Hardly my definition of "it doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself".....
You're forgetting to include 500MW of electricity they didn't have before. Electricity that will be a) sold to pay for the plant and b) will permit economic growth. If you're going to analyze the whole picture, you have to consider everything.
I was just mentioning that this electricity is not being obtained by burning oil, allowing them to export more oil than if they had built a 500MW oil burning plant. This "savings" is a "bonus" for choosing nuclear over oil. All other things being equal, an oil burning plant would have had to be paid for too - they're not free.
I see you're going for the exaggerated sensationalist translation, rather than the factually correct one "this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
This is what happens when you let other people think for you. Iran's foreign policy is by no means sweet and innocent. But then again neither is US foreign policy. Remember the US doesn't just talk about removing regimes, it actually does it (or tries to). Grenada, Liberia, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... and these are the obvious ones - the ones we actually know about.
While US foreign policy is far from perfect, Iran certainly has blood on its hands too. Playing innocent won't fool anyone. Let's start with the storming of the US embassy and hostage taking, and go from there, shall we?
That's 6849 barrels of oil per day they are going to save (the rough amount required to produce 500MW per day). At $74 a barrel that's about half a million dollars per day. Every day. Oil that they can now export to China and Russia that otherwise would have been burned up in domestic consumption. It doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself.
But oh, mention Iran and nuclear in the same paragraph and all the paranoid uninformed imperialist types appear, yelling "nuclear weapons!". Despite nuclear energy (or any other form of alternative energy) being an extremely sane choice for an oil exporting nation.
.....he did rape the government secrecy bitch!!!! And he had help.
As far as I know he hasn't signed or sworn any oath to secrecy. As a soldier you have to take an oath to keep secrets and fill out forms before you're given access. If you reveal the secrets you can certainly be prosecuted for perjury and if the secret is big enough, treason. However in the case of a civilian reporter having documents dumped in his lap, there is no crime if he publishes them. Or do you advocate state control of all media?
The US must go after the people in its organization who "leaked" the secrets. Assange, however, has not done anything wrong.
It's unusual for such people to commit rape or violence when facing rejection.
Not only that but he strikes me as being very gay. Hard for me to imagine he'd be interested in even raping a female. Now if the charges were against young boys, well, even the Catholic church forgives that sort of thing, right?
The minute you have oligopolies, you no longer have a free market. Especially when the oligopolies are setting price based on each other. No it's not necessarily price fixing if they're not doing it "officially", but I'm sure that Company A won't go out of it's way to charge less than Company B for the same service. Thus you effectively have a monopoly, with all the bad things that implies.
Haven't you noticed that it costs about the same to fly or take a train - even though trains are innately far far cheaper (see freight)? That a broadband package costs the same if you get DSL or cable? That rental cars cost about the same despite which company you rent from (ok, this week Company A might have a special offer). I could go on. The "free market" does not exist outside of economic textbooks. The game is closed for you and me. Just like Britain couldn't stand the thought of another imperialist nation in Europe (be it France under Napoleon or Germany under several rulers), the kids won't let you play with their ball. And they own the government to boot.
In the free market it's DEMAND that drives production. Consumers have the ultimate choice in what business models survive and which ones fail. In this piece of crap system we have now, its Oligopoly A making a deal with Oligopoly B to shove the latest money-making scam down our throats.
Funny to think that the "ad free" e-book reader will probably be made in China.
According to another industry analyst, Amazon is being pressured to make ebook sales more profitable for publishers, partly because Apple offers them more lucrative terms in Apple's iBookstore.
This is completely the opposite of the way a "free market" is supposed to behave. Enjoy your oligopolies, America. I just take heart in the fact that if a Kindle can read it, so can any other device. I will wait for the ad-blocking readers before spending one dime on one.
That's because you're not a health care professional. Put your personal feelings aside for a second and look at it this way:
I have a population that might have a disease. The symptoms of the disease are not obvious, and there's no easy way to tell who has it and who doesn't.
I have a very specific genetic test (Western Blot) that can tell me if that person's blood contains viral DNA. The test is specific because I am identifying DNA from the virus in question. You can't get more specific than that. However this test does have the possibility of false negatives - the person may have the virus, but I might have gotten a sample that for some reason contains no viral particles. Or the virus may be latent, living in T-cells in the bone marrow right now and not circulating in peripheral blood. NOT finding the DNA does not mean you don't have the virus. Finding the DNA confirms that indeed you have the virus. Also, this test costs a lot of money, and uses a lot of resources - less nowadays than 10 years ago, but still.
On the other hand, I have a very sensitive test, the Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay. This test identifies antibodies to the HIV virus down to very very dilute concentrations. It is extremely cheap. It can be done everywhere there's a centrifuge to obtain plasma from a blood sample. However because it identifies antibodies and not the virus itself, it is not a specific test. It's possible that a person have HIV antibodies without having the virus - because they were exposed to it enough to trigger an immune response, but never got an infection (the virus never "took hold"), or by some freak of nature, they have a SIMILAR antibody to something else that is reacting to the test. So thus the false positives - the test says you have it when really you don't.
What we doctors do is we tend to SCREEN the population with the simple, inexpensive test first. Why? Because it's simple and inexpensive. That gives us a new population that absolutely captures all the diseased people, and also contains some false positives. We tell people that there may be a problem but they shouldn't worry about it just yet - but we need to run another test to be sure. YOU DO NOT TREAT PEOPLE BASED ON A PRIMARY SCREEN!
To this new population you administer the second, expensive, SPECIFIC test. This lets you "weed out" those people who are false positives. You tell them congratulations, everything is ok and they probably shouldn't worry. You just keep an eye on them for a year or so to make sure they were indeed false positives and weren't people who for some reason gave a false negative on the second test. Maybe you repeat the test the year after just to be safe. And the rest, the real positives, end up with the diagnosis and the treatment.
So what happens is you administer the expensive test to fewer people, saving time and resources, without letting anyone with the disease slip through the cracks. In the case of autism, presumably the primary screen would be the clinical signs - does the child exhibit autistic behavior and fit the criteria? IF that is the case, or IF the physician isn't sure, then the secondary screen (MRI) would be performed. My doubts are about the specificity of the MRI - will it show false positives - people with MRI changes that don't have autism? If so, then it's possible people will be misdiagnosed and that's a no-no.
As for social stigma, uh, that's what doctor-patient confidentiality is about. I certainly won't tell anyone. It's not my problem if I tell you "listen we ran this test and you tested positive for HIV. It doesn't mean you have HIV though, we need to do a different test to be sure" and then you run around telling everyone you have HIV. I find that patients usually understand things when you explain them properly.
The research could change the way that autism is diagnosed - including screening children for the disorder at a young age.
The thing about primary screening tests is that they have to give false positives, due to high sensitivity and lower specificity. It's ok if the test tells you you have HIV when actually you don't. It's NOT ok if it doesn't tell you you have it when you do. The other thing about primary screening tests is that they have to be cheap. This test is far from cheap and in fact consumes limited resources. In some countries there are waiting lists for MRIs.
Perhaps this test could be used as a secondary screen, if specificity can be proven to be high enough, to screen those doubtful or borderline cases so that they can be correctly diagnosed.
The electric companies *can't* let the AC vary, because things only work at the specified voltage.
Not true. You can easily power a lightbulb or small electronic devices at different voltages because these devices do not draw any significant amount of current. Most small electronics convert AC to DC and then only use 5 volts - unless the power supply design is crappy they should also be able to deal with somewhat different voltages. You usually have 125 Amps max coming into your house, and a lightbulb draws a tiny fraction of the 15 amps your plug is usually wired for. You can vary the voltage between 90 and 150 volts and you won't notice any difference in the lightbulb.
The problem happens when you try to run an electric motor (like your fridge or washing machine) - these draw vast amounts of current especially on start up. If you are under-volted you are likely to burn out the motor because it won't get the current it needs - (remember V = IR? It's all related). The electric company does not vary the voltage because they would be liable for buying everyone a new fridge every few months.
The internet provider, however, doesn't care if it takes me 5 hours to download a file instead of 5 minutes. What they are getting away with that, unlike the electric company being liable for a burned out motor, the ISP doesn't deem itself liable for the extra cost to me for running my computer for 5 hours instead of 5 minutes.
However, I bet your cars speedometer displays that you can go "up to" a certain speed, but I doubt it actually could get that fast
The salesman never assured me that the car could go 220kph when selling me the car. I also expect the speedometer to indicate the correct speed when I'm driving, because the police will certainly assume that it is. You try the "my speedometer was wrong" defense in traffic court and see how far you get.
That ISPs use the "up to" line is nothing new, they've been doing it for years
You speak with the bias natural to a citizen of your country. Yes, people from every other country in the Americas do believe themselves to be "American" and in fact consider the US to have usurped the name. Your country is called "The United States OF America". Therefore you are not America, you are located IN America. Funny how "Americans" can be pedantic and nit pick about every little thing while at the same time being completely blind about something like this.
We request that your country actually adopt a real name rather than a description of where it is. A few colourful names come to mind. Oh I have lived in several countries on this side of the world, from Canada to South America, and this sentiment is wide-spread. In fact when referring to your country most people who live in other American countries say "the States", "les Etats" or "los Estados". I've heard "America" used to refer to the US mostly only in Europe.
Well next time you apply for a job, what happens if HR tells you you can earn "up to $120,000" but actually only pays you $5000? Still nothing wrong with that? What if the numbers on a fuel pump at the gas station showed the gallons that it theoretically could be pumping into your car for that price? What if the electric company delivered "up to" 120V but actually only delivered 5V with spikes up to 120V instead of an RMS value? Still don't see a problem with being deceptive? Then you get the service you deserve.
Yes but the State is always the first in line to throw the book at you if you break the law. Here they just look the other way. What kind of message does this send to any judge presiding over a civil suit? Especially a judge who had hoped to be promoted some day to a higher court.
doesn't prevent copying of his ideas (which is a right given to us by nature).
Wow, you sound like a lawyer. Or you're in marketing. Because you're using twisty little words to say nothing at all.
By your same reasoning, it is my natural right to kill someone. However the law gives that person's family a way to seek "justice" for the death of their loved one?
You know if you read actual copyright laws, it is mentioned somewhere that you need the author's permission in order to copy his work, with the following exceptions... Then it goes on to list the exceptions. Nowhere in the law does it talk about "natural rights" to copy things, or "ways to recover lost earnings". That is for a judge to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
Hardly my definition of "it doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself".....
You're forgetting to include 500MW of electricity they didn't have before. Electricity that will be a) sold to pay for the plant and b) will permit economic growth. If you're going to analyze the whole picture, you have to consider everything.
I was just mentioning that this electricity is not being obtained by burning oil, allowing them to export more oil than if they had built a 500MW oil burning plant. This "savings" is a "bonus" for choosing nuclear over oil. All other things being equal, an oil burning plant would have had to be paid for too - they're not free.
he mentions wiping a nearby country off the map.
I see you're going for the exaggerated sensationalist translation, rather than the factually correct one "this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."
This is what happens when you let other people think for you. Iran's foreign policy is by no means sweet and innocent. But then again neither is US foreign policy. Remember the US doesn't just talk about removing regimes, it actually does it (or tries to). Grenada, Liberia, Panama, Haiti, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq... and these are the obvious ones - the ones we actually know about.
What has Iran ever done to us
Read some history.
While US foreign policy is far from perfect, Iran certainly has blood on its hands too. Playing innocent won't fool anyone. Let's start with the storming of the US embassy and hostage taking, and go from there, shall we?
That's 6849 barrels of oil per day they are going to save (the rough amount required to produce 500MW per day). At $74 a barrel that's about half a million dollars per day. Every day. Oil that they can now export to China and Russia that otherwise would have been burned up in domestic consumption. It doesn't take long before a plant like this pays for itself.
But oh, mention Iran and nuclear in the same paragraph and all the paranoid uninformed imperialist types appear, yelling "nuclear weapons!". Despite nuclear energy (or any other form of alternative energy) being an extremely sane choice for an oil exporting nation.
.....he did rape the government secrecy bitch!!!! And he had help.
As far as I know he hasn't signed or sworn any oath to secrecy. As a soldier you have to take an oath to keep secrets and fill out forms before you're given access. If you reveal the secrets you can certainly be prosecuted for perjury and if the secret is big enough, treason. However in the case of a civilian reporter having documents dumped in his lap, there is no crime if he publishes them. Or do you advocate state control of all media?
The US must go after the people in its organization who "leaked" the secrets. Assange, however, has not done anything wrong.
America, you should be ashamed of the way your country wages war. Using the accusation of rape as a weapon....
You have to admit that it's an improvement over shooting your own or allied troops.
It's unusual for such people to commit rape or violence when facing rejection.
Not only that but he strikes me as being very gay. Hard for me to imagine he'd be interested in even raping a female. Now if the charges were against young boys, well, even the Catholic church forgives that sort of thing, right?
Perhaps next they'll accuse him of child porn, or drug trafficing, or witchcraft.
Nah, with rape now he's a "SEX OFFENDER", with all the over-reaction this implies from the sheeple.
Not only that, but in his world that volunteer soldier who is drawing a combat salary from the US government is "not" profiteering from war?
Oligopolies can form in free markets.
The minute you have oligopolies, you no longer have a free market. Especially when the oligopolies are setting price based on each other. No it's not necessarily price fixing if they're not doing it "officially", but I'm sure that Company A won't go out of it's way to charge less than Company B for the same service. Thus you effectively have a monopoly, with all the bad things that implies.
Haven't you noticed that it costs about the same to fly or take a train - even though trains are innately far far cheaper (see freight)? That a broadband package costs the same if you get DSL or cable? That rental cars cost about the same despite which company you rent from (ok, this week Company A might have a special offer). I could go on. The "free market" does not exist outside of economic textbooks. The game is closed for you and me. Just like Britain couldn't stand the thought of another imperialist nation in Europe (be it France under Napoleon or Germany under several rulers), the kids won't let you play with their ball. And they own the government to boot.
Howzat?
In the free market it's DEMAND that drives production. Consumers have the ultimate choice in what business models survive and which ones fail. In this piece of crap system we have now, its Oligopoly A making a deal with Oligopoly B to shove the latest money-making scam down our throats.
Funny to think that the "ad free" e-book reader will probably be made in China.
According to another industry analyst, Amazon is being pressured to make ebook sales more profitable for publishers, partly because Apple offers them more lucrative terms in Apple's iBookstore.
This is completely the opposite of the way a "free market" is supposed to behave. Enjoy your oligopolies, America. I just take heart in the fact that if a Kindle can read it, so can any other device. I will wait for the ad-blocking readers before spending one dime on one.
they don't have access to the Internet.
Hopefully they don't have access to USB keyrings, flash drives, thumb drives and CD/DVD ROMS that have access to the internet, either...
What part of "local attackers" do you fail to understand?
Do you go around waving your arms and yelling "Don't look at me!"
Nah he figures he'll get much less attention by going around wearing a ski mask.
It's already decided in the decision. So long as you don't use it to commit a crime, it's legitimate.
I don't understand your reasoning.
That's because you're not a health care professional. Put your personal feelings aside for a second and look at it this way:
I have a population that might have a disease. The symptoms of the disease are not obvious, and there's no easy way to tell who has it and who doesn't.
I have a very specific genetic test (Western Blot) that can tell me if that person's blood contains viral DNA. The test is specific because I am identifying DNA from the virus in question. You can't get more specific than that. However this test does have the possibility of false negatives - the person may have the virus, but I might have gotten a sample that for some reason contains no viral particles. Or the virus may be latent, living in T-cells in the bone marrow right now and not circulating in peripheral blood. NOT finding the DNA does not mean you don't have the virus. Finding the DNA confirms that indeed you have the virus. Also, this test costs a lot of money, and uses a lot of resources - less nowadays than 10 years ago, but still.
On the other hand, I have a very sensitive test, the Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay. This test identifies antibodies to the HIV virus down to very very dilute concentrations. It is extremely cheap. It can be done everywhere there's a centrifuge to obtain plasma from a blood sample. However because it identifies antibodies and not the virus itself, it is not a specific test. It's possible that a person have HIV antibodies without having the virus - because they were exposed to it enough to trigger an immune response, but never got an infection (the virus never "took hold"), or by some freak of nature, they have a SIMILAR antibody to something else that is reacting to the test. So thus the false positives - the test says you have it when really you don't.
What we doctors do is we tend to SCREEN the population with the simple, inexpensive test first. Why? Because it's simple and inexpensive. That gives us a new population that absolutely captures all the diseased people, and also contains some false positives. We tell people that there may be a problem but they shouldn't worry about it just yet - but we need to run another test to be sure. YOU DO NOT TREAT PEOPLE BASED ON A PRIMARY SCREEN!
To this new population you administer the second, expensive, SPECIFIC test. This lets you "weed out" those people who are false positives. You tell them congratulations, everything is ok and they probably shouldn't worry. You just keep an eye on them for a year or so to make sure they were indeed false positives and weren't people who for some reason gave a false negative on the second test. Maybe you repeat the test the year after just to be safe. And the rest, the real positives, end up with the diagnosis and the treatment.
So what happens is you administer the expensive test to fewer people, saving time and resources, without letting anyone with the disease slip through the cracks. In the case of autism, presumably the primary screen would be the clinical signs - does the child exhibit autistic behavior and fit the criteria? IF that is the case, or IF the physician isn't sure, then the secondary screen (MRI) would be performed. My doubts are about the specificity of the MRI - will it show false positives - people with MRI changes that don't have autism? If so, then it's possible people will be misdiagnosed and that's a no-no.
As for social stigma, uh, that's what doctor-patient confidentiality is about. I certainly won't tell anyone. It's not my problem if I tell you "listen we ran this test and you tested positive for HIV. It doesn't mean you have HIV though, we need to do a different test to be sure" and then you run around telling everyone you have HIV. I find that patients usually understand things when you explain them properly.
The research could change the way that autism is diagnosed - including screening children for the disorder at a young age.
The thing about primary screening tests is that they have to give false positives, due to high sensitivity and lower specificity. It's ok if the test tells you you have HIV when actually you don't. It's NOT ok if it doesn't tell you you have it when you do. The other thing about primary screening tests is that they have to be cheap. This test is far from cheap and in fact consumes limited resources. In some countries there are waiting lists for MRIs.
Perhaps this test could be used as a secondary screen, if specificity can be proven to be high enough, to screen those doubtful or borderline cases so that they can be correctly diagnosed.
Bosses admit that they expect employees to do more work for the same amount of pay.
The electric companies *can't* let the AC vary, because things only work at the specified voltage.
Not true. You can easily power a lightbulb or small electronic devices at different voltages because these devices do not draw any significant amount of current. Most small electronics convert AC to DC and then only use 5 volts - unless the power supply design is crappy they should also be able to deal with somewhat different voltages. You usually have 125 Amps max coming into your house, and a lightbulb draws a tiny fraction of the 15 amps your plug is usually wired for. You can vary the voltage between 90 and 150 volts and you won't notice any difference in the lightbulb.
The problem happens when you try to run an electric motor (like your fridge or washing machine) - these draw vast amounts of current especially on start up. If you are under-volted you are likely to burn out the motor because it won't get the current it needs - (remember V = IR? It's all related). The electric company does not vary the voltage because they would be liable for buying everyone a new fridge every few months.
The internet provider, however, doesn't care if it takes me 5 hours to download a file instead of 5 minutes. What they are getting away with that, unlike the electric company being liable for a burned out motor, the ISP doesn't deem itself liable for the extra cost to me for running my computer for 5 hours instead of 5 minutes.
However, I bet your cars speedometer displays that you can go "up to" a certain speed, but I doubt it actually could get that fast
The salesman never assured me that the car could go 220kph when selling me the car. I also expect the speedometer to indicate the correct speed when I'm driving, because the police will certainly assume that it is. You try the "my speedometer was wrong" defense in traffic court and see how far you get.
That ISPs use the "up to" line is nothing new, they've been doing it for years
That doesn't make it right.
You speak with the bias natural to a citizen of your country. Yes, people from every other country in the Americas do believe themselves to be "American" and in fact consider the US to have usurped the name. Your country is called "The United States OF America". Therefore you are not America, you are located IN America. Funny how "Americans" can be pedantic and nit pick about every little thing while at the same time being completely blind about something like this.
We request that your country actually adopt a real name rather than a description of where it is. A few colourful names come to mind. Oh I have lived in several countries on this side of the world, from Canada to South America, and this sentiment is wide-spread. In fact when referring to your country most people who live in other American countries say "the States", "les Etats" or "los Estados". I've heard "America" used to refer to the US mostly only in Europe.
...that the mean and the median are both less than the maximum? Not surprising.
Not necessarily: What is the mean and medium of the following set of numbers?
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
and I don't see what's wrong with that.
Well next time you apply for a job, what happens if HR tells you you can earn "up to $120,000" but actually only pays you $5000? Still nothing wrong with that? What if the numbers on a fuel pump at the gas station showed the gallons that it theoretically could be pumping into your car for that price? What if the electric company delivered "up to" 120V but actually only delivered 5V with spikes up to 120V instead of an RMS value? Still don't see a problem with being deceptive? Then you get the service you deserve.
Yes but the State is always the first in line to throw the book at you if you break the law. Here they just look the other way. What kind of message does this send to any judge presiding over a civil suit? Especially a judge who had hoped to be promoted some day to a higher court.
doesn't prevent copying of his ideas (which is a right given to us by nature).
Wow, you sound like a lawyer. Or you're in marketing. Because you're using twisty little words to say nothing at all.
By your same reasoning, it is my natural right to kill someone. However the law gives that person's family a way to seek "justice" for the death of their loved one?
You know if you read actual copyright laws, it is mentioned somewhere that you need the author's permission in order to copy his work, with the following exceptions... Then it goes on to list the exceptions. Nowhere in the law does it talk about "natural rights" to copy things, or "ways to recover lost earnings". That is for a judge to decide.