Just Wow.. I wonder how you are going to make clinker using electricity?
I suppose there might be a way, but it seems to me that firing the kilns with Natural Gas to produce clinker (the stuff they grind into cement to make concrete with) is the most efficient approach at this point.
Concrete is the reason we can build things higher than four stories.
Silly me.. Here I thought that was steel and elevators that did that.
Concrete is nearly useless without steel. Huge compression strength, itty-bitty tension strength. Yea, you can pile up blocks of concrete and "build something" but without steel you won't be able to do much more than a pyramid.
Both kinds of efforts are labeled "diversity programs".. I like your distinction.. If your effort is outreach based, have at it. If it's discriminatory, it's a problem.
I'm saying an implanted device will be working on very low voltages and currents. Thus, it's entirely possible that a lighting strike near by to induce enough of a surge, even in a device not wired to something else, to activate a device's fail safe system.
You don't have to be directly connected to anything to have issues with lighting surges. If you are very close, induced currents from magnetic or electric fields associated with the huge currents involved in a lighting strike can be pretty large.
I was disagreeing with the original posts "ALL diversity programs are bad ideas" because they are not.
As I pointed out (and you repeated) IF you are sacrificing qualifications for one demographic over another, it's not good.
I don't see how we are in disagreement... You DON'T get to discriminate or relax qualifications based on demographics, everybody has the same chance and same standard. AND if your program is discussing diversity from the perspective of not discriminating, I don't have any issues with your program. Now if you have quotas or varying standards based on demographics, I DO have a problem with your program. If you want to target help wanted advertisements or market your company to specific demographics because they are under represented in your workforce, why would I care? Just make sure there isn't more than one standard.
LOL.. You DO understand that the issue was the voltages involved. IF you give me a wire that touches the right nerves, I can shut down your heart with a AA battery...
My guess is the medical device has fail safe settings built in, so if it sees any voltages or currents that exceed some pretty narrow limits on it's terminals, it immediately isolates everything and shuts down. They do this as a last resort to keep a malfunctioning device from doing harm to a patient. A nearby lighting strike could easily trigger the fail safe which would be pretty sensitive.
They are similar but lighting has very limited geographical location and there are some significant characteristic differences in electrical and magnetic field variations.
EMP tends to be more about magnetic flux coupling. Lighting tends to be more about electrical fields. Of course, one kind of transient will bring along the other... But what couples best to the energy is totally different. What couples an electric field is kind of different than what couples well to magnetic fields.
Lighting and EMP are both high energy events that like to destroy equipment, but protection for lighting and for EMP are technically different exercises and require significantly different approaches.
So EMP isn't all that much "like lighting" though unprotected equipment won't care about the technicalities when it's destroyed by them.
Yea, that horrible legal system in the USA.. Worst possible system I can imagine, except for every other system man has invented and tried. Maybe we can make it better with some tweaks? Maybe not....
I had a lawyer tell me once that only the lawyers usually win in a lawsuit. I think he was one of the few honest lawyers, well he was honest with his client (me)at least. In my experience, having been involved in a number of civil cases of various types, I can attest that pretty much only the lawyers are guaranteed to benefit from litigation. Everybody else generally loses something, either tangible (money) or intangible (morals, ethics or principles).
Like I said.. IF your diversity program includes things like quotas and accepting lower qualifications from different demographics, I'm going to be the first to agree that it's a very bad thing.
However, if your diversity program is about attracting fully qualified talent from a demographics which are under represented in your talent pool and preventing hiring decisions from having improper bias either way, I don't see how that's a bad thing..
Well what outreach does is nothing but discrimination...
snip
Outreach is a bad idea...
Um, where I get what you are saying, I don't agree that outreach is discrimination nor is it necessarily a bad idea.
Looking for qualified candidates within under represented demographics is not discrimination per se. If this effort to create diversity does not affect your standards, what is the issue? I think diversity is a good thing in a team working on something...
That's not to say that all outreach programs are executed correctly and don't end up being discrimination and thus bad ideas. If your program causes you to lower your standards, accept less qualified contributors, then it's all the things you say. However, this is not necessarily a given. I've seen diversity programs that DON'T change standards or give preferential treatment to under represented demographics but did target demographics to solicit qualified candidates and educated hiring managers to be sensitive to personal bias and the use of objective criteria for selecting candidates. These programs where good things, not bad.
Trump clearly is saying he's not going to accept anything short of full funding for his wall and a fix for DACA. Short of that, he's not signing anything. So no new funding bills like the last one. By Trump's rhetoric, he's saying he'd rather do a shutdown, just before the election, than kick the can down the road again on these issues. How will this go? How will this play out?
I guess we shall see... The last government shutdown didn't go well for the Democrats who caved in less than 24 hours. I think they saw how the press and the republicans (with Trump) where going to play it, didn't like the risks so they backed down. Maybe they figured that having the fight just before the election was preferred over solving the issues then. I don't know what they where thinking, but I think they are playing a dangerous game of chicken with Trump and he's showing a willingness to call their bluff and shut down.
But, let's be honest, it's really about who get's blamed for it anyway. The issue is who the public ends up blaming the most, which is somewhat driven by how the press cover things and that's driven by who says what and what sound bites sell the most ads. So... It could go either way.
Like I said, I'd prefer to not dump stuff willy-nilly... But I can also see that nuclear waste, properly encased and sealed, could easily be dumped in places where the effect on fisheries and things on the food chain would be pretty much non-existent. This would be especially true for some deep convergence zones, where the radio active parts would decay before they reached any portion of the food chain. In fact, a number of nuclear reactors from sunken submarines are out there, with out much of an issue.
The only "trick" would be to encase the really bad stuff in coverings what would last long enough but some ceramics and glass materials seem promising to me... AND making sure the stuff is left alone. The real problem with high level stuff tossed into international waters is that any fool can go snatch it up and purposely spread it out on land, or sea in an effort to make a mess, but that's another issue all together.
CNG? Is just an internal combustion engine with hardened valves and seats... They produce the same CO2 or more than other carbon based fuels, though emissions wise they are squeaky clean because the fuel is easier to clean. I also don't consider this a switch from fossil fuels... Where I think we SHOULD use CNG more (we have a lot of NG and it burns really clean), this really isn't a different technology.
Fuel cells are horribly inefficient, don't work all that well at varying power outputs. As such, fuel cells are not viable, the physics don't allow it.
Electric is about all we really have that works that's differant, but you have serious range issues and recharge times with current battery technologies. Electric cars may work for a large fraction of daily tasks, but they are not well suited to road trips or long commutes which are prevalent in larger metro areas.
Nope... Legal fees (What you pay your lawyer and his staff) are your expense in the USA.
For instance, my daughter had an injury from a car accident that wasn't her fault. Her injury will result in life time impairment of her dominate hand. She will get somewhere north of 60K in the settlement and if we hire a lawyer, they will take 1/3 to 1/2 of the money. We don't get to ask the insurance company for the 20k to 30k in legal fees they will take and get a settlement for 80-100 K just because we decided to pay our lawyer that much.
I'm impressed... You need to give the PR department a bonus for all those late nights in smoky rooms crafting all these slick press releases. Buy them pizza and coke too. They deserve it.
I'd say you could give them a day off with pay, but I'm afraid that might be too risky. You need somebody minding the press, ready to combat the PR blemishes, ready to react to head off the rumor mill before it can start....
The LIE is that we are there for oil, to take it by force...
We are there for our interests, to be sure, but it's not to take oil by force. Our protection of the resources in the region is in our own interest, but it also serves the interests of the rest of the world, including those who own the oil.
I know you want to slice that distinction pretty fine, but the line is clear to me. We are there in force, not to take what we don't legally own, but to protect the owners so supply can be assured. We are there to protect, not take, an action that accrues to the benefit of all people, not just the USA.
Then you are crazy.. But democrats generally are.:-)
So you are just peachy with political campaigns being able to directly feed law enforcement invented stories about their opponents? You cannot see the risks to our political system that come with letting political campaigns have even indirect input into investigations being done by law enforcement? Are you so partisan that you are blinded to the obvious dangers of allowing such things?
Nobody is that stupid, not even a democrat.
I'm beginning to conclude you are not serious here but keep responding for another reason...
The passing of the Steele dossier to the FBI was unethical, that's on the Clinton campaign. Allowing this document to be used in any investigation at the FBI was a stupid move and is on Comey and McCabe. Trying to justify such behavior, that's on you. Shame on you.
Now if that's how you want the political game played, I'd get ready for some pretty depressing stuff because if your side is fine with this, expect it to be used on you soon and we can legitimately be considered to have a kangaroo court system.
Loosing party pays for civil suits would fix this quick.
It would stop ambulance chasing PE lawyers and those chasing medical malpractice suits too.
Loosing party pays, means that if you file and lose your lawsuit, you get to pay the winner's legal fees, along with any ordered compensation for damages. It also means that if you win, your legal fees are repaid.
Of course, the legal profession in this country soundly opposes this idea, so it's not happening.
Hmm, I wonder if a discussion about the President of the USA colluding with Russia's computer hacking attack on the DNC and other American targets is worth of a "News for Nerds" website.
No? Too stupid to talk about hacking that crosses over into treason?
Ok, let's talk about some small-time lawsuit instead.
It's worse than that even... This article and it's headline IMPLIES a connection to a Nikola Tesla patent on AC motors... Such patents have expired over 100 years ago..
You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker),
Or we could just stop making 3 ton SUVs with huge V8s. Just a thought.
Why? So my family of six has to take two vehicles when we go someplace?
What's wrong with letting the market decide what sells and what doesn't? Why do we have a default setting that says "Make a federal law!" for things like this? IF somebody wants to have a huge SUV with 8 seats and 8 cylinders, why does the government need to have a say in this?
Are we free people or are we regulated into oblivion "for our own good?" There comes a point when we will have to stop regulating stupid stuff like soda cup sizes sold by 7-11 or we might as well just toss the constitution out and go full communalist manifesto. Maybe we've gone too far with cars now? I think so.
Yea, there is a balance.. But, as I keep saying, if you are poor and starving, you don't care about anything but eating today and rightly so.
Without surviving today, there is no tomorrow, good or bad.
When we make decisions that make food more expensive and hard to get, it may not affect us, but it DOES effect others less fortunate. I think this is often forgotten in the mad scramble towards "save the planet" ideology and the people who suffer the most for the regulations on this are the ones who are least able to pay.
But hey, to be fair, it's the poor who ALWAYS pay the most for society's ills, isn't it.
Slashdot Mirror
HEMP?
I got to ask, do you have a pretensioned hemp beam design in your hip pocket or are you smoking your product too much?
Just Wow.. I wonder how you are going to make clinker using electricity?
I suppose there might be a way, but it seems to me that firing the kilns with Natural Gas to produce clinker (the stuff they grind into cement to make concrete with) is the most efficient approach at this point.
Concrete is the reason we can build things higher than four stories.
Silly me.. Here I thought that was steel and elevators that did that.
Concrete is nearly useless without steel. Huge compression strength, itty-bitty tension strength. Yea, you can pile up blocks of concrete and "build something" but without steel you won't be able to do much more than a pyramid.
Both kinds of efforts are labeled "diversity programs".. I like your distinction.. If your effort is outreach based, have at it. If it's discriminatory, it's a problem.
but.. But.... I want to complain about something and those big bad companies that make money are good targets!
How dare you tell me there is ANYTHING good about the thing I choose to complain about...
I'm saying an implanted device will be working on very low voltages and currents. Thus, it's entirely possible that a lighting strike near by to induce enough of a surge, even in a device not wired to something else, to activate a device's fail safe system.
You don't have to be directly connected to anything to have issues with lighting surges. If you are very close, induced currents from magnetic or electric fields associated with the huge currents involved in a lighting strike can be pretty large.
Did you even read what I wrote?
I was disagreeing with the original posts "ALL diversity programs are bad ideas" because they are not.
As I pointed out (and you repeated) IF you are sacrificing qualifications for one demographic over another, it's not good.
I don't see how we are in disagreement... You DON'T get to discriminate or relax qualifications based on demographics, everybody has the same chance and same standard. AND if your program is discussing diversity from the perspective of not discriminating, I don't have any issues with your program. Now if you have quotas or varying standards based on demographics, I DO have a problem with your program. If you want to target help wanted advertisements or market your company to specific demographics because they are under represented in your workforce, why would I care? Just make sure there isn't more than one standard.
LOL.. You DO understand that the issue was the voltages involved. IF you give me a wire that touches the right nerves, I can shut down your heart with a AA battery...
My guess is the medical device has fail safe settings built in, so if it sees any voltages or currents that exceed some pretty narrow limits on it's terminals, it immediately isolates everything and shuts down. They do this as a last resort to keep a malfunctioning device from doing harm to a patient. A nearby lighting strike could easily trigger the fail safe which would be pretty sensitive.
That's basically what lightning is.
They are similar but lighting has very limited geographical location and there are some significant characteristic differences in electrical and magnetic field variations.
EMP tends to be more about magnetic flux coupling. Lighting tends to be more about electrical fields. Of course, one kind of transient will bring along the other... But what couples best to the energy is totally different. What couples an electric field is kind of different than what couples well to magnetic fields.
Lighting and EMP are both high energy events that like to destroy equipment, but protection for lighting and for EMP are technically different exercises and require significantly different approaches.
So EMP isn't all that much "like lighting" though unprotected equipment won't care about the technicalities when it's destroyed by them.
Sorry, It slipped though. Sorry for the actual technical content not about social media and personal security.
Yea, that horrible legal system in the USA.. Worst possible system I can imagine, except for every other system man has invented and tried. Maybe we can make it better with some tweaks? Maybe not....
I had a lawyer tell me once that only the lawyers usually win in a lawsuit. I think he was one of the few honest lawyers, well he was honest with his client (me)at least. In my experience, having been involved in a number of civil cases of various types, I can attest that pretty much only the lawyers are guaranteed to benefit from litigation. Everybody else generally loses something, either tangible (money) or intangible (morals, ethics or principles).
Like I said.. IF your diversity program includes things like quotas and accepting lower qualifications from different demographics, I'm going to be the first to agree that it's a very bad thing.
However, if your diversity program is about attracting fully qualified talent from a demographics which are under represented in your talent pool and preventing hiring decisions from having improper bias either way, I don't see how that's a bad thing..
Well what outreach does is nothing but discrimination...
snip
Outreach is a bad idea...
Um, where I get what you are saying, I don't agree that outreach is discrimination nor is it necessarily a bad idea.
Looking for qualified candidates within under represented demographics is not discrimination per se. If this effort to create diversity does not affect your standards, what is the issue? I think diversity is a good thing in a team working on something...
That's not to say that all outreach programs are executed correctly and don't end up being discrimination and thus bad ideas. If your program causes you to lower your standards, accept less qualified contributors, then it's all the things you say. However, this is not necessarily a given. I've seen diversity programs that DON'T change standards or give preferential treatment to under represented demographics but did target demographics to solicit qualified candidates and educated hiring managers to be sensitive to personal bias and the use of objective criteria for selecting candidates. These programs where good things, not bad.
Trump clearly is saying he's not going to accept anything short of full funding for his wall and a fix for DACA. Short of that, he's not signing anything. So no new funding bills like the last one. By Trump's rhetoric, he's saying he'd rather do a shutdown, just before the election, than kick the can down the road again on these issues. How will this go? How will this play out?
I guess we shall see... The last government shutdown didn't go well for the Democrats who caved in less than 24 hours. I think they saw how the press and the republicans (with Trump) where going to play it, didn't like the risks so they backed down. Maybe they figured that having the fight just before the election was preferred over solving the issues then. I don't know what they where thinking, but I think they are playing a dangerous game of chicken with Trump and he's showing a willingness to call their bluff and shut down.
But, let's be honest, it's really about who get's blamed for it anyway. The issue is who the public ends up blaming the most, which is somewhat driven by how the press cover things and that's driven by who says what and what sound bites sell the most ads. So... It could go either way.
Like I said, I'd prefer to not dump stuff willy-nilly... But I can also see that nuclear waste, properly encased and sealed, could easily be dumped in places where the effect on fisheries and things on the food chain would be pretty much non-existent. This would be especially true for some deep convergence zones, where the radio active parts would decay before they reached any portion of the food chain. In fact, a number of nuclear reactors from sunken submarines are out there, with out much of an issue.
The only "trick" would be to encase the really bad stuff in coverings what would last long enough but some ceramics and glass materials seem promising to me... AND making sure the stuff is left alone. The real problem with high level stuff tossed into international waters is that any fool can go snatch it up and purposely spread it out on land, or sea in an effort to make a mess, but that's another issue all together.
CNG? Is just an internal combustion engine with hardened valves and seats... They produce the same CO2 or more than other carbon based fuels, though emissions wise they are squeaky clean because the fuel is easier to clean. I also don't consider this a switch from fossil fuels... Where I think we SHOULD use CNG more (we have a lot of NG and it burns really clean), this really isn't a different technology.
Fuel cells are horribly inefficient, don't work all that well at varying power outputs. As such, fuel cells are not viable, the physics don't allow it.
Electric is about all we really have that works that's differant, but you have serious range issues and recharge times with current battery technologies. Electric cars may work for a large fraction of daily tasks, but they are not well suited to road trips or long commutes which are prevalent in larger metro areas.
Nope... Legal fees (What you pay your lawyer and his staff) are your expense in the USA.
For instance, my daughter had an injury from a car accident that wasn't her fault. Her injury will result in life time impairment of her dominate hand. She will get somewhere north of 60K in the settlement and if we hire a lawyer, they will take 1/3 to 1/2 of the money. We don't get to ask the insurance company for the 20k to 30k in legal fees they will take and get a settlement for 80-100 K just because we decided to pay our lawyer that much.
Who knew Facebook could do PR?
I'm impressed... You need to give the PR department a bonus for all those late nights in smoky rooms crafting all these slick press releases. Buy them pizza and coke too. They deserve it.
I'd say you could give them a day off with pay, but I'm afraid that might be too risky. You need somebody minding the press, ready to combat the PR blemishes, ready to react to head off the rumor mill before it can start....
The LIE is that we are there for oil, to take it by force...
We are there for our interests, to be sure, but it's not to take oil by force. Our protection of the resources in the region is in our own interest, but it also serves the interests of the rest of the world, including those who own the oil.
I know you want to slice that distinction pretty fine, but the line is clear to me. We are there in force, not to take what we don't legally own, but to protect the owners so supply can be assured. We are there to protect, not take, an action that accrues to the benefit of all people, not just the USA.
Ah yes.. So let's just condemn folks to a quicker death in horrible places like..... Mexico... Yea, that's the ticket.
Nobody is starving or poor in the USA either? Hmmm...
Then you are crazy.. But democrats generally are. :-)
So you are just peachy with political campaigns being able to directly feed law enforcement invented stories about their opponents? You cannot see the risks to our political system that come with letting political campaigns have even indirect input into investigations being done by law enforcement? Are you so partisan that you are blinded to the obvious dangers of allowing such things?
Nobody is that stupid, not even a democrat.
I'm beginning to conclude you are not serious here but keep responding for another reason...
The passing of the Steele dossier to the FBI was unethical, that's on the Clinton campaign. Allowing this document to be used in any investigation at the FBI was a stupid move and is on Comey and McCabe. Trying to justify such behavior, that's on you. Shame on you.
Now if that's how you want the political game played, I'd get ready for some pretty depressing stuff because if your side is fine with this, expect it to be used on you soon and we can legitimately be considered to have a kangaroo court system.
Loosing party pays for civil suits would fix this quick.
It would stop ambulance chasing PE lawyers and those chasing medical malpractice suits too.
Loosing party pays, means that if you file and lose your lawsuit, you get to pay the winner's legal fees, along with any ordered compensation for damages. It also means that if you win, your legal fees are repaid.
Of course, the legal profession in this country soundly opposes this idea, so it's not happening.
Hmm, I wonder if a discussion about the President of the USA colluding with Russia's computer hacking attack on the DNC and other American targets is worth of a "News for Nerds" website.
No? Too stupid to talk about hacking that crosses over into treason?
Ok, let's talk about some small-time lawsuit instead.
It's worse than that even... This article and it's headline IMPLIES a connection to a Nikola Tesla patent on AC motors... Such patents have expired over 100 years ago..
You are left improving energy consumed in other ways like making the vehicle lighter (and weaker),
Or we could just stop making 3 ton SUVs with huge V8s. Just a thought.
Why? So my family of six has to take two vehicles when we go someplace?
What's wrong with letting the market decide what sells and what doesn't? Why do we have a default setting that says "Make a federal law!" for things like this? IF somebody wants to have a huge SUV with 8 seats and 8 cylinders, why does the government need to have a say in this?
Are we free people or are we regulated into oblivion "for our own good?" There comes a point when we will have to stop regulating stupid stuff like soda cup sizes sold by 7-11 or we might as well just toss the constitution out and go full communalist manifesto. Maybe we've gone too far with cars now? I think so.
Yea, there is a balance.. But, as I keep saying, if you are poor and starving, you don't care about anything but eating today and rightly so.
Without surviving today, there is no tomorrow, good or bad.
When we make decisions that make food more expensive and hard to get, it may not affect us, but it DOES effect others less fortunate. I think this is often forgotten in the mad scramble towards "save the planet" ideology and the people who suffer the most for the regulations on this are the ones who are least able to pay.
But hey, to be fair, it's the poor who ALWAYS pay the most for society's ills, isn't it.