I agree municipalities should, in general, have the right to install utilities, broadband included. But I also like the idea of state control more than federal control, as it typically promotes more models that can be compared. In the case of municipal broadband, there are a range of successes and failures, including some big money losers. If State money is being used, then the States need to be able to determine the rules. If you don't want State level control, then let the local municipalities & citizens pay for the broadband utility build if they want, but they should also pay the debt if they fail and not ask for a State or Federal bail out.
Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades. Xie and his colleagues presented the idea in a study published last month in the prestigious journal Nature.
The theory, which is gaining adherents, remains unproved by actual observation. Surface temperature records date to the late 1800s, but measurements of deep water temperature began only in the 1960s, so there just isn't enough data to chart the long-term patterns, Xie said.
This was just last year from a respected climate scientist who apparently was on the right track. Did we get all that needed data in just one year? Logic doesn't hold. They may have firmed up the theory, it is still a work in progress,. I think a large food source for the skeptics is the constant minimization or even complete dismissal of the uncertainties by many who report the science. Science reporting sucks so bad these days that anyone can conclude anything they want.
Scepticism says: the climate change model is incorrect, we need to change the model.
Denial says: the climate change model is incorrect, therefore climate change is wrong LA LA LA LA LA I cant hear you.
I agree. The problem is that quite often skeptics, that fit your exact description above, are labeled deniers.
I don't need an Ad free internet and I'm not sure I'd want one. I would like an Annoying and/or Slow Ad free internet. Pop up, holding pages, overlays, etc all must be brought under control. A method to identify and suppress the annoying ads would be a boon to all the "good" advertisers. Those that slow loading times to a crawl must also be eliminated.
I think some sites should try direct sponsorships with a single or a few corporations. Load their banner, use their colors, and merge it with the site design to keep it a pleasant, quick loading experience. Ad services have run out of control.
Unfortunately, this whole scheme requires someone to define what an ad is and get participation from very single website on the planet. If Coke wants to sponsor a site and has a banner in the header that originates from that site's server, how would that be stopped?
Whenever these kinds of stories come up I really wonder what they mean by "cloud computing"
Cloud computing got popular when thin client got boring. These marketing generalizations always drive me crazy. If you have an on-line storage or backup service, just call it that. If it is on-line music streaming service, web based office tools, whatever just call it what it is. Otherwise, you just piss off those that get it and confuse those that don't.
I meant as a deployable technology for useful and cost effective electrical generation. Yes, there have been several plants built and run, but none of them achieve the kind of cost effective and reliability results that would result in wide spread deployment, such as we have with Solar PV and Wind. Of course, in essence, all these sources have been around for a long time.
You won't see CSP electrical plants popping up all around like wind and solar any time soon.
Actually, to be more precise, the Mother Jones bird kill article fails on almost all fronts of science.
1) starts with the presumption that all changes in bird population are due to Fukushima accident, but makes zero attempts to justify that logic, its basis, or evidence to support that theory.
2) ignores completely the habitat impact of the tsunami
3) ignores completely the impact of human evacuation. No bird feeders, no bird baths, no trash (common food source), no fish cleaning, etc.
4) states that it was breeding season when the tsunami and accident occurred, but completely ignores that aspect of tsunami impact.
5) does not cite any control study in any other coastal areas of Japan
6) does not cite any existing base science that would support a radiological aspect as being a cause.
The article also leaps to the conclusion that there are only two possible scenarios that could apply; 1) The Fukushima birds have never experienced radiation of this intensity before and may therefore be especially sensitive to radioactive contaminants.
2) Overall more birds declined at Chernobyl because it's been more than two decades since that disaster, during which many species have basically disappeared from the most contaminated regions.
That is what get's pushed as science by the agenda driven, and accepted by the ignorant. To be fair, this is just an ignorant article that tries to interpret other's work, speaking to an audience that is willing to accept it. Official details of an actual sanctioned study would likely be more useful.
I would expect some level of bird deaths from Chernobyl accident, I think anyone would. For Fukushima, its not clear there will ever be any bird deaths attributable to radiological exposure, even if there were some, simply because it would be a low number and hard to show cause unless they actually find carcasses of contaminated birds with physical signs of radiological damage. You will more likely see 'assumed' numbers due to that reason. Some sources will make credible assumptions, others will not.
A bit more info.......Bird kills from conventional power plants, be they fossil or nuclear, are primarily due to cooling towers & water intakes, and for fossil, smokestacks and emissions. No bird kills from operating nuclear plants are related to radiological sources.
Considering the number of birds killed every day from common human activity such as driving cars, flying planes, discarding certain trash, its hard to think a few birds killed by windmills or a concentrated solar power (CSP) should be a concern. Not that they shouldn't take practical steps to minimize it.
CSP is a neat technology, but far behind Solar PV and wind in being ready for practical applications, so it will likely remain a quite small part of the energy mix if/when it gets out of the pilot phase.
CSP development is however, a really interesting to follow. It involves a range of challenges that cross engineering and material science disciplines that aren't obvious when you think "its just generating steam with mirrors". But, in reality, it is really hard to obtain the steady heat input and control needed to obtain steady, quality steam. There are numerous trade-offs between heat absorbing coatings, their adhesive techniques and their ability to expand and contract frequently. There is a challenge in designing the right turbine which operates efficiently as possible over a wide operating curve. Central "boiler" tank type designs have very slow heating / cooling times, which helps dampen solar variances, but make it difficult to place turbine cycle equipment nearby in a way that doesn't impact the heating approach. The linear Fresnel mirror/tube type CSP plants on the other hand have big problems in maintaining even heating throughout the long tubes which leads to hammer and damage, and a lot of expansion/contraction related issues. I'd love to work on one of these projects, its worth reading about if that kind of thing gives you a rise.
You said there were changes due to 9-11, but you haven't identified any. And, of course they don't release to the public details of safeguards information, be that issues found at site, designs, or other. They never have, and never will, for obvious reasons. There has been no change in this as you claimed. In your haste to google stuff to make a point, because you don't have the insight yourself, you repetitively fail to stop and think. Why would you want think they would ever release safeguards information to the public?
That pretty much sums it up. There is no reason to have any expectation fusion will be viable in our lifetimes, and its not clear what we would really learn from ITER that would change that prospectus.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree municipalities should, in general, have the right to install utilities, broadband included. But I also like the idea of state control more than federal control, as it typically promotes more models that can be compared. In the case of municipal broadband, there are a range of successes and failures, including some big money losers. If State money is being used, then the States need to be able to determine the rules. If you don't want State level control, then let the local municipalities & citizens pay for the broadband utility build if they want, but they should also pay the debt if they fail and not ask for a State or Federal bail out.
This guy is, understandably, overstating the prior uncertainty in order to promote his own research.
Is he? http://articles.latimes.com/20...
Xie has argued that the hiatus is the result of heat absorption by the Pacific Ocean — a little-understood, naturally occurring process that repeats itself every few decades. Xie and his colleagues presented the idea in a study published last month in the prestigious journal Nature.
The theory, which is gaining adherents, remains unproved by actual observation. Surface temperature records date to the late 1800s, but measurements of deep water temperature began only in the 1960s, so there just isn't enough data to chart the long-term patterns, Xie said.
This was just last year from a respected climate scientist who apparently was on the right track. Did we get all that needed data in just one year? Logic doesn't hold. They may have firmed up the theory, it is still a work in progress,. I think a large food source for the skeptics is the constant minimization or even complete dismissal of the uncertainties by many who report the science. Science reporting sucks so bad these days that anyone can conclude anything they want.
Scepticism says: the climate change model is incorrect, we need to change the model. Denial says: the climate change model is incorrect, therefore climate change is wrong LA LA LA LA LA I cant hear you.
I agree. The problem is that quite often skeptics, that fit your exact description above, are labeled deniers.
Yeah, and the nerve of him using his talents and going to help all those people in the name of his god. Just trying to make others look bad.
Good point, I'm sure the cost of all that coordination was completely left out of the estimate.
I don't need an Ad free internet and I'm not sure I'd want one. I would like an Annoying and/or Slow Ad free internet. Pop up, holding pages, overlays, etc all must be brought under control. A method to identify and suppress the annoying ads would be a boon to all the "good" advertisers. Those that slow loading times to a crawl must also be eliminated.
I think some sites should try direct sponsorships with a single or a few corporations. Load their banner, use their colors, and merge it with the site design to keep it a pleasant, quick loading experience. Ad services have run out of control.
But it's never going to happen. It's impossible to coordinate.
And, another one word reason: Google.
Unfortunately, this whole scheme requires someone to define what an ad is and get participation from very single website on the planet. If Coke wants to sponsor a site and has a banner in the header that originates from that site's server, how would that be stopped?
Whenever these kinds of stories come up I really wonder what they mean by "cloud computing"
Cloud computing got popular when thin client got boring. These marketing generalizations always drive me crazy. If you have an on-line storage or backup service, just call it that. If it is on-line music streaming service, web based office tools, whatever just call it what it is. Otherwise, you just piss off those that get it and confuse those that don't.
Here is a real world example of cloud computing; http://www.csgnetwork.com/estc...
I meant as a deployable technology for useful and cost effective electrical generation. Yes, there have been several plants built and run, but none of them achieve the kind of cost effective and reliability results that would result in wide spread deployment, such as we have with Solar PV and Wind. Of course, in essence, all these sources have been around for a long time.
You won't see CSP electrical plants popping up all around like wind and solar any time soon.
I think they will see ripe opportunities make much more money than they do.
Smells like a big lease program to me. The fine print would be interesting.
Actually, to be more precise, the Mother Jones bird kill article fails on almost all fronts of science.
1) starts with the presumption that all changes in bird population are due to Fukushima accident, but makes zero attempts to justify that logic, its basis, or evidence to support that theory.
2) ignores completely the habitat impact of the tsunami
3) ignores completely the impact of human evacuation. No bird feeders, no bird baths, no trash (common food source), no fish cleaning, etc.
4) states that it was breeding season when the tsunami and accident occurred, but completely ignores that aspect of tsunami impact.
5) does not cite any control study in any other coastal areas of Japan
6) does not cite any existing base science that would support a radiological aspect as being a cause.
The article also leaps to the conclusion that there are only two possible scenarios that could apply;
1) The Fukushima birds have never experienced radiation of this intensity before and may therefore be especially sensitive to radioactive contaminants.
2) Overall more birds declined at Chernobyl because it's been more than two decades since that disaster, during which many species have basically disappeared from the most contaminated regions.
That is what get's pushed as science by the agenda driven, and accepted by the ignorant. To be fair, this is just an ignorant article that tries to interpret other's work, speaking to an audience that is willing to accept it. Official details of an actual sanctioned study would likely be more useful.
They absolutely do ignore tsunami destruction, and have no physical evidence at all of any radiological damage to the birds. Just link slinging.
CSP is ahead of Solar PV and Wind? You have to be kidding me. You really believe that? All I can say is, Wow!
Maybe, but I also keep a bird feeder. Its going to be a tough decision.
I would expect some level of bird deaths from Chernobyl accident, I think anyone would. For Fukushima, its not clear there will ever be any bird deaths attributable to radiological exposure, even if there were some, simply because it would be a low number and hard to show cause unless they actually find carcasses of contaminated birds with physical signs of radiological damage. You will more likely see 'assumed' numbers due to that reason. Some sources will make credible assumptions, others will not.
Is Chernobyl an operating plant? Fukushima? Try reading my post again.
I see you cannot answer the question.
Do chickens count? Cause I eat a lot of them.
A bit more info.......Bird kills from conventional power plants, be they fossil or nuclear, are primarily due to cooling towers & water intakes, and for fossil, smokestacks and emissions. No bird kills from operating nuclear plants are related to radiological sources.
Considering the number of birds killed every day from common human activity such as driving cars, flying planes, discarding certain trash, its hard to think a few birds killed by windmills or a concentrated solar power (CSP) should be a concern. Not that they shouldn't take practical steps to minimize it.
CSP is a neat technology, but far behind Solar PV and wind in being ready for practical applications, so it will likely remain a quite small part of the energy mix if/when it gets out of the pilot phase.
CSP development is however, a really interesting to follow. It involves a range of challenges that cross engineering and material science disciplines that aren't obvious when you think "its just generating steam with mirrors". But, in reality, it is really hard to obtain the steady heat input and control needed to obtain steady, quality steam. There are numerous trade-offs between heat absorbing coatings, their adhesive techniques and their ability to expand and contract frequently. There is a challenge in designing the right turbine which operates efficiently as possible over a wide operating curve. Central "boiler" tank type designs have very slow heating / cooling times, which helps dampen solar variances, but make it difficult to place turbine cycle equipment nearby in a way that doesn't impact the heating approach. The linear Fresnel mirror/tube type CSP plants on the other hand have big problems in maintaining even heating throughout the long tubes which leads to hammer and damage, and a lot of expansion/contraction related issues. I'd love to work on one of these projects, its worth reading about if that kind of thing gives you a rise.
You said there were changes due to 9-11, but you haven't identified any. And, of course they don't release to the public details of safeguards information, be that issues found at site, designs, or other. They never have, and never will, for obvious reasons. There has been no change in this as you claimed. In your haste to google stuff to make a point, because you don't have the insight yourself, you repetitively fail to stop and think. Why would you want think they would ever release safeguards information to the public?
That pretty much sums it up. There is no reason to have any expectation fusion will be viable in our lifetimes, and its not clear what we would really learn from ITER that would change that prospectus.