It was stupid to stop Yucca. But don't confuse cold war waste with spent fuel. Spent fuel is quite easy to safely store, nothing like the challenges posed by the nasty chemicals produced for defense, improperly stored from the start with no management plan. Solid spent fuel is quite inert by comparison.
There was no design flaw in the reactor itself, it was not designed to be suddenly deluged nor should it have been...It was improperly built in a location where it could be hit by a tsunami. But this was not a nuclear specific error, as many towns were also built where they could be hit by a tsunami. The latter was truly tragic as many lives were lost, many homes destroy. That is the real disaster that few care to talk about.
I have never ranted against windmills. So this attempt to 'sell' the technology is quite irrelevant to our conversation.
But if you could bring yourself to analyze and scrutinize things, instead of blind worship that anything that is called green is worth it no matter the cost, you might discover that there are options to get more for less. In the case of Block Island, for the same money they could have built just the mainland transmission line, and used the rest of the money to build even more land based wind capacity even after accounting for the higher capacity factor offshore, and the Islanders could have lower rates at the same time. OR, they could pay the higher rates and the extra margin could pay for even MORE of your green precious wonderful windmills. So why do you think paying more for less is so great?
You'd rather defend wasted money and lost opportunity because of your 'its green therefore it must be wonderful' attitude. Stop your blind thoughtless cheer-leading and think a bit and you might find that there are smarter ways to do things with what we already have. Doing more with less is GREEN BABY!. But you'll still defend this boondoggle, even to the point where you attack me and justify it by saying it is my politics....and yet you haven't stated what my politics are. Amazing.
And, btw, if you still think that flow batteries make sense for cars instead of other battery technologies that are much more compatible, you are an idiot. Explain how that is anti-green...or is that just you blindly defending something again. You never did explain why that application makes sense.
If they want to place requirements and fees on Uber and Lyft similar to taxis, fine. But when you start with these 'selective and creative tax and subsidy' schemes you can create more problems then you solve. Let taxi companies figure out how to improve their infrastructure on their own. If there is some public infrastructure that is agnostic to the companies providing service, but allows improvement, then build that with the regular tax income.
I never said windmills don't have a niche, in fact I can be found on record here on/. stating wind and solar both make sense at the right levels in the right places, but I also make people aware of the cost because many idiots either don't realize the true cost, or don't care (like you). I don't attack anything 'green'. I attack 'stupid' or 'misinformed', or simply point out the truth that many solutions are a lot more complicated when you get into the details.
I am critical by nature, you'll see my similar posts regarding things that have nothing to do with 'green', pointing out some of the realities when headline hype solutions appear on this site. You just tend to pick and choose to ATTACK ME and NOT MY FACTS only when it happens to be something to do with what YOU call 'green'.
Secure voting is only part of the problem with internet voting. The only practical way to ensure a person does not have someone physically looking over their shoulder when voting is to have designated voting centers with private one person booths.
I follow nobody politically, but it does appear you follow me, injecting irrelevencies and rants. Meanwhile you get very defensive when someone brings forth simple facts like the cost of a partcular project. Its not me who is responsible for that cost so rant to others. It certainly is a much higher cost than many here claim for wind power when making the case for high percentage wind generation in our energy mix. I dont see you calling them that. In fact you never seem to consider the cost of these projects, you cheer them blindly no matter how much. If this project were 10 times its already high cost you would still defend it with the same irrelevant points, or simply attack the person who dare discuss it. Now that is what is truly silly.
My apologies for offending you by pointing to the high cost of this project.
Copter style air transport requires much more energy than rolling transport, even with the inefficiencies of heavy traffic. Do we want to increase our energy usage for transportation at at time when we are telling people to be more energy aware reduce consumption?
Self driving cars is the future, but IMHO, I think the only way it will be safe if there are automation only lanes..
The biggest challenge with self driving cars is not navigation, turns, keeping it between the lines, etc. It is interaction with human drivers. If you could start from scratch and build a road and navigation infrastructure for 100% autonomous vehicles, it would be rather simple. We already have the tech to accomplish that. But merging an autonomous driving technology into today's starting point is a monumentally hard task. Driving with people involved experience and anticipation, sometimes even looking another driver in the eye to ensure he/she sees you. The turn signal might be on by accident, for example, and there are a plethora of others that require judgement that is really hard to replicate in control system.
This says they ignore the warning 90% of the time, but the article says 90% of users ignore some warnings. Those are two different things. If you craft a study to show warnings that resemble the types of pop-ups crafted to look like warnings that we condition ourselves to ignore, the result is not surprising. If they are on a computer they are familiar with, and the warnings come from their known anti-virus software, the result would likely be different. Basically, people don't trust what they are unfamiliar with.
I can tell you that travel Holidays and peak vacation weeks are the most expensive rental times, and when rentals tend to be hardest to book last minute.
So, you want to select how it applies to cars? Maybe that tells us something about the nature of the pointless attempt to define autopilot for cars in terms of planes. After all, autopilot was never defined for cars. To say it means exactly the same thing....then follow with a "but only the landing part"....makes it silly. OTOH, autopilot for missiles typically mean autonomous.
but a tool that can deal with a lot of the monotony in driving.
Hold on thar pardner! No no no. Autopilot does not help you deal with the monotony. If anything, it adds to it as it takes over some of the driving task. Maybe you just chose the wrong words to imply making it safer for those whose attention drifts during monotonous driving.
Cars don't land, so that isn't relevant, except maybe parking. But at no time in a car, even on an open empty highway, are you allowed to take your hands off with Tesla Autopilot. At least according to Tesla.
The function of the Tesla autopilot is exactly like that of autopilots in boats and airplanes, they couldn't have chosen a more accurate term.
Why do folks keep saying this when in airplanes autopilot specifically allows the pilot to take his hands off the controls for extended periods of time, and allow in increases and focus on instrumentation? Neither of those do you want in a car. Tesla expressly says you should NOT take your hands of the controls. There are very clear differences.
Anyhow, I laugh over the argument effort. For Tesla, Autopilot means whatever Tesla markets it as, expressly or preferentially.That includes both the fine print and they hype.
Slashdot Mirror
It was stupid to stop Yucca. But don't confuse cold war waste with spent fuel. Spent fuel is quite easy to safely store, nothing like the challenges posed by the nasty chemicals produced for defense, improperly stored from the start with no management plan. Solid spent fuel is quite inert by comparison.
There was no design flaw in the reactor itself, it was not designed to be suddenly deluged nor should it have been...It was improperly built in a location where it could be hit by a tsunami. But this was not a nuclear specific error, as many towns were also built where they could be hit by a tsunami. The latter was truly tragic as many lives were lost, many homes destroy. That is the real disaster that few care to talk about.
I have never ranted against windmills. So this attempt to 'sell' the technology is quite irrelevant to our conversation.
But if you could bring yourself to analyze and scrutinize things, instead of blind worship that anything that is called green is worth it no matter the cost, you might discover that there are options to get more for less. In the case of Block Island, for the same money they could have built just the mainland transmission line, and used the rest of the money to build even more land based wind capacity even after accounting for the higher capacity factor offshore, and the Islanders could have lower rates at the same time. OR, they could pay the higher rates and the extra margin could pay for even MORE of your green precious wonderful windmills. So why do you think paying more for less is so great?
You'd rather defend wasted money and lost opportunity because of your 'its green therefore it must be wonderful' attitude. Stop your blind thoughtless cheer-leading and think a bit and you might find that there are smarter ways to do things with what we already have. Doing more with less is GREEN BABY!. But you'll still defend this boondoggle, even to the point where you attack me and justify it by saying it is my politics....and yet you haven't stated what my politics are. Amazing.
And, btw, if you still think that flow batteries make sense for cars instead of other battery technologies that are much more compatible, you are an idiot. Explain how that is anti-green...or is that just you blindly defending something again. You never did explain why that application makes sense.
If they want to place requirements and fees on Uber and Lyft similar to taxis, fine. But when you start with these 'selective and creative tax and subsidy' schemes you can create more problems then you solve. Let taxi companies figure out how to improve their infrastructure on their own. If there is some public infrastructure that is agnostic to the companies providing service, but allows improvement, then build that with the regular tax income.
I never said windmills don't have a niche, in fact I can be found on record here on /. stating wind and solar both make sense at the right levels in the right places, but I also make people aware of the cost because many idiots either don't realize the true cost, or don't care (like you). I don't attack anything 'green'. I attack 'stupid' or 'misinformed', or simply point out the truth that many solutions are a lot more complicated when you get into the details.
I am critical by nature, you'll see my similar posts regarding things that have nothing to do with 'green', pointing out some of the realities when headline hype solutions appear on this site. You just tend to pick and choose to ATTACK ME and NOT MY FACTS only when it happens to be something to do with what YOU call 'green'.
You don't understand coercion. The victim can be coerced into voting by someone else. Imagine an abusive husband, as one example.
Bugging or putting a camera on a voting booth would be a monumentally difficult, risky, and possibly ineffective way to coerce a vote.
Secure voting is only part of the problem with internet voting. The only practical way to ensure a person does not have someone physically looking over their shoulder when voting is to have designated voting centers with private one person booths.
I follow nobody politically, but it does appear you follow me, injecting irrelevencies and rants. Meanwhile you get very defensive when someone brings forth simple facts like the cost of a partcular project. Its not me who is responsible for that cost so rant to others. It certainly is a much higher cost than many here claim for wind power when making the case for high percentage wind generation in our energy mix. I dont see you calling them that. In fact you never seem to consider the cost of these projects, you cheer them blindly no matter how much. If this project were 10 times its already high cost you would still defend it with the same irrelevant points, or simply attack the person who dare discuss it. Now that is what is truly silly.
My apologies for offending you by pointing to the high cost of this project.
Another poinltless rant, a way of avoiding the facts regarding the very high cost of this wind project.
Capitalism with some federal assistance sprinkled on top, and expensive.
These are prototypes? First offshore windmills?
Presumably they're keeping that stuff for a follow up paper.
The world will be anxiously waiting the release of 'We burned Oil" Part II
They are 4 miles off shore; who gives a shit.
Location doesn't matter, but if anyone cares about cost;
Yet when Deepwater proposed to sell its wind energy to National Grid, the cost was more than twice the going rate for electricity.
https://www.wind-watch.org/new...
Copter style air transport requires much more energy than rolling transport, even with the inefficiencies of heavy traffic. Do we want to increase our energy usage for transportation at at time when we are telling people to be more energy aware reduce consumption?
If voicemail had auto-correct, we could have the worst of both worlds.
Self driving cars is the future, but IMHO, I think the only way it will be safe if there are automation only lanes. .
The biggest challenge with self driving cars is not navigation, turns, keeping it between the lines, etc. It is interaction with human drivers. If you could start from scratch and build a road and navigation infrastructure for 100% autonomous vehicles, it would be rather simple. We already have the tech to accomplish that. But merging an autonomous driving technology into today's starting point is a monumentally hard task. Driving with people involved experience and anticipation, sometimes even looking another driver in the eye to ensure he/she sees you. The turn signal might be on by accident, for example, and there are a plethora of others that require judgement that is really hard to replicate in control system.
This says they ignore the warning 90% of the time, but the article says 90% of users ignore some warnings. Those are two different things. If you craft a study to show warnings that resemble the types of pop-ups crafted to look like warnings that we condition ourselves to ignore, the result is not surprising. If they are on a computer they are familiar with, and the warnings come from their known anti-virus software, the result would likely be different. Basically, people don't trust what they are unfamiliar with.
Bet about what?
I can tell you that travel Holidays and peak vacation weeks are the most expensive rental times, and when rentals tend to be hardest to book last minute.
So, you want to select how it applies to cars? Maybe that tells us something about the nature of the pointless attempt to define autopilot for cars in terms of planes. After all, autopilot was never defined for cars. To say it means exactly the same thing....then follow with a "but only the landing part"....makes it silly. OTOH, autopilot for missiles typically mean autonomous.
Maybe the fact that it gets debated here on every related submission should be clue enough as to public interpretation.
but a tool that can deal with a lot of the monotony in driving.
Hold on thar pardner! No no no. Autopilot does not help you deal with the monotony. If anything, it adds to it as it takes over some of the driving task. Maybe you just chose the wrong words to imply making it safer for those whose attention drifts during monotonous driving.
Cars don't land, so that isn't relevant, except maybe parking. But at no time in a car, even on an open empty highway, are you allowed to take your hands off with Tesla Autopilot. At least according to Tesla.
^inferentially, not preferentially.... damn autocorrectpilot
The function of the Tesla autopilot is exactly like that of autopilots in boats and airplanes, they couldn't have chosen a more accurate term.
Why do folks keep saying this when in airplanes autopilot specifically allows the pilot to take his hands off the controls for extended periods of time, and allow in increases and focus on instrumentation? Neither of those do you want in a car. Tesla expressly says you should NOT take your hands of the controls. There are very clear differences.
Anyhow, I laugh over the argument effort. For Tesla, Autopilot means whatever Tesla markets it as, expressly or preferentially.That includes both the fine print and they hype.