So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one.
No shit. America got a million people killed in Iraq, created millions more refugees, and bombed the country into the stone age.
I'm not going to go though your whole laundry list of junk and complaints. It's clear you are angry about some stuff. Sorry to hear that.
The Iraq situation was a huge mess. Lots of stuff didn't go very well, but that's how war goes. But I will remind you that the USA's goals in Iraq where NOT to cause massive destruction and death but remove a dictator who was choosing to harbor terrorists within Iraq's borders and then set up Iraq to govern itself and leave. That was the stated goal, and in the end, that's what happened. So yes, we bombed a country into the stone age, but we then paid to put it back together best we could in the time we had and set up Iraq for self rule. They are now independent of the USA. So, the road between the start and the end may have been bumpy and a lot of wrong turns made, but the stated destination has been more or less reached.
If you want to be angry about what happened on the trip, OK, mistakes where made, but remember that in the end the destination was reached.
You can look at the elections in Iraq, but look closely. There where three elections with three distinct purposes. All of the elections where conducted by Iraqi nationals with varying amounts of security provided by US forces which decreased over time. You may not agree, but a case can be made that says the the Americans purposely decided to not force Iraq into what we wanted, but choose to let the people of the country decide though elections. After all, that was the STATED goal here. To take Iraq out from under a dictator who was harboring terrorists and give it back to the people. Which is what generally happened.
Just because the US could have had any result they wanted by forcing it, does not mean they did. And the fact that when we where eventually asked to leave, we did, tells me that the goal wasn't to control Iraq or it's oil.
And the rhetoric that says USA just as bad as Russia to me is mostly fiction.
I'm not saying that the USA doesn't act in it's own self interest, of course it does, but I am saying that our history is clear, we don't take over places for strategic or tactical advantage. Look at Russian history since WW2. What was the difference between the western and eastern parts of Europe? Why on earth was the Berlin wall built and what caused it to stay up so long?
Putin's (and by extension Russian) actions in Ukraine, viewed though the light of history, should give pause. Has Russia changed since WW2? Since the Berlin wall came down? I sure hope so, but I watched the Olympics Opening and closing ceremonies and the Russian view of history was not lost on me, nor was the huge difference between Russian and American views of many things in the past.
But if you cut to the chase on Crimea, what's the USA going to do? In reality? Nothing outward, some symbolic acts, some covert, but mostly just talk. This NASA boycott is just symbolic. But I believe that we (the USA) have the moral right, if not the obligation by treaty to protest this action.
If we control Iraq, why did they abruptly kick us out? We didn't leave so much as an air base there but pulled totally out. The Iraq government is *anything* but puppets controlled by the USA.
Iraq is just an example of the USA's method of operation. We've invaded a LOT of places, to be sure, but for the last century or more we have not stayed in control of any other sovereign country, even though we would have been historically entitled to do so. Japan is not a puppet of the USA, neither is South Korea, Granada, or Panama. Most of Europe was taken from the Germans but returned, even to the Germans and apart from a few acres to bury our dead has ALL been returned.
By your theory, we have puppet governments in all these places? I don't think so, not because we couldn't have done what you say, but because we choose to NOT do what you claim.
I'm 33 years old, democrat, dutch guy who used to believe we needed to look to our big brother country America but these days i'm feeling more and more that Russia the imo very sexy Putin are maybe another way of doing things...
Oh how far have we come in this world when we start looking at the public persona and rhetoric over substance and what's right. Just remember why you supported Putin should he decide to continue invading countries for what ever reason Putin thinks is justified or can trump up.
Seems there are parallels in history for this kind of behavior and the end of being tolerant of such aggressive acts by nations have been grave. WWI and WWII both come to mind. I'm not making any predictions of WWIII, I'm just saying that there are parallels and we need to be mindful of history, lest we repeat some really bad mistakes.
Yes Mr. Putin.. I understand your rhetoric on this.
But, it looks bad when you invade a sovereign country, break it up into pieces and then annex parts of it because you can. Even the USA doesn't do that...
Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.
This is very much a matter of opinion. US had left when people in Iraq had elected government US wanted.
IMHO the government of Iraq was NOT decided by the USA, but elected by the people of Iraq. The process of putting Iraq back together was set from the start and although the USA enforced the process (Temporary government appointed, elections held for constitution writers, Constitution written by elected representatives, Approved by vote, first government under constitution elections held, Elected government functions from there) we certainly did not control the elections or their outcomes. The only real control the US had was the appointment of the interim initial government, after that it was up to the people of Iraq to elect who they wanted.
If you want to claim we stacked the deck to get the government we wanted, I guess you can. I'm not convinced you are right and it's going to take some evidence to change my mind. Right now, the simple fact that they tossed us out, completely out, and we have zero military in their country beyond what's there to protect the embassy pretty much proves what you claim is not true. The USA would have LOVED to have an airbase in IRAQ to help keep Iran in check and give us another toehold deep in the middle east. But they tossed us, and because they are a sovereign country, we left.
Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?
No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory. So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one. They split up a sovereign country, then annexed parts of it after invading it. Seems clear to me that Iraq remains it's own entity, despite the US winning decisive military actions in Iraq TWICE. Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to the people we took it from. Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.
Now if the USA was out capturing territory and then annexing it into the US you could make the comparison. But we don't do that, and haven't acted like an imperial power, increasing our borders though military force, for a LONG time.
The owner of Vermont Yankee is Entergy Corp. and they are HUGE.
Looking at their most recent annual report filed in February of 2014. This company made about a billion dollars in profit last year. They might not like having to pony up another 500-600 Million dollars over the next 5 years, but it's not like they couldn't. It would barely be a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things for them. It's obvious they will easily pay for this and the government won't have to take over.
OK, but you understand that all the financial arrangements for the decommissioning of this plant where made starting nearly 50 years ago based on the assumptions of the day. Plus they managed to come up with 1/2 to 2/3 of what they need despite the regulatory changes and wholesale electricity. Finally, owner's of Vermont Yankee can afford to cough up the costs if they get amortized over a few years. They had a billion dollars in just profit in 2013. They won't like coming up with the money, but they can without taking too much of a stock price hit.
... because they fail to count half the costs when they do their calculations.
And changing government regulations over the last 40 years of operation hasn't *ever* been a cost driver.
You can only calculate costs into the future 50 years when you know all the variables that drive cost. In this case, they didn't do too bad considering that most of the initial calculations would have been done in the 60's, there has been significant regulatory changes since then and they have nearly 2/3rds of what they need. 600 Million is chump change when we are dropping $1 Trillion/year onto our debt at the federal level.
You do realize that the "managers who make the decisions" are likely all retired and many are dead by now right? This plant was commissioned in 1972, 44 years ago which means that the decision to build was made over 50 years ago now. If the average age of this management team was 40 years old, that puts the average age now at 90 years, which means a good portion of that group are likely dead. I don't know how you suggest we "hold them responsible" for this.
What needs to happen is what will likely happen. The owners of this plant will likely go though bankruptcy and get liquidated (worst case). Their creditors (including the decommissioning fund) will get what they can and the stockholders will loose their investment. The government will make up the difference and all of us will pay, at least in some way.
But the legal effort to resist the state's efforts cost the utility money as did the public relation campaign.
The real reason here is that electricity rates have dropped do to Natural Gas production and operating/decommissioning costs have risen since the plant was commissioned due to changing regulations. All this as conspired to give us the problem we now have and like it or not, pretty much everybody will be paying for this in some way.
This issue demonstrates that arguments about the low lifetime cost and impacts of nuclear power tend to externalize significant costs. Decommissioning can be added to waste handling/storage and subsidized insurance.
Partly true, but the real problem is that though out the lifetime of this plant, the expected costs for decommissioning have gone though the roof by a mass of changing rules, laws and policies which have conspired to not only raise the costs but shorten the useful lifespan of the plant. As such, this is not really the operator's fault, but the cold economic facts of changing political climate are really to blame. IMHO...
Only channel 14 and up is restricted by law. And if you are running part 15, I don't think anybody will care unless you are causing harmful interference and refuse to stop. But I think you will find more space in the 5 GHz band if you run a Japan setup.
Chances are, if anybody cares and the FCC happens to drive by due to a complaint. They will either knock on your door, send you a letter or both and ask you to quit. They tend to try for voluntary compliance before they bring out the threatening letters and fines unless they figure you are doing it on purpose.
Theoretically, you can get just about any speed down a specific spectrum size you want. All you need to do is keep the SNR high enough and use a multiple bits per encoding. But, there are practical limits, especially in situations where you have power limits and congested bandwidth.
They are adding something like 100Mhz by what I'm reading. I think that, all other things being equal, there will be zero increase in maximum speed. You might see a decreased congestion issue and raise average throughput, but the flood of new devices will all but soak up any spectrum gains we might see. Not that this isn't a step in the right direction...
If you haven't noticed yet, the "heart shape" isn't really shaped like a real heart at all.
There are plenty of theories about how it came to be. Many of the leading theories are
that it may be originally based on a different organ entirely.
Different cultures do have alternate ideas about the seat of emotion and have ascribed this function to various parts of the body.
The Democrats wants us making plenty of money. But they want a big cut before we get to take the rest home.
I'd only add one thing to that... Even if they don't take everything now, they eventually will. Why do I say that? Because they never say no to spending on social programs and as a wise man once said.. "The poor will always be with you.. "
This is why it's always ultimately best to work in government. The pay isn't high, but the work environment is ideal.
Huh? My first job as a college graduate engineer was with the DOD as a civilian. The pay is OK, but not great as you suggest. But I can tell you that the work environment is NOT ideal, even in the best of circumstances. I had great people to work for and with. They where among the best I've had in my 25-30 years so far. But, it is maddeningly frustrating to work for the government, if you care even a small amount about doing the job efficiently the right way. Maybe I'm just too frugal, but I found the wholesale waste that happened due to all the rules and laws to be frustrating to watch. Things such as spending $250K to get a $750K worth of equipment purchased, or throwing away 90% of a certain kind of part because they where so poor in quality that we had to test and select parts that met specs to repair equipment. Then we'd end up having to re-repair things because these junk parts drifted out of tolerance quickly.
If you have the right mindset, I suppose government work is fine. But if you try to care, or actually do the right thing by your customers in the most efficient way possible, it's an exercise in frustration.
Oh stop it... Stop talking technical details and let the poorly educated folk have their dreams...
Quite right you are. The advances may lead to cheaper, lighter and better devices, but I'm pretty sure you are correct. We are just not going to get something in a contact lenses that will let us see IR.
I get the GPL issue. If they took GPL code and modified it for their own use, they may be required to provide source, but what I don't get is the data. How are they justifying asking for that? Most "data" of that type that I'm aware of is licensed under the Creative Commons license (or similar).
For mapping applications, the *real* value is in the data. Where much of the data is freely available in raw form, there is significant effort required to process the data available and put it into a format to be doled out to handheld devices in small chunks. I don't see how they can claim that GPL entitles them to the raw data from Waze.
Slashdot Mirror
So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one.
No shit. America got a million people killed in Iraq, created millions more refugees, and bombed the country into the stone age.
I'm not going to go though your whole laundry list of junk and complaints. It's clear you are angry about some stuff. Sorry to hear that.
The Iraq situation was a huge mess. Lots of stuff didn't go very well, but that's how war goes. But I will remind you that the USA's goals in Iraq where NOT to cause massive destruction and death but remove a dictator who was choosing to harbor terrorists within Iraq's borders and then set up Iraq to govern itself and leave. That was the stated goal, and in the end, that's what happened. So yes, we bombed a country into the stone age, but we then paid to put it back together best we could in the time we had and set up Iraq for self rule. They are now independent of the USA. So, the road between the start and the end may have been bumpy and a lot of wrong turns made, but the stated destination has been more or less reached.
If you want to be angry about what happened on the trip, OK, mistakes where made, but remember that in the end the destination was reached.
You can look at the elections in Iraq, but look closely. There where three elections with three distinct purposes. All of the elections where conducted by Iraqi nationals with varying amounts of security provided by US forces which decreased over time. You may not agree, but a case can be made that says the the Americans purposely decided to not force Iraq into what we wanted, but choose to let the people of the country decide though elections. After all, that was the STATED goal here. To take Iraq out from under a dictator who was harboring terrorists and give it back to the people. Which is what generally happened.
Just because the US could have had any result they wanted by forcing it, does not mean they did. And the fact that when we where eventually asked to leave, we did, tells me that the goal wasn't to control Iraq or it's oil.
And the rhetoric that says USA just as bad as Russia to me is mostly fiction.
I'm not saying that the USA doesn't act in it's own self interest, of course it does, but I am saying that our history is clear, we don't take over places for strategic or tactical advantage. Look at Russian history since WW2. What was the difference between the western and eastern parts of Europe? Why on earth was the Berlin wall built and what caused it to stay up so long?
Putin's (and by extension Russian) actions in Ukraine, viewed though the light of history, should give pause. Has Russia changed since WW2? Since the Berlin wall came down? I sure hope so, but I watched the Olympics Opening and closing ceremonies and the Russian view of history was not lost on me, nor was the huge difference between Russian and American views of many things in the past.
But if you cut to the chase on Crimea, what's the USA going to do? In reality? Nothing outward, some symbolic acts, some covert, but mostly just talk. This NASA boycott is just symbolic. But I believe that we (the USA) have the moral right, if not the obligation by treaty to protest this action.
If we control Iraq, why did they abruptly kick us out? We didn't leave so much as an air base there but pulled totally out. The Iraq government is *anything* but puppets controlled by the USA.
Iraq is just an example of the USA's method of operation. We've invaded a LOT of places, to be sure, but for the last century or more we have not stayed in control of any other sovereign country, even though we would have been historically entitled to do so. Japan is not a puppet of the USA, neither is South Korea, Granada, or Panama. Most of Europe was taken from the Germans but returned, even to the Germans and apart from a few acres to bury our dead has ALL been returned.
By your theory, we have puppet governments in all these places? I don't think so, not because we couldn't have done what you say, but because we choose to NOT do what you claim.
I'm 33 years old, democrat, dutch guy who used to believe we needed to look to our big brother country America but these days i'm feeling more and more that Russia the imo very sexy Putin are maybe another way of doing things...
Oh how far have we come in this world when we start looking at the public persona and rhetoric over substance and what's right. Just remember why you supported Putin should he decide to continue invading countries for what ever reason Putin thinks is justified or can trump up.
Seems there are parallels in history for this kind of behavior and the end of being tolerant of such aggressive acts by nations have been grave. WWI and WWII both come to mind. I'm not making any predictions of WWIII, I'm just saying that there are parallels and we need to be mindful of history, lest we repeat some really bad mistakes.
Yes Mr. Putin.. I understand your rhetoric on this.
But, it looks bad when you invade a sovereign country, break it up into pieces and then annex parts of it because you can. Even the USA doesn't do that...
Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.
This is very much a matter of opinion. US had left when people in Iraq had elected government US wanted.
IMHO the government of Iraq was NOT decided by the USA, but elected by the people of Iraq. The process of putting Iraq back together was set from the start and although the USA enforced the process (Temporary government appointed, elections held for constitution writers, Constitution written by elected representatives, Approved by vote, first government under constitution elections held, Elected government functions from there) we certainly did not control the elections or their outcomes. The only real control the US had was the appointment of the interim initial government, after that it was up to the people of Iraq to elect who they wanted.
If you want to claim we stacked the deck to get the government we wanted, I guess you can. I'm not convinced you are right and it's going to take some evidence to change my mind. Right now, the simple fact that they tossed us out, completely out, and we have zero military in their country beyond what's there to protect the embassy pretty much proves what you claim is not true. The USA would have LOVED to have an airbase in IRAQ to help keep Iran in check and give us another toehold deep in the middle east. But they tossed us, and because they are a sovereign country, we left.
Russia didn't refuse to work with the USA when America invaded Iraq, did they?
No, they didn't, but it was obvious to everybody and clear from history that the USA wasn't interested in annexing Iraq into US territory. So the comparison to what Russia has done with part of Ukraine is a false one. They split up a sovereign country, then annexed parts of it after invading it. Seems clear to me that Iraq remains it's own entity, despite the US winning decisive military actions in Iraq TWICE. Time and time again, the USA has taken territory it could have just kept for itself, but we insist on giving it back to the people we took it from. Iraq is it's own sovereign country, we didn't keep even a runway or military base there, but left when the elected government of the country told us to leave.
Now if the USA was out capturing territory and then annexing it into the US you could make the comparison. But we don't do that, and haven't acted like an imperial power, increasing our borders though military force, for a LONG time.
The owner of Vermont Yankee is Entergy Corp. and they are HUGE.
Looking at their most recent annual report filed in February of 2014. This company made about a billion dollars in profit last year. They might not like having to pony up another 500-600 Million dollars over the next 5 years, but it's not like they couldn't. It would barely be a blip on the radar in the grand scheme of things for them. It's obvious they will easily pay for this and the government won't have to take over.
Tell me again why this is news?
OK, but you understand that all the financial arrangements for the decommissioning of this plant where made starting nearly 50 years ago based on the assumptions of the day. Plus they managed to come up with 1/2 to 2/3 of what they need despite the regulatory changes and wholesale electricity. Finally, owner's of Vermont Yankee can afford to cough up the costs if they get amortized over a few years. They had a billion dollars in just profit in 2013. They won't like coming up with the money, but they can without taking too much of a stock price hit.
... because they fail to count half the costs when they do their calculations.
And changing government regulations over the last 40 years of operation hasn't *ever* been a cost driver.
You can only calculate costs into the future 50 years when you know all the variables that drive cost. In this case, they didn't do too bad considering that most of the initial calculations would have been done in the 60's, there has been significant regulatory changes since then and they have nearly 2/3rds of what they need. 600 Million is chump change when we are dropping $1 Trillion/year onto our debt at the federal level.
You do realize that the "managers who make the decisions" are likely all retired and many are dead by now right? This plant was commissioned in 1972, 44 years ago which means that the decision to build was made over 50 years ago now. If the average age of this management team was 40 years old, that puts the average age now at 90 years, which means a good portion of that group are likely dead. I don't know how you suggest we "hold them responsible" for this.
What needs to happen is what will likely happen. The owners of this plant will likely go though bankruptcy and get liquidated (worst case). Their creditors (including the decommissioning fund) will get what they can and the stockholders will loose their investment. The government will make up the difference and all of us will pay, at least in some way.
But the legal effort to resist the state's efforts cost the utility money as did the public relation campaign.
The real reason here is that electricity rates have dropped do to Natural Gas production and operating/decommissioning costs have risen since the plant was commissioned due to changing regulations. All this as conspired to give us the problem we now have and like it or not, pretty much everybody will be paying for this in some way.
This issue demonstrates that arguments about the low lifetime cost and impacts of nuclear power tend to externalize significant costs. Decommissioning can be added to waste handling/storage and subsidized insurance.
Partly true, but the real problem is that though out the lifetime of this plant, the expected costs for decommissioning have gone though the roof by a mass of changing rules, laws and policies which have conspired to not only raise the costs but shorten the useful lifespan of the plant. As such, this is not really the operator's fault, but the cold economic facts of changing political climate are really to blame. IMHO...
Naw, we do it every day now...
Only channel 14 and up is restricted by law. And if you are running part 15, I don't think anybody will care unless you are causing harmful interference and refuse to stop. But I think you will find more space in the 5 GHz band if you run a Japan setup.
Chances are, if anybody cares and the FCC happens to drive by due to a complaint. They will either knock on your door, send you a letter or both and ask you to quit. They tend to try for voluntary compliance before they bring out the threatening letters and fines unless they figure you are doing it on purpose.
What's the max theoretical speed improvement?
Theoretically, you can get just about any speed down a specific spectrum size you want. All you need to do is keep the SNR high enough and use a multiple bits per encoding. But, there are practical limits, especially in situations where you have power limits and congested bandwidth.
They are adding something like 100Mhz by what I'm reading. I think that, all other things being equal, there will be zero increase in maximum speed. You might see a decreased congestion issue and raise average throughput, but the flood of new devices will all but soak up any spectrum gains we might see. Not that this isn't a step in the right direction...
If you haven't noticed yet, the "heart shape" isn't really shaped like a real heart at all. There are plenty of theories about how it came to be. Many of the leading theories are that it may be originally based on a different organ entirely.
Different cultures do have alternate ideas about the seat of emotion and have ascribed this function to various parts of the body.
I O U
Well, I guess space flight makes the world go round...
The Democrats wants us making plenty of money. But they want a big cut before we get to take the rest home.
I'd only add one thing to that... Even if they don't take everything now, they eventually will. Why do I say that? Because they never say no to spending on social programs and as a wise man once said.. "The poor will always be with you.. "
Whoa there AC. Your political shorts are showing. Might want to pull up your pants.
Republicans don't want you poor engineers to make money eh? And here I thought it was the Democrats that where doing that..
And don't fool yourself. The Republicans where the party of Lincon and supported the end of slavery.
This is why it's always ultimately best to work in government. The pay isn't high, but the work environment is ideal.
Huh? My first job as a college graduate engineer was with the DOD as a civilian. The pay is OK, but not great as you suggest. But I can tell you that the work environment is NOT ideal, even in the best of circumstances. I had great people to work for and with. They where among the best I've had in my 25-30 years so far. But, it is maddeningly frustrating to work for the government, if you care even a small amount about doing the job efficiently the right way. Maybe I'm just too frugal, but I found the wholesale waste that happened due to all the rules and laws to be frustrating to watch. Things such as spending $250K to get a $750K worth of equipment purchased, or throwing away 90% of a certain kind of part because they where so poor in quality that we had to test and select parts that met specs to repair equipment. Then we'd end up having to re-repair things because these junk parts drifted out of tolerance quickly.
If you have the right mindset, I suppose government work is fine. But if you try to care, or actually do the right thing by your customers in the most efficient way possible, it's an exercise in frustration.
Oh stop it... Stop talking technical details and let the poorly educated folk have their dreams...
Quite right you are. The advances may lead to cheaper, lighter and better devices, but I'm pretty sure you are correct. We are just not going to get something in a contact lenses that will let us see IR.
So, we just blink and the TV channel will change?
No, but you will be blinded when using the remote control..
I get the GPL issue. If they took GPL code and modified it for their own use, they may be required to provide source, but what I don't get is the data. How are they justifying asking for that? Most "data" of that type that I'm aware of is licensed under the Creative Commons license (or similar).
For mapping applications, the *real* value is in the data. Where much of the data is freely available in raw form, there is significant effort required to process the data available and put it into a format to be doled out to handheld devices in small chunks. I don't see how they can claim that GPL entitles them to the raw data from Waze.