This strategy won't really work here, the links are all tagged with rel="nofollow", so they don't carry any Google juice and moderation will prevent the great majority of users from even seeing your spam.
Yes, the context of that particular part of the discussion is where the other poster said "but there's fundamentally no defense against having about the mass of the Great Lakes flung into your face at ~150km/h.".
In other words, he seems to think that no defense would have been sufficient, in which case building a nuclear power station is a bit mad.
Yeah, I think people understand that they need water. My point was more that losing control of a nuclear plant often has an outcome that people find unacceptable and you said, hey, when a tsunami hits, what do you expect, that they will maintain control?
(Even many of the more cavalier proponents of nuclear power would probably give you a funny look if you explained that you weren't planning for such and such natural events that were likely.)
Should be careful comparing the design limits of the plant to the quake, it is the ground acceleration at the plant location that is interesting, not the total amount of energy released during the quake (and I haven't really seen anything other than flimsy estimates of what the ground acceleration was at the plant).
And if your position is "We cannot defend against a tsunami", how do you integrate that into your decision to build the plant at that location in the first place?
Microsoft is flush, so it isn't that risky a move. The biggest risk is pissing off already pissed off investors, but given the irrationality of internet stock analysis, this will surely be seen as a positive worth far more than $8.5 billion in market cap (I can't decide if that last bit is sarcastic or not).
I think it probably means that an investor's risk is limited to their investment.
The notion that this has zero impact on how corporations end up being run is hilarious, and seems to be shared by you and a poster above. Of course, there is also the problem where corporations that misbehave are frequently allowed to continue to exist.
It was still operating because the Japanese government was allowing it. The only way a power company would turn off a plant with such high sunk costs is if they were legally required to (the idea that Reactor I was scheduled for decommissioning is oft repeated, but the reality is that a 10 year license extension had just been granted and they were going to keep running it, perhaps not all the time, but they weren't going to follow the original schedule for decommissioning).
The day/night problem with solar doesn't matter, it is all the economic cost and EROI. If those are low enough, people will just install big lead acid battery arrays and thermal mass.
Sure, the length of day feeds right into the EROI and economics of solar, but if I can satisfy both of those with my air conditioning in July, guess what?
Right, because prior to digital media there was a rich tradition of giving copies of books to people (and if we are reading as aggressively as you want to, the 'lend' in the next bit takes care of the fact that libraries generally lend out books for free).
Their cost of revenues is about $0.70 on the dollar, and they have further expenses of about $0.15 on the dollar. Any talk about their profits or income taxes causing high gas prices ignores the fact that those things are only potentially 20% of the total wholesale price of oil/gas.
(A company like Southwest Airlines is a huge oil speculator, they spend money today to make sure that a certain amount of their future supply is available at a predictable price. Is the benefit Southwest gets from that activity really such an evil thing?)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, I'm not railing against the safety of nuclear power, I'm pointing out the insanity of his position.
This strategy won't really work here, the links are all tagged with rel="nofollow", so they don't carry any Google juice and moderation will prevent the great majority of users from even seeing your spam.
Yes, the context of that particular part of the discussion is where the other poster said "but there's fundamentally no defense against having about the mass of the Great Lakes flung into your face at ~150km/h.".
In other words, he seems to think that no defense would have been sufficient, in which case building a nuclear power station is a bit mad.
Yeah, I think people understand that they need water. My point was more that losing control of a nuclear plant often has an outcome that people find unacceptable and you said, hey, when a tsunami hits, what do you expect, that they will maintain control?
(Even many of the more cavalier proponents of nuclear power would probably give you a funny look if you explained that you weren't planning for such and such natural events that were likely.)
You spotted a joke!
Good for you.
Should be careful comparing the design limits of the plant to the quake, it is the ground acceleration at the plant location that is interesting, not the total amount of energy released during the quake (and I haven't really seen anything other than flimsy estimates of what the ground acceleration was at the plant).
And if your position is "We cannot defend against a tsunami", how do you integrate that into your decision to build the plant at that location in the first place?
If they massively undercut paper book prices, paper books won't be covering the production costs for very long.
Blah blah blah, the U.S. still has a bigger production economy than China, we just don't make as many doohickies and socks here.
And I haven't checked that latest numbers, but it wasn't real long ago that Germany had a bigger export economy than China.
So sure, the worlds most populous country is moving away from being a backwater, but things haven't exactly tipped yet.
7-zip will join split files. I think WinRar does too (I don't mean multi-part Rar files, I mean uncompressed chunks).
So the problem is more that people who have never thought about it think that Rar is the way to do it.
Yeah, sure, the people inside the Comcast-NBC monster never use such phrases to describe what they think they are doing.
You aren't doing a stellar job of reading either, I was not the AC that initially posted.
For some reason, there is a widespread tendency to see the name as a goal or mission and not as part of a branding strategy.
Microsoft is flush, so it isn't that risky a move. The biggest risk is pissing off already pissed off investors, but given the irrationality of internet stock analysis, this will surely be seen as a positive worth far more than $8.5 billion in market cap (I can't decide if that last bit is sarcastic or not).
I think it probably means that an investor's risk is limited to their investment.
The notion that this has zero impact on how corporations end up being run is hilarious, and seems to be shared by you and a poster above. Of course, there is also the problem where corporations that misbehave are frequently allowed to continue to exist.
Not really that odd, the limited liability granted to corporations is a pretty powerful form of regulation.
How do you get "nature done it" from "improper disposal"?
Really quite curious.
It was still operating because the Japanese government was allowing it. The only way a power company would turn off a plant with such high sunk costs is if they were legally required to (the idea that Reactor I was scheduled for decommissioning is oft repeated, but the reality is that a 10 year license extension had just been granted and they were going to keep running it, perhaps not all the time, but they weren't going to follow the original schedule for decommissioning).
The day/night problem with solar doesn't matter, it is all the economic cost and EROI. If those are low enough, people will just install big lead acid battery arrays and thermal mass.
Sure, the length of day feeds right into the EROI and economics of solar, but if I can satisfy both of those with my air conditioning in July, guess what?
Right, because prior to digital media there was a rich tradition of giving copies of books to people (and if we are reading as aggressively as you want to, the 'lend' in the next bit takes care of the fact that libraries generally lend out books for free).
Their cost of revenues is about $0.70 on the dollar, and they have further expenses of about $0.15 on the dollar. Any talk about their profits or income taxes causing high gas prices ignores the fact that those things are only potentially 20% of the total wholesale price of oil/gas.
Any language with objects and names (instead of variables and memory) behaves that way.
So what's the difference?
I read it in a Slashdot comment.
Is your source more reliable than that?
(A company like Southwest Airlines is a huge oil speculator, they spend money today to make sure that a certain amount of their future supply is available at a predictable price. Is the benefit Southwest gets from that activity really such an evil thing?)
Doesn't make a sound? I bet "less noisy" is a much better description of it.
If you are accessing passwords on hardware that you do not trust, you are not being paranoid.