If those were alpha particles of helium, for example, you'd have all sorts of problems
You know what happens when you take a whiff of a bag of alpha particles? You talk funny for a few seconds. What makes alpha radiation dangerous isn't that they are alpha particles, but that they're alpha particles with lots of kinetic energy, enough to ionize any cells they happen to run into.
The fact that you would spew out words like "nanoparticles" and then completely ignore the consequences makes me think you were trying to sound smarter than you really are. Judging by your posting history, I don't blame you.
Like the "fact" that you would spew out words like "alpha particles"? I find it interesting how many people do the things of which they accuse me in the very post in which they make the accusation.
I see no evidence of any "consequences" to breathing in small amounts of small particles of plastics, especially inert and decomposable stuff like polyethylene. I think it's ridiculous that people are so overwrought over this story.
And I didn't use the odious term, "nanoparticles" because I wanted to look clever, but because that was the term used in the summary.
You really are a don't-give-a-fuck-about-anybody-else kind of guy, aren't you?
You would be wrong here. But I'm used to the clueless making that sort of accusation.
Just think of the other applications! Use those people who are "going to die in a couple of years" to go clean out the asbestos from old buildings! Use them for carcinogenic chemical spills!
Ok, I'm thinking of it. What's the problem here? I see the problem being that you never bother to change the clean up process so that it doesn't harm people. That's not an issue with Fukushima because it was a one time thing.
Are you trolling, or do you really believe certain classes of people are objects to be used up to their maximum profit?
Well, how about you? I have just as much reason to believe you hold that belief.
It was well known that the seawall was insufficient to contain a tsunami of known historical magnitude.
There's no evidence for this assertion, particularly at the time the plant was designed and built, Instead, the first time that TEPCO seems to have considered this was back in 2008.
They didn't fix the wall in order to save money, and just hoped they would get lucky.
Which incidentally is a good strategy for a nuclear plant that was scheduled for decommissioning starting the very month that the earthquake happened!
Science and statistics are far more capable than your naive counting approach.
"Naive counting approach" is just a scientific tool like reason. If something fails the "naive counting approach" then it probably isn't scientific or statistics.
Greater fool theory - someone dumber than me is going to buy my AAPL from me. Just because we can value a business rationally doesn't mean everyone does. Those that don't get amply rewarded for their ignorance.
It's worth remembering here that he died too early to be affected by his mild radiation exposure from the Fukushima accident. And frankly, otherwise healthy people who are going to die in a couple of years would be ideal for dealing with radiation releases like Fukushima.
And how long will that exclusion zone be uninhabitable except by rats?
It's worth noting that no such zone exists for Fukushima. Even if Japan continues to block habitation of the land around Fukushima, it can still be used for industrial purposes. For example, it'd be a great place to put a bunch of nuclear plants.
Quite a few children living near Fukushima are now showing growths on their thyroids too
It's worth remembering here that quite a few children would be showing growths on their thyroids even in the absence of any exposure to radiation from a nuclear accident. The key factor is that people are actually looking now. What makes this observation noteworthy rather than just another mundane case of observation bias?
Well, if you're going to play that semantics game, then let us note that the worst, most tyrannical, bloodthirsty corporations just happened to be of the form labeled "government".
Even without the tsunami it would have been bad enough to cause at least one meltdown.
No, with the cooling system still active, none of the reactors would have been in danger of meltdown because they would have never gotten hot enough to boil water. As evidence consider that there were many other reactors effected by this earthquake as well. For example, 11 reactors scrammed during the earthquake. None of these other reactors came close to a meltdown.
How about the exaggerations of the effects of global warming? Or just about anything said about "extreme weather" especially when claiming definitive proof of global warming. A recent example was the claim that Hurricane Sandy was a 1 in 700 year event even though we have at best 150 years of records to back that claim (meaning you can't really claim a frequency o f occurrence of less than 1 in 150 years). Even if that is a true statement, we still don't know how many 1 in 700 year trajectories there are that go through New York City (but it's enough that they get a hurricane every five years even in the absence of global warming).
At least,we're not all a bunch of chicken littles. As to this so-called "knee jerk" reaction, it's worth noting that the concerns of the story are pretty stupid. The human body and its teeming hordes of parasites (such as dust mites and viruses), for a near and dear example, is a huge generator of harmful nanoparticles. We call this stuff names like "dust allergies" and "communicable diseases".
Factor in that it's not just your own activities you have to worry about, but neighbours etc
No, you don't. You might not have noticed, but this world is chock full of floating nanoparticles. We call them "dust", "pollen", "smoke", etc. Our lungs have similarly evolved to deal with these particles. I think it is quite senseless to get up in arms over the minuscule supply of particles from your neighbor's 3D printing machine while ignoring the vast swarm of particles coming from the dust mites living on your skin and environment.
There are several. Net income is one such value. The company can also be valued for its assets. if it's stock market value drops below that, then one can make money merely by buying the business and selling off its assets. The business might be of substantial value to another either because its something well, which the other party needs, or because its removal or absorption increases the market share and pricing power of the second party.
Proxy wars would have happened anyway. There were a number of them in the Second World War where the main powers fought each other directly - for example, Allied support for numerous partisan groups through the occupied Axis territories.
You're just trying to fuck up the planet...again. We don't need more power, we need to use less power.
How about you show us how wonderful your ideas are by not doing anything to "try to fuck up" the planet?Say starting by using that resource intensive internet?
The net sum of water available on earth fluctuates greatly from day to day.
No, it doesn't. For if that were true, we'd see large scale changes in sea level from day to day. We don't because there is vastly more water on Earth than is created or destroyed by these little processes.
Trajectories are continuous and the criteria for good trajectories are nearly so. So you can alter your trajectories in a small, finite number of ways to see what yields better outcomes (it's just like using the gradient method) and incrementally build a locally optimal trajectory.
How do you "brute-force" a solution to a problem whose initial conditions form a continuous R^n space?
You can approximate the thrust profile by a finite dimensional vector of real values (say 100 bursts of thrust over a given period for about 400 numbers, plus perhaps timing delays between burst). Then randomly generate vectors and keep the trajectories that best fit automated test criteria. It's rather easy actually.
On the use of the term, "force", I'll just note that I see a town like I see a tool. It is something meant to be used and to be lived in. When you deliberated do something that makes it less useful, say like molding an odd grip on a hammer so that one has to hold the hammer in an odd and clumsy way in order to use it, then that is something that doesn't make sense to me. And I think it makes sense semantically to speak of forcing the user to do something. It's conditional on the use of the thing.
The OP at the very top said "liberal experiment in central planning failed". Then the reply was that there were successful planned cities. You then came in asking for examples and say such cities have problems, one of which is that people have to adapt instead of other way around
Such cities have unusual problems. For example, Washington, DC has unusual levels of crime due to its political status. Brasilia has the problem that it exists only because it can siphon resources from Brazil. Without the government apparatus, it's just another small, backwater town. With that parasitic apparatus, it's the fifth largest city in Brazil and the fastest growing of those largest cities.
Here's where I come in, pointing out that people having to adapt (to cities or pretty much anything else) is a feature, not a bug. Adaptation is something one is faced with outside of central planning. Central planning does not remove it, but simply shuffles and trades what you're adapting against.
The problem here is that the central planners of many of these projects are acting contrary to the wishes of the residents even though they don't have to. Residents have to adapt to quirks and obstacles that could simply be removed by the planners for a lot less collective effort.
Slashdot Mirror
If those were alpha particles of helium, for example, you'd have all sorts of problems
You know what happens when you take a whiff of a bag of alpha particles? You talk funny for a few seconds. What makes alpha radiation dangerous isn't that they are alpha particles, but that they're alpha particles with lots of kinetic energy, enough to ionize any cells they happen to run into.
The fact that you would spew out words like "nanoparticles" and then completely ignore the consequences makes me think you were trying to sound smarter than you really are. Judging by your posting history, I don't blame you.
Like the "fact" that you would spew out words like "alpha particles"? I find it interesting how many people do the things of which they accuse me in the very post in which they make the accusation.
I see no evidence of any "consequences" to breathing in small amounts of small particles of plastics, especially inert and decomposable stuff like polyethylene. I think it's ridiculous that people are so overwrought over this story.
And I didn't use the odious term, "nanoparticles" because I wanted to look clever, but because that was the term used in the summary.
You really are a don't-give-a-fuck-about-anybody-else kind of guy, aren't you?
You would be wrong here. But I'm used to the clueless making that sort of accusation.
Just think of the other applications! Use those people who are "going to die in a couple of years" to go clean out the asbestos from old buildings! Use them for carcinogenic chemical spills!
Ok, I'm thinking of it. What's the problem here? I see the problem being that you never bother to change the clean up process so that it doesn't harm people. That's not an issue with Fukushima because it was a one time thing.
Are you trolling, or do you really believe certain classes of people are objects to be used up to their maximum profit?
Well, how about you? I have just as much reason to believe you hold that belief.
I like that! Doubling down on Fukushima.
But you don't live there, do you?
Nobody does, remember? And the second "bet" is automatically less risky because nobody lives there any more.
It was well known that the seawall was insufficient to contain a tsunami of known historical magnitude.
There's no evidence for this assertion, particularly at the time the plant was designed and built, Instead, the first time that TEPCO seems to have considered this was back in 2008.
They didn't fix the wall in order to save money, and just hoped they would get lucky.
Which incidentally is a good strategy for a nuclear plant that was scheduled for decommissioning starting the very month that the earthquake happened!
Science and statistics are far more capable than your naive counting approach.
"Naive counting approach" is just a scientific tool like reason. If something fails the "naive counting approach" then it probably isn't scientific or statistics.
Greater fool theory - someone dumber than me is going to buy my AAPL from me. Just because we can value a business rationally doesn't mean everyone does. Those that don't get amply rewarded for their ignorance.
It's worth remembering here that he died too early to be affected by his mild radiation exposure from the Fukushima accident. And frankly, otherwise healthy people who are going to die in a couple of years would be ideal for dealing with radiation releases like Fukushima.
And how long will that exclusion zone be uninhabitable except by rats?
It's worth noting that no such zone exists for Fukushima. Even if Japan continues to block habitation of the land around Fukushima, it can still be used for industrial purposes. For example, it'd be a great place to put a bunch of nuclear plants.
Quite a few children living near Fukushima are now showing growths on their thyroids too
It's worth remembering here that quite a few children would be showing growths on their thyroids even in the absence of any exposure to radiation from a nuclear accident. The key factor is that people are actually looking now. What makes this observation noteworthy rather than just another mundane case of observation bias?
Well, if you're going to play that semantics game, then let us note that the worst, most tyrannical, bloodthirsty corporations just happened to be of the form labeled "government".
Fukushima was run by capitalists, and it failed partly due to incompetence and greed
Where's the evidence? What failure of Fukushima can be attributed to incompetence and greed?
Even without the tsunami it would have been bad enough to cause at least one meltdown.
No, with the cooling system still active, none of the reactors would have been in danger of meltdown because they would have never gotten hot enough to boil water. As evidence consider that there were many other reactors effected by this earthquake as well. For example, 11 reactors scrammed during the earthquake. None of these other reactors came close to a meltdown.
How about the exaggerations of the effects of global warming? Or just about anything said about "extreme weather" especially when claiming definitive proof of global warming. A recent example was the claim that Hurricane Sandy was a 1 in 700 year event even though we have at best 150 years of records to back that claim (meaning you can't really claim a frequency o f occurrence of less than 1 in 150 years). Even if that is a true statement, we still don't know how many 1 in 700 year trajectories there are that go through New York City (but it's enough that they get a hurricane every five years even in the absence of global warming).
At least ,we're not all a bunch of chicken littles. As to this so-called "knee jerk" reaction, it's worth noting that the concerns of the story are pretty stupid. The human body and its teeming hordes of parasites (such as dust mites and viruses), for a near and dear example, is a huge generator of harmful nanoparticles. We call this stuff names like "dust allergies" and "communicable diseases".
Factor in that it's not just your own activities you have to worry about, but neighbours etc
No, you don't. You might not have noticed, but this world is chock full of floating nanoparticles. We call them "dust", "pollen", "smoke", etc. Our lungs have similarly evolved to deal with these particles. I think it is quite senseless to get up in arms over the minuscule supply of particles from your neighbor's 3D printing machine while ignoring the vast swarm of particles coming from the dust mites living on your skin and environment.
There are several. Net income is one such value. The company can also be valued for its assets. if it's stock market value drops below that, then one can make money merely by buying the business and selling off its assets. The business might be of substantial value to another either because its something well, which the other party needs, or because its removal or absorption increases the market share and pricing power of the second party.
Proxy wars would have happened anyway. There were a number of them in the Second World War where the main powers fought each other directly - for example, Allied support for numerous partisan groups through the occupied Axis territories.
You're just trying to fuck up the planet...again. We don't need more power, we need to use less power.
How about you show us how wonderful your ideas are by not doing anything to "try to fuck up" the planet?Say starting by using that resource intensive internet?
That doesn't sound like brute force though.
Ok, randomly generate thrust vectors and keep the best trajectories found.
Because, of course, planning for a few decades in the future costs money and requires political will.
I refuse to consider this chicken little bullshit as "planning" for anything.
The net sum of water available on earth fluctuates greatly from day to day.
No, it doesn't. For if that were true, we'd see large scale changes in sea level from day to day. We don't because there is vastly more water on Earth than is created or destroyed by these little processes.
Trajectories are continuous and the criteria for good trajectories are nearly so. So you can alter your trajectories in a small, finite number of ways to see what yields better outcomes (it's just like using the gradient method) and incrementally build a locally optimal trajectory.
How do you "brute-force" a solution to a problem whose initial conditions form a continuous R^n space?
You can approximate the thrust profile by a finite dimensional vector of real values (say 100 bursts of thrust over a given period for about 400 numbers, plus perhaps timing delays between burst). Then randomly generate vectors and keep the trajectories that best fit automated test criteria. It's rather easy actually.
The OP at the very top said "liberal experiment in central planning failed". Then the reply was that there were successful planned cities. You then came in asking for examples and say such cities have problems, one of which is that people have to adapt instead of other way around
Such cities have unusual problems. For example, Washington, DC has unusual levels of crime due to its political status. Brasilia has the problem that it exists only because it can siphon resources from Brazil. Without the government apparatus, it's just another small, backwater town. With that parasitic apparatus, it's the fifth largest city in Brazil and the fastest growing of those largest cities.
Here's where I come in, pointing out that people having to adapt (to cities or pretty much anything else) is a feature, not a bug. Adaptation is something one is faced with outside of central planning. Central planning does not remove it, but simply shuffles and trades what you're adapting against.
The problem here is that the central planners of many of these projects are acting contrary to the wishes of the residents even though they don't have to. Residents have to adapt to quirks and obstacles that could simply be removed by the planners for a lot less collective effort.
But anyway, people are not animals and can overcome their physical (and more harder the mental) limitations. So the comparison don't make sense.
Well, Microsoft apparently can't overcome its inability to make a marketable hardware product yet it keeps trying.