You are not following the discussion, or you entered late and didn't go back to the OP. We are not talking about a person taking one year off. We are talking about a person milking the benefit and taking multiple years off.
I agree, but I have seen people 'milk' the system in illogical ways. Not to long ago we had a temp worker who after 6 months of good work, we hired full time. The day after she completely stopped working and pretty much did nothing. She must have felt we would not fire her for racial reasons. It took months to get rid of her.
Do I strike you as a mindless reasonless anti-nuker or as someone with educated concerns?
You strike me as someone who has no ability to perform usable risk comparison, and one who makes excuses for not doing so. I can't know your reason or agenda for doing so, it could be nuclear FUD induced paranoia, shilling, or a simple inability to compare risks objectively.
For the Fukushima food, you know the testing levels which indicate the exposure levels. You should know the risks associated with those levels (likelihood of a negative health impact), and you should be able to make a reasonable comparison to similar risks we experience in everyday life for perspective. But you have done none of those.
Interviews are handy things when it comes to finding out what people really did with their time. Resumes with a position listed but no accomplishments might be a flag to some interviewers.
What do you know, another list of horrible things, but no discussion of exposure levels, probabilities, etc. Until you even try to discuss those vital components, you are certainly wasting time.
Please, make a list of all the thing that are presently causing 'cell damage and mutations' in your body. Then tell me why you are worried specifically about tritium.
You purposefully avoid and discussion of practical exposure levels and risk. Until you do, you are a waste of time.
There would be a greater potential for abuse if raising a kid was not so expensive. Also, consider that if you does not show up to work, you are less likely to get a raise, or a promotion.
Good points. It would not look good on your resume either....
But none of us would be surprised if there was a discrimination suit....
Tritium is quite harmless in small amounts, and leaves the body quite quickly if ingested.It is probably the least harmful of any radionuclide.
Do you know how many things in your body cause "mutations and cell death"? I'm sorry to inform you that it is happening in your body right now, and at levels much greater than anything solely caused by a small tritium ingestion. In fact, you get more cell damage and mutations from exposure to UV that you could ever expect to get from tritium exposure from a nuclear plant. That is even when using sunscreen, btw.
What you fail to overlook in your self-proclaim 'scientific' analysis is the human bodies capacity to deal with 'cell death and mutations'.
Presenting the information they way you do, without comparison to anything else, without likelihood of actual health impacts at realistic ingestion levels, is simply a method to push FUD.
You have shown your true colors, proven you don't use scientific analysis by ignoring proper risk analysis methods, and seeming fail to understand what is going on in your body every day. You are a waste of time.
Not sure if it will work for all drones, but it pissed the dog off to no end...
But seriously, does inverse square law not apply here? What's the range on this? DNRTFA
Those questions are mute. Effectiveness is not a criteria. We are searching for expensive, difficult, and unreliable methods for downing drones.
and his girlfriend. She's over here in my AC powered hot tub drinking a frozen drink from my AC powered freezer, blended with my AC powered blender. Tonight, we are going to make love under my ceiling fan.
That's true only if the goal is *not* to create an almost "Hunger Games" type of scenario where there are only the rich, privileged, ruling-class and an impoverished, heavily-regulated & controlled, serf-class.
Strat
That makes no sense at all. And seems completely irrelevant. We can't make real headway in reducing carbon emissions if we don't consider the economic situations of all the countries that can't afford to implement high cost solutions.
AC distribution has little to do with losses and much to do with cost and reliability. 3 phase distribution allows for much flexibility in how the distribution is done, in clearing and recovering from faults or dead lines or phases, and in making multiple tie-ins. AC switching equipment is much lower cost and simpler, more reliable.
Due to the very poor selection of DC appliances and often their RV bloated price tags,
Smaller market means lower production numbers means higher cost per unit. Then, there is the wealthy segment of the RV market who is willing to pay higher prices. At present, big margins on less sales brings a better return than increased sales with low margins.
I don't think the OP even thought this through this far and is an obviously trash post, but for the sake of discussion I looked at a solar panel house and there are dc washing machines and refrigerators that work off of propane instead of electricity. It's actually pretty interesting... the biggest issue was there was no electricity for the well pump and water had to be trucked in so we passed on the house.
The propane needed to be trucked in as well. Sounds much less efficient than getting the power off the grid. Best to spend money on high efficiency instead.
The article says the justification for fuel cells is because grid power isn't reliable in rural areas. Fine, that makes sense. But the justification for using solar is that it's not suitable for urban areas. I'm confused why the power grid isn't good enough in urban areas while using solar for base stations in rural areas. Am I missing something? Also, why not use wind energy and mount turbines on the towers in rural areas to provide additional power?
I think they are mostly worried about cost of solar. There can be siting issues for ground station if there are a bunch of tall buildings around, but it is true that we don't see nearly as much solar in urban areas as we do rural/suburban areas. Wind is almost a non-starter in most urban areas. Buildings cause wind flow issues. In this use case, both would need batteries, which is the real cost killer.
Look, O got loads of money from the nuke industry. Why? Because he is a fan of nukes.
The problem was that the dems were opposed to it, and the GOP is opposed to ANYTHING that O tries to do.
That is simply not true. If it were, O would have at least mentioned nukes in his latest proposal. You like to make excuses. When has resistance from the GOP stopped him from pushing his ideas publicly?
SO raising the cost of energy is the simple solution? Its simply ignoring the fact that wind and solar are geographically limited, and many countries simply can't afford to do anything remotely similar to what Germany has attempted. And despite their huge investments, when they shut down their last nuke their net gain will be close to zero. And they are already slowing down investment in renewables. Had they kept their nukes running, and built 3 more, they would be way ahead of where they are right now, and would have spent a tremendous amount less, which could be used to help other countries reduce emissions.
The whole world has to play. The whole world has to pay. Its simple when that is ignored.
We seem to be having a very hard time managing the waste now. Nobody wants it anywhere near them. Just because it's technically and theoretically easy politically. Like it or not, that matters too.
Yes, it is more of a political problem than a technical one. But that changes with leadership, people educating themselves, and calling out the FUD mongers. In addition, most people don't know the difference between cold war nuclear waste and commercial spent fuel. The former has a host of nasty challenges, the latter is quite inert, stable solid material that is technologically easy to manage.
Slashdot Mirror
You are not following the discussion, or you entered late and didn't go back to the OP. We are not talking about a person taking one year off. We are talking about a person milking the benefit and taking multiple years off.
I agree, but I have seen people 'milk' the system in illogical ways. Not to long ago we had a temp worker who after 6 months of good work, we hired full time. The day after she completely stopped working and pretty much did nothing. She must have felt we would not fire her for racial reasons. It took months to get rid of her.
Do I strike you as a mindless reasonless anti-nuker or as someone with educated concerns?
You strike me as someone who has no ability to perform usable risk comparison, and one who makes excuses for not doing so. I can't know your reason or agenda for doing so, it could be nuclear FUD induced paranoia, shilling, or a simple inability to compare risks objectively.
For the Fukushima food, you know the testing levels which indicate the exposure levels. You should know the risks associated with those levels (likelihood of a negative health impact), and you should be able to make a reasonable comparison to similar risks we experience in everyday life for perspective. But you have done none of those.
Are you saying it is wrong to evaluate risk using probability and levels of exposure? If so, then I'll simply have to disagree.
You lost track of the conversation. The case was someone abusing the benefit by taking multiple years off.
Interviews are handy things when it comes to finding out what people really did with their time. Resumes with a position listed but no accomplishments might be a flag to some interviewers.
What do you know, another list of horrible things, but no discussion of exposure levels, probabilities, etc. Until you even try to discuss those vital components, you are certainly wasting time.
What would be negative on your resume? You are still employeed by the company so nothing new would go on there.
It might be invisible, but if you come back to a different job it might be a bit hard to explain the timelines.
Please, make a list of all the thing that are presently causing 'cell damage and mutations' in your body. Then tell me why you are worried specifically about tritium.
You purposefully avoid and discussion of practical exposure levels and risk. Until you do, you are a waste of time.
There would be a greater potential for abuse if raising a kid was not so expensive. Also, consider that if you does not show up to work, you are less likely to get a raise, or a promotion.
Good points. It would not look good on your resume either....
But none of us would be surprised if there was a discrimination suit....
Is that a year per kid, or a year total in your career?
If its a year per kid, I'd be tempted to keep having kids. If that catches on, we might wonder if Netflix is encouraging rapid population growth.
Tritium is quite harmless in small amounts, and leaves the body quite quickly if ingested.It is probably the least harmful of any radionuclide.
Do you know how many things in your body cause "mutations and cell death"? I'm sorry to inform you that it is happening in your body right now, and at levels much greater than anything solely caused by a small tritium ingestion. In fact, you get more cell damage and mutations from exposure to UV that you could ever expect to get from tritium exposure from a nuclear plant. That is even when using sunscreen, btw.
What you fail to overlook in your self-proclaim 'scientific' analysis is the human bodies capacity to deal with 'cell death and mutations'.
Presenting the information they way you do, without comparison to anything else, without likelihood of actual health impacts at realistic ingestion levels, is simply a method to push FUD.
You have shown your true colors, proven you don't use scientific analysis by ignoring proper risk analysis methods, and seeming fail to understand what is going on in your body every day. You are a waste of time.
I wonder what else could be dropped into a prison yard by drone just to cause unrest?
The ultimate contraband....a 3d printer!
moot! dammit. SMH
Not sure if it will work for all drones, but it pissed the dog off to no end... But seriously, does inverse square law not apply here? What's the range on this? DNRTFA
Those questions are mute. Effectiveness is not a criteria. We are searching for expensive, difficult, and unreliable methods for downing drones.
I'm waiting for Nacho LibreOffice.
So he gave up refrigeration?
and his girlfriend. She's over here in my AC powered hot tub drinking a frozen drink from my AC powered freezer, blended with my AC powered blender. Tonight, we are going to make love under my ceiling fan.
lol
That's true only if the goal is *not* to create an almost "Hunger Games" type of scenario where there are only the rich, privileged, ruling-class and an impoverished, heavily-regulated & controlled, serf-class.
Strat
That makes no sense at all. And seems completely irrelevant. We can't make real headway in reducing carbon emissions if we don't consider the economic situations of all the countries that can't afford to implement high cost solutions.
Nice to see some wisdom.
AC distribution has little to do with losses and much to do with cost and reliability. 3 phase distribution allows for much flexibility in how the distribution is done, in clearing and recovering from faults or dead lines or phases, and in making multiple tie-ins. AC switching equipment is much lower cost and simpler, more reliable.
Due to the very poor selection of DC appliances and often their RV bloated price tags,
Smaller market means lower production numbers means higher cost per unit. Then, there is the wealthy segment of the RV market who is willing to pay higher prices. At present, big margins on less sales brings a better return than increased sales with low margins.
I don't think the OP even thought this through this far and is an obviously trash post, but for the sake of discussion I looked at a solar panel house and there are dc washing machines and refrigerators that work off of propane instead of electricity. It's actually pretty interesting... the biggest issue was there was no electricity for the well pump and water had to be trucked in so we passed on the house.
The propane needed to be trucked in as well. Sounds much less efficient than getting the power off the grid. Best to spend money on high efficiency instead.
The article says the justification for fuel cells is because grid power isn't reliable in rural areas. Fine, that makes sense. But the justification for using solar is that it's not suitable for urban areas. I'm confused why the power grid isn't good enough in urban areas while using solar for base stations in rural areas. Am I missing something? Also, why not use wind energy and mount turbines on the towers in rural areas to provide additional power?
I think they are mostly worried about cost of solar. There can be siting issues for ground station if there are a bunch of tall buildings around, but it is true that we don't see nearly as much solar in urban areas as we do rural/suburban areas. Wind is almost a non-starter in most urban areas. Buildings cause wind flow issues. In this use case, both would need batteries, which is the real cost killer.
Look, O got loads of money from the nuke industry. Why? Because he is a fan of nukes. The problem was that the dems were opposed to it, and the GOP is opposed to ANYTHING that O tries to do.
That is simply not true. If it were, O would have at least mentioned nukes in his latest proposal. You like to make excuses. When has resistance from the GOP stopped him from pushing his ideas publicly?
SO raising the cost of energy is the simple solution? Its simply ignoring the fact that wind and solar are geographically limited, and many countries simply can't afford to do anything remotely similar to what Germany has attempted. And despite their huge investments, when they shut down their last nuke their net gain will be close to zero. And they are already slowing down investment in renewables. Had they kept their nukes running, and built 3 more, they would be way ahead of where they are right now, and would have spent a tremendous amount less, which could be used to help other countries reduce emissions.
The whole world has to play. The whole world has to pay. Its simple when that is ignored.
We seem to be having a very hard time managing the waste now. Nobody wants it anywhere near them. Just because it's technically and theoretically easy politically. Like it or not, that matters too.
Yes, it is more of a political problem than a technical one. But that changes with leadership, people educating themselves, and calling out the FUD mongers. In addition, most people don't know the difference between cold war nuclear waste and commercial spent fuel. The former has a host of nasty challenges, the latter is quite inert, stable solid material that is technologically easy to manage.