Just stick a Chromecast in and you are good to go. I just don't like using a phone or tablet as a remote. I prefer buttons I can feel and don't have to look at. That's the downside of Chromecast, which is otherwise pretty cool. I do sometimes find that queuing up youtube music videos via a phone is a nice way to explore, as you can choose another while one is still playing.
Yes, the story was exaggerated in a way, and it should not have been. However, it still is a strong proof that existing nuclear plants are not safe.
You do know that this is not nuclear power related waste, which is pretty much limited to solid spent fuel rods, right? This is cold war waste from defense programs which didn't even bother to engineer any type of proper waste management. They had all sorts of nasty liquids that are much more problematic than spent fuel rods.
"The economic advantages of wind and solar over fossil fuels go beyond price
Maybe its asking a lot, but you should take time to learn the difference between "price" and "cost", and pay attention to which is being used. They are two very different things. Price can be lower than cost, or higher than cost.
In engineering space, a "catastrophic failure" is sometimes the terminology used to describe a single component failing. Not the actual scale or scope of the event. I could have a catastrophic failure of a wheel bearing, but safely stop and have a repair done, not a real catastrophe. FUD mongers will abuse this terminology intentionally, and then some will relay it out of ignorance.
If it's small and inconsequential, why bother blocking it at all?
Its not significantly affecting their revenue. Which is not hard to believe. If they don't block then they face consequential content licensing issues.
Then Netflix shouldn't put it on my list. Or rather they should dish out for the rights, they've continued to increase prices while dropping more than half their content.
Well, we have no numbers for India, just a statement from one guy saying “I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant". Someone decided this is definitive and we can now announce that "Solar is now cheaper than Coal". Of course, we don't know if he meant installed capacity, or actual cost per kwh, but heck what does that matter. Nor do we care about the other systemic costs associated with transmittance.
What would lead you to believe that their operational costs would be the same everywhere?
Please. There is nothing you stated that points to a likely cost difference so significant that the company would shift plans, and none of those items is really new, so you are them implying that they had no clue of those factors when they started the Texas facility. Any of those items could be a bit cheaper in Texas just as much as more, and you have said nothing to show any reason to believe they are significantly different.
You are trying too hard to come up with 'possible' differences. Its a reach and it flies in the face of the company's original plan to build in Texas. But OK, since we don't have the details we can speculate. Your speculation is as good as any, but if true then they really didn't do their homework when planning Texas.
And on top of that, it stands to reason that a new facility could incorporate all the lessons learned and operate at a lower cost. That's how it usually works.
The more likely reasons seem to be that they didn't plan for it, or they knew it was possible but decided to take the risk and not plan for it intentionally, or they are in a pinch and are delaying spending cash. Speculation as well, but no so far fetched.
The same reason they would build a site in Texas to start with, increasing launch capability to make more money. If launch economics are even better
Did you miss the "in Florida" part of what I wrote concerning the potential of improved economics? Or are you under the impression that the economics of every activity are identical at every site on Earth?
I did not miss it. Do you have some information that would imply that there is something specific about Florida that makes launching there all of the sudden so much more economical than what they'll have in Texas. And it is enough of a difference to cause them to not meet their stated schedules and delay so significantly?
It stands to reason that they wouldn't plan a facility in Texas if it were significantly less economical to launch from there for whatever reasons you are implying exist. And, there is no shortage of demand for launches, so deferring Texas would only defer revenue and profits unless they don't need Texas at all to meet the entire demand, which is also pretty unlikely. I think it makes sense that if they can figure out how to launch economically from Florida, that they can from Texas as well. But if you don't agree, I'd like to hear why.
This biggest influence on cost........Netflix has to worry about competition. They must keep providing desirable content for a good price as Amazon and others try to gain share.
A well known event that happens every year in Europe is when people from Belgium and the Netherlands pack their stuff in their cars and migrate through Germany to southern Europe. This pisses of the Germans as their autobahns are stock full of cars... how will they continue to do this with cars that only move a few hundred km between recharges?
Just buy a trailer and stick a gas generator on it.
Why would improved launch economics in Florida justify accelerating the site in Texas?
The same reason they would build a site in Texas to start with, increasing launch capability to make more money. If launch economics are even better. then you don't slow down your increase in capability. Unless you are thinking there is some reason that launch economics at the new Texas site would be markedly worse, which brings to question the whole plan to begin with. Why not just cancel the thing if that is the case?
There is plenty of good music being made, but that's not what sells.
I kind of like that the revenues from recording and sales are dropping while the revenue from live performance is increasing. Fans are turning out the see the truly good performers. If you are a studio band, and cut good music, that is fine, but it doesn't warrant the huge rewards we've seen in the past, IMHO.
There are some tremendous talents out there touring, I think more than there were 10 to 15 years ago. You just have to search them out.
Is there any indication that the economics our of Florida have improved so much, or even changed? That seems unlikely, particularly with Musk's tendency to be over-optimistic with projections to begin with. If launch economics are better, then that is a reason to accelerate new launch capability, not delay it.
I think the most likely explanations, and simplest ones, seems to be it was an oversight or that they are so cash starved the needed to slow down the spending.
I'd be surprised if they chose a site without doing the survey. Although the process may be cheaper, multi-year schedule delays carry significant costs & risks. Maybe they just didn't realize how costly this would be and are minimizing the pain overall.
Can we measure them indirectly? - Honest question.
Well, I oversimplified because you not only need to measure the stresses but you need a continuous measurement, or at least a detailed enough sample, over a large volume of earth. I don't see any way we can get the indirect measurements that provide the accuracy needed, and they have not been able to do it yet. Its a monumental thing to pull off, but maybe someday methods will be developed that get us closer to a detailed model.
We can't directly measure those stresses. We probably never will be able to, so we are left with measuring the symptoms. Also, creating an accurate model of subsurface lamination (if that is the correct term) is likely also very hard to do without drilling a huge number of sample holes.
The fact that we build some cities near fault lines is a completely different topic, however, one could speculate that with more people living and working near fault lines, there is more money being spent on quake research than there otherwise would have been, so in that sense it is helping us solve the problem.
ISPs want nothing to do with the legal quagmire of identifying and outing pirates, and denying service to select individuals, and they surely don't want to expend resources to enter that quagmire. If a court says a person cannot use the internet as part of a punishment, that's different.
Slashdot Mirror
Just stick a Chromecast in and you are good to go. I just don't like using a phone or tablet as a remote. I prefer buttons I can feel and don't have to look at. That's the downside of Chromecast, which is otherwise pretty cool. I do sometimes find that queuing up youtube music videos via a phone is a nice way to explore, as you can choose another while one is still playing.
And, just for the sake of accuracy, it is radioactive waste, not "nuclear" waste. All waste has nuclei.
Yes, the story was exaggerated in a way, and it should not have been. However, it still is a strong proof that existing nuclear plants are not safe.
You do know that this is not nuclear power related waste, which is pretty much limited to solid spent fuel rods, right? This is cold war waste from defense programs which didn't even bother to engineer any type of proper waste management. They had all sorts of nasty liquids that are much more problematic than spent fuel rods.
"The economic advantages of wind and solar over fossil fuels go beyond price
Maybe its asking a lot, but you should take time to learn the difference between "price" and "cost", and pay attention to which is being used. They are two very different things. Price can be lower than cost, or higher than cost.
In engineering space, a "catastrophic failure" is sometimes the terminology used to describe a single component failing. Not the actual scale or scope of the event. I could have a catastrophic failure of a wheel bearing, but safely stop and have a repair done, not a real catastrophe. FUD mongers will abuse this terminology intentionally, and then some will relay it out of ignorance.
Too bad we didn't even try to manage it back in the day.
If it's small and inconsequential, why bother blocking it at all?
Its not significantly affecting their revenue. Which is not hard to believe. If they don't block then they face consequential content licensing issues.
Then Netflix shouldn't put it on my list. Or rather they should dish out for the rights, they've continued to increase prices while dropping more than half their content.
You should just stop paying them.
He is the Energy Minister so he should know more than some random Kochbot guy on /.
But even he didn't say it is now cheaper.
And the article you linked to does not show solar being cheaper, it says they are becoming competitive.
transmittance, not transmittance....sorry
Well, we have no numbers for India, just a statement from one guy saying “I think a new coal plant would give you costlier power than a solar plant". Someone decided this is definitive and we can now announce that "Solar is now cheaper than Coal". Of course, we don't know if he meant installed capacity, or actual cost per kwh, but heck what does that matter. Nor do we care about the other systemic costs associated with transmittance.
What would lead you to believe that their operational costs would be the same everywhere?
Please. There is nothing you stated that points to a likely cost difference so significant that the company would shift plans, and none of those items is really new, so you are them implying that they had no clue of those factors when they started the Texas facility. Any of those items could be a bit cheaper in Texas just as much as more, and you have said nothing to show any reason to believe they are significantly different.
You are trying too hard to come up with 'possible' differences. Its a reach and it flies in the face of the company's original plan to build in Texas. But OK, since we don't have the details we can speculate. Your speculation is as good as any, but if true then they really didn't do their homework when planning Texas.
And on top of that, it stands to reason that a new facility could incorporate all the lessons learned and operate at a lower cost. That's how it usually works.
The more likely reasons seem to be that they didn't plan for it, or they knew it was possible but decided to take the risk and not plan for it intentionally, or they are in a pinch and are delaying spending cash. Speculation as well, but no so far fetched.
Did you miss the "in Florida" part of what I wrote concerning the potential of improved economics? Or are you under the impression that the economics of every activity are identical at every site on Earth?
I did not miss it. Do you have some information that would imply that there is something specific about Florida that makes launching there all of the sudden so much more economical than what they'll have in Texas. And it is enough of a difference to cause them to not meet their stated schedules and delay so significantly?
It stands to reason that they wouldn't plan a facility in Texas if it were significantly less economical to launch from there for whatever reasons you are implying exist. And, there is no shortage of demand for launches, so deferring Texas would only defer revenue and profits unless they don't need Texas at all to meet the entire demand, which is also pretty unlikely. I think it makes sense that if they can figure out how to launch economically from Florida, that they can from Texas as well. But if you don't agree, I'd like to hear why.
This biggest influence on cost........Netflix has to worry about competition. They must keep providing desirable content for a good price as Amazon and others try to gain share.
A well known event that happens every year in Europe is when people from Belgium and the Netherlands pack their stuff in their cars and migrate through Germany to southern Europe. This pisses of the Germans as their autobahns are stock full of cars. .. how will they continue to do this with cars that only move a few hundred km between recharges?
Just buy a trailer and stick a gas generator on it.
Why would improved launch economics in Florida justify accelerating the site in Texas?
The same reason they would build a site in Texas to start with, increasing launch capability to make more money. If launch economics are even better. then you don't slow down your increase in capability. Unless you are thinking there is some reason that launch economics at the new Texas site would be markedly worse, which brings to question the whole plan to begin with. Why not just cancel the thing if that is the case?
There is plenty of good music being made, but that's not what sells.
I kind of like that the revenues from recording and sales are dropping while the revenue from live performance is increasing. Fans are turning out the see the truly good performers. If you are a studio band, and cut good music, that is fine, but it doesn't warrant the huge rewards we've seen in the past, IMHO.
There are some tremendous talents out there touring, I think more than there were 10 to 15 years ago. You just have to search them out.
Is there any indication that the economics our of Florida have improved so much, or even changed? That seems unlikely, particularly with Musk's tendency to be over-optimistic with projections to begin with. If launch economics are better, then that is a reason to accelerate new launch capability, not delay it.
I think the most likely explanations, and simplest ones, seems to be it was an oversight or that they are so cash starved the needed to slow down the spending.
I'd be surprised if they chose a site without doing the survey. Although the process may be cheaper, multi-year schedule delays carry significant costs & risks. Maybe they just didn't realize how costly this would be and are minimizing the pain overall.
My question is why they did not know surcharging was needed to begin with?
Can we measure them indirectly? - Honest question.
Well, I oversimplified because you not only need to measure the stresses but you need a continuous measurement, or at least a detailed enough sample, over a large volume of earth. I don't see any way we can get the indirect measurements that provide the accuracy needed, and they have not been able to do it yet. Its a monumental thing to pull off, but maybe someday methods will be developed that get us closer to a detailed model.
You'll have to forgive the author. Accuracy isn't important when trying to make a point.
We can't directly measure those stresses. We probably never will be able to, so we are left with measuring the symptoms. Also, creating an accurate model of subsurface lamination (if that is the correct term) is likely also very hard to do without drilling a huge number of sample holes.
The fact that we build some cities near fault lines is a completely different topic, however, one could speculate that with more people living and working near fault lines, there is more money being spent on quake research than there otherwise would have been, so in that sense it is helping us solve the problem.
ISPs want nothing to do with the legal quagmire of identifying and outing pirates, and denying service to select individuals, and they surely don't want to expend resources to enter that quagmire. If a court says a person cannot use the internet as part of a punishment, that's different.
If you have different facts to present, please do. Otherwise, childish insults add nothing to the discussion.