Read TFA. Tesla tried contacting them, but the BBC (or Top Gear at least) refused. TFA also points out that the cars' computer proves that the test was staged. At no point did they break down or run out of power on that day.
All car shows are boring. No exceptions. Top Gear is fun because it's not really a car show. It's entertainment featuring cars. Maybe it's a parody of a car show.
Everybody knows that their reviews, track tests etc are heavily biased. But still, outright lies and fabrications is going too far.
They are complete arseholes to everybody. Or at least Clarkson is. But they do make some really entertaining items occasionally. Their attempts to destroy a Toyota Hilux is still a classic. Their drive to the north pole was also pretty awesome.
Sure, it's more entertainment than information, but outright lies about a car on their test track will have a very real impact on the sales by that car's manufacturer. It sounds like a valid lawsuit to me.
This part is certainly true. But calling Bill Gates the better man? He really was a mercenary opportunist. Have you missed all of the Microsoft-related news of the past 30 years? The picture Paul Allen paints of him doesn't surprise anyone, because it fits perfectly in the picture Bill Gates painted of himself over the years. He's trying to change that picture now, but that doesn't mean that the past suddenly didn't happen.
Bill Gates didn't merely stick to tricks in books. He could easily write some new books on dirty tricks. He won't, because it'll make him look bad, so others other doing it for him.
I don't think all billionaires used tricks that were quite as dirty as those of Bill Gates. Larry and Sergey seem rather nice, for example. I'm sure there are others.
Of course, but have those people ever considered that it might not be very smart to let potential burglars know that you'll be skiing in the Alps for a week?
It's also supposed to make people more aware of the kind of information they're giving away. Most people just don't think about that sort of thing. Sharing with friends is fun. They have no idea that they're sharing the exact same data (and even more; who even knows about exif data?) with the entire world. And the world does include some very creepy people.
I doubt it. I didn't have these problems with 3.6.13, as far as I'm aware. Note that I'm a bit of a power user, though. I've got two windows with dozens, possibly totaling more than a hundred, tabs open. Some of them with big articles, some of them with flash stuff of heavy javascript. I only close it during the weekends (or when it crashes, obviously). When I mentioned on facebook that 3.6.14 froze on me, coworkers from years ago immediately said I should probably close some tabs. And I'm sure that will help. My point is that I didn't have to do that on 3.6.13.
Almost 10 years ago on my 233 MHz Pentium 2, I had about 200 sites open in Opera 5. It took about 15 minutes to close (just like Firefox right now), but otherwise it worked fine.
A bold claim, but unfounded. With its record so far, nuclear needs some really clever statistics to beat solar, wind or geothermal. Like completely ignoring cancer.
I hope you've seen that I'm actually wrong about them not depending on land-based clocks at all. They all do have their own atomic clock, but due to relativistic effects, they're not accurate enough. So they still need to be synced regularly, also with data on the exact orbit they're in.
It is actually on Wikipedia: they are synchronized from the ground. Not like your "atomic clock" on the wall of course, but they do receive regular updates on their exact orbits, and because of gravity's effect on time, their exact orbit has an impact on their time, so that is corrected with those updates.
So they rely on their own internal atomic clocks, but they're also synchronized to some extent from the ground. I'm not sure whether a land-based atomic clock is involved, but it'd surprise me if there wasn't.
Did you not think before you wrote that? Do you think that the "atomic clock" you bought for $20 at Wal-Mart has it's very own atomic clock in it? How and why in god's fucking name do you think they put an "atomic clock" in the satellite?
It might have been worthwhile to read up a bit before you flipped out like that. A GPS satellite does not cost $20 at Walmart, and does contain an atomic clock.
You're right! It is marketing. The next new and improved thing is always such an improvement that we wonder why we ever bought their previous product.
It also reminds me of a review of Dragon Age 2 on some game website. It tackled all the weaknesses in the original Dragon Age: Origins that they never mentioned in their review of that game.
> But it's been hit by a disaster beyond what was even planned for.
And this is what I find strange: In 1896 a tsunami larger than 30m has occurred in Japan. Tsunamis higher than 10m have occurred a couple of times. Yet, the power plants at Fukushima where designed to withstand only 5m waves. How many other relatively frequent desaster scenarios are there in the world where it is know that the plants are not designed to cope?
That's the real reason why nuclear isn't safe. Money is involved. People want to make profit. And safety features cost money. I mean, how big is the chance that they'll see those 30m waves in their lifetime? Or more precisely: during the time they are held responsible for the safety of this plant? It's Russian roulette with a lot of empty chambers and a lot of participants. It's probably not going to hit you, but it's hardly safe.
Deepwater horizon was very bad, but it isn't 25,000 years of damage.
Neither is Fukushima, mind you. I do consider Deepwater Horizon the worst of the two. It has done enormous amounts of damaged, wiped out lots of sea life, including rare coral reef. That will take centuries to recover from, if it's possible at all.
I'm not saying Fukushima isn't bad. It is. But not every nuclear disaster is automatically so far off the chart that it eclipses any non-nuclear disaster. Deepwater Horizon proved that oil disasters can easily compete with nuclear.
The real lesson though, is that these enormous large scale catastrophes are almost always caused by money. Huge enterprises with enormous financial stakes, and incentives to cut corners on safety. People in charge of these kind of operations need to be more aware of their responsibilities, and criminally prosecuted when they neglect them. And maybe in the future we need to start focusing on smaller scale enterprises. Stick to the risks that we can deal with.
The Register's articles remind me a lot of Comical Ali's statements during the invasion of Iraq. Or more recently, perhaps some speeches by Gadhafi. They are completely diverged from reality and drowning in wishful thinking.
If the reactor is puddle on the floor, thats good, compared to Chernobyl where the briquette vaporized it for us to breathe... I'd much prefer it melted in a containment structure there, than vaporized here in my air.
It's good compared to Chernobyl, but that doesn't mean it's actually good. The floor it's on is the secondary containment, basically just the building it's in. The fuel is outside the primary containment now, and that is really quite serious.
One of the things that could have happened when the molten core leaked onto that concrete floor, was a violent reaction that still could have flung a reasonable amount of radioactive material into the sky. Not Chernobyl-size, but much closer to dense population centers. It looks like that hasn't happened, so we're not looking at a worst-case scenario here. It's still pretty bad, though.
There's also been radioactive materials found in locations where there really shouldn't be any. There's clearly an uncontrolled leak somewhere. Also not good.
Slashdot Mirror
If they recharge at night, it's might not be such a big problem. Peak energy consumption is during office hours.
Read TFA. Tesla tried contacting them, but the BBC (or Top Gear at least) refused. TFA also points out that the cars' computer proves that the test was staged. At no point did they break down or run out of power on that day.
All car shows are boring. No exceptions. Top Gear is fun because it's not really a car show. It's entertainment featuring cars. Maybe it's a parody of a car show.
Everybody knows that their reviews, track tests etc are heavily biased. But still, outright lies and fabrications is going too far.
They are complete arseholes to everybody. Or at least Clarkson is. But they do make some really entertaining items occasionally. Their attempts to destroy a Toyota Hilux is still a classic. Their drive to the north pole was also pretty awesome.
Sure, it's more entertainment than information, but outright lies about a car on their test track will have a very real impact on the sales by that car's manufacturer. It sounds like a valid lawsuit to me.
Paul Allen rode Bill Gates to his riches,
This part is certainly true. But calling Bill Gates the better man? He really was a mercenary opportunist. Have you missed all of the Microsoft-related news of the past 30 years? The picture Paul Allen paints of him doesn't surprise anyone, because it fits perfectly in the picture Bill Gates painted of himself over the years. He's trying to change that picture now, but that doesn't mean that the past suddenly didn't happen.
Bill Gates didn't merely stick to tricks in books. He could easily write some new books on dirty tricks. He won't, because it'll make him look bad, so others other doing it for him.
I don't think all billionaires used tricks that were quite as dirty as those of Bill Gates. Larry and Sergey seem rather nice, for example. I'm sure there are others.
Of course, but have those people ever considered that it might not be very smart to let potential burglars know that you'll be skiing in the Alps for a week?
It's also supposed to make people more aware of the kind of information they're giving away. Most people just don't think about that sort of thing. Sharing with friends is fun. They have no idea that they're sharing the exact same data (and even more; who even knows about exif data?) with the entire world. And the world does include some very creepy people.
I doubt it. I didn't have these problems with 3.6.13, as far as I'm aware. Note that I'm a bit of a power user, though. I've got two windows with dozens, possibly totaling more than a hundred, tabs open. Some of them with big articles, some of them with flash stuff of heavy javascript. I only close it during the weekends (or when it crashes, obviously). When I mentioned on facebook that 3.6.14 froze on me, coworkers from years ago immediately said I should probably close some tabs. And I'm sure that will help. My point is that I didn't have to do that on 3.6.13.
Almost 10 years ago on my 233 MHz Pentium 2, I had about 200 sites open in Opera 5. It took about 15 minutes to close (just like Firefox right now), but otherwise it worked fine.
A bold claim, but unfounded. With its record so far, nuclear needs some really clever statistics to beat solar, wind or geothermal. Like completely ignoring cancer.
I hope you've seen that I'm actually wrong about them not depending on land-based clocks at all. They all do have their own atomic clock, but due to relativistic effects, they're not accurate enough. So they still need to be synced regularly, also with data on the exact orbit they're in.
Now you're just being an ass. I never attempted to appear an expert on anything, and I was correct in everything I stated as unqualified fact.
Good point.
It is actually on Wikipedia: they are synchronized from the ground. Not like your "atomic clock" on the wall of course, but they do receive regular updates on their exact orbits, and because of gravity's effect on time, their exact orbit has an impact on their time, so that is corrected with those updates.
So they rely on their own internal atomic clocks, but they're also synchronized to some extent from the ground. I'm not sure whether a land-based atomic clock is involved, but it'd surprise me if there wasn't.
I stand corrected. They are indeed synchronized from the ground. Though not in the way a simple Walmart clock is synchronized.
Interesting detail is that GPS time is officially a few seconds off compared to UTC.
Did you not think before you wrote that? Do you think that the "atomic clock" you bought for $20 at Wal-Mart has it's very own atomic clock in it? How and why in god's fucking name do you think they put an "atomic clock" in the satellite?
It might have been worthwhile to read up a bit before you flipped out like that. A GPS satellite does not cost $20 at Walmart, and does contain an atomic clock.
You're right! It is marketing. The next new and improved thing is always such an improvement that we wonder why we ever bought their previous product.
It also reminds me of a review of Dragon Age 2 on some game website. It tackled all the weaknesses in the original Dragon Age: Origins that they never mentioned in their review of that game.
> But it's been hit by a disaster beyond what was even planned for.
And this is what I find strange: In 1896 a tsunami larger than 30m has occurred in Japan. Tsunamis higher than 10m have occurred a couple of times. Yet, the power plants at Fukushima where designed to withstand only 5m waves. How many other relatively frequent desaster scenarios are there in the world where it is know that the plants are not designed to cope?
That's the real reason why nuclear isn't safe. Money is involved. People want to make profit. And safety features cost money. I mean, how big is the chance that they'll see those 30m waves in their lifetime? Or more precisely: during the time they are held responsible for the safety of this plant? It's Russian roulette with a lot of empty chambers and a lot of participants. It's probably not going to hit you, but it's hardly safe.
Deepwater horizon was very bad, but it isn't 25,000 years of damage.
Neither is Fukushima, mind you. I do consider Deepwater Horizon the worst of the two. It has done enormous amounts of damaged, wiped out lots of sea life, including rare coral reef. That will take centuries to recover from, if it's possible at all.
I'm not saying Fukushima isn't bad. It is. But not every nuclear disaster is automatically so far off the chart that it eclipses any non-nuclear disaster. Deepwater Horizon proved that oil disasters can easily compete with nuclear.
The real lesson though, is that these enormous large scale catastrophes are almost always caused by money. Huge enterprises with enormous financial stakes, and incentives to cut corners on safety. People in charge of these kind of operations need to be more aware of their responsibilities, and criminally prosecuted when they neglect them. And maybe in the future we need to start focusing on smaller scale enterprises. Stick to the risks that we can deal with.
The Register's articles remind me a lot of Comical Ali's statements during the invasion of Iraq. Or more recently, perhaps some speeches by Gadhafi. They are completely diverged from reality and drowning in wishful thinking.
The GPS satellites use these time signals from these atomic clocks to sych.
GPS satellites each have their own atomic clock. They don't depend on land-based clocks as far as I know.
Or you could, I don't know, invest in safer and less polluting energy production.
If the reactor is puddle on the floor, thats good, compared to Chernobyl where the briquette vaporized it for us to breathe... I'd much prefer it melted in a containment structure there, than vaporized here in my air.
It's good compared to Chernobyl, but that doesn't mean it's actually good. The floor it's on is the secondary containment, basically just the building it's in. The fuel is outside the primary containment now, and that is really quite serious.
One of the things that could have happened when the molten core leaked onto that concrete floor, was a violent reaction that still could have flung a reasonable amount of radioactive material into the sky. Not Chernobyl-size, but much closer to dense population centers. It looks like that hasn't happened, so we're not looking at a worst-case scenario here. It's still pretty bad, though.
There's also been radioactive materials found in locations where there really shouldn't be any. There's clearly an uncontrolled leak somewhere. Also not good.
Just launch some extra GPS satelites then. If one of them is taken out by a 20 million meter high tsunami, at least we'll have some backups.