I did not find much on Thai monsoons in the paper, but the predictions seem to be (from the abstract) that:
1. there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early
spring, but increased risk of drought in summer, especially over continental areas
2. with more precipitation per unit of upward motion in the atmosphere, i.e. ‘more bang for the buck’, atmospheric
circulation weakens, causing monsoons to falter
On a first read that sounds like the opposite of what's happening in Thailand right now -- if I am not mistaken the rainfall was caused by the monsoon. Also, it seems that while the heavy rainfall this year is, indeed, exceptionally high, it is not unheard of. Similar amounts of rain have fallen 4 or 5 times during the 20th century, according to the rain data (the data source is quoted as thai govt weather service).
So, while there is probably some contribution, it is quite hard to blame the flood on the global warming yet.
It is true that there has been a lot of rain, but the only people who say it is due to the global warming so far that I am aware of are the Thai politicians who are asking for aid money. If you've seen something more than that, please post it, it would be an interesting read.
Give credit where it is due, Chicken Little, Thailand floods are purely anthropogenic in nature -- a result of deforestation, bad farming practices and non-existing city planning, not global warming.
This sounds like the exact opposite of your accusation
How so? The French report is a reaction to a huge and very costly accident, not a result of a proactive policy. These deficiencies have been there all the time, just not recognized on paper. Worse, in the case of Germany I am referring to, the deficiencies were recognized and corrected on paper, but no actual work was done on the plants. That is a very significant fail, in terms you can understand it is like having a patch, and not applying it. And all it took to start a review process was a quadruple repeat of Chernobyl. You can deceive yourself as much as you like, but the nuclear safety is neither as thorough nor as comprehensive as you make it look.
And when you say how much larger of a disaster Fukushima was, I ask that you compare it by the number of people killed, not the publicity received.
How about we compare it by a more relevant and meaningful metric - the total amount of damage it has caused? Even the Japanese Atomic safety commission, who are mostly known for their calm and accommodating stance on nuclear accidents, have already said immediate response (cleanup and partial compensations) will increase the cost of all nuclear power produced in Japan by 20%. Other research hint at even larger increase, up to 400%. In absolute numbers, the minimum bill is in the tens of trillions of yen (that'd be hundreds of billions of US dollars) and the time frame is 5 decades or more.
And the extra cleanup needed, the extra medical monitoring and the indirect economic damage are not even considered for inclusion.
It was a pro-safety argument. If you look at the numbers, nuclear accidents happen more often than is expected on paper, and cleanups is more expensive by many orders of magnitude than any other alternative. But because nuclear accidents are rare (both in space and time), the short-sighted pro-nuke population tend to discount the numbers involved heavily.
Do you happen to think that recalls by your car manufacturers are a waste of your time? I mean, you've driven it without issues thus far, and that alarmist recall notice about brakes failing occasionally sounds so much like bullshit.
It isn't about complete fail-proofness, it is about risk management - risks change, and estimates of risks change as knowledge about operation is collected. Are you against bugfixes and patches as well? If anything is going to change the mind of nuclear skeptics like myself, it is constant and honest assessments of the risks throughout the life of the plants and adequate measures to ensure that established risks are addressed in a timely and sufficient manner.
The current situation, as exposed by the checks after the Fukushima debacle show exactly the opposite -- insufficient planning, insufficient risk assessments, inadequate procedures, etc, and that happens in the most advanced countries - Japan, Germany, now France. I'm scared to think what's the situation in countries that traditionally uphold highest safety standards like China, India or Russia.
Yes, and they stole it for the same reasons everyone else is trying to. It is no coincidence that the only time a nuclear weapon was used was the time only one country had it.
There was nothing close to believable evidence for most of the "damning" allegations in the report, no sufficient information to justify taking them seriously even while reading the 20 odd pages. Most of the report was based on stuff that was shown by "one member state", and it happens to be the same member state that manufactured "evidence" for the war against Iraq. Excuse me if I delegate it to the trashcan without more extraordinary and unambiguous evidence than a table in yellow, orange and red.
From the rest of the report it was only evident that a) Iran has not succeeded in buying weapons tech or plans, b) Iran does not even have the fundamental science to develop weapons and c) all their efforts invariably end up in a brick wall.
Finally, while I keep hearing these scary stories about everyone and their dog develop nuclear weapon based on Russian know-how, it is, as a Russian combinator would say, a medical fact that ALL non-NPT nuclear programs except the Chinese are based either on US or NATO expertise.
Will we get a break from these scary, but largely baseless stories?
Taxi companies started installing them to help stave off a wave of robberies. Basically, a taxi driver at night is a lone guy with a wad of cash, who has to pick any company that waves a hand to them. Some people thought that was an easy wad of cash, and invented a couple of tricks to rob taxi drivers. After a rather large number of robberies that ended with anything from verbal assault to one or two murders, the companies began lobbying for cameras to protect the drivers. While there are obvious privacy issues, the issues of safety of the drivers seem quite legitimate.
The whole point of the XXX TLD was to make sure you had only porn hosted in such domains. In other words, if you don't do porn, you have no business buying there. If the schools that are buying up names in this TLD decide ignore the intent of its existence, it is entirely their problem.
It isn't ICANN that is the driver behind this craze, it is the US schizophrenia that is driving this thing. What you see is the happy marriage of "Brand is EVERYTHING" with "Save the Children" and "Sex is dirty".
Well, it may just happen that regulations in the US won't require a notice (as it is currently with GM produce) and most of the consumers won't know that synthetic protein is being given to them. It isn't hard to mask taste well enough so that you can't tell what you're eating, and it is even easier if the people it is passed to have rarely tasted good food anyway. The stuff that passes for meat inside a big mac doesn't really taste of beef, but people still buy it by the megaton.
Actually, the article does not limit its reasoning to showing correlation, it explains very well how the costly penalties and open source development changed the incentives in the P2P world and moved it from a centralized to decentralized one. Unlike your snarky comment, it was a rather insightful commentary on the economics of the phenomenon.
What's wrong with making money off Jobs' death? Apple made a ton, and so did his biographer. Apple even timed the release of the iPhone to it to maximize exposure (and profits).
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, but I fail to see the need for the "fix". Maybe you can elaborate?
I did not find much on Thai monsoons in the paper, but the predictions seem to be (from the abstract) that:
1. there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in summer, especially over continental areas
2. with more precipitation per unit of upward motion in the atmosphere, i.e. ‘more bang for the buck’, atmospheric circulation weakens, causing monsoons to falter
On a first read that sounds like the opposite of what's happening in Thailand right now -- if I am not mistaken the rainfall was caused by the monsoon. Also, it seems that while the heavy rainfall this year is, indeed, exceptionally high, it is not unheard of. Similar amounts of rain have fallen 4 or 5 times during the 20th century, according to the rain data (the data source is quoted as thai govt weather service).
So, while there is probably some contribution, it is quite hard to blame the flood on the global warming yet.
It is true that there has been a lot of rain, but the only people who say it is due to the global warming so far that I am aware of are the Thai politicians who are asking for aid money. If you've seen something more than that, please post it, it would be an interesting read.
Give credit where it is due, Chicken Little, Thailand floods are purely anthropogenic in nature -- a result of deforestation, bad farming practices and non-existing city planning, not global warming.
This sounds like the exact opposite of your accusation
How so? The French report is a reaction to a huge and very costly accident, not a result of a proactive policy. These deficiencies have been there all the time, just not recognized on paper. Worse, in the case of Germany I am referring to, the deficiencies were recognized and corrected on paper, but no actual work was done on the plants. That is a very significant fail, in terms you can understand it is like having a patch, and not applying it. And all it took to start a review process was a quadruple repeat of Chernobyl. You can deceive yourself as much as you like, but the nuclear safety is neither as thorough nor as comprehensive as you make it look.
And when you say how much larger of a disaster Fukushima was, I ask that you compare it by the number of people killed, not the publicity received.
How about we compare it by a more relevant and meaningful metric - the total amount of damage it has caused? Even the Japanese Atomic safety commission, who are mostly known for their calm and accommodating stance on nuclear accidents, have already said immediate response (cleanup and partial compensations) will increase the cost of all nuclear power produced in Japan by 20%. Other research hint at even larger increase, up to 400%. In absolute numbers, the minimum bill is in the tens of trillions of yen (that'd be hundreds of billions of US dollars) and the time frame is 5 decades or more.
And the extra cleanup needed, the extra medical monitoring and the indirect economic damage are not even considered for inclusion.
It was a pro-safety argument. If you look at the numbers, nuclear accidents happen more often than is expected on paper, and cleanups is more expensive by many orders of magnitude than any other alternative. But because nuclear accidents are rare (both in space and time), the short-sighted pro-nuke population tend to discount the numbers involved heavily.
Do you happen to think that recalls by your car manufacturers are a waste of your time? I mean, you've driven it without issues thus far, and that alarmist recall notice about brakes failing occasionally sounds so much like bullshit.
The current situation, as exposed by the checks after the Fukushima debacle show exactly the opposite -- insufficient planning, insufficient risk assessments, inadequate procedures, etc, and that happens in the most advanced countries - Japan, Germany, now France. I'm scared to think what's the situation in countries that traditionally uphold highest safety standards like China, India or Russia.
Yes, and they stole it for the same reasons everyone else is trying to. It is no coincidence that the only time a nuclear weapon was used was the time only one country had it.
There was nothing close to believable evidence for most of the "damning" allegations in the report, no sufficient information to justify taking them seriously even while reading the 20 odd pages. Most of the report was based on stuff that was shown by "one member state", and it happens to be the same member state that manufactured "evidence" for the war against Iraq. Excuse me if I delegate it to the trashcan without more extraordinary and unambiguous evidence than a table in yellow, orange and red.
From the rest of the report it was only evident that a) Iran has not succeeded in buying weapons tech or plans, b) Iran does not even have the fundamental science to develop weapons and c) all their efforts invariably end up in a brick wall.
Finally, while I keep hearing these scary stories about everyone and their dog develop nuclear weapon based on Russian know-how, it is, as a Russian combinator would say, a medical fact that ALL non-NPT nuclear programs except the Chinese are based either on US or NATO expertise.
Will we get a break from these scary, but largely baseless stories?
Idiot.
Taxi companies started installing them to help stave off a wave of robberies. Basically, a taxi driver at night is a lone guy with a wad of cash, who has to pick any company that waves a hand to them. Some people thought that was an easy wad of cash, and invented a couple of tricks to rob taxi drivers. After a rather large number of robberies that ended with anything from verbal assault to one or two murders, the companies began lobbying for cameras to protect the drivers. While there are obvious privacy issues, the issues of safety of the drivers seem quite legitimate.
who is ron paul and why should i care to read about his 89 seconds on slashdot? it is about as much on topic as TFA junk.
or, rather, you don't risk losing it by not defending it.
Trademarks are used to identify products or services. If you don't own a product or a service that deals in porn, you don't need to defend it.
You know that the Muesli overtook Amurrika in 2009, don't you?
The whole point of the XXX TLD was to make sure you had only porn hosted in such domains. In other words, if you don't do porn, you have no business buying there. If the schools that are buying up names in this TLD decide ignore the intent of its existence, it is entirely their problem.
It isn't ICANN that is the driver behind this craze, it is the US schizophrenia that is driving this thing. What you see is the happy marriage of "Brand is EVERYTHING" with "Save the Children" and "Sex is dirty".
Well, it may just happen that regulations in the US won't require a notice (as it is currently with GM produce) and most of the consumers won't know that synthetic protein is being given to them. It isn't hard to mask taste well enough so that you can't tell what you're eating, and it is even easier if the people it is passed to have rarely tasted good food anyway. The stuff that passes for meat inside a big mac doesn't really taste of beef, but people still buy it by the megaton.
Actually, the article does not limit its reasoning to showing correlation, it explains very well how the costly penalties and open source development changed the incentives in the P2P world and moved it from a centralized to decentralized one. Unlike your snarky comment, it was a rather insightful commentary on the economics of the phenomenon.
It all depends on how we will share the profits. Drop me a note and we'll figure something out.
Well, scratch it then, and say it was a magic, or a miracle. I don't care either way.
What's wrong with making money off Jobs' death? Apple made a ton, and so did his biographer. Apple even timed the release of the iPhone to it to maximize exposure (and profits).
The projections are, indeed, a bit foggy.
If they are red
Green maybe?