Nuclear plant workers get very little exposure to start with. There are robotics used for underwater tasks. So there really is not a nuclear power market for such things. There could be some cleanup tasks from old government defense waste sites, but tool as described are very niche use items.
I mean, in theory, don't you essentially want a spherical screen completely surrounding you in the center?
I suppose in some respects that would be an immersive viewing experience.... but only for one person, and only if the content were filmed for that perspective.
No, there is no cause and effect relationship determined. It seems likely to me that the same condition that predisposes one to mental stresses/cynicism also could impact overall health.
In order to demonstrate cause and effect, they would need a control group of cynics, half of which somehow changed their outlook to a positive/trusting one, the other half remaining cynics, and then see if results differ. I somehow doubt that can be pulled off.
If you have gone back and looked at the submission history of mdsolar, then I'll respect your opinion and agree to disagree. If you haven't done so, then you missed my entire point.
I don't use voice input because I don't choose to announce to everyone within earshot what I am doing..
I am skeptical that the larger market cares about voice control at all. I like it for hands free phone dialing in the car, but that is about it. Its definitely important for those with disabilities, but otherwise voice control still seems more "gimmicky" than it is useful.
But it sure measures the amount of faith people want to put into "a wizard did it" as a valid explanation of something.
I think this is a flawed perception of how people think. Religious people's thinking is the product of cultural and familial influences that are proven to have great impact on the way one perceives the world. Its not as simple as "want to put" a wizard in as an explanation, like its some multiple choice decision. Its more like a lens through which things are viewed. Their choices are not the same as yours.
I know some firmly religious people that are off the charts smart. I'm not religious, but I don't think that is nearly enough information to come to any conclusion about my relative intelligence, and when I see those that assume they are smarter than religious people simply on the basis of a belief in a god, I sometimes assume those people really don't have a grasp on how the human mind develops and perceives.
Educational background of the individual as well as the family that raised him/her is also a big influence.
Most people don't just get their medical info from WiPe. It may be a starting place, but they tend to look through all the popular medical sites as well. You can find consistencies between them that can give you a sense of what can be taken with greater confidence. The problem is that many sites copy from one another, so if you see the same words used in multiple places, consider it an unverified copy.
Actually, we can build bridges that last 100 years. The fact that not all bridges were built to last that long is not the measure. Bridges in many respects are a challenge because of the multiple forces they experience in combination with a wide range of environmental interfaces that controlled storage doesn't have to deal with. Not to say that there isn't a list of technical challenges for fuel storage, but we've been able to build some pretty hefty structures that withstand huge forces over time, and we've certainly advanced in our knowledge of materials and degradation significantly since many bridges built even 50 years ago, which are in decent shape, were designed and constructed.
In short, to say we cannot build a bridge that lasts 100 years is quite false.
There is a great skew in risk perception, in large part due to association with weapons, Hollywood portrayals, and general FUD mongering. I find it interesting that the average person exposes themselves to an untold number of toxic chemicals and materials. We live and work among pesticides, herbicides, and material coatings and preservatives. We expose great numbers of workers to manufacturing process hazards, breath dust from construction materials and lists of other airborne contaminant sources, and eat foods with additives we don't even recognize.
Yet, when we have a comparably small amount of waste, kept away from us, that has not harmed a soul, in tightly controlled containers, is easy to monitor and detect even the smallest presence outside its compartment, it causes the country to freeze in fear. And considering that the waste is from an energy source that has offset the generation of more airborne pollutants than wind and solar combined can hope to offset in the next two decades, and you just have to wonder. Yes, there are problems with nuclear waste, but in the bigger scheme of things, we have to weigh those risks against the risk of failure to reduce the continued increasing emissions globally, betting that less affordable and reliable sources in a few countries will really get us where we need to be.
Slashdot Mirror
have you worked at SNPP?
Mr. Burns fired me for some guy named Homer.
Nuclear plant workers get very little exposure to start with. There are robotics used for underwater tasks. So there really is not a nuclear power market for such things. There could be some cleanup tasks from old government defense waste sites, but tool as described are very niche use items.
I've wondered if/when SiriusXM or even DirctTV might start "datacasting" in a similar manner.
The portion of the brain that shrinks is the region which helps one distinguish attractive women from nasty sluts.
Yes, because a lack of sleep is the #1 reason why people don't exercise and eat right.
Give me a break.
Yeah, because it has to be the #1 reason for there to be a correlation.
Give ME a break.
The most obvious correlation to me would be......If you don't get a good night's sleep, then you are less likely to exercise during the day.
Seems like point missing is contagious..
Spherical TV.... the next big thing.
I mean, in theory, don't you essentially want a spherical screen completely surrounding you in the center?
I suppose in some respects that would be an immersive viewing experience.... but only for one person, and only if the content were filmed for that perspective.
I think the curve in movie screens mostly is to match the focal "plane" of the projector lens.
The curved TVs look too curved to me. If they only had a slight bit of a curve, it might be interesting.
They also do not appear to include the energy required to actually manufacture the server equipment our data center, only that required to operate it.
Since, on a global scale, 200,000 homes' use of energy is completely insignificant, I think we might want to focus the effort elsewhere.
No, there is no cause and effect relationship determined. It seems likely to me that the same condition that predisposes one to mental stresses/cynicism also could impact overall health.
In order to demonstrate cause and effect, they would need a control group of cynics, half of which somehow changed their outlook to a positive/trusting one, the other half remaining cynics, and then see if results differ. I somehow doubt that can be pulled off.
The solution is not more regulation, but simplifying it. .
Bingo! Simplify, apply equally, and enforce.
That's all low level waste, and frankly there is not very much of it produced.
Yes, clearly. Its simple.
If you have gone back and looked at the submission history of mdsolar, then I'll respect your opinion and agree to disagree. If you haven't done so, then you missed my entire point.
I don't use voice input because I don't choose to announce to everyone within earshot what I am doing..
I am skeptical that the larger market cares about voice control at all. I like it for hands free phone dialing in the car, but that is about it. Its definitely important for those with disabilities, but otherwise voice control still seems more "gimmicky" than it is useful.
But it sure measures the amount of faith people want to put into "a wizard did it" as a valid explanation of something.
I think this is a flawed perception of how people think. Religious people's thinking is the product of cultural and familial influences that are proven to have great impact on the way one perceives the world. Its not as simple as "want to put" a wizard in as an explanation, like its some multiple choice decision. Its more like a lens through which things are viewed. Their choices are not the same as yours.
I know some firmly religious people that are off the charts smart. I'm not religious, but I don't think that is nearly enough information to come to any conclusion about my relative intelligence, and when I see those that assume they are smarter than religious people simply on the basis of a belief in a god, I sometimes assume those people really don't have a grasp on how the human mind develops and perceives.
Educational background of the individual as well as the family that raised him/her is also a big influence.
The next article on this car will likely be on how it can be hacked (because everything gets such an article).
Then that manual stop button might come in handy.
True, but don't confuse radioactive sludge, like the mess from cold war defense programs, with solid spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants.
Chinux?
Most people don't just get their medical info from WiPe. It may be a starting place, but they tend to look through all the popular medical sites as well. You can find consistencies between them that can give you a sense of what can be taken with greater confidence. The problem is that many sites copy from one another, so if you see the same words used in multiple places, consider it an unverified copy.
Actually, we can build bridges that last 100 years. The fact that not all bridges were built to last that long is not the measure. Bridges in many respects are a challenge because of the multiple forces they experience in combination with a wide range of environmental interfaces that controlled storage doesn't have to deal with. Not to say that there isn't a list of technical challenges for fuel storage, but we've been able to build some pretty hefty structures that withstand huge forces over time, and we've certainly advanced in our knowledge of materials and degradation significantly since many bridges built even 50 years ago, which are in decent shape, were designed and constructed.
In short, to say we cannot build a bridge that lasts 100 years is quite false.
There is a great skew in risk perception, in large part due to association with weapons, Hollywood portrayals, and general FUD mongering. I find it interesting that the average person exposes themselves to an untold number of toxic chemicals and materials. We live and work among pesticides, herbicides, and material coatings and preservatives. We expose great numbers of workers to manufacturing process hazards, breath dust from construction materials and lists of other airborne contaminant sources, and eat foods with additives we don't even recognize.
Yet, when we have a comparably small amount of waste, kept away from us, that has not harmed a soul, in tightly controlled containers, is easy to monitor and detect even the smallest presence outside its compartment, it causes the country to freeze in fear. And considering that the waste is from an energy source that has offset the generation of more airborne pollutants than wind and solar combined can hope to offset in the next two decades, and you just have to wonder. Yes, there are problems with nuclear waste, but in the bigger scheme of things, we have to weigh those risks against the risk of failure to reduce the continued increasing emissions globally, betting that less affordable and reliable sources in a few countries will really get us where we need to be.