Imagine the description of what happened to you if one of those Republican-style private corporations controlled SSN cards or the DMV.
Why would we do that? Imagine you letting a Republican-style private corporation chop out your organs and sell them to the highest bidder? I can't imagine that either. There are some dumb things we just won't allow corporations to do. What I consider stupid is the idea that it's ok if the government does it (or often, lets Republican-style corporations do it as proxy).
They'd rob you blind then try to steal everything you have. Everything you have.
If that's a problem, then don't use those services. Don't be a blind idiot is always good advice.
Glancing at the Wikipedia page, it appears that Dvorak scale goes crudely as a power (~1.25) of the velocity (1 minute sustained). The "theoretical maximum strength" is just bunk.
I believe this is something to brag about from a distance. Here's hoping it doesn't stall, break some dams, or do any of the other nasty stuff that powerful hurricanes can do.
Won't happen. If they won't do that with North Korea, a deeply crippled state, then why are they going to do that with the next superpower? Let us keep in mind that the US currently gets away with a lot of stuff. China in a few decades will have similar power. I just don't see this sort of incomplete discussion as remotely useful.
A sane response would be to consider other more achievable levels and the cost/benefit of each one. Pushing only one option, which no one is going to do at these catastrophic reductions in economic activity, is insane in the sense of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
If the world is to avoid severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts (PDF), carbon emissions must decrease quickly.
There are two problems with this supposition. First, that it is correct in its characterization. The IPCC has consistently exaggerated existing research (example) and uncritically incorporated bad research (original "hockey stick" paper) in order to spin this very tale. Second, they ignore that humanity has other priorities than just curbing greenhouse gases emissions (such as reducing poverty - current mitigation efforts have a nasty side effect of increasing poverty which in turn can make mitigation harder to achieve or scuttle it altogether).
It continues to annoy me that we have this organization telling us what to do when it's clear that they're pursuing ulterior motives in doing so and ignoring the various priorities that the rest of humanity has.
And don't get me started on the ineffectiveness of current mitigation efforts.
Wind cannot stop blowing everywhere on the continent, no matter what.
Except when it does. Sure, it'll be less common than for smaller regions, but there's evidence from Europe's experience that you can see significant becalming over a whole continent. Also, the local surpluses and deficits mean you either have to overbuild your grid in addition or put in enough local storage or variable generation/consumption to smooth out wind power variation.
Still not going to cut it. You have to substantially reduce the cost as well. That means either figuring out how to do the fancy tech cheaper, or more likely redo the whole mess with technology that is more affordable.
Progress has actually been staggering -- the state-of-the-art in fusion triple-product has grown faster than Moore's Law for decades.
Still could have been faster if we were serious about it.
So how are they heating up the plasma? The discussion of the comparison with the tokamak talks a lot about the instability of the latter, but not much about how they'll replace the heating mechanism (the pulsing of the plasma, is supposedly replaced with something more steady).
With consideration to the Pacific plate and how active that has become over the last couple months
It's probably as active as it normally is over the past 100 million years. And it's worth noting that Japan has already shown that nuclear plants can be placed near seismically active areas. You just need to have the proper safeguards in place.
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time.
And if we look at actual CF for wind power as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, it's firmly around 30% with some a little higher and some a little lower.
So what: the people living there are pretty close and get in relation to you quite high doses.
Where's the evidence to back that assertion? It's worth noting here that one of the big problems with the research discussed here is that they haven't shown that there is a connection between the claimed increase in thyroid cancer cases and exposure to radiation from any source including Fukushima.
But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
Two weeks ago, when this story broke on Slashdot, we fellow Slashdotters told you there were serious problems with the research such as absence of control groups, no actual evidence for a difference in thyroid cancer rates, and no demonstrated correlation with radiation exposure even if we did assume there was a difference in thyroid cancer rates.
Now, the experts are telling you the same thing. When are you going to get the clue?
The difference is that at least with gov't you take a good chunk of the profit motive out.
And of course, you think that is a bad thing.
The way I see gov't, especially central gov't is this: It's a tool. A dangerous tool. But what other tool has the raw power to stand up to a mega corp?
You do. Megacorps aren't that powerful. Stop buying their stuff. If one really, truly went beyond the pale, its employees could quickly sabotage it into non existence. This fear of business is profoundly misguided. And frankly, I think it's encouraged to deflect attention from government power grabs.
I think you meant "we would only have a couple hundred years to sit on our asses denying that an eruption could ever happen, and even if it did erupt there's nothing we could do about it anyhow".
Why would anyone bother? The eruption wouldn't force us to curb our evil industrial activities so there's nothing there to turn it into the moralistic wankfest that is climate change.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine the description of what happened to you if one of those Republican-style private corporations controlled SSN cards or the DMV.
Why would we do that? Imagine you letting a Republican-style private corporation chop out your organs and sell them to the highest bidder? I can't imagine that either. There are some dumb things we just won't allow corporations to do. What I consider stupid is the idea that it's ok if the government does it (or often, lets Republican-style corporations do it as proxy).
They'd rob you blind then try to steal everything you have. Everything you have.
If that's a problem, then don't use those services. Don't be a blind idiot is always good advice.
Glancing at the Wikipedia page, it appears that Dvorak scale goes crudely as a power (~1.25) of the velocity (1 minute sustained). The "theoretical maximum strength" is just bunk.
And you are responsible for more than half of what's up there.
Last I heard the US is around 30% and that share is dropping.
I believe this is something to brag about from a distance. Here's hoping it doesn't stall, break some dams, or do any of the other nasty stuff that powerful hurricanes can do.
Won't happen. If they won't do that with North Korea, a deeply crippled state, then why are they going to do that with the next superpower? Let us keep in mind that the US currently gets away with a lot of stuff. China in a few decades will have similar power. I just don't see this sort of incomplete discussion as remotely useful.
And that's why the USA's economy was dead between 1946 and 1964 when the top tax bracket was 91%.
There were plenty of loopholes. The rich probably paid a little more than they do now.
A sane response would be to consider other more achievable levels and the cost/benefit of each one. Pushing only one option, which no one is going to do at these catastrophic reductions in economic activity, is insane in the sense of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
China is responsible for half of current greenhouse gases emissions increases. You don't have them on board, then you don't have a discussion.
If the world is to avoid severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts (PDF), carbon emissions must decrease quickly.
There are two problems with this supposition. First, that it is correct in its characterization. The IPCC has consistently exaggerated existing research (example) and uncritically incorporated bad research (original "hockey stick" paper) in order to spin this very tale. Second, they ignore that humanity has other priorities than just curbing greenhouse gases emissions (such as reducing poverty - current mitigation efforts have a nasty side effect of increasing poverty which in turn can make mitigation harder to achieve or scuttle it altogether).
It continues to annoy me that we have this organization telling us what to do when it's clear that they're pursuing ulterior motives in doing so and ignoring the various priorities that the rest of humanity has.
And don't get me started on the ineffectiveness of current mitigation efforts.
Wind cannot stop blowing everywhere on the continent, no matter what.
Except when it does. Sure, it'll be less common than for smaller regions, but there's evidence from Europe's experience that you can see significant becalming over a whole continent. Also, the local surpluses and deficits mean you either have to overbuild your grid in addition or put in enough local storage or variable generation/consumption to smooth out wind power variation.
I totally expected that.
When ITER ignites a plasma early next decade
Still not going to cut it. You have to substantially reduce the cost as well. That means either figuring out how to do the fancy tech cheaper, or more likely redo the whole mess with technology that is more affordable.
Progress has actually been staggering -- the state-of-the-art in fusion triple-product has grown faster than Moore's Law for decades.
Still could have been faster if we were serious about it.
We know more now than then. It wouldn't be compliant now.
So how are they heating up the plasma? The discussion of the comparison with the tokamak talks a lot about the instability of the latter, but not much about how they'll replace the heating mechanism (the pulsing of the plasma, is supposedly replaced with something more steady).
With consideration to the Pacific plate and how active that has become over the last couple months
It's probably as active as it normally is over the past 100 million years. And it's worth noting that Japan has already shown that nuclear plants can be placed near seismically active areas. You just need to have the proper safeguards in place.
Sorry, I thought I was still in the thyroid cancer story which is a few up from this one.
. Their CF is around 140%.
By definition, it will never be greater than 100%.
The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of its actual output over a period of time, to its potential output if it were possible for it to operate at full nameplate capacity continuously over the same period of time.
And if we look at actual CF for wind power as mentioned in the Wikipedia article, it's firmly around 30% with some a little higher and some a little lower.
So what: the people living there are pretty close and get in relation to you quite high doses.
Where's the evidence to back that assertion? It's worth noting here that one of the big problems with the research discussed here is that they haven't shown that there is a connection between the claimed increase in thyroid cancer cases and exposure to radiation from any source including Fukushima.
But now that a study shows the possibility of thyroid cancer in children, the "experts" say it's too early to tell. So why did they not say that when the claim was being made that there was no effect?
Two weeks ago, when this story broke on Slashdot, we fellow Slashdotters told you there were serious problems with the research such as absence of control groups, no actual evidence for a difference in thyroid cancer rates, and no demonstrated correlation with radiation exposure even if we did assume there was a difference in thyroid cancer rates.
Now, the experts are telling you the same thing. When are you going to get the clue?
He posted ... so chance is he exists.
Doesn't work that way. I could have written the original post and then sanctimoniously replied to it.
It is a well known fact that the whole island is contaminated ... you find isotopes of the incident everywhere.
We'll all contaminated with barely detectable levels of radiation from several sources, including Fukushima. So what?
The difference is that at least with gov't you take a good chunk of the profit motive out.
And of course, you think that is a bad thing.
The way I see gov't, especially central gov't is this: It's a tool. A dangerous tool. But what other tool has the raw power to stand up to a mega corp?
You do. Megacorps aren't that powerful. Stop buying their stuff. If one really, truly went beyond the pale, its employees could quickly sabotage it into non existence. This fear of business is profoundly misguided. And frankly, I think it's encouraged to deflect attention from government power grabs.
" or we'll cut funding to the safety controls in the name of 'cutting waste and pork' until there's an accident"
Ok, which Russian bureaucrat said that?
I live there
Unless, of course, you don't actually exist.
As opposed to the wankfest that is climate change denial, possibly?
Yes. I think that's generally portrayed as reactionary.
I think you meant "we would only have a couple hundred years to sit on our asses denying that an eruption could ever happen, and even if it did erupt there's nothing we could do about it anyhow".
Why would anyone bother? The eruption wouldn't force us to curb our evil industrial activities so there's nothing there to turn it into the moralistic wankfest that is climate change.