Neither are supposed to measure real-world mileage.
A useful test needs to be standardized, and doing so while accounting for 'real world' conditions becomes difficult and even more expensive than the existing system. The best you can hope for is that they have some relative correlation with fuel efficiency from car to car. Its easy to criticize and point out flaws in the existing approach, but try proposing a test that is repeatable, standardized, and reflects real world conditions. And make sure you are very specific about exactly what you will measure, when you will measure it, and how you will measure it. That must all take into account differing vehicle sizes and weights, etc. And once you've done that, make sure that there are not easy ways to cheat or bias the results.
on top of that, it appears they included incidents from sites that weren't even nuclear power plants, like cold war waste sites. But, alas, the anti-nukes care little about facts and credibility. Here once again is proof that they can't carry on a good argument without twisting the truth till it is unrecognizable.
Without a reliable data source, the confidence in that number is highly suspect.
That is an understatement. They intentionally decided to ignore all the officially recorded data and come up with their own list of what they think was an accident, and they used things like newspaper articles and anti-nuke sites to create their base list of data. These so called 'experts' don't actually appear to have any background in nuclear power generation or knowledge of nuclear plant safety analysis. I guess anyone can be an expert these days.
Oh, I see. Thanks for correcting me. I read the summary reference to network broadcast, but that is only for the first episode. They shouldn't even call it a CBS series at all. You are right, this type of stunt will degrade the value and interest in their broadcast channels, giving folks even more reason to cut the cord.
So, according to the summary it's the second time they land on ground, but the first time they attempt to land on ground... Meaning once they tried to land on the drone ship but missed and landed on land instead?
But this one was on 'solid ground'. Pay attention.
A proper headline would require thoughtfulness. Too much to ask. I guess some think they are clever when coming up with click bait headlines, but they come off as idiots.
Yeah, it's free for everyone who has a Netflix subscription except for those in the US? I'm not paying for another subscription; they're asking me to pirate it.
Its also free to anyone in the US who can receive CBS OTA, and available to anyone with cable.
Your insistence that there are no other problems at hand besides corruption seems to simply be based on the fact that corruption has happened elsewhere in the past, and not based on the information at hand. The only similarities you have been able to provide are price spikes at high demand times. I won't deny that corruption or market abuse might be a contributor, but in reality those abuses are enabled by other problems, those you insist on ignoring. Its always much easier to claim conspiracy rather than learn about the hard problems.
Since Enron, many changes were put in place in energy markets to prevent the same abuses. It is a lot harder to pull of now than it was, and everyone is watching. There are clearly issues of line capacity and reduction in reserve margin at hand. Solve those problems and the opportunity for abuse, which may or may not have contributed, gets reduced significantly.
The primary interest of the grid operator is to keep the grid running and stable. Blackouts and brownouts hurt revenues for everyone. They are just a go between and do not profit from spikes nor lose money from dips.
Anything that is causing people to take fewer pharmaceuticals must be of a concern to pharmaceutical companies, wouldn't you say?
It may. But that doesn't make a spit of difference in drawing a conclusion about the relationship between the drop in prescribed amounts and medical marijuana usage. There isn't even data on how much individuals that are actually sick are taking, only prescribe amounts. for example, my dad had severe arthritis and used to stock up on pain pills in case they price went up, he couldn't get out to refill, or his coverage changed. He wound up with tons of unused painkillers.
Linked article is from vice.com. You don't think they have an agenda do you?
And I have no problem with people having an agenda. But I do find it interesting how easily people accept such flawed studies when it supports their ideals. What will be sad is the tremendous number of follow-on articles that claim these findings, and the extremely small number of those who see the problems with it. Its a sign of how collectively stupid the media is. They can't even question why doctors may be writing smaller prescriptions, or even how one can correlate doctors writing smaller prescriptions to increased marijuana use, and doing so without talking to any doctors or users.
Just watch though, as this catches like wildfire in the media and going forward will be referenced as some type of established conclusion.
It seems that if doctors can't figure what to do they just throw pills at it.
First off, sorry for your wife's struggles. I am glad she is past it.
In reality, many doctors don't know what to do and resort to symptom management with drugs. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does seem like the easy answer sometimes. You were wise to keep trying different doctors, they don't all now everything. I've learned not to accept 'there is nothing we can do', sometimes there is, sometimes they are right.
Wow, I am appalled that this made it past the editors.
What's the news here? Drugs may render other drugs unnecessary? Pharmaceutical companies have money and sometimes spend it? WTF?
Or how about, "Dr's prescribe less after major DEA crackdown".
The numbers here are doses, not prescriptions. Keep that in mind, folks. Not nearly as big a reduction as the blurb is trying to make it sound like.
The study says the drop is greatest in states with legal MM, but implies there is a drop in other states as well. That information (the drop in other states) is conspicuously missing. What, then, is the reason overall for that drop? Also, since is a drop in prescriptions, maybe they could ask a few doctors why they are prescribing less. In some states like FL, there has been major crackdowns on excessive pain killer prescription writing.
I find it amusing that some of the same people that cheer renewables' role in driving negative pricing jump to conspiracy theories when the swing is in the other direction. Both are indicators of structural issues, both market structure and/or physical generation, transmission, distribution structure. In the real world its typically a mix.
Spot market pricing is difficult when dealing with a instantaneous demand/supply/response market. The highs and lows are naturally extreme, and volatility is to be expected. One can argue legitimately that other pricing/market approaches are better, but the spike and dips do reveal something about the systemic supply and distribution issues, and they get attention, which can be a good thing. If prices were set no matter what, it would be easier to ignore the problems.
Glad to see someone here thinks rather than just jump to conspiracy theories. Most don't appreciate the relevance of line capacity, nor the need to maintain reserve. If people want large percentage of wind and solar, they need to also pay for maintaining reserve, but that is not quite as popular politically.
Cheap energy encourages wasteful usage. Americans don't care what it costs to power their 50 inch TVs, they'll pollute the environment if that's what it takes. Energy should be expensive, that's what it takes to make people use less. Cheap energy is a problem, not a solution.
Cheap energy also fuels the economy, and economic success is the key to addressing environmental issues. Countries that find themselves struggling economically cannot invest in clean power. Also, raising prices hurts the poor and doesn't impact the rich.
BTW, my TV is 55 inches. Fortunately I'm educated enough to know that the TV is not a big contributor to my usage.
You just need to factor in that required margin and line loading play a part. Supply is what is available to the local market/grid operator. Prices go up when all the margin is eroded, which is an insufficient supply issue. Margin becomes much much more important when you add intermittent renewables. There is a price to pay if you erode your reserve.
At times major transmission lines can load to 100%, which means even if there is supply at the other end you can't get any more directly, so you might need to pay more for power from another source, and that can also result in competition for the same sources. Its just not so simple to say 'plenty of supply'.
The grid operator does not use rolling blackouts to demand higher prices. They don't profit from retail prices or price spikes.
Slashdot Mirror
Neither are supposed to measure real-world mileage.
A useful test needs to be standardized, and doing so while accounting for 'real world' conditions becomes difficult and even more expensive than the existing system. The best you can hope for is that they have some relative correlation with fuel efficiency from car to car. Its easy to criticize and point out flaws in the existing approach, but try proposing a test that is repeatable, standardized, and reflects real world conditions. And make sure you are very specific about exactly what you will measure, when you will measure it, and how you will measure it. That must all take into account differing vehicle sizes and weights, etc. And once you've done that, make sure that there are not easy ways to cheat or bias the results.
on top of that, it appears they included incidents from sites that weren't even nuclear power plants, like cold war waste sites. But, alas, the anti-nukes care little about facts and credibility. Here once again is proof that they can't carry on a good argument without twisting the truth till it is unrecognizable.
Without a reliable data source, the confidence in that number is highly suspect.
That is an understatement. They intentionally decided to ignore all the officially recorded data and come up with their own list of what they think was an accident, and they used things like newspaper articles and anti-nuke sites to create their base list of data. These so called 'experts' don't actually appear to have any background in nuclear power generation or knowledge of nuclear plant safety analysis. I guess anyone can be an expert these days.
The only OTA broadcast will be the PILOT. They've already said that all the other episodes will be streaming only.
I see that now, you are right. That sucks.
Oh, I see. Thanks for correcting me. I read the summary reference to network broadcast, but that is only for the first episode. They shouldn't even call it a CBS series at all. You are right, this type of stunt will degrade the value and interest in their broadcast channels, giving folks even more reason to cut the cord.
Next try will be on 'dry land'.
So, according to the summary it's the second time they land on ground, but the first time they attempt to land on ground ... Meaning once they tried to land on the drone ship but missed and landed on land instead?
But this one was on 'solid ground'. Pay attention.
A proper headline would require thoughtfulness. Too much to ask. I guess some think they are clever when coming up with click bait headlines, but they come off as idiots.
No need for all that trouble, it will be pirated from the OTA broadcast.
Yeah, it's free for everyone who has a Netflix subscription except for those in the US? I'm not paying for another subscription; they're asking me to pirate it.
Its also free to anyone in the US who can receive CBS OTA, and available to anyone with cable.
Ha, or in this case, 'junkie science'
Your insistence that there are no other problems at hand besides corruption seems to simply be based on the fact that corruption has happened elsewhere in the past, and not based on the information at hand. The only similarities you have been able to provide are price spikes at high demand times. I won't deny that corruption or market abuse might be a contributor, but in reality those abuses are enabled by other problems, those you insist on ignoring. Its always much easier to claim conspiracy rather than learn about the hard problems.
Since Enron, many changes were put in place in energy markets to prevent the same abuses. It is a lot harder to pull of now than it was, and everyone is watching. There are clearly issues of line capacity and reduction in reserve margin at hand. Solve those problems and the opportunity for abuse, which may or may not have contributed, gets reduced significantly.
The primary interest of the grid operator is to keep the grid running and stable. Blackouts and brownouts hurt revenues for everyone. They are just a go between and do not profit from spikes nor lose money from dips.
You need to first distinguish between the grid operator and the utilities. The grid operator does not set nor bill retail.
Anything that is causing people to take fewer pharmaceuticals must be of a concern to pharmaceutical companies, wouldn't you say?
It may. But that doesn't make a spit of difference in drawing a conclusion about the relationship between the drop in prescribed amounts and medical marijuana usage. There isn't even data on how much individuals that are actually sick are taking, only prescribe amounts. for example, my dad had severe arthritis and used to stock up on pain pills in case they price went up, he couldn't get out to refill, or his coverage changed. He wound up with tons of unused painkillers.
Linked article is from vice.com. You don't think they have an agenda do you?
And I have no problem with people having an agenda. But I do find it interesting how easily people accept such flawed studies when it supports their ideals. What will be sad is the tremendous number of follow-on articles that claim these findings, and the extremely small number of those who see the problems with it. Its a sign of how collectively stupid the media is. They can't even question why doctors may be writing smaller prescriptions, or even how one can correlate doctors writing smaller prescriptions to increased marijuana use, and doing so without talking to any doctors or users.
Just watch though, as this catches like wildfire in the media and going forward will be referenced as some type of established conclusion.
It seems that if doctors can't figure what to do they just throw pills at it.
First off, sorry for your wife's struggles. I am glad she is past it.
In reality, many doctors don't know what to do and resort to symptom management with drugs. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it does seem like the easy answer sometimes. You were wise to keep trying different doctors, they don't all now everything. I've learned not to accept 'there is nothing we can do', sometimes there is, sometimes they are right.
Wow, I am appalled that this made it past the editors. What's the news here? Drugs may render other drugs unnecessary? Pharmaceutical companies have money and sometimes spend it? WTF?
Or how about, "Dr's prescribe less after major DEA crackdown".
For more on painkiller crackdown;
https://www.google.com/search?...
One limitation of the study is that it only looks at Medicare Part D spending, which applies only to seniors.
The numbers here are doses, not prescriptions. Keep that in mind, folks. Not nearly as big a reduction as the blurb is trying to make it sound like.
The study says the drop is greatest in states with legal MM, but implies there is a drop in other states as well. That information (the drop in other states) is conspicuously missing. What, then, is the reason overall for that drop? Also, since is a drop in prescriptions, maybe they could ask a few doctors why they are prescribing less. In some states like FL, there has been major crackdowns on excessive pain killer prescription writing.
I find it amusing that some of the same people that cheer renewables' role in driving negative pricing jump to conspiracy theories when the swing is in the other direction. Both are indicators of structural issues, both market structure and/or physical generation, transmission, distribution structure. In the real world its typically a mix.
Spot market pricing is difficult when dealing with a instantaneous demand/supply/response market. The highs and lows are naturally extreme, and volatility is to be expected. One can argue legitimately that other pricing/market approaches are better, but the spike and dips do reveal something about the systemic supply and distribution issues, and they get attention, which can be a good thing. If prices were set no matter what, it would be easier to ignore the problems.
Glad to see someone here thinks rather than just jump to conspiracy theories. Most don't appreciate the relevance of line capacity, nor the need to maintain reserve. If people want large percentage of wind and solar, they need to also pay for maintaining reserve, but that is not quite as popular politically.
Cheap energy encourages wasteful usage. Americans don't care what it costs to power their 50 inch TVs, they'll pollute the environment if that's what it takes. Energy should be expensive, that's what it takes to make people use less. Cheap energy is a problem, not a solution.
Cheap energy also fuels the economy, and economic success is the key to addressing environmental issues. Countries that find themselves struggling economically cannot invest in clean power. Also, raising prices hurts the poor and doesn't impact the rich.
BTW, my TV is 55 inches. Fortunately I'm educated enough to know that the TV is not a big contributor to my usage.
You just need to factor in that required margin and line loading play a part. Supply is what is available to the local market/grid operator. Prices go up when all the margin is eroded, which is an insufficient supply issue. Margin becomes much much more important when you add intermittent renewables. There is a price to pay if you erode your reserve.
At times major transmission lines can load to 100%, which means even if there is supply at the other end you can't get any more directly, so you might need to pay more for power from another source, and that can also result in competition for the same sources. Its just not so simple to say 'plenty of supply'.
The grid operator does not use rolling blackouts to demand higher prices. They don't profit from retail prices or price spikes.