I think it's instructive to read that report to understand fully the bias of the investigation in question. Note first, that the preamble you quote cites not a single incident of negligence. It merely asserts them. One has to go to the conclusions section to find actual evidence. In the first case, titled "A 'man-made' disaster":
The direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011. But the
Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and
tsunami that hit on that day. The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC)
and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirementsâ"such as assessing the probability of
damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing
evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release.
Notice first the erroneous claim that the direct causes were foreseeable. This is the conceit of hindsight that everything can be foreseen just because it is obvious after the fact.
Second, notice that all these things were done, the report merely asserts that the various parties should have done them better. So where's the better example say of a nuclear meltdown evacuation elsewhere in the world to underline their point? Sorry, it appears to me that most of this stuff was good enough even in hindsight.
Since 2006, the regulators and TEPCO were aware of the risk that a total outage of electricity at the Fukushima Daiichi plant might occur if a tsunami were to reach the level of
the site. They were also aware of the risk of reactor core damage from the loss of seawater
pumps in the case of a tsunami larger than assumed in the Japan Society of Civil Engineers
estimation. NISA knew that TEPCO had not prepared any measures to lessen or eliminate
the risk, but failed to provide specific instructions to remedy the situation.
Finally, we have a date. 2006 is not very much before 2011, the year of the earthquake. Why are we to expect fast action again when the whole point of nuclear regulation is to be heavily conservative? It indicates to me that this report didn't take into account timeline or the slow nature of nuclear regulation.
We found evidence that the regulatory agencies would explicitly ask about the operatorsâ(TM)
intentions whenever a new regulation was to be implemented. For example, NISA informed
the operators that they did not need to consider a possible station blackout (SBO) because
the probability was small and other measures were in place. It then asked the operators
to write a report that would give the appropriate rationale for why this consideration was
unnecessary. In order to get evidence of this collusion, the Commission was forced to
exercise our legislative right to demand such information from NISA, after NISA failed to
respond to several requests.
And this is bad why? The problem here is that the plant operators are the experts on their reactors. The regulator don't know all. Second, regulation is by its nature constraining. This particular situation sounds like a case where the regulation was too constraining and thus, the regulators had to come up with a work around so that nuclear plants could continue to operate.
In the next section "Earthquake damage", the report claims that TEPCO was too hasty in blaming the tsunami for all damage to their reactors without providing a reason for that claim or a reason to justify their level of concern (it is after all the second conclusion of their report). The best they can come up with is that reactor 1 might have experienced some earthquake damage as well as well as damage to the grid connection (power lines and substation were not earthquake hardene
You're pushing a variant of homeopathic dilution. Neither you or the group you linked do have a scientifically valid basis for the claim made.
Further, "no safe dose" is an unusually irresponsible claim since no other human activity is held to that level of safety. For example, an obvious problem is that even if you accept without evidence as you did here that there is no harmless dose, there is still the matter of how much harm. Just how many people are expected to die of cancer over the next fifty years because of Fukushima? 10? 100? Fukushima would have saved more lives than any number you can come up with during its lifetime.
Good, I think I've had it with you.
I think what's particularly idiotic about your posts is the theater. Yes. Please go away and take your ignorance with you.
Those people have been on the payroll of big ISPs to specifically oppose net neutrality and their opinions are a matter of public record!
Not Roslyn Layton who is the subject of the story. She was "a visiting fellow at the broadband-industry-funded American Enterprise Institute". Which is far from "being on the payroll". After all, the US government is also funded by the broadband industry via taxes. Is President Obama thus on the payroll too?
Yet another comment sarcastically implying that the rise of hive-mind media prone to witch-hunts is superior to not just the current but all forms of media curated by professionals.
The latter was merely an older version of the former. I find it remarkable how someone can throw around terms like "hive-mind media" while ignoring that the traditional media is that in spades.
For example, there was a time in early 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq when the traditional US media referred to Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard as "ultra-loyal" even though they never showed any particular feat of loyalty to earn such an extravagant label. It takes a hive-like lack of imagination to allow such a ridiculous phrase to persist for months.
And there is such a thing as a completely unsubstantiated statement too.
We already have to live with an increased background radiation level thanks to those idiots testing these nuclear weapons in the 40's and after, then Chernobyl added some, and here you come saying "that doesn't have a significant effect".
Or those idiots who choose to live above sea level or on top of igneous rock. There's a lot of things that result in higher background radiation levels, for which we don't see a significant effect.
And 'meltdowns being a very rare thing' isn't good enough. The fact that we have had two meltdowns already means that it does happen, contrary to what all those probabilistic risk analyses for the reactor designs have said and have tried to prevent.
You said it right there. "Probabilistic". The point is not to make it completely impossible, but to make it rare enough. The world didn't end when Chernobyl or Fukushima happened. We can handle a rather high rate of ongoing meltdowns without significant change in background radiation levels and our current rate is well below that.
And any rise in background radiation will 'affect' more lives, killing and maiming people and making them ill.
Unless, of course, they don't do that. Unsupported assertions are like that. It's worth noting, of course, that the world has considerable variation in background radiation well beyond any temporary contribution from Fukushima or Chernobyl and that doesn't have a significant effect.
Fukushima and Chernobyl are the empirical proof that all safety analyses and regulations are worthless, hence there is no guaranteed safe nuclear energy, hence we should just choose something else to supply our energy as it's simply too dangerous.
And the fact that there are 400-500 reactors operating in the world today with meltdowns being a very rare thing, are evidence that nuclear power is far less dangerous than you suppose.
And my whole point, if you actually read the stuff I posted, was that human effects, schedule, economic, and possibly corruption was what doomed Fukushima.
And my point is that you are blatantly wrong here.
Somewhere in the slashdot annals I made a plausible location that would at least be safe from the effects of what happened. It is on a river, which would provide proper emergency cooling water, it is above the atitude of historical and rubble line records of Tsunami
And with a sufficiently high sea wall, you can put it in on the coast. You don't need to artificially set aside some of the very best locations on Earth.
I sincerely hope that you are not working in the nuclear industry. Your ideas are interesting to say the least.
I think the huge problem here is that you equate stories and evidence as if they were the same thing. Sure, it is stirring to the emotions that we have this narrative of human corruption, greed, and hubris. Oh, and location. I've seen that movie. It can be fun to watch. But it is fiction for a reason. It doesn't represent reality.
Sure, I could too babble on about that, but I too would be missing some very important points. No other nuclear plant in Japan had significant problems (several of them had been exposed to the earthquake and tsunami as well). TEPCO had a nearby plant which survived the tsunami without significant problem. The very tsunami threat that inundated Fukushima was being evaluated at the time of the accident (and it sounded to me like they would have eventually recommended a higher sea wall for Fukushima which would eventually be built). Of course, there's the obvious that TEPCO may have trained for decades to handle nuclear accidents of this scale, but they had yet to experience one.
And that evaluation process had been delayed because Fukushima was originally going to be shut down (with the first reactor scheduled to shut down the very month that the earthquake hit). Fukushima received a lease on life (and restarted the tsunami threat evaluation) because the generation of nuclear plants that were going to replace Fukushima had all been scuttled in the prior decade and a half.
My view here is that it is not just nuclear operators that need to learn from the experience. You do too. Shoehorning every action of nuclear plant operators into this corrosive narrative is false and harmful to making sound decisions.
But nuclear energy is so terribly hazardous that one accident can affect life all over the world.
Which, let us note hasn't happened yet. I notice your threshold for "affect" is barely detectable. Well radiation is detectable at levels that are quite irrelevant.
The walls were 100 percent certain to breach, the water was 100 percent going to settle where the emergency generators were.
That's an absurd claim to make. Higher walls and emergency generators protected from the particular failure mode of inundation by a large tsunami both would have worked.
The design itself however, would still be working today if not for the terrible decisions made on siting and building the place.
Notice the two obvious fixes above have nothing to do with location aside from making sure the sea wall was high enough for a 500 year tsunami at that location.
The problem with such a superficial analysis as you gave is that every location is terrible in some way. Instead of trying to find that near perfect spot with no significant flaws, we can just engineer for the problems that good but not perfect locations have.
The sad thing here is that the Fukushima location is even better now for nuclear power since the accident will clear out a lot of potential liability to its future operation. It still has great access to sea water for a cold sink (a huge consideration in nuclear power). And we can engineer for the problems of the location.
Tokyo Electric management was criminal in technically trivial ways that were long known,some obvious to even a beginning engineering student.
None of which turned out to be relevant to the magnitude nine earthquake, the resulting tsunami, the Fukushima accident, or the excessive reaction to the accident.
The industry magazine Nuclear Safety discussed some of these deliberate flaws over 40 years ago in their articles.
So in other words, these "deliberate flaws" were not only irrelevant but ancient.
Personally I think some of the senior management and directors of Tokyo Electric should be stripped of all assets to compensate a small part of their criminally willful acts of greed.
For what crime? There should be a crime first, not merely a bullshit assertion that there was crime. Obviously, the magnitude nine quake and the 15 meter tsunami was not due to TEPCO criminal greed. That leaves stuff like seawall height, generator placement (all the generators were flooded), and TEPCO's response to the accident. And sorry, none of those meet the standards of a crime (things like gross negligence or intent, for example).
Your accusations, supposed by decades out of date sources, are irrelevant because there is no such crime to point to and often, not even a living culprit either.
Why ask that question? In the case of Clinton, she enabled this distribution of classified information over her personal email server. She didn't merely receive. Similarly, the complaints about Flynn aren't that he received either.
A dubious news source, the Washington Times, seems to have conflated the two.
Says who? I'll note that there's similar stuff like that from from other sources:
Fox News reported Friday that at least one of Clintonâ(TM)s emails included sensitive information on spies.
âoeIt takes a very conscious effort to move a classified email or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to Hillary Clintonâ(TM)s personal email account,â said Raymond Fournier, a veteran Diplomatic Security Service special agent. âoeThatâ(TM)s no less than a two-conscious-step process.â
He says itâ(TM)s clear from some of the classified emails made public that someone on Clintonâ(TM)s staff essentially âoecut and pastedâ content from classified cables into the messages sent to her. The classified markings are gone, but the content is classified at the highest levels â" and so sensitive in nature that âoeit would have been obvious to Clinton.â Most likely the information was, in turn, emailed to her via NIPRNet.
And yes Colin Powell had a private email server just like Hillary did
No, he didn't. Nor did he use his email account for propagating classified information. If the news report is accurate, then Flynn did commit a serious breach.
Whether or not Clinton realized there was classified info on her server there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
Intent is irrelevant to a charge of gross negligence.
If Flynn was deliberately sending classified info to unauthorized foreign governments then that's much worse than anything Clinton was accused of.
Depends on the level of classification. Clinton had some documents on her server with very high levels of classification and which she didn't have the authority to declassify because they didn't come from the State Department (satellite images, human intelligence reports).
but the majority of models are much more tightly clustered within it
You're speaking of models not of reality. The reality is that they currently have huge error bars for the most important parameter in climate research today.
âoeThereâ(TM)s a very obvious precedentâ for this, says Sam Jaffe, managing director of Cairn Energy Research Advisors. âoeThatâ(TM)s Hillary Clinton.â
Jaffe says that whoever is behind the attacks is aiming at Musk personally because they fear he could go into politics. He cited the allegations of fraud (emails) and negligence (Benghazi) levied at Clinton during the presidential campaign, charges that cemented the publicâ(TM)s perception of her as shady. âoeItâ(TM)s the exact same thing as Musk. Thereâ(TM)s a portion of the political spectrum that is scared to death of Musk as politician. They see him as a threat. Theyâ(TM)re starting that process.â
That's absurd. Sure, like many other famous people, Musk might be considering some political role in the future. But if these attacks exist, they're targeting him for a near future reason not some nebulous political agenda. I'd look at his business interests instead.
I notice that one of the alleged "fake news" stories is a singular attack on SolarCity and specifically mentions an election for the Arizona Corporation Commission. Apparently, there has been a split between the members of the commission with one member, Robert "Bob" Burns demanding to know how much money was donated to fellow Republicans from an Arizona utility. It apparently escalated to the point, that three Republicans ran for office as a bloc in 2016, apparently to block Burns from getting reelected (and failed). SolarCity supported Burns's campaign by running ads.
The incumbents are former House Speaker Andy Tobin, appointed in January by Gov. Doug Ducey, and Bob Burns, a former state Senate president who has been on the commission since 2013. The two show little affection, and have battled over Burnsâ(TM) effort to force the stateâ(TM)s largest utility to disclose whether it spent $3.2 million in the 2014 commission election. Arizona Public Service has neither confirmed nor denied it spent the money to back Republicans Tom Forese and Doug Little, who won.
Gray, Melvin and Tobin are running as a team, meaning they can boost their spending power by airing combined ads. Dunn, Burns and Tobin are privately financing their campaigns, while Melvin and Gray are using public money through the Arizona Clean Elections Commission. Democrats Bill Mundell and Tom Chabin also are using public funds.
All four candidates said Burns should drop his effort to force APS to reveal whether it spent in the election, which would constitute a major change in practice from decades of hands-off approaches of the election of commissioners who regulate monopoly utilities.
âoeThis is not about the Corporation Commission â" this is about Bob Burns now trying to get media attention and you guys are giving it to him,â Tobin said in an interview. âoeBut at the end of the day, heâ(TM)s the only guy getting any money at all.â
Tobin was pointing to advertising benefiting Burns that is paid for by an outside group funded by nonregulated company SolarCity. The company has been battling utilitiesâ(TM) efforts to change how rooftop solar customers are paid for electricity they sell back to the utility.
It's a result of the developed world's attitude these days, the attitude of being highly skeptical at best for any big collective action, especially ones with government involvement.
Stuff like this gives them just cause to be skeptical. Funny how the people who are right are the ones getting blamed here.
So you're saying that automation does not represent a reduction in demand for human labor?
Yes. Automation greatly increases not just the productivity of existing jobs, but also the productivity of potential jobs which were previously too low value to be worth doing. For example, with riding lawn mowers, leaf blowers, chain saws, etc, people can landscape more efficiently. This not only results in more efficient landscaping of areas that were already landscaped, but greatly widens what gets landscaped. So now, fast food restaurants and middle class homes can get professional landscaping, not just the multimillionaire with a mansion.
So automation is not just about the current jobs it makes more efficient, which in isolation would represent a decline in demand for human labor, but also a massive increase in the value of previously unviable jobs.
The Schiaparelli EDM lander is an example of the typical one-off missions that humanity does these days. It's worth noting that they could have had built and launched two or more of these vehicles for much less than the first and already be correcting the erroneous code on a second spacecraft. Then they wouldn't have to wait years for a replacement mission and have a much better chance of mission success.
Yes, you have to wonder why on a mission of this expense and complexity the height about the ground is essentially done by mathematical dead reckoning.
Because it works really well. The other replier, MichaelSmith indicated it had radar as well.
Sensitivity of mean global temperature to a doubling of CO2 is unknown to a factor of three according to the IPCC, the estimate ranges from 1.5 C to 4.5 C.
Slashdot Mirror
The direct causes of the accident were all foreseeable prior to March 11, 2011. But the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant was incapable of withstanding the earthquake and tsunami that hit on that day. The operator (TEPCO), the regulatory bodies (NISA and NSC) and the government body promoting the nuclear power industry (METI), all failed to correctly develop the most basic safety requirementsâ"such as assessing the probability of damage, preparing for containing collateral damage from such a disaster, and developing evacuation plans for the public in the case of a serious radiation release.
Notice first the erroneous claim that the direct causes were foreseeable. This is the conceit of hindsight that everything can be foreseen just because it is obvious after the fact.
Second, notice that all these things were done, the report merely asserts that the various parties should have done them better. So where's the better example say of a nuclear meltdown evacuation elsewhere in the world to underline their point? Sorry, it appears to me that most of this stuff was good enough even in hindsight.
Since 2006, the regulators and TEPCO were aware of the risk that a total outage of electricity at the Fukushima Daiichi plant might occur if a tsunami were to reach the level of the site. They were also aware of the risk of reactor core damage from the loss of seawater pumps in the case of a tsunami larger than assumed in the Japan Society of Civil Engineers estimation. NISA knew that TEPCO had not prepared any measures to lessen or eliminate the risk, but failed to provide specific instructions to remedy the situation.
Finally, we have a date. 2006 is not very much before 2011, the year of the earthquake. Why are we to expect fast action again when the whole point of nuclear regulation is to be heavily conservative? It indicates to me that this report didn't take into account timeline or the slow nature of nuclear regulation.
We found evidence that the regulatory agencies would explicitly ask about the operatorsâ(TM) intentions whenever a new regulation was to be implemented. For example, NISA informed the operators that they did not need to consider a possible station blackout (SBO) because the probability was small and other measures were in place. It then asked the operators to write a report that would give the appropriate rationale for why this consideration was unnecessary. In order to get evidence of this collusion, the Commission was forced to exercise our legislative right to demand such information from NISA, after NISA failed to respond to several requests.
And this is bad why? The problem here is that the plant operators are the experts on their reactors. The regulator don't know all. Second, regulation is by its nature constraining. This particular situation sounds like a case where the regulation was too constraining and thus, the regulators had to come up with a work around so that nuclear plants could continue to operate.
In the next section "Earthquake damage", the report claims that TEPCO was too hasty in blaming the tsunami for all damage to their reactors without providing a reason for that claim or a reason to justify their level of concern (it is after all the second conclusion of their report). The best they can come up with is that reactor 1 might have experienced some earthquake damage as well as well as damage to the grid connection (power lines and substation were not earthquake hardene
Further, "no safe dose" is an unusually irresponsible claim since no other human activity is held to that level of safety. For example, an obvious problem is that even if you accept without evidence as you did here that there is no harmless dose, there is still the matter of how much harm. Just how many people are expected to die of cancer over the next fifty years because of Fukushima? 10? 100? Fukushima would have saved more lives than any number you can come up with during its lifetime.
Good, I think I've had it with you.
I think what's particularly idiotic about your posts is the theater. Yes. Please go away and take your ignorance with you.
Those people have been on the payroll of big ISPs to specifically oppose net neutrality and their opinions are a matter of public record!
Not Roslyn Layton who is the subject of the story. She was "a visiting fellow at the broadband-industry-funded American Enterprise Institute". Which is far from "being on the payroll". After all, the US government is also funded by the broadband industry via taxes. Is President Obama thus on the payroll too?
The story is packed full of innuendo.
Yet another comment sarcastically implying that the rise of hive-mind media prone to witch-hunts is superior to not just the current but all forms of media curated by professionals.
The latter was merely an older version of the former. I find it remarkable how someone can throw around terms like "hive-mind media" while ignoring that the traditional media is that in spades.
For example, there was a time in early 2003 prior to the invasion of Iraq when the traditional US media referred to Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard as "ultra-loyal" even though they never showed any particular feat of loyalty to earn such an extravagant label. It takes a hive-like lack of imagination to allow such a ridiculous phrase to persist for months.
There is no such thing as a safe threshold.
And there is such a thing as a completely unsubstantiated statement too.
We already have to live with an increased background radiation level thanks to those idiots testing these nuclear weapons in the 40's and after, then Chernobyl added some, and here you come saying "that doesn't have a significant effect".
Or those idiots who choose to live above sea level or on top of igneous rock. There's a lot of things that result in higher background radiation levels, for which we don't see a significant effect.
And 'meltdowns being a very rare thing' isn't good enough. The fact that we have had two meltdowns already means that it does happen, contrary to what all those probabilistic risk analyses for the reactor designs have said and have tried to prevent.
You said it right there. "Probabilistic". The point is not to make it completely impossible, but to make it rare enough. The world didn't end when Chernobyl or Fukushima happened. We can handle a rather high rate of ongoing meltdowns without significant change in background radiation levels and our current rate is well below that.
And any rise in background radiation will 'affect' more lives, killing and maiming people and making them ill.
Unless, of course, they don't do that. Unsupported assertions are like that. It's worth noting, of course, that the world has considerable variation in background radiation well beyond any temporary contribution from Fukushima or Chernobyl and that doesn't have a significant effect.
Fukushima and Chernobyl are the empirical proof that all safety analyses and regulations are worthless, hence there is no guaranteed safe nuclear energy, hence we should just choose something else to supply our energy as it's simply too dangerous.
And the fact that there are 400-500 reactors operating in the world today with meltdowns being a very rare thing, are evidence that nuclear power is far less dangerous than you suppose.
And my whole point, if you actually read the stuff I posted, was that human effects, schedule, economic, and possibly corruption was what doomed Fukushima.
And my point is that you are blatantly wrong here.
Somewhere in the slashdot annals I made a plausible location that would at least be safe from the effects of what happened. It is on a river, which would provide proper emergency cooling water, it is above the atitude of historical and rubble line records of Tsunami
And with a sufficiently high sea wall, you can put it in on the coast. You don't need to artificially set aside some of the very best locations on Earth.
I sincerely hope that you are not working in the nuclear industry. Your ideas are interesting to say the least.
I think the huge problem here is that you equate stories and evidence as if they were the same thing. Sure, it is stirring to the emotions that we have this narrative of human corruption, greed, and hubris. Oh, and location. I've seen that movie. It can be fun to watch. But it is fiction for a reason. It doesn't represent reality.
Sure, I could too babble on about that, but I too would be missing some very important points. No other nuclear plant in Japan had significant problems (several of them had been exposed to the earthquake and tsunami as well). TEPCO had a nearby plant which survived the tsunami without significant problem. The very tsunami threat that inundated Fukushima was being evaluated at the time of the accident (and it sounded to me like they would have eventually recommended a higher sea wall for Fukushima which would eventually be built). Of course, there's the obvious that TEPCO may have trained for decades to handle nuclear accidents of this scale, but they had yet to experience one.
And that evaluation process had been delayed because Fukushima was originally going to be shut down (with the first reactor scheduled to shut down the very month that the earthquake hit). Fukushima received a lease on life (and restarted the tsunami threat evaluation) because the generation of nuclear plants that were going to replace Fukushima had all been scuttled in the prior decade and a half.
My view here is that it is not just nuclear operators that need to learn from the experience. You do too. Shoehorning every action of nuclear plant operators into this corrosive narrative is false and harmful to making sound decisions.
but it has the capacity to kill more people than other forms of power generation in the event of a catastrophic failure.
In theory. In practice, hydro power has been far more dangerous for catastrophic failures.
But nuclear energy is so terribly hazardous that one accident can affect life all over the world.
Which, let us note hasn't happened yet. I notice your threshold for "affect" is barely detectable. Well radiation is detectable at levels that are quite irrelevant.
The walls were 100 percent certain to breach, the water was 100 percent going to settle where the emergency generators were.
That's an absurd claim to make. Higher walls and emergency generators protected from the particular failure mode of inundation by a large tsunami both would have worked.
The design itself however, would still be working today if not for the terrible decisions made on siting and building the place.
Notice the two obvious fixes above have nothing to do with location aside from making sure the sea wall was high enough for a 500 year tsunami at that location.
The problem with such a superficial analysis as you gave is that every location is terrible in some way. Instead of trying to find that near perfect spot with no significant flaws, we can just engineer for the problems that good but not perfect locations have.
The sad thing here is that the Fukushima location is even better now for nuclear power since the accident will clear out a lot of potential liability to its future operation. It still has great access to sea water for a cold sink (a huge consideration in nuclear power). And we can engineer for the problems of the location.
They blatantly ignored safety recommendations
When were those recommendations made? Why were the recommendations credible?
Tokyo Electric management was criminal in technically trivial ways that were long known,some obvious to even a beginning engineering student.
None of which turned out to be relevant to the magnitude nine earthquake, the resulting tsunami, the Fukushima accident, or the excessive reaction to the accident.
The industry magazine Nuclear Safety discussed some of these deliberate flaws over 40 years ago in their articles.
So in other words, these "deliberate flaws" were not only irrelevant but ancient.
Personally I think some of the senior management and directors of Tokyo Electric should be stripped of all assets to compensate a small part of their criminally willful acts of greed.
For what crime? There should be a crime first, not merely a bullshit assertion that there was crime. Obviously, the magnitude nine quake and the 15 meter tsunami was not due to TEPCO criminal greed. That leaves stuff like seawall height, generator placement (all the generators were flooded), and TEPCO's response to the accident. And sorry, none of those meet the standards of a crime (things like gross negligence or intent, for example).
Your accusations, supposed by decades out of date sources, are irrelevant because there is no such crime to point to and often, not even a living culprit either.
But the people who received it?
Why ask that question? In the case of Clinton, she enabled this distribution of classified information over her personal email server. She didn't merely receive. Similarly, the complaints about Flynn aren't that he received either.
A dubious news source, the Washington Times, seems to have conflated the two.
Says who? I'll note that there's similar stuff like that from from other sources:
Fox News reported Friday that at least one of Clintonâ(TM)s emails included sensitive information on spies.
âoeIt takes a very conscious effort to move a classified email or cable from the classified systems over to the unsecured open system and then send it to Hillary Clintonâ(TM)s personal email account,â said Raymond Fournier, a veteran Diplomatic Security Service special agent. âoeThatâ(TM)s no less than a two-conscious-step process.â
He says itâ(TM)s clear from some of the classified emails made public that someone on Clintonâ(TM)s staff essentially âoecut and pastedâ content from classified cables into the messages sent to her. The classified markings are gone, but the content is classified at the highest levels â" and so sensitive in nature that âoeit would have been obvious to Clinton.â Most likely the information was, in turn, emailed to her via NIPRNet.
And yes Colin Powell had a private email server just like Hillary did
No, he didn't. Nor did he use his email account for propagating classified information. If the news report is accurate, then Flynn did commit a serious breach.
Whether or not Clinton realized there was classified info on her server there's no reason to think she was trying to share that information with unauthorized recipients (which is the major reason the FBI declined to prosecute).
Intent is irrelevant to a charge of gross negligence.
If Flynn was deliberately sending classified info to unauthorized foreign governments then that's much worse than anything Clinton was accused of.
Depends on the level of classification. Clinton had some documents on her server with very high levels of classification and which she didn't have the authority to declassify because they didn't come from the State Department (satellite images, human intelligence reports).
One of the supposed flunkies happened to be the chairperson of the DNC which was managing those primaries.
but the majority of models are much more tightly clustered within it
You're speaking of models not of reality. The reality is that they currently have huge error bars for the most important parameter in climate research today.
âoeThereâ(TM)s a very obvious precedentâ for this, says Sam Jaffe, managing director of Cairn Energy Research Advisors. âoeThatâ(TM)s Hillary Clinton.â
Jaffe says that whoever is behind the attacks is aiming at Musk personally because they fear he could go into politics. He cited the allegations of fraud (emails) and negligence (Benghazi) levied at Clinton during the presidential campaign, charges that cemented the publicâ(TM)s perception of her as shady. âoeItâ(TM)s the exact same thing as Musk. Thereâ(TM)s a portion of the political spectrum that is scared to death of Musk as politician. They see him as a threat. Theyâ(TM)re starting that process.â
That's absurd. Sure, like many other famous people, Musk might be considering some political role in the future. But if these attacks exist, they're targeting him for a near future reason not some nebulous political agenda. I'd look at his business interests instead.
I notice that one of the alleged "fake news" stories is a singular attack on SolarCity and specifically mentions an election for the Arizona Corporation Commission. Apparently, there has been a split between the members of the commission with one member, Robert "Bob" Burns demanding to know how much money was donated to fellow Republicans from an Arizona utility. It apparently escalated to the point, that three Republicans ran for office as a bloc in 2016, apparently to block Burns from getting reelected (and failed). SolarCity supported Burns's campaign by running ads.
The incumbents are former House Speaker Andy Tobin, appointed in January by Gov. Doug Ducey, and Bob Burns, a former state Senate president who has been on the commission since 2013. The two show little affection, and have battled over Burnsâ(TM) effort to force the stateâ(TM)s largest utility to disclose whether it spent $3.2 million in the 2014 commission election. Arizona Public Service has neither confirmed nor denied it spent the money to back Republicans Tom Forese and Doug Little, who won.
Gray, Melvin and Tobin are running as a team, meaning they can boost their spending power by airing combined ads. Dunn, Burns and Tobin are privately financing their campaigns, while Melvin and Gray are using public money through the Arizona Clean Elections Commission. Democrats Bill Mundell and Tom Chabin also are using public funds.
All four candidates said Burns should drop his effort to force APS to reveal whether it spent in the election, which would constitute a major change in practice from decades of hands-off approaches of the election of commissioners who regulate monopoly utilities.
âoeThis is not about the Corporation Commission â" this is about Bob Burns now trying to get media attention and you guys are giving it to him,â Tobin said in an interview. âoeBut at the end of the day, heâ(TM)s the only guy getting any money at all.â
Tobin was pointing to advertising benefiting Burns that is paid for by an outside group funded by nonregulated company SolarCity. The company has been battling utilitiesâ(TM) efforts to change how rooftop solar customers are paid for electricity they sell back to the utility.
It's a result of the developed world's attitude these days, the attitude of being highly skeptical at best for any big collective action, especially ones with government involvement.
Stuff like this gives them just cause to be skeptical. Funny how the people who are right are the ones getting blamed here.
So you're saying that automation does not represent a reduction in demand for human labor?
Yes. Automation greatly increases not just the productivity of existing jobs, but also the productivity of potential jobs which were previously too low value to be worth doing. For example, with riding lawn mowers, leaf blowers, chain saws, etc, people can landscape more efficiently. This not only results in more efficient landscaping of areas that were already landscaped, but greatly widens what gets landscaped. So now, fast food restaurants and middle class homes can get professional landscaping, not just the multimillionaire with a mansion.
So automation is not just about the current jobs it makes more efficient, which in isolation would represent a decline in demand for human labor, but also a massive increase in the value of previously unviable jobs.
The Schiaparelli EDM lander is an example of the typical one-off missions that humanity does these days. It's worth noting that they could have had built and launched two or more of these vehicles for much less than the first and already be correcting the erroneous code on a second spacecraft. Then they wouldn't have to wait years for a replacement mission and have a much better chance of mission success.
You're talking to a genuine flat earther. He did the experiments to show that the world is flat, but the Freemasons are holding him back.
Yes, you have to wonder why on a mission of this expense and complexity the height about the ground is essentially done by mathematical dead reckoning.
Because it works really well. The other replier, MichaelSmith indicated it had radar as well.
Cite the margin of error
Sensitivity of mean global temperature to a doubling of CO2 is unknown to a factor of three according to the IPCC, the estimate ranges from 1.5 C to 4.5 C.