"United States leases the Guantanamo Bay base area from Cuba. It's under US jurisdiction, but Cuban souvereignty."
No, the US always claims to be leasing it, but the US doesn't pay (they write checks to a Cuban position that no longer exists, and hasn't existed since the revolution). Plus the terms of the lease are in violation of the Vienna Laws on Treaty Conventions. What you have there is simple occupation at the point of a gun to a government that the US doesn't like.
If you're going to discuss Mercedes' vehicles it's important to distinguish between cars built 20 years ago, and Mercedes cars built today. None of the cars built today will ever make it 90 days without going back in for service. They're one of the LEAST reliable vehicles on the road. If you like service room free coffee, buy a Mercedes. (I learned my lesson, and talked to everybody else who also learned THEIR lesson.) Shitty, shitty vehicles today. They can't even keep their supercars on the road without an oil light going on. And it doesn't help that their sales staff think they should have egos.
DO NOT BUY A MODERN MERCEDES!
You don't understand -- the companies are in cohorts which makes sense in context of "the fugal dad" -- clearly a reference to a father playing the flugelhorn with his cohorts. It's very high-level stuff here. When slashdot hires editors someday the puns will be even more brilliant.
Huh. I wonder why they lost $4b in valuation when they did fine management practices like "Give one guy 160 servers to manage" and "have him work 50 hours weeks."
Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. The solar fatality numbers are outright false, they came from anyone in California who ever fell off a roof. And wind and hydro? Puhleeze. Obviously you're including construction fatalities without including uranium mining fatalities for any of your stats. Additionally nuclear never includes unattributed deaths due to cancers -- after all, who can prove the source of a particular cancer?
Krugman got it timed pretty well -- ten years ago. He even predicted the double dip recession:
From 2001:
"Here's my nightmare: America's recovery from its current slump, whenever it comes, is tentative and short-lived, because the business investment that drove our boom in the 1990's remains stagnant. Eventually the housing bubble bursts and we have another slump; then we have another weak recovery, this time driven by deficit spending, but that, too, fades out. Eventually we look around and realize that it's 2009, and the economy still hasn't fully recovered from the slowdown that began at the end of the previous decade."
Wow, Knave, you're really ignorant about yourself.
Your response to a description of a psychological process that affects everyone, and especially those with "poor social skills and superiority complexes" -- is to say "YEAH BUT THEY'RE WRRRROOOOONNNNNGGGG!" Thereby proving his point. You should get some kind of award for being utterly non-self-aware.
Japan should build nuclear reactors on top of geologically freely available and all-but infinite hot water?
That's just crazy. Although I have to give kudos to the GE nuclear plant salesman who first sold that lemon to the Japanese.
"If someone brought up solar power in Finland, they'd rightly be called an idiot, because solar power simply wouldn't work there very well. It's too far north, and there isn't much sunlight."
Gosh, if only Finland had access to the ocean... or if they had some kind of wind! But no...
Oh well, they can't use solar -- I guess they'll have to burn a dead thing for energy or use Rube-Goldberg nuclear. That's their only choice.
While the politicians are proposing the new nuclear plants, maybe the politicians could propose injecting everyone with herpes to guarantee re-election! They're about as popular (with the exception of the third-world and the southern US.)
As you can see, they use fossil fuels for most electrical generation and 30% for nuclear (slighly old numbers, as they've increased renewable generation since then to 17% of their total power generation). Now to put their solar growth alone into perspective, "Germany set a new world record installing 7,400 MW of solar PV in one year. The country also reached a renewable energy electricity penetration of more than 30% on February 7th, 2010." http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011
It has doubled the amount of energy from solar panels and, before their nuclear decision, already targeted to have 35% of electricity generation from from renewables by 2020. So while Luddites tell us that France will be selling nuclear power (which France has to heavily subsidize with taxpayer dollars) France already has 6.7% of its energy generation supplied by renewables with their goal of having at least 20% by 2020.
Meanwhile nuclear plants don't even have their storage issues worked out.
Yeah, first off, they're not using their nuclear plant because it was down for refueling. They're not using their coal plant because it wasn't needed because of all the renewable energy that they've got (150% of load, previously). Thirdly, they don't make a large profit because their profits are rebated back to their customers. Nuclear is dead in the long term because, not only is it unpopular, it simply isn't needed in the long run, no matter what Slashdot says.
Everybody's right and so am I.
on
Bill Gates On Energy
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
So to sum up this thread, and how Slashdot is broken in general.
"Bill Gates is right!"
"I agree."
"You're right and I agree with you."
"Everybody above is right and I agree with them."
Even though the Bonneville Power administration was running 100% with renewables already (without even using microhydro, solar thermal, or tidal), and is making money at it, it's important to notice that Slashdot's mod system says this can't be done.
Exactly. For those who think that the results are the same I'd encourage them to try it. I do switch back to Google occasionally, but for primary sources (ie. anything statistical, anything in the government, anything research related) Google just sucks. Unless you want Wikipedia and blogs, then have at it.
No, Bing got caught incorporating Google's results. And personally, I don't care how Bing's doing it. Their results are better. And yes, Microsoft is scum.
Too late. I already found that with Bing I get primary sources rather than the first search result being Wikipedia followed by a bunch of blogs, so I switched. (And I hate Microsoft.)
I love how something which is being done, ie. power being 100% generated by renewables, today, can still be denied by people who don't want to accept that it is. Reality is no match for anyone's ego gratification. Here's BPA's power output by power source:
"Slow down progress?" That's just terribly obvious framing.
Actually by voting this way they're speeding up progress towards modern renewables. After all, nuclear fission technology is not a "modern" technology, it's over a half century old and it's simply not needed anymore (Bonneville Power Administration shut down its nuclear plant for refueling and their coal plant was shut down because it was unnecessary and still had excess power to export -- 100% from renewables so please, please don't post stupidly about "baseline" power.)
They're in a particularly sunny climate, there are already rolling out solar thermal storage systems so that their solar can generate 24 hours per day, They have tidal sources which France used to generate hundreds of megawatts back in the 60's out of a single installation -- ignoring the efficiency increases of what we can do today.
Fuel is finite, so fuel based sources are out of date. Meanwhile, renewables just keep coming down in price. Solar dropped 20% last year alone, and is expected to drop another 20% this year. Meanwhile, nuclear keeps increasing in cost. Costs for implementation, fuel, owner's costs, massive grid tie-ins, and let's not even discuss the fact that they don't pay for their own insurance and push that on to the public purse in the event of a catastrophe.
So "progress?" I don't think that word means what you think it does. The first world has made it's decision and you can flog the dead horse of nuclear, but the only new adopters will be the third world and powers that want to refine for nuclear weapons, such as arabic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Yes, this music industry will push back, just like Napster.
Just think, they could have controlled the online music industry by now since they owned Napster, instead they gave an entire new industry to Apple.
That's just smart management. And remember, those same geniuses are in charge still.
To put it in perspective, the supercollider cost about $8 billion over ALL its years.
By contrast the nuclear fission industry received $38 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees in a single year, and the CBO projects that it will default on more than half of them. That's about $20 billion in taxpayer money. In one year. And that doesn't include direct subsidies, the eight year federal tax credit, the $2 billion dollar cost overrun fund, and debt waivers.
Slashdot Mirror
That *would* be sleazy -- unless, of course, it's from one of these sanctity-of-marriage assholes.
"United States leases the Guantanamo Bay base area from Cuba. It's under US jurisdiction, but Cuban souvereignty." No, the US always claims to be leasing it, but the US doesn't pay (they write checks to a Cuban position that no longer exists, and hasn't existed since the revolution). Plus the terms of the lease are in violation of the Vienna Laws on Treaty Conventions. What you have there is simple occupation at the point of a gun to a government that the US doesn't like.
If you're going to discuss Mercedes' vehicles it's important to distinguish between cars built 20 years ago, and Mercedes cars built today. None of the cars built today will ever make it 90 days without going back in for service. They're one of the LEAST reliable vehicles on the road. If you like service room free coffee, buy a Mercedes. (I learned my lesson, and talked to everybody else who also learned THEIR lesson.) Shitty, shitty vehicles today. They can't even keep their supercars on the road without an oil light going on. And it doesn't help that their sales staff think they should have egos. DO NOT BUY A MODERN MERCEDES!
You don't understand -- the companies are in cohorts which makes sense in context of "the fugal dad" -- clearly a reference to a father playing the flugelhorn with his cohorts. It's very high-level stuff here. When slashdot hires editors someday the puns will be even more brilliant.
Huh. I wonder why they lost $4b in valuation when they did fine management practices like "Give one guy 160 servers to manage" and "have him work 50 hours weeks."
When those armed men break into a solar plant it's not as big a deal.
Wow, luckily uranium doesn't need to be mined!
Bullshit, bullshit and bullshit. The solar fatality numbers are outright false, they came from anyone in California who ever fell off a roof. And wind and hydro? Puhleeze. Obviously you're including construction fatalities without including uranium mining fatalities for any of your stats. Additionally nuclear never includes unattributed deaths due to cancers -- after all, who can prove the source of a particular cancer?
From 2001:
"Here's my nightmare: America's recovery from its current slump, whenever it comes, is tentative and short-lived, because the business investment that drove our boom in the 1990's remains stagnant. Eventually the housing bubble bursts and we have another slump; then we have another weak recovery, this time driven by deficit spending, but that, too, fades out. Eventually we look around and realize that it's 2009, and the economy still hasn't fully recovered from the slowdown that began at the end of the previous decade."
Your response to a description of a psychological process that affects everyone, and especially those with "poor social skills and superiority complexes" -- is to say "YEAH BUT THEY'RE WRRRROOOOONNNNNGGGG!" Thereby proving his point. You should get some kind of award for being utterly non-self-aware.
Japan should build nuclear reactors on top of geologically freely available and all-but infinite hot water? That's just crazy. Although I have to give kudos to the GE nuclear plant salesman who first sold that lemon to the Japanese.
While the politicians are proposing the new nuclear plants, maybe the politicians could propose injecting everyone with herpes to guarantee re-election! They're about as popular (with the exception of the third-world and the southern US.)
Not even the Senate could reach a human at Google.
http://www.nationmaster.com/country/gm-germany/ene-energy
As you can see, they use fossil fuels for most electrical generation and 30% for nuclear (slighly old numbers, as they've increased renewable generation since then to 17% of their total power generation). Now to put their solar growth alone into perspective, "Germany set a new world record installing 7,400 MW of solar PV in one year. The country also reached a renewable energy electricity penetration of more than 30% on February 7th, 2010." http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010??cmpid=WNL-Wednesday-March30-2011
It has doubled the amount of energy from solar panels and, before their nuclear decision, already targeted to have 35% of electricity generation from from renewables by 2020. So while Luddites tell us that France will be selling nuclear power (which France has to heavily subsidize with taxpayer dollars) France already has 6.7% of its energy generation supplied by renewables with their goal of having at least 20% by 2020.
Meanwhile nuclear plants don't even have their storage issues worked out.
Yeah, first off, they're not using their nuclear plant because it was down for refueling. They're not using their coal plant because it wasn't needed because of all the renewable energy that they've got (150% of load, previously). Thirdly, they don't make a large profit because their profits are rebated back to their customers. Nuclear is dead in the long term because, not only is it unpopular, it simply isn't needed in the long run, no matter what Slashdot says.
So to sum up this thread, and how Slashdot is broken in general. "Bill Gates is right!" "I agree." "You're right and I agree with you." "Everybody above is right and I agree with them." Even though the Bonneville Power administration was running 100% with renewables already (without even using microhydro, solar thermal, or tidal), and is making money at it, it's important to notice that Slashdot's mod system says this can't be done.
Exactly. For those who think that the results are the same I'd encourage them to try it. I do switch back to Google occasionally, but for primary sources (ie. anything statistical, anything in the government, anything research related) Google just sucks. Unless you want Wikipedia and blogs, then have at it.
No, Bing got caught incorporating Google's results. And personally, I don't care how Bing's doing it. Their results are better. And yes, Microsoft is scum.
Too late. I already found that with Bing I get primary sources rather than the first search result being Wikipedia followed by a bunch of blogs, so I switched. (And I hate Microsoft.)
I love how something which is being done, ie. power being 100% generated by renewables, today, can still be denied by people who don't want to accept that it is. Reality is no match for anyone's ego gratification. Here's BPA's power output by power source:
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
They're in a particularly sunny climate, there are already rolling out solar thermal storage systems so that their solar can generate 24 hours per day, They have tidal sources which France used to generate hundreds of megawatts back in the 60's out of a single installation -- ignoring the efficiency increases of what we can do today.
Fuel is finite, so fuel based sources are out of date. Meanwhile, renewables just keep coming down in price. Solar dropped 20% last year alone, and is expected to drop another 20% this year. Meanwhile, nuclear keeps increasing in cost. Costs for implementation, fuel, owner's costs, massive grid tie-ins, and let's not even discuss the fact that they don't pay for their own insurance and push that on to the public purse in the event of a catastrophe.
So "progress?" I don't think that word means what you think it does. The first world has made it's decision and you can flog the dead horse of nuclear, but the only new adopters will be the third world and powers that want to refine for nuclear weapons, such as arabic countries, Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Just think, they could have controlled the online music industry by now since they owned Napster, instead they gave an entire new industry to Apple. That's just smart management. And remember, those same geniuses are in charge still.
That's why they get the big money.
To put it in perspective, the supercollider cost about $8 billion over ALL its years. By contrast the nuclear fission industry received $38 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees in a single year, and the CBO projects that it will default on more than half of them. That's about $20 billion in taxpayer money. In one year. And that doesn't include direct subsidies, the eight year federal tax credit, the $2 billion dollar cost overrun fund, and debt waivers.
...off the roof of a building!
Now when the same problems cause a second leak we can 100% confirm those problems are the cause!
How else will we address the third leak?