Stop and go traffic and traffic lights are a good time to check Slashdot.
Just don't make me miss the green light because you are not paying attention. I'll never understand how some folks almost seem surprised that the light turns green, and sit there confused for a second.
Blockbuster biggest barrier was their franchise structure. How to you share the mail order rental revenues with the individual franchise owners? Its a difficult thing to accomplish, and I believe that structure is central to there resistance, or inability, to change the business model.
Back around 2000, I and a potential partner seriously explored owning a Blockbuster franchise. I eventually concluded that technology would be its downfall and backed out. In retrospect, It seems like a my vision was correct technically, but I probably still would have made some good money. The success story of Blockbuster is more interesting to me than the demise.
Communication is a two way thing...your goal should be as much to find out about what others are doing as it is to inform them. Ask what they are doing, listen, then you can relate your similar experiences in response. Ask for advice or confirmation of ideas...people love to be asked to provide advice, and they'll gladly listen to what you are doing in order to be able to fulfill that desire.
I'd also like to know if there is any difference seen in horizontal vs vertical-side mounting. Seems like if they were smart they would have had both configurations in the sample.
This. The test doesn't tell me how long my NAS drives should last given periodic usage..that is a few hours a day. It seems the test drives were all continuously spinning, but were they also performing read-writes continuously? More info desired.
Fiction? just check the submission page on a regular basis, look and see where 90% of anti nuclear, pro-wind, and solar article submissions come from.....a single member. And if you want to explain the details of your generalized "1970s" comment, please do so, as it sound more like a tired line from some anti-nuke list of catch phrases.
I have clearly stated, in my first post on Slashdot, who I am and where I work. I know nuclear and the power industry quite well, thank you. I actually believe solar makes sense, but not the the degree of many of those who are even afraid to admit there are downsides and challenges. Those folks generally resort to attacks when challenged with fact, and I'll have you know that it was you who threw out the initial personal attack, not me.
If you think I have lied, state that lie specifically right here or STFU.
If you want to inquire about motivation, how about questioning the motivation of a member who submits anti-nuclear articles, pro-solar articles on almost a daily basis.
If you read it as it is worded, it simply suggests that you might be calling out what you perceive as shills only where you do not agree, and gladly accept what is clearly the behavior of a different member with a clear agenda.
But you seem to have too much anger and emotion to see things as they really are, so I guess you'll just ignore the fact that I clearly did not call you a shill, just so you can play the victim card. Pathetic.
As for 1970s technology, well I could come up with a list of energy generation technologies that are older than fission, and it certainly would include wind and solar.
No, gas is the price challenge for nuclear, and if the playing field were even, solar and wind would not stand a chance in the fight. I do find it highly ironic that a solar advocate would take credit for the price deflation resulting from burning of fossil fuels. The only market impacts due to renewables are result of forced purchases and huge incentives, not actual cost basis pricing.
That article you wrote has a bunch of flaws and misconceptions. It is pretty obviously non-objective, just look at the adjectives and qualifiers used throughout. No objective professional writes that way. Too bad the author has no real world experience in power asset analysis. You can learn more about the many flaws of that paper if you desire, it just takes a little critical analysis. I see you have latched on to it already, so that may be a challenge.
Yes, nuclear can have expensive upgrades, but not a wholesale replacement that would be the relative equivalent of a turbine generator replacement. The largest replacement in a typical nuclear plant is steam generators, once or twice in 40 to 60 years, a couple hundred million dollars each time, only a small percentage of a total plant build cost.
This cost analysis does not consider the number of times they would need to be replaced during the 40-60 year operating life of a nuclear plant, or the cost of spinning reserve required to back up the wind generators. To be fair, it also does not discuss the fuel cost differential, although that is relatively small and would have limited impact on the general conclusion. Nor does it compare lifetime operating costs, of which a large portion is staffing. I imagine it would require a staff of about 500 to manage and maintain 1725 large windmills and associated infrastructure. That is comparable with the average number of people required to operate a nuclear plant. Even if that number is off, it is not likely to tilt the scale much either way.
Offshore makes sense because 1) the wind patterns can be favorable and 2) they don't take up land. The downsides compared to land based wind are transmission losses (depending on how far offshore) , the corrosive sea-spray environment, and the inconvenience of accessing via boat. By making sue of floating platforms, construction cost differences can be minimized.
It would be interesting to see a good comparison of the lifetime costs of sea vs land based wind generation.
Question: Has the postal service in the UK been largely supported by the "junk mail" advertisement sector? This has been a trend in the US for the last decade, although it appears to be waning in recent years, probably due to internet solutions. Just curious.
Slashdot Mirror
It won't even shake up the english linux publishing industry....if there is such a thing.
7. Calvin better not piss on this truck!
6. Place a generator in the bed, and its almost as good as a real truck!
Maybe they did the author a favor. Seems like they have validated his methods by these actions. Sales should increase.
Ha. Might also need to take its temperature.....might be 'burning up' with fever.
Good catch. I guess we do this again in a year and a half.
I don't see how this could work for radar or light.
Of course you can't see it working. Thats the point.
That would be sick!
Can you be wrapped in invisibility? I think not.
Doesn't matter, someone will just come along with a uninvisiblity uncloaker and sell it to the enemy. Isn't that how it always goes?
Stop and go traffic and traffic lights are a good time to check Slashdot.
Just don't make me miss the green light because you are not paying attention. I'll never understand how some folks almost seem surprised that the light turns green, and sit there confused for a second.
Blockbuster biggest barrier was their franchise structure. How to you share the mail order rental revenues with the individual franchise owners? Its a difficult thing to accomplish, and I believe that structure is central to there resistance, or inability, to change the business model.
Back around 2000, I and a potential partner seriously explored owning a Blockbuster franchise. I eventually concluded that technology would be its downfall and backed out. In retrospect, It seems like a my vision was correct technically, but I probably still would have made some good money. The success story of Blockbuster is more interesting to me than the demise.
Communication is a two way thing...your goal should be as much to find out about what others are doing as it is to inform them. Ask what they are doing, listen, then you can relate your similar experiences in response. Ask for advice or confirmation of ideas...people love to be asked to provide advice, and they'll gladly listen to what you are doing in order to be able to fulfill that desire.
Wait for Service Pack 1 first. Always......
I'd also like to know if there is any difference seen in horizontal vs vertical-side mounting. Seems like if they were smart they would have had both configurations in the sample.
This. The test doesn't tell me how long my NAS drives should last given periodic usage..that is a few hours a day. It seems the test drives were all continuously spinning, but were they also performing read-writes continuously? More info desired.
Fiction? just check the submission page on a regular basis, look and see where 90% of anti nuclear, pro-wind, and solar article submissions come from .....a single member. And if you want to explain the details of your generalized "1970s" comment, please do so, as it sound more like a tired line from some anti-nuke list of catch phrases.
I have clearly stated, in my first post on Slashdot, who I am and where I work. I know nuclear and the power industry quite well, thank you. I actually believe solar makes sense, but not the the degree of many of those who are even afraid to admit there are downsides and challenges. Those folks generally resort to attacks when challenged with fact, and I'll have you know that it was you who threw out the initial personal attack, not me.
If you think I have lied, state that lie specifically right here or STFU.
If you want to inquire about motivation, how about questioning the motivation of a member who submits anti-nuclear articles, pro-solar articles on almost a daily basis.
If you read it as it is worded, it simply suggests that you might be calling out what you perceive as shills only where you do not agree, and gladly accept what is clearly the behavior of a different member with a clear agenda.
But you seem to have too much anger and emotion to see things as they really are, so I guess you'll just ignore the fact that I clearly did not call you a shill, just so you can play the victim card. Pathetic.
As for 1970s technology, well I could come up with a list of energy generation technologies that are older than fission, and it certainly would include wind and solar.
I never said that, you chose to interpret that way.
Yes, I absolutely have read it earlier this year when it came out.
No, gas is the price challenge for nuclear, and if the playing field were even, solar and wind would not stand a chance in the fight. I do find it highly ironic that a solar advocate would take credit for the price deflation resulting from burning of fossil fuels. The only market impacts due to renewables are result of forced purchases and huge incentives, not actual cost basis pricing.
That article you wrote has a bunch of flaws and misconceptions. It is pretty obviously non-objective, just look at the adjectives and qualifiers used throughout. No objective professional writes that way. Too bad the author has no real world experience in power asset analysis. You can learn more about the many flaws of that paper if you desire, it just takes a little critical analysis. I see you have latched on to it already, so that may be a challenge.
Yes, nuclear can have expensive upgrades, but not a wholesale replacement that would be the relative equivalent of a turbine generator replacement. The largest replacement in a typical nuclear plant is steam generators, once or twice in 40 to 60 years, a couple hundred million dollars each time, only a small percentage of a total plant build cost.
This cost analysis does not consider the number of times they would need to be replaced during the 40-60 year operating life of a nuclear plant, or the cost of spinning reserve required to back up the wind generators. To be fair, it also does not discuss the fuel cost differential, although that is relatively small and would have limited impact on the general conclusion. Nor does it compare lifetime operating costs, of which a large portion is staffing. I imagine it would require a staff of about 500 to manage and maintain 1725 large windmills and associated infrastructure. That is comparable with the average number of people required to operate a nuclear plant. Even if that number is off, it is not likely to tilt the scale much either way.
Offshore makes sense because 1) the wind patterns can be favorable and 2) they don't take up land. The downsides compared to land based wind are transmission losses (depending on how far offshore) , the corrosive sea-spray environment, and the inconvenience of accessing via boat. By making sue of floating platforms, construction cost differences can be minimized.
It would be interesting to see a good comparison of the lifetime costs of sea vs land based wind generation.
Question: Has the postal service in the UK been largely supported by the "junk mail" advertisement sector? This has been a trend in the US for the last decade, although it appears to be waning in recent years, probably due to internet solutions. Just curious.