"clean air emissions, water discharge standards, ect... Why? Because these are things people can understand, and they are immediately relevant to them. I don't want to live next to a factory dumping shit into the air/water,"
Nobody does. You are correct. But that is not climate change. Erroneously conflating the two is part of the problem.
Now, we can all slap ourselves on the back for helping the big guys successfully regain control and define the music business model. Now the old labels that took advantage of their musicians and have now turned into the streaming services who take advantage of their musicians. Exposure relies on their algorithms, their accounting is always in *their* books, nobody ever seems to "own" or even know where their music is anymore, and the still musician always seems to end up with the smallest share of it all at the end of the day. It's almost like we missed a brief window of a decade where all the possibilities were there...but now we've all been corralled back into their "accepted revenue channels".
Now that they can all sigh a big sigh of relief that it's all gonna work out ok for their 401ks...I think they will eventually turn their attention to all the stashes of "unlicensed media" that all of us have on our systems. And I'm betting between all of us here, that's considerable. Just a prediction...but that has to be the next step, no?
We get it. You hate Trump. [yawn]
Military grade reactors are not "challenging" - I know someone who worked on them. Mini nuke solutions - like the ones GE are working on - are black boxes. They are plug and play, no maintenance. They don't leak, they don't explode. If anything goes wrong, they shut down immediately. They are sealed boxes that are also disposal containers. Breeder and thorium reactors are very safe, as well as newer chinese models that actually do appear to be metldown-proof. Episodes like Fukiskima are outliers. The reactor in that case was a 40 yr old GE model, and people are still debating whether the actual core breached. The radiation that was released was not from the reactor, but the spent fuel rods being stored in pools on premises.
"business fantasy"? Sorry, that's just sad. You can't refute the conclusions with data, so you just attack the source. Why would I not trust a "business magazine" that deals in data and economics and has no stake in the outcome? You'd rather I read Mother Earth, I suppose, or Greenpeace monthly.
I can't believe the level of idiocy here. You actually think that we were able to go from nothing to landing on the moon in 10 years...but it takes 20-30 years to build a nuke from already available plans, because of...technology? You actually think that an energy company will drop half a billion on a project and just "fritter away" and waste time for decades? Sorry, that's just ridiculous on so many levels. You probably think we can't build the keystone pipeline in 15 years because we can't figure out how to "make the pipe work".
Fossil fuels are not hugely subsidized - in America. America is home to the only two private oil companies in the world. In AMerica, green energy gets more subsidies than the oil industry has ever gotten in it's entire history. All of the other oil companies are state-owned cartels that are fully subsidized. So your analysis is a bit flawed. You're comparing apples to oranges.
It hasn't gotten any better. Wind and solar are not any more efficient than they were in 2006. Solar has had some minor improvements in the lab, but not in the field. The tech deployed thus far is not any more advanced. Most wind and solar projects currently are providing only about 30% of the expected output.
Yes, "investments" - what a quaint socialist term - are cheating. If you buy a $30,000 car, but you get $20,000 from the govt, you then cannot claim that it was a deal at $10,000.
"mandatory"...?!
You see, that's problem with the Left...they ignore math, facts, and logic and rely on their power to "mandate things". Even if their ideas are unworkable, unfeasible, counterproductive, or even just plain stupid. Here's an example: there are two types of wind generation that are superior to windmills. One is a quadcopter kind of thing with a transmission cable that flies up and finds the jetstream, then turns its rotors to "passive", and just sits there, generating electricity. 24hrs a day, with almost zero footprint, and no ghastly windmills blighting the landscape. The other is a robot that can fly kites. It has two arms, two kites, one cable, and a flywheel between them on the ground. It can fly kites for years, in a figure eight pattern, 24/7 in the jetsream, generating power. A 1 acre installation can fly hundreds of kites, and there's no blight on the landscape. But are we pursuing those technologies? No. Because govt is in the subsidy business and all the crony socialist enterprises are already locked into the govt contracts for dumbass windmills - which are "mandatory". So we're going to be stuck on stupid for some time.
Wind and solar are only less expensive because of subsidies - which is cheating. They are actually the most expensive forms of energy out there, not only in terms of kw output, but the overall footprint required. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au... Solar, for example, is 30-40% more expensive without subsidies http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... As for my karma, how can I possibly prove to you what I have seen with my own eyes? This is not my first time down this road on slashdot. It's not so much that I'm "pro-nuke", but that I'm "anti-green". The reality is, I'm just "pro-better".
And you're an anonymous coward, so what's the point? Nuclear is VERY cost-efficient, and compact in terms of footprint. The reasons that it doesn't appear so at the moment have nothing to do with the technology, but the efforts of environmental groups to stop them. Years of red tape, study after study, injunction after injunction raise the costs and time for construction considerably. Do you honestly think it takes decades to build a reactor because of the technology? Seriously? They aren't "piddling around", they're being interfered with, obstructed, and delayed. http://www.fool.com/investing/...
I am a realist. Mini-nukes - the kind on aircraft carriers and submarine are very cost-effective, incredibly safe, and the military literally has decades of data on their output and function. I had a brother who was in the navy, and they used to sleep on top of them. And it will scale fine...you're still thinking about large-scale plants like three mile island. I'm talking about reactors the size of refrigerators that arrive fully-fueled and automated. You never have to do maintenance, you never have to adjust them...and when they're out of fuel, the entire unit becomes a disposal container. They don't have to be large enough to power entire states, just small towns and cities. And before you whip out your Bush Derangement Syndrome, it's Obama (and GE) that are building and deploying them NOW. http://news.nationalgeographic...
Increased efficiency is fine, but will never make up for decreased capacity, and will ultimately only stall any future growth. Nordic states - like Iceland, for example - are in the same boat as costa rica: they are relying on geothermal and hyrdroelectric. (Which I like, by the way, but it's just not practical here.) Germany's green energy is turning out to be a myth. There are plenty of articles about how it is failing, once you get outside the green press. Like this, for example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... That's an article from 2013, and it's gotten even worse since they've shut down their nuclear. Look, I get it: you feel the dream. You believe in a green friendly utopia with windmills and solar panels and shiny happy people holding hands. But I'm a firm believer in math - aka reality - and to replace our grid capacity with solar and wind would require paving over most of the southwest, and limit any growth to current levels. What we need is nuclear - fusion or fission, I don't care which. A tiny nuclear fission reactor like on our aircraft carriers could power a small city cleanly and safely for decades, for relatively low cost. The technology is here, it is well-understood, and could be implemented quickly. But as long as the green movement says no, we are on a trajectory to the stone age. I know this isn't a popular opinion round here, and it always costs me karma, but I'm just being a realist.
This is getting a little out of hand. Yes, Costa Rica is running on "renewable" energy...but they have access to large amounts of geothermal many countries don't, plentiful hydroelectric energy which environmentalists are busy tearing down here, and a population only slightly larger than half of NYC. Plus, their grid capacity is only 2.7 mgw, which is approx 3/100th of ours. I personally don't care what color our energy is, I just want *better* energy...and the fact is, the only type of clean energy that can handle our demands would be nuclear; and since that's also off limits because of the environmental lobby, I don't see "green energy" meeting any of our demands any time soon. At the risk of destroying my karma further...these stories serve no purpose except to glorify things that can't work and coax us into implementing technologies that will never keep up, and will only raise our costs. It basically amounts to green propaganda. As for GM...the fact that they receive enormous subsidies from the Obama admin which bailed out their company and appointed their CEO (in true fascist fashion) - this is hardly a surprise. They know who their masters are.
All this legal mumbo jumbo amounts to is a blank check. "Security" can be defined and requested based on any recommendations from any think tank board that they deem "important". So, if the FEC requires that political speech be censored prior to an election, or if the TPP trade authority wants a pirated download stopped because it violates copyright, or if wikileaks lets anyone know any more about Hillary's character flaws and corruption... the network itself can be used to achieve this, and at the behest of the govt. No one will need to try and take down PirateBay anymore; they can just cut all traffic to it. WHo cares if wikileaks has another bomb to drop, if no one can ever receive it?
actually, he's more of a Berlusconi, than a Mussolini... but that hardly matters to you, I'm sure. Why waste a good meme? Yeah, I saw that video. So what? If you keep and maintain nuclear weapons as a deterrent, then "taking them off the table" makes them useless as such. "Leaving everything on the table" doesn't mean he's going to use them, it just retains their strategic value in terms of negotiation and deterence. The fact that you don't get this shows that foreign policy is not exactly your strong suit.
...and how many of those have happened? Obviously those of you who think the he threw a baby out of his rally, never watched the video - you would've known it was a lie. Face it - you like to posture about all the "video evidence"...but there's scant little of it, and you don't watch it anyway - you just *assume* that it is there.
the rule of thumb I have been using lately, and I stand by it...is that whatever is said about Trump - the faster it spreads, the more likely it is a lie.
You guys are unbelievable. No sources. Just a third hand account from a third rate journalist with no corroboration and zero context whatsoever.
Guess what: Trump didn't throw a baby out of his rally, he didn't call to assassinate Hillary, he's not a super duper russian double agent, and he's not "just like Hitler".
The problem is, you lefties have all lost your collective mind. You're up to about two delusional fantasies per week. It's called TrumpDerrangementSyndrome, and it's getting old.
We have corruption on an unprecedented, massive, global scale. We have lies, cover-ups, and influence peddling. And anyone who's seen Clinton Cash knows we also have the raping of entire third world countries to add to the list. Now we have whistleblowers/leakers winding up dead on their way to FBI. But by all means vote for the bitch. She's already several orders of magnitude worse than Bush and Nixon combined, and hasn't even had "real power" yet - I'm sure it will work out fine. Because Trump. Yeah, that's the ticket. Because Trump.
What is it with you people that seemingly have not been paying attention for decades, and have no google expertise, demanding links to everything? The Clinton Body Count has been talked about for DECADES. There are dozens of sites with information, all sourced and detailed. Try l-o-o-k-i-n-g first.
I'm kind of surprised, actually...it works on mine now, too. I switched about two years ago, so that was when it was doing it. I couldn't go to savedeo.com (because it saves youtube movies) or kickass or piratebay. I could literally open it in Chrome and get a site not found, while Firefox right next to it, would open it. Now they work fine. I guess I assumed Chrome kept that "feature"...but they didn't.
Why is this surprising anyone? Have any of you tried to go to the PirateBay or savedeo.com with Chrome? It won't let you...it pretends it can't find the site. I used Chrome when it first came out...it was fast and the UI was nice. But since then, Chrome has slowed down a lot, and I've gone back to firefox which is basically a kludgy mess, but at least it doesn't censor my access.
Slashdot Mirror
"clean air emissions, water discharge standards, ect... Why? Because these are things people can understand, and they are immediately relevant to them. I don't want to live next to a factory dumping shit into the air/water," Nobody does. You are correct. But that is not climate change. Erroneously conflating the two is part of the problem.
Now, we can all slap ourselves on the back for helping the big guys successfully regain control and define the music business model. Now the old labels that took advantage of their musicians and have now turned into the streaming services who take advantage of their musicians. Exposure relies on their algorithms, their accounting is always in *their* books, nobody ever seems to "own" or even know where their music is anymore, and the still musician always seems to end up with the smallest share of it all at the end of the day. It's almost like we missed a brief window of a decade where all the possibilities were there...but now we've all been corralled back into their "accepted revenue channels". Now that they can all sigh a big sigh of relief that it's all gonna work out ok for their 401ks...I think they will eventually turn their attention to all the stashes of "unlicensed media" that all of us have on our systems. And I'm betting between all of us here, that's considerable. Just a prediction...but that has to be the next step, no?
We get it. You hate Trump. [yawn] Military grade reactors are not "challenging" - I know someone who worked on them. Mini nuke solutions - like the ones GE are working on - are black boxes. They are plug and play, no maintenance. They don't leak, they don't explode. If anything goes wrong, they shut down immediately. They are sealed boxes that are also disposal containers. Breeder and thorium reactors are very safe, as well as newer chinese models that actually do appear to be metldown-proof. Episodes like Fukiskima are outliers. The reactor in that case was a 40 yr old GE model, and people are still debating whether the actual core breached. The radiation that was released was not from the reactor, but the spent fuel rods being stored in pools on premises.
"business fantasy"? Sorry, that's just sad. You can't refute the conclusions with data, so you just attack the source. Why would I not trust a "business magazine" that deals in data and economics and has no stake in the outcome? You'd rather I read Mother Earth, I suppose, or Greenpeace monthly.
I can't believe the level of idiocy here. You actually think that we were able to go from nothing to landing on the moon in 10 years...but it takes 20-30 years to build a nuke from already available plans, because of...technology? You actually think that an energy company will drop half a billion on a project and just "fritter away" and waste time for decades? Sorry, that's just ridiculous on so many levels. You probably think we can't build the keystone pipeline in 15 years because we can't figure out how to "make the pipe work".
Fossil fuels are not hugely subsidized - in America. America is home to the only two private oil companies in the world. In AMerica, green energy gets more subsidies than the oil industry has ever gotten in it's entire history. All of the other oil companies are state-owned cartels that are fully subsidized. So your analysis is a bit flawed. You're comparing apples to oranges.
The big problem is you are using lab specs under pristine conditions to do your analysis. Solar and wind are greatly underperforming in the field.
It hasn't gotten any better. Wind and solar are not any more efficient than they were in 2006. Solar has had some minor improvements in the lab, but not in the field. The tech deployed thus far is not any more advanced. Most wind and solar projects currently are providing only about 30% of the expected output.
Yes, "investments" - what a quaint socialist term - are cheating. If you buy a $30,000 car, but you get $20,000 from the govt, you then cannot claim that it was a deal at $10,000.
"mandatory"...?! You see, that's problem with the Left...they ignore math, facts, and logic and rely on their power to "mandate things". Even if their ideas are unworkable, unfeasible, counterproductive, or even just plain stupid. Here's an example: there are two types of wind generation that are superior to windmills. One is a quadcopter kind of thing with a transmission cable that flies up and finds the jetstream, then turns its rotors to "passive", and just sits there, generating electricity. 24hrs a day, with almost zero footprint, and no ghastly windmills blighting the landscape. The other is a robot that can fly kites. It has two arms, two kites, one cable, and a flywheel between them on the ground. It can fly kites for years, in a figure eight pattern, 24/7 in the jetsream, generating power. A 1 acre installation can fly hundreds of kites, and there's no blight on the landscape. But are we pursuing those technologies? No. Because govt is in the subsidy business and all the crony socialist enterprises are already locked into the govt contracts for dumbass windmills - which are "mandatory". So we're going to be stuck on stupid for some time.
Wind and solar are only less expensive because of subsidies - which is cheating. They are actually the most expensive forms of energy out there, not only in terms of kw output, but the overall footprint required. http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au... Solar, for example, is 30-40% more expensive without subsidies http://www.bloomberg.com/news/... As for my karma, how can I possibly prove to you what I have seen with my own eyes? This is not my first time down this road on slashdot. It's not so much that I'm "pro-nuke", but that I'm "anti-green". The reality is, I'm just "pro-better".
And you're an anonymous coward, so what's the point? Nuclear is VERY cost-efficient, and compact in terms of footprint. The reasons that it doesn't appear so at the moment have nothing to do with the technology, but the efforts of environmental groups to stop them. Years of red tape, study after study, injunction after injunction raise the costs and time for construction considerably. Do you honestly think it takes decades to build a reactor because of the technology? Seriously? They aren't "piddling around", they're being interfered with, obstructed, and delayed. http://www.fool.com/investing/... I am a realist. Mini-nukes - the kind on aircraft carriers and submarine are very cost-effective, incredibly safe, and the military literally has decades of data on their output and function. I had a brother who was in the navy, and they used to sleep on top of them. And it will scale fine...you're still thinking about large-scale plants like three mile island. I'm talking about reactors the size of refrigerators that arrive fully-fueled and automated. You never have to do maintenance, you never have to adjust them...and when they're out of fuel, the entire unit becomes a disposal container. They don't have to be large enough to power entire states, just small towns and cities. And before you whip out your Bush Derangement Syndrome, it's Obama (and GE) that are building and deploying them NOW. http://news.nationalgeographic...
Increased efficiency is fine, but will never make up for decreased capacity, and will ultimately only stall any future growth. Nordic states - like Iceland, for example - are in the same boat as costa rica: they are relying on geothermal and hyrdroelectric. (Which I like, by the way, but it's just not practical here.) Germany's green energy is turning out to be a myth. There are plenty of articles about how it is failing, once you get outside the green press. Like this, for example: http://www.forbes.com/sites/re... That's an article from 2013, and it's gotten even worse since they've shut down their nuclear. Look, I get it: you feel the dream. You believe in a green friendly utopia with windmills and solar panels and shiny happy people holding hands. But I'm a firm believer in math - aka reality - and to replace our grid capacity with solar and wind would require paving over most of the southwest, and limit any growth to current levels. What we need is nuclear - fusion or fission, I don't care which. A tiny nuclear fission reactor like on our aircraft carriers could power a small city cleanly and safely for decades, for relatively low cost. The technology is here, it is well-understood, and could be implemented quickly. But as long as the green movement says no, we are on a trajectory to the stone age. I know this isn't a popular opinion round here, and it always costs me karma, but I'm just being a realist.
This is getting a little out of hand. Yes, Costa Rica is running on "renewable" energy...but they have access to large amounts of geothermal many countries don't, plentiful hydroelectric energy which environmentalists are busy tearing down here, and a population only slightly larger than half of NYC. Plus, their grid capacity is only 2.7 mgw, which is approx 3/100th of ours. I personally don't care what color our energy is, I just want *better* energy...and the fact is, the only type of clean energy that can handle our demands would be nuclear; and since that's also off limits because of the environmental lobby, I don't see "green energy" meeting any of our demands any time soon. At the risk of destroying my karma further...these stories serve no purpose except to glorify things that can't work and coax us into implementing technologies that will never keep up, and will only raise our costs. It basically amounts to green propaganda. As for GM...the fact that they receive enormous subsidies from the Obama admin which bailed out their company and appointed their CEO (in true fascist fashion) - this is hardly a surprise. They know who their masters are.
All this legal mumbo jumbo amounts to is a blank check. "Security" can be defined and requested based on any recommendations from any think tank board that they deem "important". So, if the FEC requires that political speech be censored prior to an election, or if the TPP trade authority wants a pirated download stopped because it violates copyright, or if wikileaks lets anyone know any more about Hillary's character flaws and corruption... the network itself can be used to achieve this, and at the behest of the govt. No one will need to try and take down PirateBay anymore; they can just cut all traffic to it. WHo cares if wikileaks has another bomb to drop, if no one can ever receive it?
actually, he's more of a Berlusconi, than a Mussolini... but that hardly matters to you, I'm sure. Why waste a good meme? Yeah, I saw that video. So what? If you keep and maintain nuclear weapons as a deterrent, then "taking them off the table" makes them useless as such. "Leaving everything on the table" doesn't mean he's going to use them, it just retains their strategic value in terms of negotiation and deterence. The fact that you don't get this shows that foreign policy is not exactly your strong suit.
...and how many of those have happened? Obviously those of you who think the he threw a baby out of his rally, never watched the video - you would've known it was a lie. Face it - you like to posture about all the "video evidence"...but there's scant little of it, and you don't watch it anyway - you just *assume* that it is there.
the rule of thumb I have been using lately, and I stand by it...is that whatever is said about Trump - the faster it spreads, the more likely it is a lie.
You guys are unbelievable. No sources. Just a third hand account from a third rate journalist with no corroboration and zero context whatsoever. Guess what: Trump didn't throw a baby out of his rally, he didn't call to assassinate Hillary, he's not a super duper russian double agent, and he's not "just like Hitler". The problem is, you lefties have all lost your collective mind. You're up to about two delusional fantasies per week. It's called TrumpDerrangementSyndrome, and it's getting old.
We have corruption on an unprecedented, massive, global scale. We have lies, cover-ups, and influence peddling. And anyone who's seen Clinton Cash knows we also have the raping of entire third world countries to add to the list. Now we have whistleblowers/leakers winding up dead on their way to FBI. But by all means vote for the bitch. She's already several orders of magnitude worse than Bush and Nixon combined, and hasn't even had "real power" yet - I'm sure it will work out fine. Because Trump. Yeah, that's the ticket. Because Trump.
What is it with you people that seemingly have not been paying attention for decades, and have no google expertise, demanding links to everything? The Clinton Body Count has been talked about for DECADES. There are dozens of sites with information, all sourced and detailed. Try l-o-o-k-i-n-g first.
It works in mine, too, now for some reason. This all occurred two years ago, and I assumed it was still the case...I mean, why would they stop, right?
I'm kind of surprised, actually...it works on mine now, too. I switched about two years ago, so that was when it was doing it. I couldn't go to savedeo.com (because it saves youtube movies) or kickass or piratebay. I could literally open it in Chrome and get a site not found, while Firefox right next to it, would open it. Now they work fine. I guess I assumed Chrome kept that "feature"...but they didn't.
Why is this surprising anyone? Have any of you tried to go to the PirateBay or savedeo.com with Chrome? It won't let you...it pretends it can't find the site. I used Chrome when it first came out...it was fast and the UI was nice. But since then, Chrome has slowed down a lot, and I've gone back to firefox which is basically a kludgy mess, but at least it doesn't censor my access.
Because - as we all know - the secret to great development is evenly distributed melanin and genitalia.