Now if you want to see some performance and economy gains that reflect the technology improvement, swap a modern engine with direct fuel injection and a corresponding transmission into a 1990s car that weighs about 800lbs less than a contemporary model.
That right there is my dream car. Something that you can feel the road in when your driving, something that lets you know when you're doing something a bit silly and you're approaching the limit of the cars capability (in terms of cornering etc). Cars nowadays just don't do that.
When I learned to drive, if you did something a little stupid, you'd feel something really unpleasant in the steering and the car would lean like hell if you were going around a corner too fast. This helped reinforce the whole "don't go round those corners so fast" idea. Something that kids nowadays seem to lack. The first indication that you get about how stupid you're being in current new cars is when you've flipped the car or you've hit a tree.
And also miss the entire name of the place and the news about it: The nuclear power plant has gone unexpectedly offline.
Unless you're trying to claim that they PLANNED for the power station to go critical, your statement:
"Don't forget that the reactors were able to provide that power reliably and predictably"
Is completely asinine.
That's some pretty twisted logic right there. I mean, who the hell would plan on a disaster at the very thing which they designed and built? No, my statement not asinine, but yours is. My statement is actually perfectly reasonable.
But then again, you're an AC, so one should not take much notice of you.
Doesn't this make this entire comment asinine and/or redundant?
True and do the math as well.
New Wind farm 2 mega watts with 7 more coming soon. And someday it maybe on gigawatt.... Someday.
The Fukushima Nuclear Plant when working. 4,696 MWs Installed and over 7000 MW planned...
So the windfarm is making less than 1/500th the power of the nuclear plant.
Don't forget that the reactors were able to provide that power reliably and predictably, something which wind power could never dream of doing.
As a friend of mine once said "Environmentalists might bat early, but physics bats last".
I'm the opposite. Since I learned to drive a decade ago, I've found myself unable to stand being a passenger in a moving vehicle. I'm not a great driver, but I'm nowhere near as dumb as some drivers out there. I am, however, a terrible passenger!
1) Expense. nuclear power is incredibly expensive to do safely, because if bad things happen at a nuclear plant nobody can ever live in that County ever again. Just look at Fukishima and Chernobyl. If bad things happen at a coal or gas plant, OTOH, the worst consequence is that it blows and you need to buy a new one. You need lots of very smart people to monitor it 24/7, and sophisticated computerized systems and robots to make sure the people don't screw up, and even that won't save you forever.
2) If every democracy uses uses nuclear power everyone else will want it. And if you have a nuclear plant you have most of the really hard bits of a nuclear weapons program. Untrustworthy countries who probably shouldn't have the temptation of city-vaporizing weapons will want them. And it's kinda hard to convince an Iranian who thinks his country is perfectly trustworthy (to him it's those nasty Israelis you have to worry about) that everyone's life would be so much easier if his country didn't have the physical capability to finish the Holocaust. It's even harder to convince the Israelis, who (probably) currently have nuclear weapons, that everyone's lives would be so much simpler if they just switched to solar.
In other words if the choices are one or two more degrees of global warming, or letting every country in the world develop nuclear power, we're probably better off living with the warming.
"Fastest way to build a bomb is to just build a bomb."
Nuclear energy is proven, has the lowest pollution, best carbon footprint of anything we have (it's largest footprint comes from the concrete used in it's construction) and could be far cheaper if it wasn't severely over-regulated.
Pure bullshit. Those regulations are there to stop the local energy company from cutting corners and blowing up something. Something that they do on a regular basis in non nuclear energy.
The most dangerous aspect of energy is the energy company.
Fixed that for you.
I ask you the same thing I ask all anti-nukes. If it's good enough to put to sea, then why isn't it good enough to be put on land?
Actually,.22 is rather smaller. It's not much narrower, but it is quite a bit shorter than the.223 (aka 5.56). Less room for powder and bullet means less powerful round.
No really. Because it's just a lame ass excuse for a holiday that is just a pain in the neck. Drinks prices go up on the night and packed clubs or kids constantly banging your door down while trick or treating between the hours of 1700 and 2200. Take your pick. You go out, you get fecked. You stay in, you get fecked. Take your goddamn pick.
Me? I just get drunk and write shit on slashdot like you lot.
"such as Japan's Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant"
is it just me or does this not seem like a very good suggestion, radioactive waste rockets
Hardly. It just seems like another bit of FUD from an anti-nuke. That said however, a contaminated environment is still a contaminated environment regardless of how it got that way.
This is yet another FUD piece on nuclear energy. That's all it is. If it were about gas, coal or so called 'renewable' energy then this would not have be reported at all.
I have a little trouble understanding Mantle. Maybe I just picked the wrong articles to read, but will any 7xxx card be able to use Mantle or only the new ones?
I saw a good deal on an HD7970 but I don't want it if it can't use this new Mantle stuff.
Tomorrow morning, I'm gonna see how my 6850 handles Batman: Arkham Oranges. I was hoping to get a new card by now for this game, but I've been too confused to pull the trigger on a purchase.
we're in a similar position. I'm on a 6850 atm. Looks like we're SOL when it comes to this mantle stuff!
By the way, are you sure it wasn't "Arkham oranges and lemons"? I'm sure it was called that and that it involves the "mayor of simpleton" somehow.. Poor skeleton.
crap. Something came to me right after I hit post "doh".
"Just because they say it has good points doesn't mean that they actually believe that it has good points." That should have gone as the last line of my previous comment.
Slashdot Mirror
>
Now if you want to see some performance and economy gains that reflect the technology improvement, swap a modern engine with direct fuel injection and a corresponding transmission into a 1990s car that weighs about 800lbs less than a contemporary model.
That right there is my dream car. Something that you can feel the road in when your driving, something that lets you know when you're doing something a bit silly and you're approaching the limit of the cars capability (in terms of cornering etc). Cars nowadays just don't do that.
When I learned to drive, if you did something a little stupid, you'd feel something really unpleasant in the steering and the car would lean like hell if you were going around a corner too fast. This helped reinforce the whole "don't go round those corners so fast" idea. Something that kids nowadays seem to lack. The first indication that you get about how stupid you're being in current new cars is when you've flipped the car or you've hit a tree.
Now get off my lawn
And also miss the entire name of the place and the news about it: The nuclear power plant has gone unexpectedly offline.
Unless you're trying to claim that they PLANNED for the power station to go critical, your statement:
"Don't forget that the reactors were able to provide that power reliably and predictably"
Is completely asinine.
That's some pretty twisted logic right there. I mean, who the hell would plan on a disaster at the very thing which they designed and built? No, my statement not asinine, but yours is. My statement is actually perfectly reasonable.
But then again, you're an AC, so one should not take much notice of you.
Doesn't this make this entire comment asinine and/or redundant?
True and do the math as well. New Wind farm 2 mega watts with 7 more coming soon. And someday it maybe on gigawatt.... Someday. The Fukushima Nuclear Plant when working. 4,696 MWs Installed and over 7000 MW planned... So the windfarm is making less than 1/500th the power of the nuclear plant.
Don't forget that the reactors were able to provide that power reliably and predictably, something which wind power could never dream of doing.
As a friend of mine once said "Environmentalists might bat early, but physics bats last".
Some like it hot...
Ollie North? Funnily enough, my old company sergeant major was named "Ollie North".
Depends on how big it is. Some parts may survive re-entry and cause problems if they land in populated areas.
What? No it didn't. Not at all. What book did you read?
No basic, no skinnies, no OCS, no power armor, no drops etc etc etc.
Plus all the 90210 idiots...blah.
but there are boobs, guns and even a hand held nuke. What's not to like?
I'm the opposite. Since I learned to drive a decade ago, I've found myself unable to stand being a passenger in a moving vehicle. I'm not a great driver, but I'm nowhere near as dumb as some drivers out there. I am, however, a terrible passenger!
Apartheid was South Africa...
1) Expense. nuclear power is incredibly expensive to do safely, because if bad things happen at a nuclear plant nobody can ever live in that County ever again. Just look at Fukishima and Chernobyl. If bad things happen at a coal or gas plant, OTOH, the worst consequence is that it blows and you need to buy a new one. You need lots of very smart people to monitor it 24/7, and sophisticated computerized systems and robots to make sure the people don't screw up, and even that won't save you forever.
2) If every democracy uses uses nuclear power everyone else will want it. And if you have a nuclear plant you have most of the really hard bits of a nuclear weapons program. Untrustworthy countries who probably shouldn't have the temptation of city-vaporizing weapons will want them. And it's kinda hard to convince an Iranian who thinks his country is perfectly trustworthy (to him it's those nasty Israelis you have to worry about) that everyone's life would be so much easier if his country didn't have the physical capability to finish the Holocaust. It's even harder to convince the Israelis, who (probably) currently have nuclear weapons, that everyone's lives would be so much simpler if they just switched to solar.
In other words if the choices are one or two more degrees of global warming, or letting every country in the world develop nuclear power, we're probably better off living with the warming.
"Fastest way to build a bomb is to just build a bomb."
I wish I knew who said that.
Nuclear energy is proven, has the lowest pollution, best carbon footprint of anything we have (it's largest footprint comes from the concrete used in it's construction) and could be far cheaper if it wasn't severely over-regulated.
Pure bullshit. Those regulations are there to stop the local energy company from cutting corners and blowing up something. Something that they do on a regular basis in non nuclear energy.
The most dangerous aspect of energy is the energy company.
Fixed that for you.
I ask you the same thing I ask all anti-nukes. If it's good enough to put to sea, then why isn't it good enough to be put on land?
Actually, .22 is rather smaller. It's not much narrower, but it is quite a bit shorter than the .223 (aka 5.56). Less room for powder and bullet means less powerful round.
Now now Mr Scott, young minds/fresh ideas!
Me? I just get drunk and write shit on slashdot like you lot.
LETS GET DRUNK! :D :D :D :D
Heavy stuff man.
"such as Japan's Fukushima Daichi nuclear power plant" is it just me or does this not seem like a very good suggestion, radioactive waste rockets
Hardly. It just seems like another bit of FUD from an anti-nuke. That said however, a contaminated environment is still a contaminated environment regardless of how it got that way.
About as stable as the programming used for the apollo missions?
This is yet another FUD piece on nuclear energy. That's all it is. If it were about gas, coal or so called 'renewable' energy then this would not have be reported at all.
I have a little trouble understanding Mantle. Maybe I just picked the wrong articles to read, but will any 7xxx card be able to use Mantle or only the new ones?
I saw a good deal on an HD7970 but I don't want it if it can't use this new Mantle stuff.
Tomorrow morning, I'm gonna see how my 6850 handles Batman: Arkham Oranges. I was hoping to get a new card by now for this game, but I've been too confused to pull the trigger on a purchase.
we're in a similar position. I'm on a 6850 atm. Looks like we're SOL when it comes to this mantle stuff!
By the way, are you sure it wasn't "Arkham oranges and lemons"? I'm sure it was called that and that it involves the "mayor of simpleton" somehow.. Poor skeleton.
Don't you mean "What the FVCK is wrong with you?"
That's Roman/Latin iirc.
I know that some routers nowadays have USB ports attached. Maybe it's possible to plug a usb printer into that?
I thought it was "crushing with huge boulders" that proved innocence?
They are well aware of the carbon-free nature of nuclear power, and that if it would be managed safely, it could be highly beneficial.
Both your sources come from the UCS themselves. Of course they're going to say that they aren't anti-nuke!
I take it you've never heard of the phrase "damning with faint praise"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damning_with_faint_praise
Here's a paper on the phenomenon. From the university of my home town no less
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lagnado-lab/publications/harris/FPconference.pdf
crap. Something came to me right after I hit post "doh".
"Just because they say it has good points doesn't mean that they actually believe that it has good points." That should have gone as the last line of my previous comment.
They are well aware of the carbon-free nature of nuclear power, and that if it would be managed safely, it could be highly beneficial.
Both your sources come from the UCS themselves. Of course they're going to say that they aren't anti-nuke!
I take it you've never heard of the phrase "damning with faint praise"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damning_with_faint_praise
Here's a paper on the phenomenon. From the university of my home town no less
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/lagnado-lab/publications/harris/FPconference.pdf
First comment I've seen noting what the UCS really is and where is said comment? 3/4 down the page. Sigh.