What you see as 'excuses' is simply an observation on my part. Your reaction is telling. It is convenient to have someone to blame & to hate, isn't it? They are all evil & greedy.....as long as you see them from afar and ignore the complexities of society.
What is also outrageous is the unwritten assumption that the general public didn't know sugar contributed to tooth decay. Like it was some big secret and the world had no idea. Or the notion that sugar consumption would not continue regardless.
Meanwhile, those evil sugar companies were doing stuff like this;
For example, sugar and food companies funded research on a vaccine to prevent tooth decay, and on adding an enzyme to foods to break up dental plaque. (A 1968 newspaper article headlined: “These monkeys may save your teeth” described a monkey lab that was studying the idea of mixing the enzyme with raw sugar.)
Well, that's not really what they said. Far out, that may be possible, but what they've done is not create memories but help the brain highlight important information...
I suppose they could claim they created the memory of the pleasant sensation, but I think at most what they did was create an association, not a memory, or like you say trigger something that locks the memory in.
Banning TOR is not technologically impossible, it is quite easy to do. Enforcing the ban is the problem. Making it a crime may deter some, but of course not the nefarious.
The paper 'concludes' that AGW increases the risk of drought, but does not tie the recent droughts specifically to AGW as the submitter suggests. That is just an assumption.
"the area" is the problem. Like I said, specific topology and history of the selected location, not the general area, is a very important consideration that you just conveniently gloss over.
Like I said, there was coastline in "the area" of the Tsunami in Japan that because of its topology did not see the amplitude that areas like the Fukushima coast did. Sorry if those details make your point more difficult, its simple fact.
Tsunami amplitude is a result of the topography of the ocean floor near the coastline and the shape of the coastline itself. All coastlines are exposed to tsunamis, but they only get very big in a limited number of places. Even in Japan, just short distances from the places where the tsunami did great damage, were other coastal areas that saw a much smaller wave height.
Yeah, they should start simple. "Do Laundry" is too big a task to start with. Just start with a useful subtask.... I'd like a robot that can sort socks. Throw clean ones in a hopper and out come matched pairs.... singles stay there and get matched later. Perfect that then add another feature.
And you have an amazing ability to make ignorant statements and not even realize it. If you had just done the smallest bit of checking, you'd know how stupid your post was. Everyone else here does, so I don't even need to respond anymore....
But it is not CF alone, although that is a very important factor. It is also design life, lifetime O&M, etc. Windmills don't last very long, new nuclear has a 60 year design life extendable to past 80 easily. Nuclear plants need fuel and parts replacement and staffing and regulatory and wast fees. Wind needs backup, there is a significant cost to that. Wind needs added a decentralized transmission infrastructure, a large generator can centralize it, there is a cost to that.
The systemic cost & value is what is most important.
The good thing about nuclear investment is much of the money stays at home. For solar, a big percentage goes straight to Chine. Also, nuclear plants generate thousands of high paying jobs over their lifetime, providing a social economic return not found in most renewables. The total 'societal economic return' of nuclear is much higher than renewables, which themselves must ride on the backs of conventional generation to be successful.
Nobody denies a large nuclear plant costs huge sums of money to build. But you have to understand the scale of energy production that they are capable of to know that even the increased cost projections are still a good deal. The issue is the lengthy payback period and initial funding. It is something only a few companies can take on themselves without help. The risk of building the first few new designs comes to play as well.
As for warranted prices of energy, what are those being set our for renewables? If you are against them for nuclear then are you also against them for all types of power?
If you calculate total subsidy on a lifetime per KWh generated basis, you will find that the help nuclear is getting pales in comparison to what solar and wind are getting.
Another problem is plans are often overly optimistic to make the costs look good and the actual construction varies form the design due to poor project management, which opens up licensing issues and causes further delays driving up costs. The industry is its own worst enemy in many ways.
AREVA's losses have more to do with poor investments in African mining operations than to do with the Olkiluoto setbacks, as well as other poor investment decisions they appear to have made over the last 10 years.Olkiluoto is a big chunk as well, but its not the majority of their debt problems.
And as far as Olkiluoto, they were simply unprepared to pull off that first of a kind project by themselves, and the Finish supply and regulatory elements faltered as well, a perfect storm of problems. But this is more poor execution than a technology issue. Other plants, including the EPR plants in China, are being completed on a reasonable schedule, more driven by money than anything else.
An insurance company is in the business of making money by taking calculated risks. If there were a risk model that worked in their favor, it could happen. I just think it would be so complicated to evaluate the risk, it would never be considered.
I think it sounds horrible in theory. A system where poor decisions don't have negative consequences is more tolerant of failure. Kickstarter project teams need to feel and be responsible for their performance. They don't need the excuse of "well, at least nobody lost any money".
You pretty much summed it up. This seems to be a case of the developers not really having a sense of the actual challenges of the project and the business. That stems from a lack of experience in both product development and building a business, a trait you can expect from many kickstarter project teams. Something to consider when contributing (its not investing).
Don't worry, the cost of these things will magically be cut nearly in half on the second build, according to the article! They do fail to explain how.
As far as reliability (having it when you need it), which is certainly different than predictability (knowing when it will be available), they could theoretically back up the supply and allow lower flow at times, faster at others, but this would increase the dam effect that environmentalists are worried about.
Its too big a project/risk, I doubt it ever happens. If they could build a small scale one to demonstrate first, they might stand a better chance.
Slashdot Mirror
What you see as 'excuses' is simply an observation on my part. Your reaction is telling. It is convenient to have someone to blame & to hate, isn't it? They are all evil & greedy.....as long as you see them from afar and ignore the complexities of society.
We should be OUTRAGED!
What is also outrageous is the unwritten assumption that the general public didn't know sugar contributed to tooth decay. Like it was some big secret and the world had no idea. Or the notion that sugar consumption would not continue regardless.
Meanwhile, those evil sugar companies were doing stuff like this;
For example, sugar and food companies funded research on a vaccine to prevent tooth decay, and on adding an enzyme to foods to break up dental plaque. (A 1968 newspaper article headlined: “These monkeys may save your teeth” described a monkey lab that was studying the idea of mixing the enzyme with raw sugar.)
Well, that's not really what they said. Far out, that may be possible, but what they've done is not create memories but help the brain highlight important information...
I suppose they could claim they created the memory of the pleasant sensation, but I think at most what they did was create an association, not a memory, or like you say trigger something that locks the memory in.
Banning TOR is not technologically impossible, it is quite easy to do. Enforcing the ban is the problem. Making it a crime may deter some, but of course not the nefarious.
The paper 'concludes' that AGW increases the risk of drought, but does not tie the recent droughts specifically to AGW as the submitter suggests. That is just an assumption.
"the area" is the problem. Like I said, specific topology and history of the selected location, not the general area, is a very important consideration that you just conveniently gloss over.
Like I said, there was coastline in "the area" of the Tsunami in Japan that because of its topology did not see the amplitude that areas like the Fukushima coast did. Sorry if those details make your point more difficult, its simple fact.
I did not say there could not be one. I don't have the information to say there can or cannot. Do you?
Do you have information that shows the topography is the same, or is that an assumption?
Tsunami amplitude is a result of the topography of the ocean floor near the coastline and the shape of the coastline itself. All coastlines are exposed to tsunamis, but they only get very big in a limited number of places. Even in Japan, just short distances from the places where the tsunami did great damage, were other coastal areas that saw a much smaller wave height.
Yeah, they should start simple. "Do Laundry" is too big a task to start with. Just start with a useful subtask.... I'd like a robot that can sort socks. Throw clean ones in a hopper and out come matched pairs.... singles stay there and get matched later. Perfect that then add another feature.
Well, it certainly is a shitload of data to analyze.
Retro-mirrors anyone? Then it bounces off me and sticks to you!
How about covering the vehicle with laser rated photovoltaics? Use that energy to your advantage.
We're running out of gaps.
I was surprised that he got only an 18 months sentence. But it sounds like he learned his lesson.
I have.
And you have an amazing ability to make ignorant statements and not even realize it. If you had just done the smallest bit of checking, you'd know how stupid your post was. Everyone else here does, so I don't even need to respond anymore....
ignorance, plain and simple.
But it is not CF alone, although that is a very important factor. It is also design life, lifetime O&M, etc. Windmills don't last very long, new nuclear has a 60 year design life extendable to past 80 easily. Nuclear plants need fuel and parts replacement and staffing and regulatory and wast fees. Wind needs backup, there is a significant cost to that. Wind needs added a decentralized transmission infrastructure, a large generator can centralize it, there is a cost to that.
The systemic cost & value is what is most important.
The good thing about nuclear investment is much of the money stays at home. For solar, a big percentage goes straight to Chine. Also, nuclear plants generate thousands of high paying jobs over their lifetime, providing a social economic return not found in most renewables. The total 'societal economic return' of nuclear is much higher than renewables, which themselves must ride on the backs of conventional generation to be successful.
Nobody denies a large nuclear plant costs huge sums of money to build. But you have to understand the scale of energy production that they are capable of to know that even the increased cost projections are still a good deal. The issue is the lengthy payback period and initial funding. It is something only a few companies can take on themselves without help. The risk of building the first few new designs comes to play as well.
As for warranted prices of energy, what are those being set our for renewables? If you are against them for nuclear then are you also against them for all types of power?
If you calculate total subsidy on a lifetime per KWh generated basis, you will find that the help nuclear is getting pales in comparison to what solar and wind are getting.
Another problem is plans are often overly optimistic to make the costs look good and the actual construction varies form the design due to poor project management, which opens up licensing issues and causes further delays driving up costs. The industry is its own worst enemy in many ways.
Very true.
AREVA's losses have more to do with poor investments in African mining operations than to do with the Olkiluoto setbacks, as well as other poor investment decisions they appear to have made over the last 10 years.Olkiluoto is a big chunk as well, but its not the majority of their debt problems.
And as far as Olkiluoto, they were simply unprepared to pull off that first of a kind project by themselves, and the Finish supply and regulatory elements faltered as well, a perfect storm of problems. But this is more poor execution than a technology issue. Other plants, including the EPR plants in China, are being completed on a reasonable schedule, more driven by money than anything else.
An insurance company is in the business of making money by taking calculated risks. If there were a risk model that worked in their favor, it could happen. I just think it would be so complicated to evaluate the risk, it would never be considered.
I think it sounds horrible in theory. A system where poor decisions don't have negative consequences is more tolerant of failure. Kickstarter project teams need to feel and be responsible for their performance. They don't need the excuse of "well, at least nobody lost any money".
You pretty much summed it up. This seems to be a case of the developers not really having a sense of the actual challenges of the project and the business. That stems from a lack of experience in both product development and building a business, a trait you can expect from many kickstarter project teams. Something to consider when contributing (its not investing).
Don't worry, the cost of these things will magically be cut nearly in half on the second build, according to the article! They do fail to explain how.
As far as reliability (having it when you need it), which is certainly different than predictability (knowing when it will be available), they could theoretically back up the supply and allow lower flow at times, faster at others, but this would increase the dam effect that environmentalists are worried about.
Its too big a project/risk, I doubt it ever happens. If they could build a small scale one to demonstrate first, they might stand a better chance.