it's only when they sign off unsafe locations that we wind up in trouble
Like placing them on top of seismic faults that we didn't know were there?
Or perhaps placing them in areas where you didn't know there could be a tsunami that big like Fukushima?
Lets not even get into flying a 747 or something into the spent fuel cooling ponds which aren't hardened against so much as a hand grenade.
You can't plan for the unknown and as we've seen numerous times, the unknown has a funny way of being something you don't expect. With nuclear, failure simply isn't an option, but with unknown conditions you can't guarantee against failure.
1: It is energy dense, so it doesn't take up valued land. Solar and wind farms are great, but energy losses through wires cause those to become not feasible.
Except that you can place the 'power plant' on people's roofs. No transmission losses at all.
2: A reprocessing, "breeder" reactor can reduce the need for high level waste dumps.
This produces weapons grade material though no?
3: Reactor fuel is relatively cheap and abundant. When uranium becomes an issue, there is always thorium (although that is still a research leap ahead.)
More energy hits the earth from sunlight in an hour than we use in an entire year. (or some similarly huge disparity)
4: Safety. The deaths per terawatt figures completely show this.
Deaths from nuclear are notoriously hard to estimate because they play out over decades. *Potential deaths* from nuclear are pretty damned high given worst case scenarios.
Deaths from solar? literally zero. But but, people fall off the roofs...which is ridiculous. People fall of roofs building houses too. Put the panels on the new constructions and you've absorbed any increase into the current required process anyway.
Solar is quite ready to take over grid scale 'production' of energy. What isn't yet ready is the storage of that energy for later use. Hydrogen fuel cells being the most likely candidate but more research and funding is needed.
Nuclear is the best option we have for climate change mitigation at the moment, but that doesn't make it remotely a good idea in any realm of sanity.
If your own vote is not verifiable, then there is nothing stopping them swapping your ballot papers for fake ones.
Except the seal on the box that was put on when the polling place closed witnessed by people from both sides of the vote. If it doesn't match or is broken then you know the votes have been tampered and aren't reliable.
Chain of custody of physical things is not hard to maintain with extremely high levels of assurance.
Ever heard of vote rigging.
Only from the right wing trying to drum up reasons to suppress legal voters (who would vote against them). Has it happened in the past? Sure. Is there any evidence of it being remotely significant now? Nope. Zilch. Nada. None.
The voter fraud scheme usually pushed actually does have recent evidence...from a GOP Secretary of State
I'm sorry but I have to inform you that I have the patent on remitting received royalties so you'll have to remit your received remitted royalties to my totally not a P.O.Box.
You don't see that burning of oil/gas/coal is adding very significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere? Coal started being used in the early 1800s as the main driver of the industrial revolution.
Oil and gas started in earnest at the beginning of the 1900s.
Both quite nicely coincide with large increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Do you disagree with these widely accept and studied facts?
When saying "co2 emissions caused by humans caused global warming" that is only correct if you mean the deforestation that occured in the early 19th century in Europe and a bit in Asia, with perhaps a dash of coal burning, but not much.
Seriously...you think deforestation is producing more CO2 that coal or oil? "In 2008, 8.67 gigatonnes of carbon (31.8 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels worldwide" compared with "land use change contributed 1.20 gigatonnes in 2008, compared to 1.64 gigatonnes in 1990." linky with refs
Did the large deforestation during the industrial revolution contribute? Sure, but that's a one time change and releases carbon that was only recently taken out of the atmosphere so it's less harmful. And once it's added the CO2 levels would stay steady and/or go down as other plants start growing. What we've seen instead is an ever increasing CO2 level, something else is continuing to add CO2. That is coal and oil.
If you can't understand that you need to go back to school, chemistry in particular. We burn LOTS of coal and LOTS of oil, a major byproduct of that is CO2. Millions of years worth of CO2 that has not been in the atmosphere for millions of years.
When you add that into the atmosphere in just under 200 years it's going to cause an effect. That effect is warming since it is scientifically proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Funny enough, we've seen this exact effect through studies of global temperature and observations of the vast majority of glaciers melting at record paces. Glacier National Park won't have *any* glaciers in just 20 years.
We have added/are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere which is causing warming. Reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will make it less able to keep heat in and thus will reduce temperatures.
How's that for A -> B? If you don't believe CO2 is contributing to global warming, well you are in the very small majority.
I won't say I'm not biased, but Dem's seem inherently more trustworthy than the 'tax cuts fix everything' snake oil that substitutes for actual ideas from the GOP.
Not true. As long as there are physical records which indicate authenticity while also not *identifying* the voter, keeping the custody chain of those ballots is quite reasonable.
This is why a secret ballot works. I get to vote so that only I know my vote, but by being in a controlled environment my ballot is placed in a receptacle that doesn't preserve order. There's no way to know how any individual voted but the validity of those ballots remains unquestionable.
Verifiable chain of custody of physical objects is an easy thing to accomplish. The hard part is getting non-identifiable but verifiable ballots, which was accomplished already.
You simply can't do this with fully electronic ballots. Much less with electronic voting machines where the code processing the 'votes' is written by a 3rd party who won't disclose it for verification.
I'd wager that if you walked out on the streets today and interviewed a hundred people, you could count on one hand the number of people who could give a rough description of each of the first ten Constitutional amendments.
Leno does this occasionally. The numbers aren't as high as you think...
So it's either that we don't really understand the climate and so the alarms being raised are false. Or - it's so bad we can't possibly understand and fix it and should just accept our fate.
We do understand quite a bit. Feedback loops are quite clear and already evident. Warmer temps means less snow cover which means more heat absorbed instead of reflected which means warmer temperatures which means less snow...etc.
Are there perhaps feedback loops we don't know about yet? I'm quite sure there are, but since we're seeing measurements moving at paces not seen previously at any time in history, it's fairly safe to say that retardant feedback loops aren't currently helping much if they exist at all.
I already gave you the CO2/H20 vapor loop. It's real, it's testable, it exists.
That alone is reason to reduce CO2. The earth is a very malleable planet, we've changed it before, we can change it again in ways that benefit us rather than hurt us. Scientists have said that if the Canadian tar sands are brought online for production it may very well be game over as far as stopping a runaway greenhouse effect but those us who actually care aren't going to let people like you stop us from trying to save both us and you.
If they don't have a need to find out the reality of life, they'll happily sit in a pile of shit as long as they believe it's good for them and the best they can do.
As noted above, TV is the perfect device...you just sit and let them tell you what to think.
If you have to actually work to find out information, you'll learn that you can figure things out for yourself and the ruse comes crashing down.
There are audits and verifications of vote counts...for physical vote records.
*Electronic* Voting Machines are the avenue by which the process will be wholly taken over. Without the backing of paper records, electronic records are forever changeable and now you're left with custody chains of things that are microscopic in size and able to be tampered with remotely. Or just plain erasable....
They're also invoking feedback effects. That's cute, but feedback effects obviously never cause anything, it's a cop-out.
You know the big feedback loop that's going to be bad bad news? It also comes from one of your denier friends...
Water Vapor. It accounts for a vastly higher amount of the atmosphere than CO2 and is a very effective green house gas.
It's level of concentration is always tied directly to the temperature since it's presence comes from evaporation. (simplified obviously)
So now you have increases in CO2 that cause measurable effects to warm the climate. Not massive on their own, but they do make it warmer.
That temperature increase causes more water vapor to form thus further increasing the green house effect. Which causes more water vapor to be created. Rinse repeat and sweat a lot...
The mods forgot their meds apparently today as you're an idiot.
They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can
The problem is this same statement pretty well applies to the FBI and CIA and insert Gov agency here since 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
it's only when they sign off unsafe locations that we wind up in trouble
Like placing them on top of seismic faults that we didn't know were there?
Or perhaps placing them in areas where you didn't know there could be a tsunami that big like Fukushima?
Lets not even get into flying a 747 or something into the spent fuel cooling ponds which aren't hardened against so much as a hand grenade.
You can't plan for the unknown and as we've seen numerous times, the unknown has a funny way of being something you don't expect. With nuclear, failure simply isn't an option, but with unknown conditions you can't guarantee against failure.
1: It is energy dense, so it doesn't take up valued land. Solar and wind farms are great, but energy losses through wires cause those to become not feasible.
Except that you can place the 'power plant' on people's roofs. No transmission losses at all.
2: A reprocessing, "breeder" reactor can reduce the need for high level waste dumps.
This produces weapons grade material though no?
3: Reactor fuel is relatively cheap and abundant. When uranium becomes an issue, there is always thorium (although that is still a research leap ahead.)
More energy hits the earth from sunlight in an hour than we use in an entire year. (or some similarly huge disparity)
4: Safety. The deaths per terawatt figures completely show this.
Deaths from nuclear are notoriously hard to estimate because they play out over decades. *Potential deaths* from nuclear are pretty damned high given worst case scenarios.
Deaths from solar? literally zero. But but, people fall off the roofs...which is ridiculous. People fall of roofs building houses too. Put the panels on the new constructions and you've absorbed any increase into the current required process anyway.
Solar is quite ready to take over grid scale 'production' of energy. What isn't yet ready is the storage of that energy for later use. Hydrogen fuel cells being the most likely candidate but more research and funding is needed.
Nuclear is the best option we have for climate change mitigation at the moment, but that doesn't make it remotely a good idea in any realm of sanity.
Steps should always be taken to minimize them.
Like not using oil perhaps? Spending our money on clean technology rather than 10s of billions of $$$ for already massively profitable oil companies?
If your own vote is not verifiable, then there is nothing stopping them swapping your ballot papers for fake ones.
Except the seal on the box that was put on when the polling place closed witnessed by people from both sides of the vote. If it doesn't match or is broken then you know the votes have been tampered and aren't reliable.
Chain of custody of physical things is not hard to maintain with extremely high levels of assurance.
Ever heard of vote rigging.
Only from the right wing trying to drum up reasons to suppress legal voters (who would vote against them). Has it happened in the past? Sure. Is there any evidence of it being remotely significant now? Nope. Zilch. Nada. None.
The voter fraud scheme usually pushed actually does have recent evidence...from a GOP Secretary of State
Nah, he'd just never actually heard that the Internet was, like, popular and stuff.....
I'm sorry but I have to inform you that I have the patent on remitting received royalties so you'll have to remit your received remitted royalties to my totally not a P.O.Box.
Oil and gas started in earnest at the beginning of the 1900s.
Both quite nicely coincide with large increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Do you disagree with these widely accept and studied facts?
When saying "co2 emissions caused by humans caused global warming" that is only correct if you mean the deforestation that occured in the early 19th century in Europe and a bit in Asia, with perhaps a dash of coal burning, but not much.
Seriously...you think deforestation is producing more CO2 that coal or oil? "In 2008, 8.67 gigatonnes of carbon (31.8 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels worldwide" compared with "land use change contributed 1.20 gigatonnes in 2008, compared to 1.64 gigatonnes in 1990." linky with refs
Did the large deforestation during the industrial revolution contribute? Sure, but that's a one time change and releases carbon that was only recently taken out of the atmosphere so it's less harmful. And once it's added the CO2 levels would stay steady and/or go down as other plants start growing. What we've seen instead is an ever increasing CO2 level, something else is continuing to add CO2. That is coal and oil.
If you can't understand that you need to go back to school, chemistry in particular. We burn LOTS of coal and LOTS of oil, a major byproduct of that is CO2. Millions of years worth of CO2 that has not been in the atmosphere for millions of years.
When you add that into the atmosphere in just under 200 years it's going to cause an effect. That effect is warming since it is scientifically proven that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Funny enough, we've seen this exact effect through studies of global temperature and observations of the vast majority of glaciers melting at record paces. Glacier National Park won't have *any* glaciers in just 20 years.
We have added/are adding lots of CO2 to the atmosphere which is causing warming. Reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will make it less able to keep heat in and thus will reduce temperatures.
How's that for A -> B? If you don't believe CO2 is contributing to global warming, well you are in the very small majority.
I won't say I'm not biased, but Dem's seem inherently more trustworthy than the 'tax cuts fix everything' snake oil that substitutes for actual ideas from the GOP.
On the hypocrite scale, GOP wins hands down.
Not true. As long as there are physical records which indicate authenticity while also not *identifying* the voter, keeping the custody chain of those ballots is quite reasonable.
This is why a secret ballot works. I get to vote so that only I know my vote, but by being in a controlled environment my ballot is placed in a receptacle that doesn't preserve order. There's no way to know how any individual voted but the validity of those ballots remains unquestionable.
Verifiable chain of custody of physical objects is an easy thing to accomplish. The hard part is getting non-identifiable but verifiable ballots, which was accomplished already.
You simply can't do this with fully electronic ballots. Much less with electronic voting machines where the code processing the 'votes' is written by a 3rd party who won't disclose it for verification.
That's one planetary entry I would loved to have seen live....
Bah. My software turns hardware INTO software! Mostly molten pools....
to shoot down
Wait it was shot down????? Quick update the summary!
Except no one knows for certain the computers crashed at all.
I'm quite sure that the computers crashed. Right along with the spacecraft ;-)
War is not useful. It's good for absolutely nothing.
No..it always has the minimum benefit of teaching Americans geography.
Given that it's been successful in tests on sheep...My assumption was the next step would be treating 'baaaaaaaad baaaaaaaacks'
I'd wager that if you walked out on the streets today and interviewed a hundred people, you could count on one hand the number of people who could give a rough description of each of the first ten Constitutional amendments.
Leno does this occasionally. The numbers aren't as high as you think...
Well obviously. I mean if you have a butt ugly smile you damned well better be smart!
Amen. As the saying goes "Fascism will come wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible. ~ Sinclair Lewis 1935".
The ones who scream the loudest trying to scare you are usually not the ones with your best interests at heart.
If they do, then the battle is lost.
I see what you did there.
So it's either that we don't really understand the climate and so the alarms being raised are false. Or - it's so bad we can't possibly understand and fix it and should just accept our fate.
We do understand quite a bit. Feedback loops are quite clear and already evident. Warmer temps means less snow cover which means more heat absorbed instead of reflected which means warmer temperatures which means less snow...etc.
Are there perhaps feedback loops we don't know about yet? I'm quite sure there are, but since we're seeing measurements moving at paces not seen previously at any time in history, it's fairly safe to say that retardant feedback loops aren't currently helping much if they exist at all.
I already gave you the CO2/H20 vapor loop. It's real, it's testable, it exists.
That alone is reason to reduce CO2. The earth is a very malleable planet, we've changed it before, we can change it again in ways that benefit us rather than hurt us. Scientists have said that if the Canadian tar sands are brought online for production it may very well be game over as far as stopping a runaway greenhouse effect but those us who actually care aren't going to let people like you stop us from trying to save both us and you.
By giving them enough to keep them occupied.
"Necessity is the mother of invention"
If they don't have a need to find out the reality of life, they'll happily sit in a pile of shit as long as they believe it's good for them and the best they can do.
As noted above, TV is the perfect device...you just sit and let them tell you what to think.
If you have to actually work to find out information, you'll learn that you can figure things out for yourself and the ruse comes crashing down.
Perhaps you're not. But why do you keep electing people who epitomize exactly what you describe?
There are audits and verifications of vote counts...for physical vote records.
*Electronic* Voting Machines are the avenue by which the process will be wholly taken over. Without the backing of paper records, electronic records are forever changeable and now you're left with custody chains of things that are microscopic in size and able to be tampered with remotely. Or just plain erasable....
They're also invoking feedback effects. That's cute, but feedback effects obviously never cause anything, it's a cop-out.
You know the big feedback loop that's going to be bad bad news? It also comes from one of your denier friends...
Water Vapor. It accounts for a vastly higher amount of the atmosphere than CO2 and is a very effective green house gas.
It's level of concentration is always tied directly to the temperature since it's presence comes from evaporation. (simplified obviously)
So now you have increases in CO2 that cause measurable effects to warm the climate. Not massive on their own, but they do make it warmer.
That temperature increase causes more water vapor to form thus further increasing the green house effect. Which causes more water vapor to be created. Rinse repeat and sweat a lot...
The mods forgot their meds apparently today as you're an idiot.
Isn't that tornado country? Wouldn't hanging fiber just mean you're going to 'rehang' it in a few years?
:)
Just seems like burying it is going to be the better option...sure it's more expensive, but this is G$$gle we're talking about
They're the worst type of vigilantes, who in their own minds are drunk with power. They're the internet equivalent of a mob of Molotov-cocktail tossing anarchists who burn things down because it's fun to do. They rationalize their behavior any way they can
The problem is this same statement pretty well applies to the FBI and CIA and insert Gov agency here since 9/11.