Danger is inflated and the cost is still less per GW than solar but none of that will matter to you since you have made solar a matter of faith and identity.
Biase? "About 3,500 of the jobs at the Clyde base are uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees, most of whom work principally on other aspects of the Navy's submarine programme, rather than Trident."
If they move the Trident subs they will move all the nuclear subs. The RN does not have any large non-nuclear subs in service. You would not just have those jobs leave but so would many of the jobs in the shops where the people from the base spend their money.
New Scotland Navy? Okay....
Really you just flat out trust a site that has a strong anti-nuclear stand to give you the truth about the down side of what they want? Do you no know human nature. They will do research and then stop once they get the answer they want. You have to have an open mind and try and see past any sites agenda.
RN closes the base and say good bye to the jobs, and the paychecks of the service people and their families that get spent in the community. And Scotland has not voted yes yet.
1 That is just the active known reserves. 2 There has been no Uranium mines opened in decades. 3 Japan, France, Russia, and China already reprocess fuel and use plutonium for fuel. That stretches the fuel to many centuries. The use doing the same would not increase the risk of nuclear proliferation. 4 New reactors can use Thorium which is 3x as common as Uranium but only.72% of uranium is "fuel" while 100 of Thorium is. So that means per pound of you have 137x the fuel in Thorium than Uranium. It is potential fuel because it has to breed but it is a proven process and it is breed in situ. So if we have 240 years at present levels 240 X 137 ==33120 years now 33120X3 for the fact that Thorium is 3 times as common = 99360 years at current consumption. So let's divide that by 7 and you have 14194 years of coal replacement for the planet just from Thorium. If we have not come up with something better by then we are in deep trouble. So yes if we stick to just using the lest efficient way to use uranium as fuel we only have about 40 years if replace all coal.
5. We do not have to replace all coal with nuclear because we can also use wind as baseload with natural gas fired backing plants to start. 6. In the near term not every nation will have the option to replace coal with nuclear because of economics and stability. For them coal and if they are lucky natural gas along with wind and solar will be their option. The good thing is that if the US reduces it's use of coal the cost will come down for poorer nations and the net CO2 emissions should still be lower. Once Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are in mass production then it can used by nations that are less stable since they have extremely high safety margins and very low margins for proliferation.
I did. "You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not, and you don't even know it. What you want is a stable running driver, and you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree. You also get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main kernel tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable, and mature operating system which is the reason you are using it in the first place."
I do not agree that the only get this is if your driver is in the main kernel tree.
"This is complete BS. Drivers can be delivered as source and built on the target machine or as binaries with the appropriate packageing." Which means when you get a kernel update things stop working until you fiddle with the drivers.
I do not see any value of not allowing an ABI. Even if you limited it to just FOSS drivers! I would like it to be universal but even FOSS drivers that are not included in the Kernel become a PITA when you do a update.
I think many people feel that Microsoft missed the boat on many opportunities. The Mobile market to start with. They had a Mobile OS years before Microsoft and failed to innovate enough to move it into the consumer market. They had a lock on enterprise email but it was RIM that made the solution for mobile email. They failed in the media market. They are doing well in enterprise but Chromebooks and boxes are becoming more of a danger. They are not doing well in the tablet market at all. WP8 is good but maybe too little too late.
Yes he did well at making money during his time as CEO but is the company in a good position for the future? That is up for debate. All in all I agree with you. Microsoft was not destroyed at all it may not have been lead as well as it could have but it did well.
Actually yes there is http://www.scientificamerican.... The US could easily replace coal for the next 100 years with nuclear without reprocessing. At present we have over 230 years supply of uranium so even if we double our use we have well over 100 years of supply and that it without finding any more and without breeding more fuel.. "http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html" If you go to thorium it is a lot longer well over 1000 years. And if we we use breeder reactors you are talking several thousand years supply. Yes some reactors are over budget but other GEN III reactors are already in service in Japan.
It has not proven to be a huge proliferation risk, France and Japan both reprocess fuel. That fear has so far been unfounded. Even if you still want to use non-proliferation as a reason to not process fuel it is not an issue with Thorium cycle reactors since no plutonium is produced. .
Solar is an opportunistic source of power. You can use it to replace some peaking load when available. It is not effective as a baseload. Wind is better but still requires peaking style backing plants. It maybe that large scale thermal solar plants have too high of an ecological impact but those issues are not found in pv solar plants.
People need to stop advocating for technologies and start advocating for solutions. The fast path to low carbon energy independence for the US is to replace coal baseload plants with nuclear and build solar and wind. In the short term electricity base load should come from nuclear, hydro, wind, and natural gas. Peaking from natural gas plus solar when available. Medium term Baseload Nuclear, hydro, wind. Peaking natural gas, solar. transportation fuel reformulated natural gas. Long term Baseload unchanged, Peaking synthetic CH4 and H2 plus solar, transportation reformulated synthetic natural gas.
I left out electric from transportation because while it is practical for trains and cars "if the costs keep coming down" it will not be for ships, trains, and long haul trucks. With enough cheap energy it is possible to make CH4 from the air and water and then make that into diesel and jet fuel. Of course very long term we may get fusion and or super batteries that will make storage more practical but they are not here.
I saw no proof limited data provided that proves it was radiation. In fact that difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima seems to indicate it is not the radiation. Even if it is you are comparing the damaged caused by a massive natural disaster vs a normally operating solar plant. Also that failure mod is impossible with a modern 4g reactor.
Sigh... No the fish kills are from all power plants. The riverkeeper post never mentions nuclear at all.
As to the bird population drop... It actually does not make any sense that it is from radiation. It says the number of birds counted is down. Massive flooding of the habitat by salt water could very well be the reason. The paper is behind a paywall so their is no way for me to read it but it seems to just count the number of birds in the area. If radiation was the cause then it would make more sense for Chernobyl to have a lower bird count since it had and has a much higher level of radiation. It does not. So a human researcher goes to a location with elevated radiation and suffered massive flooding to count birds. The count is lower and the researcher has a hypothesis that radiation would decrease the bird count... Conclusion it is the radiation.
I would love to see Slashdot cover more FOSS end user apps "Besides OO.org, and LibreOffice" releases. It would also be interesting to see some "cool projects just starting" stories to get developers interested in contributing. I would love to see sections for dev tools, libraries, and frameworks but I am not sure that their is enough interest in those on Slashdot.
Ummm couldn't the reduction be caused by the massive habitat destruction caused by the flooding? Also you are comparing the results of a massive natural disaster with normal operation. The fish issue can be resolved by using a closed loop cooling system.
"A merchant has to be able to make money to keep the lights on and pay the rent. A merchant is subject to physical constraints. A merchant is PAYING for the things they present to you."
A website has to pay to host, to maintain the system. If you have never been involved with even a medium sized website you would not dismiss those costs.
That is where things go pearshaped. A website that does not allow you to post x is not stopping your freedom of speech. You can post on other websites or start your own. Your freedom of speech is not being infringed on. You are allowed to say whatever you want "within reason aka slander, fraud, and so on" you have no right to say it everywhere.
So any store that only carries Organic foods is censoring? Yours is a definition with difference. We do not carry x because our customer base does not want it. If you do not carry it of course people do not go there to buy it.
By your definition CVS is censoring the tobacco companies by not selling tobacco products in the future. They sold them for years and we know people want them so CVS is being evil and censoring?
A website or a store deciding that they do to carry a product is not. Whole Foods does not sell Coke. A tee shirt stop may not want to carry a KKK or Hitler tee shirt. A website may not want posts that are offensive. The nice thing is you can always start your own Website or store or go to different store or website.
That being said, why is this offensive speech worthy of protection and not, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,.....
" it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches." Well. 1. The first part may be true. I have had men attack me personally on Slashdot and women could do the very same thing. 2. The second part is simple bigotry.
Misogyny is the hate or strong dislike of women. That is simply a lack of respect for or bias of women. Still not okay but actual Misogyny usually is reserved from much more extreme actions.
It is also not even bias to say that a women is personally attacking you if you feel that is what is happening anymore than it is bias to say a male is attacking you personally if you feel that way.
Correct it would be exploitable. Some people might only be jerks when they are posting as an AC while reasonable when not. If they are universal jerks that would be found out soon enough. Frankly I do not like the blocking terminology on slashdot since it sound combative plus it shows who you have blocked to the world as well as who had blocked you.
Frankly I can put up with most of the posts on Slashdot even the vile ones but I just can not recommend it to some younger people that I know. I would love an option to auto moderate down profanity or obscure it at the readers option but these are all just suggestions and I can in no way force these on anyone. For some reason people get bent when people say things like this.
I never had an issue with Ubuntu server but I would suggest looking at CentOS for servers. A lot will depend on APT vs RPM but I found that CentOS tended to get stable releases of most server software before most other OSs because it could use RHEL RPMs to update.
Slashdot Mirror
Danger is inflated and the cost is still less per GW than solar but none of that will matter to you since you have made solar a matter of faith and identity.
Ahh no that is not a valid conclusion to draw from my post.
It is one drive by fear and ignorance but not from data.
Biase?
"About 3,500 of the jobs at the Clyde base are uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees, most of whom work principally on other aspects of the Navy's submarine programme, rather than Trident."
If they move the Trident subs they will move all the nuclear subs. The RN does not have any large non-nuclear subs in service.
You would not just have those jobs leave but so would many of the jobs in the shops where the people from the base spend their money.
New Scotland Navy? Okay....
Really you just flat out trust a site that has a strong anti-nuclear stand to give you the truth about the down side of what they want? Do you no know human nature. They will do research and then stop once they get the answer they want. You have to have an open mind and try and see past any sites agenda.
RN closes the base and say good bye to the jobs, and the paychecks of the service people and their families that get spent in the community.
And Scotland has not voted yes yet.
1 That is just the active known reserves. .72% of uranium is "fuel" while 100 of Thorium is.
2 There has been no Uranium mines opened in decades.
3 Japan, France, Russia, and China already reprocess fuel and use plutonium for fuel. That stretches the fuel to many centuries. The use doing the same would not increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.
4 New reactors can use Thorium which is 3x as common as Uranium but only
So that means per pound of you have 137x the fuel in Thorium than Uranium. It is potential fuel because it has to breed but it is a proven process and it is breed in situ. So if we have 240 years at present levels 240 X 137 ==33120 years now 33120X3 for the fact that Thorium is 3 times as common = 99360 years at current consumption. So let's divide that by 7 and you have 14194 years of coal replacement for the planet just from Thorium. If we have not come up with something better by then we are in deep trouble.
So yes if we stick to just using the lest efficient way to use uranium as fuel we only have about 40 years if replace all coal.
5. We do not have to replace all coal with nuclear because we can also use wind as baseload with natural gas fired backing plants to start.
6. In the near term not every nation will have the option to replace coal with nuclear because of economics and stability. For them coal and if they are lucky natural gas along with wind and solar will be their option. The good thing is that if the US reduces it's use of coal the cost will come down for poorer nations and the net CO2 emissions should still be lower. Once Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are in mass production then it can used by nations that are less stable since they have extremely high safety margins and very low margins for proliferation.
I did.
"You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not, and
you don't even know it. What you want is a stable running driver, and
you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree. You also
get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main kernel
tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable, and mature
operating system which is the reason you are using it in the first
place."
I do not agree that the only get this is if your driver is in the main kernel tree.
"This is complete BS. Drivers can be delivered as source and built on the target machine or as binaries with the appropriate packageing."
Which means when you get a kernel update things stop working until you fiddle with the drivers.
I do not see any value of not allowing an ABI. Even if you limited it to just FOSS drivers! I would like it to be universal but even FOSS drivers that are not included in the Kernel become a PITA when you do a update.
I think many people feel that Microsoft missed the boat on many opportunities.
The Mobile market to start with. They had a Mobile OS years before Microsoft and failed to innovate enough to move it into the consumer market. They had a lock on enterprise email but it was RIM that made the solution for mobile email.
They failed in the media market.
They are doing well in enterprise but Chromebooks and boxes are becoming more of a danger. They are not doing well in the tablet market at all. WP8 is good but maybe too little too late.
Yes he did well at making money during his time as CEO but is the company in a good position for the future? That is up for debate.
All in all I agree with you. Microsoft was not destroyed at all it may not have been lead as well as it could have but it did well.
Actually yes there is
http://www.scientificamerican....
The US could easily replace coal for the next 100 years with nuclear without reprocessing.
At present we have over 230 years supply of uranium so even if we double our use we have well over 100 years of supply and that it without finding any more and without breeding more fuel..
"http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium.html"
If you go to thorium it is a lot longer well over 1000 years.
And if we we use breeder reactors you are talking several thousand years supply.
Yes some reactors are over budget but other GEN III reactors are already in service in Japan.
It has not proven to be a huge proliferation risk, France and Japan both reprocess fuel. That fear has so far been unfounded.
Even if you still want to use non-proliferation as a reason to not process fuel it is not an issue with Thorium cycle reactors since no plutonium is produced. .
Solar is an opportunistic source of power. You can use it to replace some peaking load when available. It is not effective as a baseload.
Wind is better but still requires peaking style backing plants.
It maybe that large scale thermal solar plants have too high of an ecological impact but those issues are not found in pv solar plants.
People need to stop advocating for technologies and start advocating for solutions.
The fast path to low carbon energy independence for the US is to replace coal baseload plants with nuclear and build solar and wind.
In the short term electricity base load should come from nuclear, hydro, wind, and natural gas.
Peaking from natural gas plus solar when available.
Medium term Baseload Nuclear, hydro, wind. Peaking natural gas, solar. transportation fuel reformulated natural gas.
Long term Baseload unchanged, Peaking synthetic CH4 and H2 plus solar, transportation reformulated synthetic natural gas.
I left out electric from transportation because while it is practical for trains and cars "if the costs keep coming down" it will not be for ships, trains, and long haul trucks. With enough cheap energy it is possible to make CH4 from the air and water and then make that into diesel and jet fuel.
Of course very long term we may get fusion and or super batteries that will make storage more practical but they are not here.
Sigh....
Sorry I ment Gen3. Gen 4 are not illegal they have not been approved for commercial use yet but severel prototypes are under construction.
I saw no proof limited data provided that proves it was radiation. In fact that difference between Chernobyl and Fukushima seems to indicate it is not the radiation.
Even if it is you are comparing the damaged caused by a massive natural disaster vs a normally operating solar plant. Also that failure mod is impossible with a modern 4g reactor.
Sigh... No the fish kills are from all power plants. The riverkeeper post never mentions nuclear at all.
As to the bird population drop... It actually does not make any sense that it is from radiation. It says the number of birds counted is down. Massive flooding of the habitat by salt water could very well be the reason. The paper is behind a paywall so their is no way for me to read it but it seems to just count the number of birds in the area. If radiation was the cause then it would make more sense for Chernobyl to have a lower bird count since it had and has a much higher level of radiation. It does not.
So a human researcher goes to a location with elevated radiation and suffered massive flooding to count birds. The count is lower and the researcher has a hypothesis that radiation would decrease the bird count... Conclusion it is the radiation.
I would love to see Slashdot cover more FOSS end user apps "Besides OO.org, and LibreOffice" releases. It would also be interesting to see some "cool projects just starting" stories to get developers interested in contributing.
I would love to see sections for dev tools, libraries, and frameworks but I am not sure that their is enough interest in those on Slashdot.
Ummm couldn't the reduction be caused by the massive habitat destruction caused by the flooding?
Also you are comparing the results of a massive natural disaster with normal operation.
The fish issue can be resolved by using a closed loop cooling system.
Simple build Nuclear plants. No oil spills and no air pollution.
But can you upgrade the ram? Put in a bigger SSD? If so then it could be an interesting device.
"A merchant has to be able to make money to keep the lights on and pay the rent. A merchant is subject to physical constraints. A merchant is PAYING for the things they present to you."
A website has to pay to host, to maintain the system. If you have never been involved with even a medium sized website you would not dismiss those costs.
That is where things go pearshaped.
A website that does not allow you to post x is not stopping your freedom of speech. You can post on other websites or start your own.
Your freedom of speech is not being infringed on.
You are allowed to say whatever you want "within reason aka slander, fraud, and so on" you have no right to say it everywhere.
So any store that only carries Organic foods is censoring?
Yours is a definition with difference.
We do not carry x because our customer base does not want it.
If you do not carry it of course people do not go there to buy it.
By your definition CVS is censoring the tobacco companies by not selling tobacco products in the future.
They sold them for years and we know people want them so CVS is being evil and censoring?
1. Censorship only applies to governments.
A website or a store deciding that they do to carry a product is not.
Whole Foods does not sell Coke.
A tee shirt stop may not want to carry a KKK or Hitler tee shirt.
A website may not want posts that are offensive.
The nice thing is you can always start your own Website or store or go to different store or website.
That being said, why is this offensive speech worthy of protection and not, anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-islamic, anti-gay, pro-abortion, anti-abortion,.....
" it will be full of people accusing the women involved of attacking them personally and of being whiney bitches."
Well.
1. The first part may be true. I have had men attack me personally on Slashdot and women could do the very same thing.
2. The second part is simple bigotry.
Misogyny is the hate or strong dislike of women. That is simply a lack of respect for or bias of women. Still not okay but actual Misogyny usually is reserved from much more extreme actions.
It is also not even bias to say that a women is personally attacking you if you feel that is what is happening anymore than it is bias to say a male is attacking you personally if you feel that way.
Ummm... Not according to Charity Navigator.
http://www.charitynavigator.or...
They get 4 stars.
Or give.org
http://www.give.org/charity-re...
Or the Christian Science monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Busin...
Correct it would be exploitable. Some people might only be jerks when they are posting as an AC while reasonable when not. If they are universal jerks that would be found out soon enough. Frankly I do not like the blocking terminology on slashdot since it sound combative plus it shows who you have blocked to the world as well as who had blocked you.
Frankly I can put up with most of the posts on Slashdot even the vile ones but I just can not recommend it to some younger people that I know. I would love an option to auto moderate down profanity or obscure it at the readers option but these are all just suggestions and I can in no way force these on anyone. For some reason people get bent when people say things like this.
I never had an issue with Ubuntu server but I would suggest looking at CentOS for servers.
A lot will depend on APT vs RPM but I found that CentOS tended to get stable releases of most server software before most other OSs because it could use RHEL RPMs to update.