Problems are storage, handling of existing radioactive stockpile, Spent Fuel Pools. Many hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste already piled up, in SFPs in the Nukes.
And we have reactor designs that can safely burn this waste down. Right now, in many places, you have sequestration vessels standing in open air in what is essentially a parking lot out back of their reactors.
But the people who simply equate nuclear and "bomb" have prevented, via political chicanery, the implementation of known-safe designs that could render all this long-lived spent fuel down into short-lived spent fuel. Through similar chicanery, they've also basically poisoned the government regulatory system in such a way as to artificially skyrocket the costs of implementing and compliance for nuclear. They've also basically nixed intelligent reprocessing of the fuel to extend the useful lifetime without the need to actually obtain more.
There have been a number of studies that show hundreds to thousands of additional deaths, hower none of them can be 100% watertight in either direction (things could just as easily be worse as better) because you can't control for all other factors that might be involved.
Exactly. It's easy to simply label every cancer death since the event as "caused by Chernobyl". Unfortunately, nobody takes you seriously, because the claim isn't sane or provable.
As to why choosing coal to discuss?
Because it's a baseline power source, like nuclear, like oil. YOU CANNOT USE WIND POWER AS A BASELINE POWER SOURCE. Even if you blanket the entire planet in windmills, you simply don't have enough constant capacity to qualify. So, all the people talking about solar and wind and wave power? The people telling you that they can be used, unsupplemented, and as baseline power? THEY ARE LYING TO YOU!
And nuclear being "the most expensive" is based on the prediction that, as climate change becomes a primary issue, that oil, gas and coal will not incur heavy tariffs. Nuclear has the largest UP FRONT cost. But is the most economical in the long run. And run properly and safely, produces cheap, clean power stably over the lifespan of a reactor with no CO2 emissions.
The big problem is, China's requirements for power are going to keep going up, as are all the various nations not currently benefiting from large power surpluses. You can talk about eking out efficiency and using less wastefully. But that only gets you so far. Keeping up with coal, gas or oil will devastate the planet far worse than all the nuclear accidents that have happened ever will.
Yep, Indian Point is less than a mile from a faultline.
One that's barely been active over the last 200 million years.
Risk assessment figured that there's a 100% chance of critical damage to the reactor vessels...over a timeline of 100-150 THOUSAND YEARS. Seeing as the plant's lifespan is supposed to be between 40 and 80 years and the plant is rated to withstand a 6.1 scale quake, you have a better chance of dying in a traffic accident IN YOUR LIVING ROOM.
But fire does not make areas permanently uninhabitable
Tell that to the people of Centralia, PA
Maybe on a scale of "eternity", fire doesn't render places "permanently" uninhabitable.
But, then, neither does radiation.
Even in the Pripyat area (around Chernobyl), unless you're right up near the reactor, the ambient radiation is on par with many places around the world.
And even just outside the reactor, PLACES THAT HAVE NEVER SEEN A NUCLEAR REACTION where the radiation is 10-15 times as high (see Brazil, Guarapari beaches).
Most of the reactors that have had safety issues are reactors that were built decades ago, based on even older designs.
We have the knowledge, NOW, to build completely contained devices that safely generate power over the lifetime of the device. We have the knowledge, NOW, to build reactors that quite simply are INCAPABLE of replicating the accidents that led to contamination at TMI and Chernobyl.
As for Fukushima. Fukushima is the story of a freak Tsunami that was mutated by the anti-nuke community into a "nuclear failure".
Basically, if you consider yourself environmentally conscious, you cannot be anti-nuke. Because the only other viable options for baseline power are natural gas, coal and oil.
Natural gas, coal and oil are the things we need to be moving AWAY from. And anyone telling you that we can rely, solely, on wind, wave, solar and geothermal is LYING TO YOU. The people telling you these lies? Shills for the NG, coal and oil industry!
If you're looking for a gaming machine, don't buy Compaq/HP or Dell/Alienware. They load so much crap in there it isn't even funny.
I think serious gamers actually build their own machine and somehow "get" a version of MS Windows to install as their OS:)
Explain to me again how "serious gamers actually build their own machine" for laptops *points to the subject line of the post*.
Last I checked, pretty much NOBODY builds their own laptop.
If you're looking for a general use laptop, stick with the business lines for anyone save HP/Compaq (who still loads gobs trialware/demoware crap).
True, however business lines are usually much more expensive so the average person will put up with the rubbish or if they have some knowledge remove the crap, which is really not that difficult.
Personally I have never had an issue with HP machines and I have two working laptops that are 5.5 and 3.5 years old respectively that are running perfectly with Fedora 20 although originally I actually removed the pre-installed OS (MS Vista and Win 7 respectively) and installed the particular version of Fedora at the time I purchased each laptop.
Actually if you look at someplace like Dell, the price is negligible or non-existent (Because they're selling you the same machine.) In the few cases where it's different it's the difference between the Windows: Home version and the Windows: Pro version.
"Product X is great, you just have to replace it's main features with additional products Y and Z".
Sound like Apple's MO.
What people who whine about "you should just install Start8 and get over it" miss is this very simple point.
You should not HAVE to. Not for a key piece of UI like the Start menu.
Microsoft's reason for pulling the Start Menu out of Windows amounts to "Because I said so". They can prattle on about how shallow the usage was, the problems it would cause in future adoption, etc, etc. But the main reason is still "We want you to do it THIS WAY now, we don't give a shit that you've been doing it this other way for 20 years."
So people people have been screaming about this now for approximately 2 years (since they removed it from the preview versions).
So business snubbed Windows 8. Their sales are, comparatively, in the toilet when held up against previous releases.
It's the lightest, nimblest, most stable version yet. It's actually a decent setup for a tablet. And yet users are staying away from it in droves (save for the luddites who just take whatever they get when they buy a months-old, crappy PC off a shelf in a Best Buy). Because they arbitrarily crippled functionality, expecting users to just lap it up and their larger clients to simply absorb the costs of retraining.
"But they do, and he can use his position to influence actual politics."
First, is there any evidence that he used his position to influence actual politics? Nope? Thanks!
"when their opinion is to take rights away from other human beings? "
Is there ANY evidence that Mozilla has closed ranks behind him and are supporting this POV? Nope? Thanks.
"denying people rights doesn't matter?"
He didn't deny anyone their rights. He contributed to a political cause to define a right. And yes, son, there IS a difference.
"How come no one on this site seems to know what intolarance means?"
Probably because people like you keep trying to redefine it into whatever wins you an argument.
The fact is, several years ago, this guy donated some money. Now, because you don't happen to like the cause he donated to, you're copacetic with another company harassing their own users, who did NOT support this guy, because they happen to use the product produced by a company, which did NOT support this guy, to access their site?
Seriously?
"You are rather short sighted and small minded."
Ah. Down to the ad hominem. Instead of arguing the point, you simply insult. I usually don't prefer to win an argument that way, but hey. I don't complain about racking up entries in the W column.
Yup. Watch where these are installed. They're going to be put someplace that's going to be INSANELY expensive (and probably require additional part replacements) to remove and replace when (not if, WHEN) they break.
Pretty much NO product out there on ANY market, free or otherwise is going to be completely and utterly inoffensive to everyone. Nor are the people connected to said products.
Basically telling people to use another product because YOU are offended is asinine. People will use the product that does what they want, how they want, and at the price point they want.
If you want to try and alienate people based on their product choices? First off, you're cutting off your OWN nose. As you're turning away potential customers. Second, how are YOU being any more tolerant than the so-called "bigot" you're trying to hate on?
Some shit matters. Some shit matters a lot. The fact that the guy now running Mozilla happened to donate to an anti-LGBT cause WITH HIS OWN FUCKING MONEY, a few years ago? That just doesn't matter, and no I'm NOT sorry for saying so. You're giving money to political movements promoting LGBT causes, hopefully with YOUR own money (and and possibly trying to convince companies to do the same). But you're going to excoriate this guy because his opinion differs from the one you consider "right"?
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
For the record, I figure what goes on between any given number of consenting adults, so long as it doesn't violate other laws (like taxing and child welfare type things), IS THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. But if someone doesn't feel that way, that's their own business. So long as they're not trying to force me to comply with THEIR lifestyle choices.
People nowadays are too soft and conditioned to want everything to be as inoffensive to them as possible. News flash, TOUGH FUCKING NOOGIES! Shrug off the shit that doesn't matter and focus on the stuff that actually means something. That pretty much goes for EVERYONE. And my expressing that makes you feel rather...sandy...have a nice tall glass of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!
They want to be able to sell you wireless, internet, etc, etc. But if you look around, they're not going to let you out the door for anything less than $100 a month anymore.
I had a client trying to figure out why AT&T was charging her $400/month for 2 "business" POTS lines. They told her she could reduce her bill to $150 if she took 2 POTS lines and a DSL connection. She already had Comcast cable and a Comcast phone line. Adding 2 lines to the Comcast plan would have cost $70 (the first 3 lines are usually the most expensive). But damn if that AT&T person didn't try the hard sell!
Basically this is about shedding regulatory obligations and pumping the public for even MORE money. Make no mistake. They're still not promising universal coverage, coverage in underserved areas, higher speeds, etc. They're basically just trying to force the customers into paying more without the government coming down on them like a ton of baked shit bricks.
But is this a failure of the implementation or a failure of the installation?
It's really easy to say "It crashes all the time".
But it's also really easy to leave out "Our compute cluster space is running at 100+ degrees ambient and our power distribution is shoddy." It's also really easy to leave out things like "Our no-name, cut-rate motherboards, memory and PSUs probably aren't up to the task of running these things at maximum utilization."
Slashdot Mirror
Problems are storage, handling of existing radioactive stockpile, Spent Fuel Pools. Many hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste already piled up, in SFPs in the Nukes.
And we have reactor designs that can safely burn this waste down. Right now, in many places, you have sequestration vessels standing in open air in what is essentially a parking lot out back of their reactors.
But the people who simply equate nuclear and "bomb" have prevented, via political chicanery, the implementation of known-safe designs that could render all this long-lived spent fuel down into short-lived spent fuel. Through similar chicanery, they've also basically poisoned the government regulatory system in such a way as to artificially skyrocket the costs of implementing and compliance for nuclear. They've also basically nixed intelligent reprocessing of the fuel to extend the useful lifetime without the need to actually obtain more.
There have been a number of studies that show hundreds to thousands of additional deaths, hower none of them can be 100% watertight in either direction (things could just as easily be worse as better) because you can't control for all other factors that might be involved.
Exactly. It's easy to simply label every cancer death since the event as "caused by Chernobyl". Unfortunately, nobody takes you seriously, because the claim isn't sane or provable.
As to why choosing coal to discuss?
Because it's a baseline power source, like nuclear, like oil. YOU CANNOT USE WIND POWER AS A BASELINE POWER SOURCE. Even if you blanket the entire planet in windmills, you simply don't have enough constant capacity to qualify. So, all the people talking about solar and wind and wave power? The people telling you that they can be used, unsupplemented, and as baseline power? THEY ARE LYING TO YOU!
And nuclear being "the most expensive" is based on the prediction that, as climate change becomes a primary issue, that oil, gas and coal will not incur heavy tariffs. Nuclear has the largest UP FRONT cost. But is the most economical in the long run. And run properly and safely, produces cheap, clean power stably over the lifespan of a reactor with no CO2 emissions.
The big problem is, China's requirements for power are going to keep going up, as are all the various nations not currently benefiting from large power surpluses. You can talk about eking out efficiency and using less wastefully. But that only gets you so far. Keeping up with coal, gas or oil will devastate the planet far worse than all the nuclear accidents that have happened ever will.
Okay, it's been approximately 25 years since the disaster. People have been living there since only a short time after the disaster.
Thus far, there have been 50-60 deaths directly due to the accident and the initial puff of radiation. And no directly provable deaths since.
So, please, keep spinning tales.
Yep, Indian Point is less than a mile from a faultline.
One that's barely been active over the last 200 million years.
Risk assessment figured that there's a 100% chance of critical damage to the reactor vessels...over a timeline of 100-150 THOUSAND YEARS.
Seeing as the plant's lifespan is supposed to be between 40 and 80 years and the plant is rated to withstand a 6.1 scale quake, you have a better chance of dying in a traffic accident IN YOUR LIVING ROOM.
But fire does not make areas permanently uninhabitable
Tell that to the people of Centralia, PA
Maybe on a scale of "eternity", fire doesn't render places "permanently" uninhabitable.
But, then, neither does radiation.
Even in the Pripyat area (around Chernobyl), unless you're right up near the reactor, the ambient radiation is on par with many places around the world.
And even just outside the reactor, PLACES THAT HAVE NEVER SEEN A NUCLEAR REACTION where the radiation is 10-15 times as high (see Brazil, Guarapari beaches).
Most of the reactors that have had safety issues are reactors that were built decades ago, based on even older designs.
We have the knowledge, NOW, to build completely contained devices that safely generate power over the lifetime of the device.
We have the knowledge, NOW, to build reactors that quite simply are INCAPABLE of replicating the accidents that led to contamination at TMI and Chernobyl.
As for Fukushima. Fukushima is the story of a freak Tsunami that was mutated by the anti-nuke community into a "nuclear failure".
Basically, if you consider yourself environmentally conscious, you cannot be anti-nuke.
Because the only other viable options for baseline power are natural gas, coal and oil.
Natural gas, coal and oil are the things we need to be moving AWAY from.
And anyone telling you that we can rely, solely, on wind, wave, solar and geothermal is LYING TO YOU. The people telling you these lies? Shills for the NG, coal and oil industry!
XP.
Careful. Your face might freeze that way...
Probably not.
Why?
Because living on earth has ALREADY driven us crazy.
So it's a case of "wherever you go, there you are".
Now let us spread our nuts to the universe!
Eww. I don't like that stuff! I have blackout curtains on my bedroom windows to keep it from finding me.
*Looks down at ginormo-gut*
Hmm.
NAH! I like sleeping late!
If you're looking for a gaming machine, don't buy Compaq/HP or Dell/Alienware. They load so much crap in there it isn't even funny.
I think serious gamers actually build their own machine and somehow "get" a version of MS Windows to install as their OS :)
Explain to me again how "serious gamers actually build their own machine" for laptops *points to the subject line of the post*.
Last I checked, pretty much NOBODY builds their own laptop.
If you're looking for a general use laptop, stick with the business lines for anyone save HP/Compaq (who still loads gobs trialware/demoware crap).
True, however business lines are usually much more expensive so the average person will put up with the rubbish or if they have some knowledge remove the crap, which is really not that difficult.
Personally I have never had an issue with HP machines and I have two working laptops that are 5.5 and 3.5 years old respectively that are running perfectly with Fedora 20 although originally I actually removed the pre-installed OS (MS Vista and Win 7 respectively) and installed the particular version of Fedora at the time I purchased each laptop.
Actually if you look at someplace like Dell, the price is negligible or non-existent (Because they're selling you the same machine.) In the few cases where it's different it's the difference between the Windows: Home version and the Windows: Pro version.
Our dependence on Russia for putting astronauts into space NEVER SHOULD HAVE FUCKING HAPPENED!
But, can we vote into office a group of dumbasses who'll shit all over America's mission into space?
YES! WE CAN!
Can we just take all that money and shovel it into Russian coffers and pork projects?
YES! WE CAN!
If you're looking for a gaming machine, don't buy Compaq/HP or Dell/Alienware. They load so much crap in there it isn't even funny.
If you're looking for a general use laptop, stick with the business lines for anyone save HP/Compaq (who still loads gobs trialware/demoware crap).
Good for you.
Most of the rest of us don't browse porn and listen to streaming audio for a living.
"Product X is great, you just have to replace it's main features with additional products Y and Z".
Sound like Apple's MO.
What people who whine about "you should just install Start8 and get over it" miss is this very simple point.
You should not HAVE to. Not for a key piece of UI like the Start menu.
Microsoft's reason for pulling the Start Menu out of Windows amounts to "Because I said so". They can prattle on about how shallow the usage was, the problems it would cause in future adoption, etc, etc. But the main reason is still "We want you to do it THIS WAY now, we don't give a shit that you've been doing it this other way for 20 years."
So people people have been screaming about this now for approximately 2 years (since they removed it from the preview versions).
So business snubbed Windows 8.
Their sales are, comparatively, in the toilet when held up against previous releases.
It's the lightest, nimblest, most stable version yet. It's actually a decent setup for a tablet. And yet users are staying away from it in droves (save for the luddites who just take whatever they get when they buy a months-old, crappy PC off a shelf in a Best Buy). Because they arbitrarily crippled functionality, expecting users to just lap it up and their larger clients to simply absorb the costs of retraining.
Pfft.
"But they do, and he can use his position to influence actual politics."
First, is there any evidence that he used his position to influence actual politics?
Nope? Thanks!
"when their opinion is to take rights away from other human beings? "
Is there ANY evidence that Mozilla has closed ranks behind him and are supporting this POV?
Nope? Thanks.
"denying people rights doesn't matter?"
He didn't deny anyone their rights. He contributed to a political cause to define a right. And yes, son, there IS a difference.
"How come no one on this site seems to know what intolarance means?"
Probably because people like you keep trying to redefine it into whatever wins you an argument.
The fact is, several years ago, this guy donated some money. Now, because you don't happen to like the cause he donated to, you're copacetic with another company harassing their own users, who did NOT support this guy, because they happen to use the product produced by a company, which did NOT support this guy, to access their site?
Seriously?
"You are rather short sighted and small minded."
Ah. Down to the ad hominem. Instead of arguing the point, you simply insult.
I usually don't prefer to win an argument that way, but hey. I don't complain about racking up entries in the W column.
Yup. Watch where these are installed. They're going to be put someplace that's going to be INSANELY expensive (and probably require additional part replacements) to remove and replace when (not if, WHEN) they break.
Pretty much NO product out there on ANY market, free or otherwise is going to be completely and utterly inoffensive to everyone. Nor are the people connected to said products.
Basically telling people to use another product because YOU are offended is asinine. People will use the product that does what they want, how they want, and at the price point they want.
If you want to try and alienate people based on their product choices? First off, you're cutting off your OWN nose. As you're turning away potential customers.
Second, how are YOU being any more tolerant than the so-called "bigot" you're trying to hate on?
Some shit matters.
Some shit matters a lot.
The fact that the guy now running Mozilla happened to donate to an anti-LGBT cause WITH HIS OWN FUCKING MONEY, a few years ago? That just doesn't matter, and no I'm NOT sorry for saying so. You're giving money to political movements promoting LGBT causes, hopefully with YOUR own money (and and possibly trying to convince companies to do the same). But you're going to excoriate this guy because his opinion differs from the one you consider "right"?
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.
For the record, I figure what goes on between any given number of consenting adults, so long as it doesn't violate other laws (like taxing and child welfare type things), IS THEIR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS. But if someone doesn't feel that way, that's their own business. So long as they're not trying to force me to comply with THEIR lifestyle choices.
People nowadays are too soft and conditioned to want everything to be as inoffensive to them as possible. News flash, TOUGH FUCKING NOOGIES! Shrug off the shit that doesn't matter and focus on the stuff that actually means something. That pretty much goes for EVERYONE. And my expressing that makes you feel rather...sandy...have a nice tall glass of I DON'T GIVE A SHIT!
Japanese "research" whaling has always been a wink and nod piece of bullshit propaganda.
I'm glad even an organization as spineless, dickless and useless as the UN actually stood up and realized it.
Now, will anything COME of this? Probably not.
They want to be able to sell you wireless, internet, etc, etc. But if you look around, they're not going to let you out the door for anything less than $100 a month anymore.
I had a client trying to figure out why AT&T was charging her $400/month for 2 "business" POTS lines. They told her she could reduce her bill to $150 if she took 2 POTS lines and a DSL connection. She already had Comcast cable and a Comcast phone line. Adding 2 lines to the Comcast plan would have cost $70 (the first 3 lines are usually the most expensive). But damn if that AT&T person didn't try the hard sell!
Basically this is about shedding regulatory obligations and pumping the public for even MORE money. Make no mistake.
They're still not promising universal coverage, coverage in underserved areas, higher speeds, etc. They're basically just trying to force the customers into paying more without the government coming down on them like a ton of baked shit bricks.
They want his calendaring system back.
Exactly.
These type of rep systems exist already.
Pretty much NONE of them work as intended, and devolve into griefing tools.
I remember buying memory modules where the memory was stacked way the hell back when.
The thing that's interesting about this iteration is the fact that pass-throughs have been built straight into the silicon.
But is this a failure of the implementation or a failure of the installation?
It's really easy to say "It crashes all the time".
But it's also really easy to leave out "Our compute cluster space is running at 100+ degrees ambient and our power distribution is shoddy."
It's also really easy to leave out things like "Our no-name, cut-rate motherboards, memory and PSUs probably aren't up to the task of running these things at maximum utilization."
Do you want to play in VR? Sign in to Facebook! Allow them to hoover you for all the data you have on your system!
Good going Occulus. Way to kill your product.
Occulus VR, interesting technology now tied permanently to a nasty, invasive owner who won't actually do anything with it...
Imagine how many people will be replaced with automation when that happens!
Cue all the Bitcoin boobs about how this guy is wrong, and Bitcoin is justsowonderful and nobody who isn't slobbing the Bitcoin knob knows anything.
Bitcoin has basically shown that we've now supassed Barnum's Law. Suckers are now continuously spawning at a rate approximating the Planck Instant.