Good old angel o sphere. Lies about nuclear power in order to win an argument. Tell me more about the 10000's of dead people you personally witnessed you lying fucktard.
So you are saying if Germany spent 200+ billion on nuclear plants they would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Mental gymnastics indeed.
There is evidence of this of nuclear decrease emissions. . When France deployed their nuclear fleet in the 1980's it resulted in the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in world history.
4th generation reactors can recycle waste. We only use ~1-5 % of the energy in our fuel. If we use 100% of the energy we can power our society of 10000's of years.
Also we stopped looking of uranium reserves because we had more then we needed for decades.
France's emission of uranium is infinitely larger than Germany's.
Not true. France emits no uranium. On the other hand Germany emits a lot of uranium and other radiative elements into the atmosphere because they burn coal.
You are right. Increasing electricity rates in a goal of the greenies. There is a belief that high electricity rates will decrease demand. In reality it impoverishes the lower and middle classes while doing nothing to lower CO2 emissions.
Neither is solar, but we can run our civilization for 10000's of years with nuclear. That makes is sustainable. If we include seawater extraction and thorium we can run our civilization for millions of years.
Germany has spent 100s of billions on renewables without much to show for it. Their electricity rates are among the highest in Europe, yet they still pollute 10x as much as France" If they spent that money on next generation nuclear their emissions would have dropped. As it currently stands nuclear power is the only viable option to mitigate climate change.
And THIS is the exact kind of thinking that causes big gaping security issues for companies. The idea that there's a single solution rather than an entire philosophy to security is not only absurd
I never suggested a single solution. I only commented that windows is a bad solution. It is less secure then other platforms. It is more vulnerable then bsd or osx. We need to move to more secure platforms. We need to stop making it easy for foreign hackers. I am not sure why you think Windows is a secure platform.
Have you learnt nothing from the likes of Stuxnet?
I learned a lot from stuxnet. These attacks are a beachhead. They might not be directly connected to critical infrastructure, but they have information about said infrastructure. It is feasible that an attacker can find information that a component in the system needs to be replaced. They can then compromising that component before it is installed.
If only Apple could employ people with as much engineering insight as you...
I am sure it would not hurt. I would have told them led horns( or flaps or what ever you want to call them) are ugly. It distracts the users focus away from the content.
Of course you also happen to be dead wrong in your argument above, and your reasoning does seem to show signs of a lack of critical thought associated with lots of handfeeding and claims of authority without any evidence.
How about I mention that the largest problem in universities is the lack of entry filtering, by which I mean 80% of the people there should not be, and that that detracts hugely from the education of the 20% who should be? And that those 20% are the dedicated intellectuals who are willing to forgo other things in their lives and dedicate themselves to academic research?
Your answer to that should clear up the question.
Those are technically not questions. I am not convinced everyone who is in college is ready for it. I think we push college on students when other careers can be better (both in job satisfaction and money made). There is also a lot of entry filtering in college--it is called the admission process. This can be improved.
Wow your dumb. I am able to cite scientific studies that prove my claims. The lecture, video, and textbook are only used because they are cheap. Student achievement should be a priority and that comes from active learning.
Active learning is a provably superior form of learning. Active learning is actually a harder form of learning in that in requires more work from both student and teacher. The student has to solve problems, and the teacher has to provide constructive feedback and help the student self-correct. It is one of the reasons why the averaged tutored student performs in the 98 percentile (See 2 Sigma Problem). That is why these doctors and scientists are implementing it in their school.
Passive learning is less effective even if it is given from a great lecturer. In fact a great lecturer can provide an "illusion of learning" which is a sense that a student understands the material better then they actually do. Passive learning includes sitting in a lecture, watching videos and reading textbooks.
Think about it with a simple algebra example. If a student watches a video of someone solving an equation they will learn something, but they will learn more if they are required to solve a dozen equations.
You love to insult people don't you. Everyone who provides facts that contradicts your preconceived notions must be dumb right? And why did you up vote yourself again?
You have not witnessed 10,000 dead. There were not 300,000 dead from Chernobyl. Greenpeace is not a credible source. There are have been cases of thyroid cancer but thankfully only 9 deaths. There are people who never left Chernobyl and are fine. The other reactors at Chernobyl produced power up until the early 2000's. That 4000 estimate was from the linear no-threshold model which is a discredited statistical model. Thankfully those deaths never occurred. The deaths outside of the Ukraine from nuclear accidents is 0. That makes it the safest power source. The soviet era reactors were stupidly designed anyway.
See Experimental Breeder Reactor II. It is a meltdown proof reactor that recycles waste. Why are you opposed to building these types of reactors? There are 50 startups developing these passively safe reactors. Why are you opposed to even research into this technology? Comparing this technology with soviet era tech is an apples to oranges comparison. It is dishonest to even make that argument.
Finally given the reality of climate change we need to support atomic energy. If we do not the number of people that will die will be in the 10's of millions.
Source? I want a source from the world health organization that says 1 million. Oh wait I googled it. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/ Strange they said that fewer than 50 death have been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster. There is an estimate of 4000 might eventually die, but thankfully those deaths have never materialized. I guess that makes you a liar.
Why should I give you 'sources' for stuff that is common sense
Maybe because you are full of it. I have googled this topic repeatedly. I have sourced this topic.
And why do you have multiple accounts? Why do you feel the need to up vote yourself everytime you post? Are you really that insecure? Are you really mdsolar? How many people will have to die from the effects of climate change before you let us solve it? 10 Million? 100 Million? More?
Slashdot Mirror
Good old angel o sphere. Lies about nuclear power in order to win an argument. Tell me more about the 10000's of dead people you personally witnessed you lying fucktard.
So you are saying if Germany spent 200+ billion on nuclear plants they would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Mental gymnastics indeed. There is evidence of this of nuclear decrease emissions. . When France deployed their nuclear fleet in the 1980's it resulted in the largest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in world history.
France will replace a lot of nuclear with renewables in the next years
No they will not. Thankfully. France backpedals on pledge to cut reliance on nuclear power And what strawman? France and Norway are two of the cleanest countries.
Meanwhile in France they realized that they are not doing fine and plan to decrease the use of nuclear substantially.
Someone has not been following the news. Macron backpedals on pledge to cut reliance on nuclear power.
This is money well spent. And no, nuclear is far too expensive to be the solution for our energy problems.
If Germany spent the same amount of money on new nuclear power, they would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions significantly.
4th generation reactors can recycle waste. We only use ~1-5 % of the energy in our fuel. If we use 100% of the energy we can power our society of 10000's of years. Also we stopped looking of uranium reserves because we had more then we needed for decades.
France's emission of uranium is infinitely larger than Germany's.
Not true. France emits no uranium. On the other hand Germany emits a lot of uranium and other radiative elements into the atmosphere because they burn coal.
Within the next 5 years, You're likely to see their emissions drop, as the coal is becoming unnecessary.
Bullshit. Not to the level of France or Norway. Not in 5 years, not in 25 years.
France seems to be doing fine. Germany would not have to lower their industrial base if they opted to use nuclear.
High electric rates are a greeny GOAL.
You are right. Increasing electricity rates in a goal of the greenies. There is a belief that high electricity rates will decrease demand. In reality it impoverishes the lower and middle classes while doing nothing to lower CO2 emissions.
Nuclear energy isn't unlimited
Neither is solar, but we can run our civilization for 10000's of years with nuclear. That makes is sustainable. If we include seawater extraction and thorium we can run our civilization for millions of years.
Germany has spent 100s of billions on renewables without much to show for it. Their electricity rates are among the highest in Europe, yet they still pollute 10x as much as France" If they spent that money on next generation nuclear their emissions would have dropped. As it currently stands nuclear power is the only viable option to mitigate climate change.
Yep. Down vote because you disagree with me. What a bunch of cowards. I cite facts yet I am a troll. Fuck You.
There is already an established scientific consensus that nuclear power paves the only viable path forward on climate change. Germany has spent 100 of billions on renewables and have not made a dent in their carbon carbon emissions. Germany pollutes 10x as much as France. The New York times recently posted an analysis of the cleanest countries in the world, and they all use a combination of hydro and nuclear.
And THIS is the exact kind of thinking that causes big gaping security issues for companies. The idea that there's a single solution rather than an entire philosophy to security is not only absurd
I never suggested a single solution. I only commented that windows is a bad solution. It is less secure then other platforms. It is more vulnerable then bsd or osx. We need to move to more secure platforms. We need to stop making it easy for foreign hackers. I am not sure why you think Windows is a secure platform.
Have you learnt nothing from the likes of Stuxnet?
I learned a lot from stuxnet. These attacks are a beachhead. They might not be directly connected to critical infrastructure, but they have information about said infrastructure. It is feasible that an attacker can find information that a component in the system needs to be replaced. They can then compromising that component before it is installed.
Any bets the majority of compromised computers ran a version of windows? We need to stop using Windows in these environments.
The purpose of that AMA about the BFR was meant to distract the public from the layoffs at Tesla.
If only Apple could employ people with as much engineering insight as you...
I am sure it would not hurt. I would have told them led horns( or flaps or what ever you want to call them) are ugly. It distracts the users focus away from the content.
The camera area in the top part of the phone is ugly. It is unlike Apple to produce something that is so visually unappealing.
Of course you also happen to be dead wrong in your argument above, and your reasoning does seem to show signs of a lack of critical thought associated with lots of handfeeding and claims of authority without any evidence.
My argument is that active learning is superior. There is research to support my position. The medical school in vermont has read some of the same research. Here is one source from the national academy of science that I got from a my bibtex file. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics
How about I mention that the largest problem in universities is the lack of entry filtering, by which I mean 80% of the people there should not be, and that that detracts hugely from the education of the 20% who should be? And that those 20% are the dedicated intellectuals who are willing to forgo other things in their lives and dedicate themselves to academic research?
Your answer to that should clear up the question.
Those are technically not questions. I am not convinced everyone who is in college is ready for it. I think we push college on students when other careers can be better (both in job satisfaction and money made). There is also a lot of entry filtering in college--it is called the admission process. This can be improved.
SJW? A SJW would not call someone dumb, or retarded, or stupid because it might offend someone. I think you are all three.
Wow your dumb. I am able to cite scientific studies that prove my claims. The lecture, video, and textbook are only used because they are cheap. Student achievement should be a priority and that comes from active learning.
Active learning is a provably superior form of learning. Active learning is actually a harder form of learning in that in requires more work from both student and teacher. The student has to solve problems, and the teacher has to provide constructive feedback and help the student self-correct. It is one of the reasons why the averaged tutored student performs in the 98 percentile (See 2 Sigma Problem). That is why these doctors and scientists are implementing it in their school.
Passive learning is less effective even if it is given from a great lecturer. In fact a great lecturer can provide an "illusion of learning" which is a sense that a student understands the material better then they actually do. Passive learning includes sitting in a lecture, watching videos and reading textbooks.
Think about it with a simple algebra example. If a student watches a video of someone solving an equation they will learn something, but they will learn more if they are required to solve a dozen equations.
You love to insult people don't you. Everyone who provides facts that contradicts your preconceived notions must be dumb right? And why did you up vote yourself again?
You have not witnessed 10,000 dead. There were not 300,000 dead from Chernobyl. Greenpeace is not a credible source. There are have been cases of thyroid cancer but thankfully only 9 deaths. There are people who never left Chernobyl and are fine. The other reactors at Chernobyl produced power up until the early 2000's. That 4000 estimate was from the linear no-threshold model which is a discredited statistical model. Thankfully those deaths never occurred. The deaths outside of the Ukraine from nuclear accidents is 0. That makes it the safest power source. The soviet era reactors were stupidly designed anyway.
See Experimental Breeder Reactor II. It is a meltdown proof reactor that recycles waste. Why are you opposed to building these types of reactors? There are 50 startups developing these passively safe reactors. Why are you opposed to even research into this technology? Comparing this technology with soviet era tech is an apples to oranges comparison. It is dishonest to even make that argument.
Finally given the reality of climate change we need to support atomic energy. If we do not the number of people that will die will be in the 10's of millions.
Why should I give you 'sources' for stuff that is common sense
Maybe because you are full of it. I have googled this topic repeatedly. I have sourced this topic. And why do you have multiple accounts? Why do you feel the need to up vote yourself everytime you post? Are you really that insecure? Are you really mdsolar? How many people will have to die from the effects of climate change before you let us solve it? 10 Million? 100 Million? More?