The state of Nevada is larger than the entire UK. You can't really grasp what real "empty space" looks like until you drive through the desert out here.
Ronald Reagan's NRC appointees approved zero new reactors. George HW Bush's NRC approved zero. Clinton's NRC approved zero. George W Bush's NRC approved zero new nuclear reactors.
Obama's NRC has approved 4 new reactors. They can't be all that anti-nuclear.
Let's blame the people responsible- Nevada voters. The politicians are just representing their constituents. I supported the Yucca Mountain project before I moved to Nevada and I would be an asshole to change my opinion afterward.
The proposed site is over 100 miles from Vegas in the absolute middle of nowhere. Even if they stored the waste in a big open pit above ground, it still wouldn't affect anyone.
But people here are terrified about transporting the waste along the rail lines through town. There is a freight train that goes literally 100 feet from my office every day with tanker cars full of ammonia and sodium hydroxide. Nobody bats an eye.
I can hold the brakes at a stop and floor the throttle, and cut the back tires loose.
But the car doesn't move, right? And you're using this anecdote to *disagree* with my post?
Let's see what Car and Driver says on the topic-
With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event.....
We included the powerful Roush Mustang to test—in the extreme—the theory that “brakes are stronger than the engine.” From 70 mph, the Roush’s brakes were still resolutely king even though a pinned throttle added 80 feet to its stopping distance. However, from 100 mph, it wasn’t clear from behind the wheel that the Mustang was going to stop. But after 903 feet—almost three times longer than normal—the 540-hp supercharged Roush finally did succumb, chugging to a stop in a puff of brake smoke.
But the car doesn't move, right? And you're using this anecdote to *disagree* with my post?
Let's see what Car and Driver says on the topic-
With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event..... We included the powerful Roush Mustang to test—in the extreme—the theory that “brakes are stronger than the engine.” From 70 mph, the Roush’s brakes were still resolutely king even though a pinned throttle added 80 feet to its stopping distance. However, from 100 mph, it wasn’t clear from behind the wheel that the Mustang was going to stop. But after 903 feet—almost three times longer than normal—the 540-hp supercharged Roush finally did succumb, chugging to a stop in a puff of brake smoke.
or at least allow for an emergency override that interrupts the computer entirely if the main 'stop the car now' brake fails to work properly.
That's called an "emergency brake". We've had them for a while. Even if the computer has completely crashed and the throttle is wide open, that handle can manually closes the brakes and stop the car. Even in a muscle car, the brakes are more powerful than the engine.
The US military has a bomb designed to be used against transformer stations. Instead of explosives, the case is packed with spools of thin strips of aluminum foil.
It makes it look like the place was vandalized by teenagers, using foil instead of toilet paper.
To your specific point, we even have several historical examples in the ice records of (geologically) sudden 'pulses' in CO2 and temperature to levels comparable or exceeding today.* In every case the system has then returned to an equilibrium....DOZENS of times over the past couple of million years. The feedback loops you talk about are real; the cataclysmic FUD you're talking about negative feedback is, quite evidently, not.
The Earth will definitely return to equilibrium and the biosphere will certainly continue to exist.
The piece you're missing is that I'm a human. I care about human stuff that happens on human time scales.
"So maybe the global economy collapses and a couple billion people starve to death, but just give it 10,000 years and things will straighten themselves right out."
"Even in the more likely event that aerobic microbes devour the methane while still in the ocean, it is converted to carbon dioxide, which leads to ocean acidification."
Nature usually creates negative feedback loops that contribute to equilibrium. The textbook one is if there is population growth in a prey species, the population of predators will increase to check that growth.
In this case we have a positive feedback loop. Increases in temperature will cause more methane hydrate to melt, which causes an increase in temperature.
This is a very not good situation that does not have easy solutions.
Phone batteries for $10? Not likely a genuine retail OEM battery...they'll probably come in some rip off packaging with a clone board (this is a giant red flag...if they don't come in retail looking packaging from your phone's manufacturer, it's a scam
I was talking about phone batteries. Obviously laptop batteries are different.
Calling knock off phone batteries a "scam" is a huge stretch. I've bought probably 8 pairs of knock off batteries from Amazon over the past 5 years. 1 of those sets was garbage. 2 were mediocre, probably 60%-80% capacity of the OEM version. And 5 were perfectly fine, at least 80% of the capacity of the original. Considering that they cost about a fifth of the price of the originals, I am happy to accept that.
It's pretty much a crap shoot. The Amazon reviews are always mixed, but look for the most 5s and the least 1s.
I've purchased a bunch of packages of two batteries and a travel charger for $10-$20. A few of them have been garbage, but compared to $40 each for an OEM battery, it's worth throwing a few away.
I recently got Caseology batteries for my Galaxy S5 and they're fantastic.
Spirit Airlines was the most profitable US airline (per flight) in 2013. They also had 30% more customer complaints than any other airline.
Most of the other comments are screaming about monopolies, but the airline industry is pretty competitive. American consumers really just don't care about customer service.
Low test scores correlate with low income. Low income correlates with not affording premium services.
Beyond that, ISPs won't even offer high speed services in places with low population densities and low incomes- the kind of states that have low ACT scores.
Yes, there lot of complex large-scale issues involving in the middle class these days. I'm not disagreeing with any of that.
I'm just talking about the article that was posted.
US manufacturing jobs moved overseas in droves in the 80s and 90s. That trend was pointed to, quite correctly, as having a huge negative impact on the middle class. Due to macroeconomic changes, those jobs are starting to come back to the US. People who had no income yesterday, now have some income today. They are now spending money and participating in the economy. That is a good thing.
I wish that minimum wage was $25 and everyone was in a union, and all the good liberal stuff. But the fact is that the higher the total cost of US employees to employers, the more attractive foreign labor is. That's not a political opinion. That's an economic fact.
Slashdot Mirror
The state of Nevada is larger than the entire UK. You can't really grasp what real "empty space" looks like until you drive through the desert out here.
Ronald Reagan's NRC appointees approved zero new reactors. George HW Bush's NRC approved zero. Clinton's NRC approved zero. George W Bush's NRC approved zero new nuclear reactors.
Obama's NRC has approved 4 new reactors. They can't be all that anti-nuclear.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/first-new-nuclear-reactor-in-us-since-1978-approved/
That stopped being true in 2012.
Thanks, Obama.
Let's blame the people responsible- Nevada voters. The politicians are just representing their constituents. I supported the Yucca Mountain project before I moved to Nevada and I would be an asshole to change my opinion afterward.
The proposed site is over 100 miles from Vegas in the absolute middle of nowhere. Even if they stored the waste in a big open pit above ground, it still wouldn't affect anyone.
But people here are terrified about transporting the waste along the rail lines through town. There is a freight train that goes literally 100 feet from my office every day with tanker cars full of ammonia and sodium hydroxide. Nobody bats an eye.
The root post was about criminal charges.
I'm sure a civil case is in the works. I don't envy any of the lawyers involved. It will be a tough case.
The first part is arrogance. The second part is pragmatic humility.
Nobody is directly profiting from these actions. I think proving a fraud charge would be pretty tough.
And it's not theft of services because they're not actually getting any service.
And as much as we wish it was, "being a dick" is not illegal.
It's nice to see that somebody gets it.
Screwed up my first reply.
I can hold the brakes at a stop and floor the throttle, and cut the back tires loose.
But the car doesn't move, right? And you're using this anecdote to *disagree* with my post?
Let's see what Car and Driver says on the topic-
With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event. ....
We included the powerful Roush Mustang to test—in the extreme—the theory that “brakes are stronger than the engine.” From 70 mph, the Roush’s brakes were still resolutely king even though a pinned throttle added 80 feet to its stopping distance. However, from 100 mph, it wasn’t clear from behind the wheel that the Mustang was going to stop. But after 903 feet—almost three times longer than normal—the 540-hp supercharged Roush finally did succumb, chugging to a stop in a puff of brake smoke.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration
But the car doesn't move, right? And you're using this anecdote to *disagree* with my post?
Let's see what Car and Driver says on the topic-
With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event. ....
We included the powerful Roush Mustang to test—in the extreme—the theory that “brakes are stronger than the engine.” From 70 mph, the Roush’s brakes were still resolutely king even though a pinned throttle added 80 feet to its stopping distance. However, from 100 mph, it wasn’t clear from behind the wheel that the Mustang was going to stop. But after 903 feet—almost three times longer than normal—the 540-hp supercharged Roush finally did succumb, chugging to a stop in a puff of brake smoke.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration
or at least allow for an emergency override that interrupts the computer entirely if the main 'stop the car now' brake fails to work properly.
That's called an "emergency brake". We've had them for a while. Even if the computer has completely crashed and the throttle is wide open, that handle can manually closes the brakes and stop the car. Even in a muscle car, the brakes are more powerful than the engine.
The US military has a bomb designed to be used against transformer stations. Instead of explosives, the case is packed with spools of thin strips of aluminum foil.
It makes it look like the place was vandalized by teenagers, using foil instead of toilet paper.
To your specific point, we even have several historical examples in the ice records of (geologically) sudden 'pulses' in CO2 and temperature to levels comparable or exceeding today.* In every case the system has then returned to an equilibrium....DOZENS of times over the past couple of million years. The feedback loops you talk about are real; the cataclysmic FUD you're talking about negative feedback is, quite evidently, not.
The Earth will definitely return to equilibrium and the biosphere will certainly continue to exist.
The piece you're missing is that I'm a human. I care about human stuff that happens on human time scales.
"So maybe the global economy collapses and a couple billion people starve to death, but just give it 10,000 years and things will straighten themselves right out."
As the other reply points out- there are negative influences that do check the process and prevent the Earth from becoming Venus.
Unfortunately for us, they take hundreds of thousands of years to happen.
OK. I was focusing on human-scale time periods. Geological-scale is indeed different.
From TFA-
"Even in the more likely event that aerobic microbes devour the methane while still in the ocean, it is converted to carbon dioxide, which leads to ocean acidification."
Nature usually creates negative feedback loops that contribute to equilibrium. The textbook one is if there is population growth in a prey species, the population of predators will increase to check that growth.
In this case we have a positive feedback loop. Increases in temperature will cause more methane hydrate to melt, which causes an increase in temperature.
This is a very not good situation that does not have easy solutions.
Phone batteries for $10? Not likely a genuine retail OEM battery...they'll probably come in some rip off packaging with a clone board (this is a giant red flag...if they don't come in retail looking packaging from your phone's manufacturer, it's a scam
I was talking about phone batteries. Obviously laptop batteries are different.
Calling knock off phone batteries a "scam" is a huge stretch. I've bought probably 8 pairs of knock off batteries from Amazon over the past 5 years. 1 of those sets was garbage. 2 were mediocre, probably 60%-80% capacity of the OEM version. And 5 were perfectly fine, at least 80% of the capacity of the original. Considering that they cost about a fifth of the price of the originals, I am happy to accept that.
How much does that cost? Considering a new one is often $10, that cannot be cost effective.
It's pretty much a crap shoot. The Amazon reviews are always mixed, but look for the most 5s and the least 1s.
I've purchased a bunch of packages of two batteries and a travel charger for $10-$20. A few of them have been garbage, but compared to $40 each for an OEM battery, it's worth throwing a few away.
I recently got Caseology batteries for my Galaxy S5 and they're fantastic.
Yes. And customers say they hate that, but continue buying tickets in droves.
Spirit Airlines was the most profitable US airline (per flight) in 2013. They also had 30% more customer complaints than any other airline.
Most of the other comments are screaming about monopolies, but the airline industry is pretty competitive. American consumers really just don't care about customer service.
For the best results, homeschool.
If you think that having an 18 year old who reads very well and has never been on a date is "the best results", then sure.
School is about more than books and tests.
Low test scores correlate with low income. Low income correlates with not affording premium services.
Beyond that, ISPs won't even offer high speed services in places with low population densities and low incomes- the kind of states that have low ACT scores.
This study and this article are utterly stupid.
Yes, there lot of complex large-scale issues involving in the middle class these days. I'm not disagreeing with any of that.
I'm just talking about the article that was posted.
US manufacturing jobs moved overseas in droves in the 80s and 90s. That trend was pointed to, quite correctly, as having a huge negative impact on the middle class. Due to macroeconomic changes, those jobs are starting to come back to the US. People who had no income yesterday, now have some income today. They are now spending money and participating in the economy. That is a good thing.
I wish that minimum wage was $25 and everyone was in a union, and all the good liberal stuff. But the fact is that the higher the total cost of US employees to employers, the more attractive foreign labor is. That's not a political opinion. That's an economic fact.