Simple solution - just detonate the bomb underwater. All the nuclear nastiness will be cleared up by the water above it, just like smoking through a bong, right?
Dude, what kind of bong do you have, and what are you smoking with it?
This sounds like the plot of a Cheech and Chong movie.
New customers make you money but old customers are a drain on your financials.
And old customers will bitch and complain, but will succumb to the sunk costs fallacy since they have the device, and just continue to pay. It's easier to bitch than to actually take your business elsewhere, and people don't like to believe they have been suckered.
I've seen tons of articles like this over the last decade, touting carbon nanotubes as being the enabling technology for all sorts of improved applications.
Can anyone actually point me to something that has made it to production utilizing carbon nanotubes? I'm not being snarky here - I'm really curious to know if any of this is actually getting off the workbench into mainstream use anywhere.
Carbon nanotubes hit me as being a wonder invention like nuclear fusion; if we can build it it will be awesome, but we probably won't be able to build it for at least $DATE + 20 years.
This. I think expecting workplace charging is like expecting your workplace to maintain a gas station for you. It would be convenient, but the costs don't make sense, and no one wants to pay it. If you work for a government and they decide to do it for the betterment of society, lucky you, but the rest of the world is out of luck. EVs need to have the range to get to work and back, period.
There already are $20K 4 seat electric cars (after subsidies) that go 150km, and charge up overnight on a 120V connection, and they're a niche item. 300km would be a definite improvement, but I'm not sure it would change the world overnight.
150km represents something like a 90 minute round-trip commute at highway speeds. 20% of Americans have commutes of this distance or greater, and if they don't have a charging capability at work, these vehicles are non-starters. I'm one of these people - my commute is on the ragged edge of performance range of electrics right now and I can't risk it. I'd buy a $20k electric with a 300km range in a heartbeat.
Electric cars are a very tight niche now. If you have a short commute, it hardly matters whether you drive gas or electric because the energy costs are cheap either way, and gas vehicles are still cheaper to buy. If you have a long commute, you're going gas, because electric can't get you the range. The only place electric cars work is in the extreme ragged edge of battery range, in places where charging at both ends of the commute is possible, and where gas prices might come close to offsetting the cost differential in the vehicle purchase.
Get the range into the regime where range anxiety is a non-issue for 99% of car owners at this price point and electrics will take off. Right now 20% of car buyers know they need more range, and probably another 20-30% aren't sure that the real range (not the quoted range) will meet their needs. 300km range would do this.
Until you can tell me how to stop that or make it more profitable for the plants to be safe than dangerous in the _short_ term then I won't trust nukes.
This is EXACTLY the problem, summed up in your own words. You don't trust "nukes" and so won't let them shut down old plants and build new plants in a timely fashion that WOULD allow them to be more profitable and much safer generators!
What you don't get is that safety IS the biggest cost driver in nuclear generation. Operators would really, really like to build and operate reliable and safe plants because that would increase their profits in addition to being the right thing to do. But they can't because people "don't trust nukes". That attitude puts the operators in an impossible position.
so should every power source. it works or it doesn't. on its own.
How about offshore wind in the U.S.? That was killed off by a handful of billionaires with lawyers who didn't want to see wind turbines out on the horizon from their beach front property. The technology is well established and is very cost effective in Europe, pumping out tens of gigawatts of power, but offshore wind got cock-blocked in the U.S. by a few rich children who don't really didn't give a damn about U.S. jobs, energy independence, or the environment.
The best thing a government can do is ensure projects are implemented for the greater good of the country, and not because a few rich individuals forced the issue for their own personal gain or beliefs.
Because the costs of nuclear are all up front, the most effective strategy for preventing nukes from being built is to impose construction delays.
This is the same strategy used by those against U.S. offshore wind. The 10-year Cape Wind project was strategically delayed at every turn by lawsuits until they lost their power purchase agreements in January 2015 - game over.
The DOE and the states are now pushing harder for offshore wind development, and projects in deeper waters off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island are proceeding, for now. The Deepwater Wind Block Island project has the base structure installed and six 5 MW turbines will be installed on them next year - the first installed offshore wind in the U.S. (note that Europe has had offshore wind for nearly 25 years and has a net offshore wind capacity passing through 11,000 MW as of 2015; while the U.S. will have 30 MW sometime next year, hopefully).
I think the government and states are much more keen on getting more renewables in their portfolio, so hopefully that means the rich idiots on Cape Cod who don't want to see wind turbines in the ocean are going to be told to go fuck themselves rectally with their yacht masts.
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
Because they can't increase capacity because they can't build new plants because of the anti-nuke people, and so they are forced to maintain and run old plants and verify their safety to the NRC (which costs a lot). Nuclear would be cheap generation except for this.
The problem right now is that people don't want to see new, safer, more efficient nuclear plants being built, because they're nuclear!
Unfortunately, it means that they spend their time protesting right outside the gates of older, creaky, less safe and more expensive nuclear plants that the operators would actually love to shut down so they could build and operate the newer, safer, more efficient designs.
Believe it or not, the folks that actually live near and work at nuclear plants have more than a passing interest in safe nuclear power, and don't want their kids glowing after dark any more than any other parent. I know, it's crazy, but it's true!
If these people could get their heads out of their asses they might realize that, if nuclear energy must be utilized, that allowing newer, safer plant designs to be built would be the smartest path. Though I'm afraid clear and logical thinking isn't a strong point of the anti-nuclear crowd.
What "things or people" does a wind turbine "process"? Your definitions show "turbine" != "mill".
Twist the words as much as you please, but if you go to a wind power conference and decide to call wind turbines "mills", people will treat you like an asshat.
With Mars - it is the same thing. At first, going to the moon was totally exciting, electrifying the entire world. After the second or third landing, people stopped caring. Been there, done that. If we go to Mars, the first trip would make headlines, so may the second, but then attention will fade. People will care about a colony on Mars as much as they care about the international space station.
I'm pretty sure the English aren't overly excited about the American colonies anymore, but I hear that those colonies have achieved some measure of success despite that.
Going to Mars isn't about making headlines. There are people that think humankind should aspire to be an interplanetary species, and they see a time where picking up to move to Mars will be like picking up from NYC and moving to L.A. If all goes well, the colonies on Mars would be quickly rendered uninteresting, as most successful colonies are.
Calling a wind turbine a wind mill is like calling a car a horseless carriage. It's an archaic and incorrect description. When people say "wind mill", they are announcing their technical illiteracy.
Wind turbines are modern devices that convert the kinetic energy of the wind into electricity.
Wind mills were used in the past to mill salt and grain. Spanish gentlemen were said to tilt at them occasionally.
Actually I just thought of the perfect analogy: it's like a modern UI paradigm where rather than have the options set out in nice discoverable menus, folders or similar you have to play "guess the gesture / guess what the cog/robot-head/wavey-icon/band-of-colour-at-bottom-of-screen means" game. And about as much fun.
Maybe they should teach Cortana how to play Bullshit Bingo so it at least have a humorous error during these sales meetings. It will just sit quietly for a while, and then in the middle of the meeting it will just shout "BULLSHIT!"
Slashdot Mirror
Is that greyhat?
No, it's asshat.
Simple solution - just detonate the bomb underwater. All the nuclear nastiness will be cleared up by the water above it, just like smoking through a bong, right?
Dude, what kind of bong do you have, and what are you smoking with it?
This sounds like the plot of a Cheech and Chong movie.
New customers make you money but old customers are a drain on your financials.
And old customers will bitch and complain, but will succumb to the sunk costs fallacy since they have the device, and just continue to pay. It's easier to bitch than to actually take your business elsewhere, and people don't like to believe they have been suckered.
What a deal! My address is One Schroeder Plaza, Boston, MA 02120. I won't be around for a while, but you can go right in any time day or night.
Bring doughnuts
I've seen tons of articles like this over the last decade, touting carbon nanotubes as being the enabling technology for all sorts of improved applications.
Can anyone actually point me to something that has made it to production utilizing carbon nanotubes? I'm not being snarky here - I'm really curious to know if any of this is actually getting off the workbench into mainstream use anywhere.
Carbon nanotubes hit me as being a wonder invention like nuclear fusion; if we can build it it will be awesome, but we probably won't be able to build it for at least $DATE + 20 years.
This. I think expecting workplace charging is like expecting your workplace to maintain a gas station for you. It would be convenient, but the costs don't make sense, and no one wants to pay it. If you work for a government and they decide to do it for the betterment of society, lucky you, but the rest of the world is out of luck. EVs need to have the range to get to work and back, period.
Yes, it was killed by rich folks vacationing in oh-so-liberal, green Massachusetts.
FTFY
There already are $20K 4 seat electric cars (after subsidies) that go 150km, and charge up overnight on a 120V connection, and they're a niche item. 300km would be a definite improvement, but I'm not sure it would change the world overnight.
150km represents something like a 90 minute round-trip commute at highway speeds. 20% of Americans have commutes of this distance or greater, and if they don't have a charging capability at work, these vehicles are non-starters. I'm one of these people - my commute is on the ragged edge of performance range of electrics right now and I can't risk it. I'd buy a $20k electric with a 300km range in a heartbeat.
Electric cars are a very tight niche now. If you have a short commute, it hardly matters whether you drive gas or electric because the energy costs are cheap either way, and gas vehicles are still cheaper to buy. If you have a long commute, you're going gas, because electric can't get you the range. The only place electric cars work is in the extreme ragged edge of battery range, in places where charging at both ends of the commute is possible, and where gas prices might come close to offsetting the cost differential in the vehicle purchase.
Get the range into the regime where range anxiety is a non-issue for 99% of car owners at this price point and electrics will take off. Right now 20% of car buyers know they need more range, and probably another 20-30% aren't sure that the real range (not the quoted range) will meet their needs. 300km range would do this.
You'll get what Microsoft wants and like it, or not - they don't care about your preferences anymore.
If you want to send them a message, stop buying their software. This is a less painful option than it used to be, believe it or not.
Until you can tell me how to stop that or make it more profitable for the plants to be safe than dangerous in the _short_ term then I won't trust nukes.
This is EXACTLY the problem, summed up in your own words. You don't trust "nukes" and so won't let them shut down old plants and build new plants in a timely fashion that WOULD allow them to be more profitable and much safer generators!
What you don't get is that safety IS the biggest cost driver in nuclear generation. Operators would really, really like to build and operate reliable and safe plants because that would increase their profits in addition to being the right thing to do. But they can't because people "don't trust nukes". That attitude puts the operators in an impossible position.
so should every power source. it works or it doesn't. on its own.
How about offshore wind in the U.S.? That was killed off by a handful of billionaires with lawyers who didn't want to see wind turbines out on the horizon from their beach front property. The technology is well established and is very cost effective in Europe, pumping out tens of gigawatts of power, but offshore wind got cock-blocked in the U.S. by a few rich children who don't really didn't give a damn about U.S. jobs, energy independence, or the environment.
The best thing a government can do is ensure projects are implemented for the greater good of the country, and not because a few rich individuals forced the issue for their own personal gain or beliefs.
Because the costs of nuclear are all up front, the most effective strategy for preventing nukes from being built is to impose construction delays.
This is the same strategy used by those against U.S. offshore wind. The 10-year Cape Wind project was strategically delayed at every turn by lawsuits until they lost their power purchase agreements in January 2015 - game over.
The DOE and the states are now pushing harder for offshore wind development, and projects in deeper waters off of Massachusetts and Rhode Island are proceeding, for now. The Deepwater Wind Block Island project has the base structure installed and six 5 MW turbines will be installed on them next year - the first installed offshore wind in the U.S. (note that Europe has had offshore wind for nearly 25 years and has a net offshore wind capacity passing through 11,000 MW as of 2015; while the U.S. will have 30 MW sometime next year, hopefully).
I think the government and states are much more keen on getting more renewables in their portfolio, so hopefully that means the rich idiots on Cape Cod who don't want to see wind turbines in the ocean are going to be told to go fuck themselves rectally with their yacht masts.
The question I would ask in response is why is nuclear so expensive?
Because they can't increase capacity because they can't build new plants because of the anti-nuke people, and so they are forced to maintain and run old plants and verify their safety to the NRC (which costs a lot). Nuclear would be cheap generation except for this.
The problem right now is that people don't want to see new, safer, more efficient nuclear plants being built, because they're nuclear!
Unfortunately, it means that they spend their time protesting right outside the gates of older, creaky, less safe and more expensive nuclear plants that the operators would actually love to shut down so they could build and operate the newer, safer, more efficient designs.
Believe it or not, the folks that actually live near and work at nuclear plants have more than a passing interest in safe nuclear power, and don't want their kids glowing after dark any more than any other parent. I know, it's crazy, but it's true!
If these people could get their heads out of their asses they might realize that, if nuclear energy must be utilized, that allowing newer, safer plant designs to be built would be the smartest path. Though I'm afraid clear and logical thinking isn't a strong point of the anti-nuclear crowd.
Unfortunately he was thinking of one-way glass with the ability to look into our affairs.
Call me when we catch DeepMind in GTA shagging a hooker in a Bugatti.
What "things or people" does a wind turbine "process"? Your definitions show "turbine" != "mill".
Twist the words as much as you please, but if you go to a wind power conference and decide to call wind turbines "mills", people will treat you like an asshat.
With Mars - it is the same thing. At first, going to the moon was totally exciting, electrifying the entire world. After the second or third landing, people stopped caring. Been there, done that. If we go to Mars, the first trip would make headlines, so may the second, but then attention will fade. People will care about a colony on Mars as much as they care about the international space station.
I'm pretty sure the English aren't overly excited about the American colonies anymore, but I hear that those colonies have achieved some measure of success despite that.
Going to Mars isn't about making headlines. There are people that think humankind should aspire to be an interplanetary species, and they see a time where picking up to move to Mars will be like picking up from NYC and moving to L.A. If all goes well, the colonies on Mars would be quickly rendered uninteresting, as most successful colonies are.
Repeat after me...wind turbine.
Calling a wind turbine a wind mill is like calling a car a horseless carriage. It's an archaic and incorrect description. When people say "wind mill", they are announcing their technical illiteracy.
Wind turbines are modern devices that convert the kinetic energy of the wind into electricity.
Wind mills were used in the past to mill salt and grain. Spanish gentlemen were said to tilt at them occasionally.
Go forth informed, my friends.
You are all products. Products get SOLD! SOLD! products SOLD! YOU PRODUCTS!!!
Mooo!
What's the best alternative right now for windows?
Linux Mint!
Oh wait, you meant for anti-virus? Then my answer is:
Linux Mint.
Giving him ANY money at all seems like a stupid thing to do. It's like giving a drowning man a glass of water.
It's more like giving an alcoholic a shot of whiskey. He has enough, but one more won't hurt.
Actually I just thought of the perfect analogy: it's like a modern UI paradigm where rather than have the options set out in nice discoverable menus, folders or similar you have to play "guess the gesture / guess what the cog/robot-head/wavey-icon/band-of-colour-at-bottom-of-screen means" game. And about as much fun.
Oh, just like Windows 8 then?
Problem In Chair Not In Computer?
Maybe they should teach Cortana how to play Bullshit Bingo so it at least have a humorous error during these sales meetings. It will just sit quietly for a while, and then in the middle of the meeting it will just shout "BULLSHIT!"