track him into defending against the unproven allegation instead of the main point. McKinnon's less intelligent defenders use this technique when they accuse the US of wanting to toss Mckinnon into "the worst prison system on the planet". Having lived in both the US & Europe, I'd rather be incarcerated in one of the country club prisons McKinnon will be spending time in rather than the prisons at 400% of capacity thet is the norm in much of Europe. As for prisons in the thirld world, if you think that prison in the US is bad you clearly have no idea how badly prisoners are treated elsewhere. McKinnon's lawyers tried everything they could including insanity (Good for them, that is their role). Every public recourse against extradition was rejected. As evidenced by the man who stole $1 to attempt to be treated in jail, the health care is also much better than you attempt to portray it, especially for someone like futre inmate Mkkinnon. As noted elsewhere in the thread, Aspergers may reinforce the tendancy for those affected to try to impose a fantasy world upon RL. It still doesn't equate to a get out of jail free card.
As do others who do not have Aspergers. Again, aspergers is not a "get out of jail free" card
I don't give a damn whether or not they snicker. They are still violating my personal sovereignty for no damn good reason.
But your personal sovereignty is sooo small !!!
Gary McKinnon based much of his appeal to be exempted from extradition to the US on Aspergers & failed. Aspergers makes people mal-adapted to much of society but does not affect their comprehension of right/wrong & so is irrelevant.
If you're getting your news filtered through the brain of a journalist just pulled off stories of cats in trees to report on Fukashima you suffer from their inability to understand the technologies involved. The first lines of your link are: "The nuclear fuel in three of the reactors at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant has melted through the base of the pressure vessels and is pooling in the outer containment vessels, according to a report by the Japanese government.". The "outer containment vessel" the "journalist" referred to is part of the pressure vessel. The fuel is still in the pressure vessels so there have been melt-downs but no melt-throughs.
great post!
mdsolar has a history of posting articles on nuclear power filled with ignorant FUD. Why should Lunix pointing this out be a problem for you?
You are "afraid of an industry that fights every safety requirement". I've watched the US nuclear industry smother under the anti-nuke crowds avowed tactic of death by a thousand cuts. They discovered early on that by pushing as every safety regulation they could imagine onto the pile that they could block the creation of newer, safer plants. It's not a question of safety, it's a question of principle & they're using safety as a smokescreen much like the censorship crowd uses child porn to push their agenda.
There were no melt throughs at Fukashima, there were melt downs of the core but these all were contained. See the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log.
<sarcasm>
Of course If it happened in 1927 there is no way of avoiding it close to a century later as there's no way anyone could have learned any lessons. No, if there is ANY chance of the worst occurring, IT WILL HAPPEN!!!
</sarcasm>
I've been dunked in Hudson, Niagra, St Laurent, Mississippi, Ohio, Thames & Seine without a problem but I've seen also seen people develop nasty skin rashes after swimming in waters that were nominally safe.
Now look behind that curtain over there Dorothy...
The point you keep missing it that the source of many of the doomsday predictions for +5 degrees by 2100 were taken from models using data that biased the data using a start date in the LIA. If the models were as reliable as you claim, picking random start dates wouldn't matter as the predictions would converge but as I said in my initial post, they do not.
The climate models I've seen lose contact with what historical data is available before 1800 & are so-far unable to account for the LIA.
Zurich, Geneva, Toronto, Chicago or even Detroit don't make the cut as they are either directly on a lake or the river is directly fed from one. In Zurich's case it's called "Lake Zurich". Find a major city on a river that suffered heavy industrial polution during the early 20th century that has brought the river back to a consistently safe to swim state. There may be a few exceptions but either their rivers were never heavily polluted or they've done a herculean task over decades.
Even though the first world has cleaned up immensely over the past 50-70 years I have major doubts of there being a safely swimmable river flowing through ANY major city, first world or not. Being on the shore of a major lake or by the ocean doesn't count and cleanup takes multiple decades before levels of toxic chemicals fall enough to become safe again. Even with advanced sewage treatment all it takes is a rainstorm for the coastal waters to be off limits for a week or so.
I think you need to suffer the consequences of drinking the diluted shit of a few million people a few times before hopping on your high horse.
It's a render of historical data up to the presnent & not a graph from a model that they used to predict from historical data to the future. Models that attempt to predict future temps will only be credible when they can also reliably predict back into the past using a subset of the more recent data.
Except that by choosing a start date smack dab in the middle of the LIA had the effect of doubling the temperature rise. Had the rise been sensibly the same with a start date 50 years later we would have seen convergence but this was not the case. We're back to where I came in: It was a clear example of data manipulation.
It is globally admitted that China spies on the west in order to help their home grown industries. Huawei has been determined to be the beneficiary of spying by the Chines Govt dozens of times by western governments & corporations. Huawei & the Chinese Govt brush the claims off as false but you don't need to convict them in a court to see governments informally outlawing the use of Huawei on any secure networks. The pattern is quite clear & is a major factor in why no RFP that I have ever seen has ever accepted Huawei on any potentially sensitive networks. Governments in western Europe do not ban for no cause & corporations have taken note of the bans & now commonly refuse Huawei on their own nets for similar reasons.
China & Huawei can wail & gnash their teeth all they want but they've been caught with their hands in the cookie jar far to often for their declarations of innocence to be taken seriously anymore. China has thrown it's weight around enough (See their use of Rare-Earths to Japan) to dissuade anyone from publicly publishing their proof but just as China is standing behind the curtain claiming "You can't prove it" the west now generally says "we don't have to".
Oh, get over your wounded pride for having been caught in a hypocritical error will you? The chosen start date for almost every long term climate study is smack dab in the middle of the LIA so your statement is provably false. These start dates were chosen in part due to it being when reliable temperature measurements became widespread but it's also because it makes global warming spike upwards much more than it would otherwise. Original studies using the LIA as a start date predicts +5 degrees by 2100. The same studies using just the post LIA data & the same methodology predicted less than 2 degrees. Finding the start dates for long term studies isn't hard & I'm not your wonkie. Go look them up yourself..
Using just the recent data from 1960 is also a bad idea. First off, it doesn't give enough data points. You also need to prove that your model can correctly work back from the present & reliably model the past before you can seriously pretend to have any confidence in how well it predicts the future. Finding a model that correctly "predicts" the LIA without outside manipulation has not happened to my knowledge so there is little confidence that current models will be able to predict a new one.
Really? Cherry picking your start date is a sign that the data is being manipulated? How interesting that Global Warming almost always uses the Little Ice Age in the 1700s as it's starting point. The global warming trend is still there but is much less dramatic if the start date is 1850...
It doesn't take a nuclear engineering degree, you needed only to read any of the hundreds of serious reports or even the comments here on the fukashima incident here on /. to learn that power is needed for months to continue cooling the by-products of the initial power-producing fission in a reactor after it has been shut-down. Without the cooling, the waste heat is sufficient to boil off the water, then melt the fuel assemblies. If the fuel then falls to the bottom of the reactor in it can restart criticality. Instead of presenting yourself like you were an authority saying "i've been saying this from day-1" and embarrassing yourself, you'd have been better off lurking & learning.
Go here to get the IAEA's reports on the state of Fukashima. It used to be updated daily and you can see what state the cores were in at the time. Core damage was revealed early & updated as the state of the reactors became better known.
One point you can bank on: At no point did the fuel melt through the primary containment. The damage to the core assemblies means that the fuel rods overheated to the point where the pellets have certainly fallen to the bottom of the reactor, but that also means that they fell back into the water and were cooled. The continual injection of water has prevented the pellets from overheating once again and the addition of boron to the water has prevented a restart of criticality in the pellets.
If the fuel had melted through the primary containment, there would have been many more isotopes detectable than the Iodine & Cesium found in and around the secondary containment than has been found up to date. There is certainly some damage to the bottom of the reactor vessel but to find out how much will take access to it. That won't happen until they are able to evacuate the contaminated water in the basements, reestablish a closed cooling loop & decontaminate the buildings enough to send in video cameras. A reasonable timescale for answers seems to be 1-2 years.
Trolls use statements like "Why do you beat your wife?" because it inevitably tars the target as a wife-beater. You said: "That's a really bad excuse for removing a port that people were buying extremely expensive hardware to use." Said port is present on all new macs other than the airs. Only hairy little trolls say that Apple needs any excuse removing a port which they have not. Billy Goat Gruff has been notified.