BAE, the manufacturers claim it was a Tornado fighter, although they may have tested on another variant.
It may be that they have a few retired F3's left in storage or something, but other than that the tornado is not a fighter. In fact, the tornado was actually designed as a bomber in the first place. Really it was the opposite of what happened with the F-14.
Doh, I hit "post" far too soon. Tornado F3 were the interceptor/fighter variants (F meaning "Fighter" as you might expect). The F3 was retired back in 2012.
The tornado GR4 is a bomber, not a fighter. "GR" stands for "ground role". There was an interceptor variant in service, but that was replaced afaik by the typhoon (aka eurofighter).
I've had similar problems (Audis seem to be the worst) and they all looked too new and expensive to have been nonced around with by chavs.
Yeah, that's what I've noticed about them, but it isn't just high end (or even high mid range) cars, they're becoming so much more common now, especially on your new ford focuses, or vauxhall astras. Hell, you can even have them fitted OEM on fiat pandas now! It's redonkulous!
It's even worse for me though, now that I drive a fiat panda! I'm so low down that I get dazzled by everything xD
Awesome. So now all those assholes in luxury cars can have even brighter headlights to blind me in my mirrors.
Or the front. It's even worse over here in the UK what with the roads being so much smaller than you guys in the states. It means the oncoming traffic isn't offset from you very much, meaning you get a lot more of the light spilling and blinding you. It's a bloody nightmare driving on a country lane in the early evening during the winter when some gimp with xenon lights (coming as standard on a LOT more cares nowadays*) dazzles me and leaves me virtually blind, despite him only being on dipped beams.
If you have a brain, you got rid of those fucking things more than 5 years ago.
I've still got loads of them in my house from when I bought a whole bunch of them in bulk (I was fed up of going back and forth to the shop to buy a replacement). As soon as I bought the damn things, what happens? Nothing. They stopped blowing -.-
I have them, so I might as well use them. It's not as if they're the devil incarnate that will rape your babies just because you use them. There's just no sense in sending something to land-fill if it's still perfectly usable. I paid for them, so I am damn well going to use them. That said however, I'm not particularly bothered that they're being phased out. As long as they generate enough light within a reasonable time-scale (which LEDs do) and they don't cost too much (which LEDs don't) I'm happy. I will definitely be changing to LEDs as my stock of bulbs runs out however.
As far as I know, quite of a lot of types of weapon are effectively banned. The criteria for legal ownership of a weapon is so restrictive that it's pretty much "a shotgun, with a capacity of no more than 2 rounds with a barrel of no more than x inches". I'm pretty sure that the laws were tightened quite a lot not long after the labour government got in back in '97 and again in the early 2000's.
That said, I don't own one myself and may therefore be talking out of my behind. I can't be bothered with all the bureaucratic nonsense. Otherwise, I certainly would keep a small weapon or two in the house. I'm certain my father would too. Nothing massive or ridiculously fancy. A handgun or two of 9mm or.45 calibre perhaps. Then again, we are ex-military. That would certainly colour our opinions
That is so true. The gun control nuts think that crime is directly related to firearms. It is more related to culture and economics. There are countries in europe that have far more homes with guns in them as a percentage of population with a lower overal crime rate and even lower murder rates than the US and the rest of Europe countries. I'm thinking of the swiss but i think there are others that keep or at one time did keep military weapons in the homes of citizens as part of their military service obligations and defense strategy built out of the cold war. The countries also have different social-economic realities and culture.
Hoo-ah. I agree wholeheartedly with sumdumass.
Simply banning guns outright will not do it imo. I agree that guns need to be controlled (registered, liscenced, users trained and inspected from time to time), but banning them outright just sends them to the extremes. People I know who have not being exposed to weapons will, when shown a gun either go "OHMAIGODAGUNWEALLGOINGTODIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE" or "OOoooo cooool! A gun!!" (mostly the latter). Those people who I know have been exposed to weapons (mostly military or ex-military around these parts) will generally go "oh great, a gun?".
Exposing people to weapons is not a bad thing imo. Granting unrestricted access however, generally is
When we don't want to burn fossil fuel, and turn to Nuke, we end up having radioactive waste that can last very very long time.
Waste that is relatively tiny in volume compared to that generated by fossil fuel burning power plants while at the same time being far far easier to contain. Oh, then there's the potential for the 'waste' to be used again. I'm sure there's also a reliability argument to be made against 'renewables' as well.
I agree with you on efficiency. Using less to get the same effect is never going to be a bad thing. However, efficiency alone will not solve our problems. Coal/oil/gas is still being burned to produce the electricity whether you use it or not.
By the way, about the cars, when did cars in the US start getting so much bigger than in other places?
So what about all this talk I hear of the south african government and the ANC being hopelessly corrupt? The guys in power now came of age during mandelas tenure afaik. If both are true, then it is not unreasonable to assert that his legacy is one of weakness in stamping out corruption.
Still, no-one deserves a lingering death like that. May he rest in peace.
Soooo diluting the irradiated water, with clean water, before dumping it into more water (i.e. the ocean) is all Ok because it has been "treated". The mind boggles.
To be quite blunt, "Yes". In fact, it doesn't even really need to be treated or diluted . You could pour it right into the middle of the pacific ocean and it would do no harm. That's just how big the ocean is and how low the concentration of radioactive material in the coolant is already, before you even dump it in the ocean. The extra filtering and dilution is a wee bit overkill. "Overkill" being what governments around the world (for some odd political reason) mandate that anything "nuclear" has to do in order to be allowed to even possibly exist as a concept.
Also, the water itself is not "irradiated". The radiation emitters are suspended within the water. As long as we can bring the concentration down, then it becomes far less dangerous than it already is. But oh wait, it's already barely anything to worry about. What boggles my mind, is why they haven't dumped the water into the pacific already. I think it would be best to transfer the water onto a ship for disposal a few hundred miles or so out to sea, just to stop any chance that the particles of the radioactive materials have of being washed back up on land in any sort of concentration above "one or two atoms per litre" (the actual unit escapes me).
So you were happy when the coal plants were dumping untold amounts of mercury and other crap into the sea (it all winds up there eventually), but now you've stopped eating fish because of Fukishima?
You need to evaluate your risk assessment strategies.
that the water will only be returned to the Pacific after treatment.
What treatment are you talking about?! If you call the plan for dilution a "treatment" then yeah. other than that how exactly to they plan to "treat" irradiated water before dumping it in the ocean?
Erm, nothing? Because diluting it to the point where it's not a big deal is the plan? It's not as if the stuff is going to magically re-concentrate itself after dilution and sea dumping. Hell, they could probably just dump it all into the depths of the pacific as is without dilution. It's a lot of ocean with a relatively tiny amount of radioactive material going into in as a one off. Really, it's just about the safest thing they can do with the stuff.
By the way, where did they get the info saying that the fuel had "burned through" the pressure vessel? Afaik, that is essentially impossible.
That's how Sun Tzu says to do things. The victorious warrior wins first and then goes to war, while the defeated warrior goes to war first and then seeks to win.
I don't have one, but I advise you to stay away from anything by Perfect world entertainment or its subsidiaries (I.e. Cryptic studios). Those guys simply don't have a clue about Q&A, customer service, bug fixing or game balancing.
Project free tv still seems to work for me, for now at least. I'm a customer with that otherwise crappy company known as talktalk. I was considering changing to sky, but if they've blocked PFTV, then that's that plan gone right out the window!
So? Other governments don't have protected work and low pay and they are still governments. You don't have to settle for shit. Actually get off your arses and vote and you may get a government that pays more attention to people who are not just in it to play political games.
Slashdot Mirror
The tornado GR4 is a bomber, not a fighter.
BAE, the manufacturers claim it was a Tornado fighter, although they may have tested on another variant.
It may be that they have a few retired F3's left in storage or something, but other than that the tornado is not a fighter. In fact, the tornado was actually designed as a bomber in the first place. Really it was the opposite of what happened with the F-14.
Doh, I hit "post" far too soon. Tornado F3 were the interceptor/fighter variants (F meaning "Fighter" as you might expect). The F3 was retired back in 2012.
The tornado GR4 is a bomber, not a fighter. "GR" stands for "ground role". There was an interceptor variant in service, but that was replaced afaik by the typhoon (aka eurofighter).
I've had similar problems (Audis seem to be the worst) and they all looked too new and expensive to have been nonced around with by chavs.
Yeah, that's what I've noticed about them, but it isn't just high end (or even high mid range) cars, they're becoming so much more common now, especially on your new ford focuses, or vauxhall astras. Hell, you can even have them fitted OEM on fiat pandas now! It's redonkulous!
It's even worse for me though, now that I drive a fiat panda! I'm so low down that I get dazzled by everything xD
Awesome. So now all those assholes in luxury cars can have even brighter headlights to blind me in my mirrors.
Or the front. It's even worse over here in the UK what with the roads being so much smaller than you guys in the states. It means the oncoming traffic isn't offset from you very much, meaning you get a lot more of the light spilling and blinding you. It's a bloody nightmare driving on a country lane in the early evening during the winter when some gimp with xenon lights (coming as standard on a LOT more cares nowadays*) dazzles me and leaves me virtually blind, despite him only being on dipped beams.
CHEESE FOR EVERYONE!!!!
Obvious answer is obvious. RTG. Provided we can get the material for it.
I have 20,000 volts, and I'm not afraid to use them!
It's over 9000!
If you have a brain, you got rid of those fucking things more than 5 years ago.
I've still got loads of them in my house from when I bought a whole bunch of them in bulk (I was fed up of going back and forth to the shop to buy a replacement). As soon as I bought the damn things, what happens? Nothing. They stopped blowing -.-
I have them, so I might as well use them. It's not as if they're the devil incarnate that will rape your babies just because you use them. There's just no sense in sending something to land-fill if it's still perfectly usable. I paid for them, so I am damn well going to use them. That said however, I'm not particularly bothered that they're being phased out. As long as they generate enough light within a reasonable time-scale (which LEDs do) and they don't cost too much (which LEDs don't) I'm happy. I will definitely be changing to LEDs as my stock of bulbs runs out however.
An ass, perhaps. But a troll? Nope
That said, I don't own one myself and may therefore be talking out of my behind. I can't be bothered with all the bureaucratic nonsense. Otherwise, I certainly would keep a small weapon or two in the house. I'm certain my father would too. Nothing massive or ridiculously fancy. A handgun or two of 9mm or .45 calibre perhaps. Then again, we are ex-military. That would certainly colour our opinions
That is so true. The gun control nuts think that crime is directly related to firearms. It is more related to culture and economics. There are countries in europe that have far more homes with guns in them as a percentage of population with a lower overal crime rate and even lower murder rates than the US and the rest of Europe countries. I'm thinking of the swiss but i think there are others that keep or at one time did keep military weapons in the homes of citizens as part of their military service obligations and defense strategy built out of the cold war. The countries also have different social-economic realities and culture.
Hoo-ah. I agree wholeheartedly with sumdumass.
Simply banning guns outright will not do it imo. I agree that guns need to be controlled (registered, liscenced, users trained and inspected from time to time), but banning them outright just sends them to the extremes. People I know who have not being exposed to weapons will, when shown a gun either go "OHMAIGODAGUNWEALLGOINGTODIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE" or "OOoooo cooool! A gun!!" (mostly the latter). Those people who I know have been exposed to weapons (mostly military or ex-military around these parts) will generally go "oh great, a gun?".
Exposing people to weapons is not a bad thing imo. Granting unrestricted access however, generally is
Isn't that what is happening at Fukushima right now?
Very little. As I understand it, smaller reactors don't have such a big heat problem as large utility scale reactors especially if the cooling fails.
Plus, even if one of these SMRs has problems, they are so much smaller that they don't cause anywhere near as much trouble as larger reactors.
When we don't want to burn fossil fuel, and turn to Nuke, we end up having radioactive waste that can last very very long time.
Waste that is relatively tiny in volume compared to that generated by fossil fuel burning power plants while at the same time being far far easier to contain. Oh, then there's the potential for the 'waste' to be used again. I'm sure there's also a reliability argument to be made against 'renewables' as well.
I agree with you on efficiency. Using less to get the same effect is never going to be a bad thing. However, efficiency alone will not solve our problems. Coal/oil/gas is still being burned to produce the electricity whether you use it or not.
By the way, about the cars, when did cars in the US start getting so much bigger than in other places?
Still, no-one deserves a lingering death like that. May he rest in peace.
Soooo diluting the irradiated water, with clean water, before dumping it into more water (i.e. the ocean) is all Ok because it has been "treated". The mind boggles.
To be quite blunt, "Yes". In fact, it doesn't even really need to be treated or diluted . You could pour it right into the middle of the pacific ocean and it would do no harm. That's just how big the ocean is and how low the concentration of radioactive material in the coolant is already, before you even dump it in the ocean. The extra filtering and dilution is a wee bit overkill. "Overkill" being what governments around the world (for some odd political reason) mandate that anything "nuclear" has to do in order to be allowed to even possibly exist as a concept.
Also, the water itself is not "irradiated". The radiation emitters are suspended within the water. As long as we can bring the concentration down, then it becomes far less dangerous than it already is. But oh wait, it's already barely anything to worry about. What boggles my mind, is why they haven't dumped the water into the pacific already. I think it would be best to transfer the water onto a ship for disposal a few hundred miles or so out to sea, just to stop any chance that the particles of the radioactive materials have of being washed back up on land in any sort of concentration above "one or two atoms per litre" (the actual unit escapes me).
Another comment that ought to be modded up. I read a lot of those sources, Rod Adams' blog in particular.
The worst I ever had to put up with was military NBC gear. That stuff was bad enough on a hot (British) summer day.
And I've stopped eating Sushi.
So you were happy when the coal plants were dumping untold amounts of mercury and other crap into the sea (it all winds up there eventually), but now you've stopped eating fish because of Fukishima?
You need to evaluate your risk assessment strategies.
OOOrah. Mod this guy up! Again!
that the water will only be returned to the Pacific after treatment.
What treatment are you talking about?! If you call the plan for dilution a "treatment" then yeah. other than that how exactly to they plan to "treat" irradiated water before dumping it in the ocean?
Erm, nothing? Because diluting it to the point where it's not a big deal is the plan? It's not as if the stuff is going to magically re-concentrate itself after dilution and sea dumping. Hell, they could probably just dump it all into the depths of the pacific as is without dilution. It's a lot of ocean with a relatively tiny amount of radioactive material going into in as a one off. Really, it's just about the safest thing they can do with the stuff.
By the way, where did they get the info saying that the fuel had "burned through" the pressure vessel? Afaik, that is essentially impossible.
These aren't the witnesses you're looking for.
Maybe the war has already been fought and won.
That's how Sun Tzu says to do things. The victorious warrior wins first and then goes to war, while the defeated warrior goes to war first and then seeks to win.
I don't have one, but I advise you to stay away from anything by Perfect world entertainment or its subsidiaries (I.e. Cryptic studios). Those guys simply don't have a clue about Q&A, customer service, bug fixing or game balancing.
Might go with A&A instead..
So? Other governments don't have protected work and low pay and they are still governments. You don't have to settle for shit. Actually get off your arses and vote and you may get a government that pays more attention to people who are not just in it to play political games.
Let me know if you find a government like that ;)