But even drawn pictures can have a sexual or erotic intention.
But nobody has been violated to create them.
(I won't get into whether a full body scan counts as violation. And of course not all nude images are automatically pornographic. What about holiday photos from naturists?)
London had 300 knife incidents on the Underground in a week.
Given I've used the Tube nearly every day for the best part of 15 years at all hours of the day and have never seen a single incident, knife-related or not, you are going to have to back that claim up.
The Tube is pretty big. There could easily be 300 stabbings a day without you ever encountering one. (Also, I think "in a week" implies it may not have happened every week for the past 15 years.)
Of course a citation is always nice. I'm just putting your anecdotal evidence into perspective, not saying either of you is right or wrong.
I would guess your attention from UK recruiters, and possibly your hirability, are due to their staggering abuse of keyword searching. [...] If you have a cv posted somewhere with nice keywords like 'ASP.NET 7 years commercial' (my condolances if you do) you probably catch a lot of searches regardless of anything else in there.
No ASP.NET for me fortunately, but Java, C++ and Ruby. And I also list every language that I still want to learn. That probably helps me to show up in lots of searches, and also shows them I'm eager to learn.
That's a good tip about the blogging. I'm employed out of the tech field at the moment, and my Google presence is weak. Obviously a tech blog isn't a quick fix but it would be a good way to expose my abilities which aren't tied to a job description.
I don't know how big the effect of just any blog really is, but I know several people who've been hired because they were very active in open source communities (ASF mostly), and soon we're going to hire an active Grails blogger as consultant.
It probably helps to get your name out there, but it helps even more to showcase your technical skills.
Phone interviews (and email, for that matter) are a very sensible way to start. Smart companies will want to filter candidates at a distance too before they invest too much time in them.
(Only recruiters want you speaking to the company as soon as possible, even if you have no idea what the company has to offer.)
Netherland. Just across the North Sea from you, and can get along fine speaking just English here.
I'm constantly approached by UK-based headhunters trying to place me at a Dutch company, by the way. What's with that? Why don't they focus on UK companies and let Dutch recruiters handle the Dutch market?
It's been picking up for the last six months or so, but before that there were no entry or low level jobs.
It's quite possible that it's a lot harder for entry-level jobs. I find myself wondering if it's possible that my work experience crossed some threshold that makes me extra attractive to prospective employers (or recruiters, at least).
I get the feeling it's picking up now and the graduates with impeccable academic records can get work in random 'need a geek' positions; there's still a glut of generic untapped potential though which will take a while to get soaked back into employment.
Then it's probably wise not to be too picky for your first job. Get something that's workable and keep looking for something better. In the mean time, work on FOSS projects and blog about your experience there. Tech bloggers and FOSS committers are popular hires where I live, even when they come straight out of college. As long as what they say is smart, and what they write is good.
(Also, if someone ever asks you what you were paid at your previous job, tell them what you expect to be paid by them instead.)
This is really something that needed to be said, and it deserves to be modded up to +5. Heat is not an issue, it's only carbon emissions (and methane, to a lesser extend) that really matter..
No, it traps solar energy from the sun, that would otherwise be reflected back towards space.
There is atmosphere above Arizona, you know. So the energy would be reflected into the atmosphere.
Also, hot air does already rise from deserts. And 2400 feet is actually less than a kilometer. Not exactly upper atmosphere yet. This tower doesn't do much that doesn't already happen naturally, except it generates electricity from all that rising air.
Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.
Really? Only 8 times? I've noticed that nuclear fanboys on slashdot always compare nuclear to the worst technology out there. It's less polluting than coal, and it uses less land than solar. If I'm to believe you guys, nuclear must be pretty awful technology.
You don't think that the fact that lower efficiency solar plants require much more space and resources to construct has anything to do with cost? 1) land isn't free 2) neither are the materials used to make the plant
That's part of the cost, isn't it? It's about efficiency per dollar, not efficiency per square meter. And yes, the dollars spent on that square meter are part of that equation.
This is why there is a fair amount of R&D funding going into using mirrors to focus solar energy on to solar cell arrays.
That's about reducing cost. You're only supporting the GP's claim. And rightly so, because he is correct. We have far more unused desert than we'll ever need to supply the entire planet with abundant solar power, even when that energy is being generated at awfully low efficiency.
The total volume is waste is tiny, and it's not that dangerous. It's not more dangerous than the output of other industrial sites like oil refineries and solvent plants.
But the original question was: how does it compare to solar?
(But saying nuclear is comparable to some of the most dirty and polluting industries out there is not exactly going to win me over anyway.)
A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable. What is the benefit here?
The uranium from those 50 acres will quickly run out, and then you need 50 more acres to get more uranium. Sunlight is replenished for free every second of the day.
Solved... put photovoltaic cells under the green house. More efficient in land use than either one alone.
But less efficient than using them both seperate from each other. There's lots of unused desert. At the moment it's more a matter of efficiency per invested dollar than one of efficiency per surface area.
Given that the Greens are already opposing solar plants in desert locations
I call bullshit. If environmental activists are protesting in a desert location, are they not Browns?
I don't recognise your reference, but I was thinking of the Reds (from Green Mars). They want to keep the desert barren like it was, rather than turning it into a living planet. You're certainly not much of a "Green" if you're against sustainable energy from an otherwise practically barren and unused location.
Dumping hot air into the upper atmosphere cools the Earth. As air is circulated higher up it more readily radiates energy out into space, bypassing some fraction of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere.
I'm no atmospheric physycist, but this sounds incredibly compelling, actually. So should we build bigger solar chimneys and send more hot air into the upper atmosphere, generating free electricity while cooling the earth at the same time?
It's a greenhouse. It has no heaters other than concentrating the sun's warmth. Have you and the moderators lost all sense of reality, forgotten what words mean, gone cuckoo?
I think it's the word "greenhouse" that's confusing people. It sounds similar to "greenhouse effect", and therefore must be bad.
The difference is of course that this greenhouse concentrates heat underneath the solar chimney instead of allowing it to be radiated back into the atmosphere, whereas the global atmospheric greenhouse effect concentrated heat in our atmosphere instead of allowing it to be radiated back into space.
No, the best tech people are the ones that solve the problems that their business needs solved.
There's a lot more than merely solving current problems. It's just as valuable to be able to anticipate future problems and opportunities, and for that, you need to know which way the wind blows. You don't learn that ticking off issues at the office.
My anecdotal evidence suggests the job market is in better shape than ever before. I had no problem finding a new job with a significant pay raise (and had to disappoint several very interesting employers). The previous crisis (in 2002) hit my sector very hard, but this time it seems to be everybody else's turn.
Or maybe it's my country, and it's different in the US? Then the best advice is to look across the border. Immigration is usually easy when it's for a well-paying job.
IT is used in a multitude of different ways. And then there's ICT, which is probably not quite the same, but I have no idea what the difference really is. Lots of people consider me to be an ITer, despite the fact that I hate hardware, networks and other infrastructure. I build websites and other software. But there's no quick acronym for that.
Slashdot Mirror
I am surprised that someone would want to use something as old as opengl. I bet those people still read their mail with elm, pine and mail.
You have no idea. My computer still uses TCP/IP!
But even drawn pictures can have a sexual or erotic intention.
But nobody has been violated to create them.
(I won't get into whether a full body scan counts as violation. And of course not all nude images are automatically pornographic. What about holiday photos from naturists?)
London had 300 knife incidents on the Underground in a week.
Given I've used the Tube nearly every day for the best part of 15 years at all hours of the day and have never seen a single incident, knife-related or not, you are going to have to back that claim up.
The Tube is pretty big. There could easily be 300 stabbings a day without you ever encountering one. (Also, I think "in a week" implies it may not have happened every week for the past 15 years.)
Of course a citation is always nice. I'm just putting your anecdotal evidence into perspective, not saying either of you is right or wrong.
You are entirely correct.
I would guess your attention from UK recruiters, and possibly your hirability, are due to their staggering abuse of keyword searching. [...] If you have a cv posted somewhere with nice keywords like 'ASP.NET 7 years commercial' (my condolances if you do) you probably catch a lot of searches regardless of anything else in there.
No ASP.NET for me fortunately, but Java, C++ and Ruby. And I also list every language that I still want to learn. That probably helps me to show up in lots of searches, and also shows them I'm eager to learn.
That's a good tip about the blogging. I'm employed out of the tech field at the moment, and my Google presence is weak. Obviously a tech blog isn't a quick fix but it would be a good way to expose my abilities which aren't tied to a job description.
I don't know how big the effect of just any blog really is, but I know several people who've been hired because they were very active in open source communities (ASF mostly), and soon we're going to hire an active Grails blogger as consultant.
It probably helps to get your name out there, but it helps even more to showcase your technical skills.
Phone interviews (and email, for that matter) are a very sensible way to start. Smart companies will want to filter candidates at a distance too before they invest too much time in them.
(Only recruiters want you speaking to the company as soon as possible, even if you have no idea what the company has to offer.)
What's your country? Canada?
Netherland. Just across the North Sea from you, and can get along fine speaking just English here.
I'm constantly approached by UK-based headhunters trying to place me at a Dutch company, by the way. What's with that? Why don't they focus on UK companies and let Dutch recruiters handle the Dutch market?
It's been picking up for the last six months or so, but before that there were no entry or low level jobs.
It's quite possible that it's a lot harder for entry-level jobs. I find myself wondering if it's possible that my work experience crossed some threshold that makes me extra attractive to prospective employers (or recruiters, at least).
I get the feeling it's picking up now and the graduates with impeccable academic records can get work in random 'need a geek' positions; there's still a glut of generic untapped potential though which will take a while to get soaked back into employment.
Then it's probably wise not to be too picky for your first job. Get something that's workable and keep looking for something better. In the mean time, work on FOSS projects and blog about your experience there. Tech bloggers and FOSS committers are popular hires where I live, even when they come straight out of college. As long as what they say is smart, and what they write is good.
(Also, if someone ever asks you what you were paid at your previous job, tell them what you expect to be paid by them instead.)
You people have no sense of scale.
This is really something that needed to be said, and it deserves to be modded up to +5. Heat is not an issue, it's only carbon emissions (and methane, to a lesser extend) that really matter..
I'd like you to explain how moving air creates heat during the next blizzard.
I'd rather stay out of that blizzard, but it's true. It does create (a really tiny bit of) heat.
Exactly. Big win compared to other methods of powering that toaster.
No, it traps solar energy from the sun, that would otherwise be reflected back towards space.
There is atmosphere above Arizona, you know. So the energy would be reflected into the atmosphere.
Also, hot air does already rise from deserts. And 2400 feet is actually less than a kilometer. Not exactly upper atmosphere yet. This tower doesn't do much that doesn't already happen naturally, except it generates electricity from all that rising air.
Nuclear power is 8x more efficient in land use alone.
Really? Only 8 times? I've noticed that nuclear fanboys on slashdot always compare nuclear to the worst technology out there. It's less polluting than coal, and it uses less land than solar. If I'm to believe you guys, nuclear must be pretty awful technology.
Nice, but a solar chimney doesn't need any coal.
You don't think that the fact that lower efficiency solar plants require much more space and resources to construct has anything to do with cost? 1) land isn't free 2) neither are the materials used to make the plant
That's part of the cost, isn't it? It's about efficiency per dollar, not efficiency per square meter. And yes, the dollars spent on that square meter are part of that equation.
This is why there is a fair amount of R&D funding going into using mirrors to focus solar energy on to solar cell arrays.
That's about reducing cost. You're only supporting the GP's claim. And rightly so, because he is correct. We have far more unused desert than we'll ever need to supply the entire planet with abundant solar power, even when that energy is being generated at awfully low efficiency.
I think you're seriously underestimating the amount of power we can extract from nuclear.
I think you're seriously underestimating the amount of power we can get from the sun, which is what we're talking about, aren't we?
Coal has a far lower energy density and it's still very EROEI positive.
Yeah, coal needs to die. But what about solar?
So, [citation needed].
But, didn't he just give a citation? Or do you mean your comment needs a citation?
The total volume is waste is tiny, and it's not that dangerous. It's not more dangerous than the output of other industrial sites like oil refineries and solvent plants.
But the original question was: how does it compare to solar?
(But saying nuclear is comparable to some of the most dirty and polluting industries out there is not exactly going to win me over anyway.)
A nuclear plant would use maybe 50 acres and produce a gigawatt. I think the capital expense is comparable. What is the benefit here?
The uranium from those 50 acres will quickly run out, and then you need 50 more acres to get more uranium. Sunlight is replenished for free every second of the day.
Solved... put photovoltaic cells under the green house. More efficient in land use than either one alone.
But less efficient than using them both seperate from each other. There's lots of unused desert. At the moment it's more a matter of efficiency per invested dollar than one of efficiency per surface area.
I call bullshit. If environmental activists are protesting in a desert location, are they not Browns?
I don't recognise your reference, but I was thinking of the Reds (from Green Mars). They want to keep the desert barren like it was, rather than turning it into a living planet. You're certainly not much of a "Green" if you're against sustainable energy from an otherwise practically barren and unused location.
Dumping hot air into the upper atmosphere cools the Earth. As air is circulated higher up it more readily radiates energy out into space, bypassing some fraction of the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere.
I'm no atmospheric physycist, but this sounds incredibly compelling, actually. So should we build bigger solar chimneys and send more hot air into the upper atmosphere, generating free electricity while cooling the earth at the same time?
It's a greenhouse. It has no heaters other than concentrating the sun's warmth. Have you and the moderators lost all sense of reality, forgotten what words mean, gone cuckoo?
I think it's the word "greenhouse" that's confusing people. It sounds similar to "greenhouse effect", and therefore must be bad.
The difference is of course that this greenhouse concentrates heat underneath the solar chimney instead of allowing it to be radiated back into the atmosphere, whereas the global atmospheric greenhouse effect concentrated heat in our atmosphere instead of allowing it to be radiated back into space.
No, the best tech people are the ones that solve the problems that their business needs solved.
There's a lot more than merely solving current problems. It's just as valuable to be able to anticipate future problems and opportunities, and for that, you need to know which way the wind blows. You don't learn that ticking off issues at the office.
My anecdotal evidence suggests the job market is in better shape than ever before. I had no problem finding a new job with a significant pay raise (and had to disappoint several very interesting employers). The previous crisis (in 2002) hit my sector very hard, but this time it seems to be everybody else's turn.
Or maybe it's my country, and it's different in the US? Then the best advice is to look across the border. Immigration is usually easy when it's for a well-paying job.
IT is used in a multitude of different ways. And then there's ICT, which is probably not quite the same, but I have no idea what the difference really is. Lots of people consider me to be an ITer, despite the fact that I hate hardware, networks and other infrastructure. I build websites and other software. But there's no quick acronym for that.
This co-worker doesn't worry about what customers think. He knows what they should think, and if they don't they're wrong.