Seriously? What corn flake packet did you read that from? Why bluff with an empty hand in the first place? Since you don't know about this stuff why are you banging on about it?
Damn - I have to dumb it down this far - stop drinking booze before reading garbz. A nuclear fucking construction industry from scratch obviously. They are pretty fucking major projects that take a fucking decade each and the parts really are very specialised in the reactors which is why it takes so fucking long even though the turbine hall etc is the same as other plants. Look at an example of something real (eg. the current Finnish one) instead of a blind guess - your guesses have sucked. Was that blunt enough to soak in?
The models change but the result never does. Doesn't that seem odd to you?
The result changes all the time unless you dumb it down to the utter max of the average going up or down. It's like complaining about voltage measurements when all you've got is if a light goes on or not instead of actual voltage.
what would it take to disprove the CAGW theory?
Maybe I wasn't obvious enough - something that shows it does not work will disprove it. The specific thing will obviously depend on what breaks it and nothing has yet.
ou see no one can answer the question on what would disprove the CAGW theory because if it actually happens then they lose their "leverage" on getting funding and whatever else it is they want.
Somebody has sold you on a massive pile of shit polished up to look like a conspiracy theory where all scientists are liars.
community to consider nuclear power a good thing
They do are in atmospheric science it's not really something they know about - go bother people in Washington or the banks if you want someone to pay for nukes.
If these people cannot explain to me what would disprove the theory then it's not science.
I already did, more than once I think, and I suggest you hit an encyclopedia or something for a definition of science instead of making up your own one. Personal definitions are a petty high school debating trick you should be well beyond (especially here where this is not a debate).
You've been conned by expensive PR to believe this weird conspiracy theory. I suggest giving it a rest for a while then read something based on fact in a few months and you may get over that con job and annoy people a bit less.
You've twisted something very simple. Leaking to Americans who are well within the reach of the law or to foreign powers who are not. Depending on the information the latter can be a very serious problem even if they are allied. Disclosing Kurdish military information to someone in the Turkish military (a NATO ally) would be a serious fuckup at this point. In fact at this point disclosing anything interesting to someone from the Turkish military now is pretty well the same as telling the Russians only with a bit of lag.
It's a crime to leak US eyes only information to foreigners even it they are allies. Thus worse than Snowden who leaked to people from his own country. Funny people scream about Snowden helping foreign powers when "the enemy" was really the American people. Also funny how there are all these screams of treason yet the people who actually did spread the information to foreigners were never charged with anything.
Also a long history of unofficial/unauthorized sharing of information to mitigate that problem.
Funny how if it's someone associated with the Party you like it's OK to piss all over national security but someone outside the Party it is not. It sounds pretty fucking Soviet to me. Do you support your country and it's Constitution or are you putting the Party first like a good little Comrade instead of a free citizen?
Flynn is obviously a douche as well who needs his ass kicked
Exactly my point.
PARTISAN BULLSHIT
You are mistaking me for someone else, presumably due to partisan bullshit of your own and all this "if you are not with me you are against me" bullshit. Pointing out that someone who is clearly not fit for office is worse than Hillary is not the same as cheering for Hillary.
The people involved with that in Iran are not only still alive but still in charge (despite advanced age). Consider that before "correcting" something that was not wrong in the first place.
Whatever happened to the Constitution specifying "innocent until proven guilty"?
Why would someone who wants any action that annoys a man that they wish could act as a King and thus declared treason give a shit about the Constitution? Look at his other posts. Bring back King George all the way.
Blame Flynn then - if he's bullshitting about something so important it's not a good look either and is setting an incredibly bad example. Of course it's far worse if he actually did do what he said.
How does someone operate a cellular phone/modem/router in a SCIF without getting caught by periodic RF scans?
By shouting at the "little people" who turn up to complain about him violating the rules I suspect. I've heard about similar things and an MP getting transferred and the case dropped when he uncovered something like this.
Yes I know, I had to search for it in that long document and what I wrote relates to that segment. In that context it does very much look like exactly the sort of insulting term political staffers would use for the people they employ for social media PR.
how does one know whether that was worse than sharing classified information w/ NATO allies
Now here's a guess - maybe because she didn't share it with anyone? That wasn't too hard was it. Maybe you could have done it yourself if you were not pretending deliberate stupidity to avoid being accused of a double standard.
but what Hilary did could well be treason
WTF? Start paying attention. Outing intelligence agents isn't treason (Libby) and selling weapons (including restricted anti-tank ones that even Israel couldn't get) to Iran and the terrorist wing of Hezbolla less than a year after Hezbolla killed over a hundred US Marines (North) isn't treason either. So how does Hillary's email server fit in this - and if it does, why is what she did treason but what Flynn has done not? Can you answer that one honestly with the full use of your faculties instead of pretended misunderstanding or lack of intelligence?
He has this weird view on Iran, which is a Russia's allied puppet in the region
Now that is an incredibly weird view on Iran, that country that executed all the communists they could find and anyone connected to Russia they could find just after the revolution. It has been tense ever since despite the fall of the USSR.
You seem to be under the impression that by "us" I meant democrats instead of everyone other than Trump's cronies.
The rule of law applies to us and not them. Just like a King before Magna Carta.
There is no evidence that Russia did anything whatsoever to influence this election
Apart from loaning Trump a lot of money? OK, you have a point, it's Trump, he probably won't pay that money back to the Russian banks and if he's been told to do something he won't do it, but he certainly has had a lot of direct financial support from Russia. Without their help he couldn't have done it. That looks like some sort of influence on the election to me. This fake news thing is shaping up to look like the financial support wasn't the only help he got.
The "nerd virgins" social media shit certainly has hit this place with in the past with overt "astroturfing" (fake "grass-roots" activism) and overt product shilling by paid social media workers. I've almost given up on this place a few times when it got especially annoying. "Nerd virgins" sounds like exactly the sort of insulting term political staffers would use for the people they employ for social media PR.
Yes but it's possible they did it anyway. Putin has had intense personal hatred of Bill Clinton for years since Kosovo was bombed without Russia being informed - he just about built his political career on ranting about Clinton's America. He's not fond of Hillary either. Russia does that sort of shit and Putin has a motive so it can't be dismissed out of hand.
Your comment that nothing has disproved it yet because the models get updated is on the very edge of saying that nothing can disprove it
Seriously? Models getting checked and refined against reality is a bad thing? If reality shows that it was all based on a faulty premise as you suggest then the models will get changed to match reality. Your comparison the religion is bullshit and applied scientists are not stuck in their ways as you suggest. Look at the history of physics, chemistry, geology and so on for examples of some massive changes in approach.
Your anti-science rant is all completely pointless anyway because Finland had nukes and are currently building a new one.
It's the people that think we can save the world with windmills, solar panels, and wishful thinking that will get us all killed.
I worry about the anti-science losers that are trying to con you who argue that wishful thinking is enough to fix everything.
Mainly that it's not coal, something no one gave a shit about in 1996.
There was an utter bastard called Alex Gabbard doing PR for Oak Ridge Labs who used that argument in the early 1990s - the one that started the "coal ash is nuclear waste too" thing. By 1996 he'd even managed to get something in Scientific American. Also the science deniers hadn't got as much traction in 1996 as they have now and Al Gore among many others was making a lot of noise about the carbon dioxide from coal fired power stations. So I can't say I see much of a difference, in fact I think it was even a bigger issue back then due to less PR from the science deniers.
Construction of a reactor is not specialised
I've worked with a few people from a research reactor and read a few papers on issues that also applied to components in coal fired boilers - based on that I think you are wrong - I think it's specialised as fuck. The Toshiba factory that makes some major reactor components and has a waiting list of years seems to support that.
The engineering teams are also still there, still working for westinghouse etc
Funny you should mention the company that laid off all their skilled nuke staff, managed to stumble through after taking over a Japanese nuke company, then sacked most of those new staff as well. The current AP1000 projects have been a learning exercise for newbies, one of the reasons why the first few took so long.
to appease a few greens
Not why it happened. That's the political attack lie but reality is different. Was Thatcher green? Carter? Reagan? Kohl? You have been conned. The increase in influence of economists who despised large projects of any kind is a very major part of the answer. Nukes have a massive capital cost and some people just cannot see past that to any benefits.
By the way, Finland has a nuclear power plant under construction. As with Japan the situation there is to have an energy source that doesn't require continuously shipping in or piping in vast amounts of material from somewhere else outside of their control.
As for cost, comparing the China UK collaboration is just stupid. That project was never about power.
It's not stupid, building up a nuclear industry from scratch again would cost far more again than piggybacking on the infrastructure of somewhere else. If you think the cost of that huge project is staggering you haven't considered what it would take to do it without China (or you have not considered the scale and expected returns over decades).
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously?
What corn flake packet did you read that from?
Why bluff with an empty hand in the first place? Since you don't know about this stuff why are you banging on about it?
Under Thatcher? Reagan?
You've been conned by revisionists looking for something to blame on the greens today. Back then they were powerless.
It's been so long since the UK built a reactor that the workforce that built the previous one has long retired.
Damn - I have to dumb it down this far - stop drinking booze before reading garbz.
A nuclear fucking construction industry from scratch obviously. They are pretty fucking major projects that take a fucking decade each and the parts really are very specialised in the reactors which is why it takes so fucking long even though the turbine hall etc is the same as other plants. Look at an example of something real (eg. the current Finnish one) instead of a blind guess - your guesses have sucked.
Was that blunt enough to soak in?
The result changes all the time unless you dumb it down to the utter max of the average going up or down. It's like complaining about voltage measurements when all you've got is if a light goes on or not instead of actual voltage.
Maybe I wasn't obvious enough - something that shows it does not work will disprove it. The specific thing will obviously depend on what breaks it and nothing has yet.
Somebody has sold you on a massive pile of shit polished up to look like a conspiracy theory where all scientists are liars.
They do are in atmospheric science it's not really something they know about - go bother people in Washington or the banks if you want someone to pay for nukes.
I already did, more than once I think, and I suggest you hit an encyclopedia or something for a definition of science instead of making up your own one. Personal definitions are a petty high school debating trick you should be well beyond (especially here where this is not a debate).
You've been conned by expensive PR to believe this weird conspiracy theory. I suggest giving it a rest for a while then read something based on fact in a few months and you may get over that con job and annoy people a bit less.
You've twisted something very simple.
Leaking to Americans who are well within the reach of the law or to foreign powers who are not.
Depending on the information the latter can be a very serious problem even if they are allied. Disclosing Kurdish military information to someone in the Turkish military (a NATO ally) would be a serious fuckup at this point. In fact at this point disclosing anything interesting to someone from the Turkish military now is pretty well the same as telling the Russians only with a bit of lag.
Funny how if it's someone associated with the Party you like it's OK to piss all over national security but someone outside the Party it is not. It sounds pretty fucking Soviet to me. Do you support your country and it's Constitution or are you putting the Party first like a good little Comrade instead of a free citizen?
Exactly my point.
You are mistaking me for someone else, presumably due to partisan bullshit of your own and all this "if you are not with me you are against me" bullshit. Pointing out that someone who is clearly not fit for office is worse than Hillary is not the same as cheering for Hillary.
The people involved with that in Iran are not only still alive but still in charge (despite advanced age).
Consider that before "correcting" something that was not wrong in the first place.
Why would someone who wants any action that annoys a man that they wish could act as a King and thus declared treason give a shit about the Constitution? Look at his other posts. Bring back King George all the way.
Blame Flynn then - if he's bullshitting about something so important it's not a good look either and is setting an incredibly bad example.
Of course it's far worse if he actually did do what he said.
By shouting at the "little people" who turn up to complain about him violating the rules I suspect. I've heard about similar things and an MP getting transferred and the case dropped when he uncovered something like this.
You are seriously the guy who was talking about treason elsewhere and you wrote THAT!
Yes I know, I had to search for it in that long document and what I wrote relates to that segment.
In that context it does very much look like exactly the sort of insulting term political staffers would use for the people they employ for social media PR.
Now here's a guess - maybe because she didn't share it with anyone?
That wasn't too hard was it.
Maybe you could have done it yourself if you were not pretending deliberate stupidity to avoid being accused of a double standard.
WTF?
Start paying attention. Outing intelligence agents isn't treason (Libby) and selling weapons (including restricted anti-tank ones that even Israel couldn't get) to Iran and the terrorist wing of Hezbolla less than a year after Hezbolla killed over a hundred US Marines (North) isn't treason either. So how does Hillary's email server fit in this - and if it does, why is what she did treason but what Flynn has done not?
Can you answer that one honestly with the full use of your faculties instead of pretended misunderstanding or lack of intelligence?
Now that is an incredibly weird view on Iran, that country that executed all the communists they could find and anyone connected to Russia they could find just after the revolution. It has been tense ever since despite the fall of the USSR.
Only if you lock them up.
No cleverness here, just the good old fashioned "born to rule" bullshit.
You seem to be under the impression that by "us" I meant democrats instead of everyone other than Trump's cronies.
The rule of law applies to us and not them. Just like a King before Magna Carta.
Apart from loaning Trump a lot of money?
OK, you have a point, it's Trump, he probably won't pay that money back to the Russian banks and if he's been told to do something he won't do it, but he certainly has had a lot of direct financial support from Russia.
Without their help he couldn't have done it. That looks like some sort of influence on the election to me. This fake news thing is shaping up to look like the financial support wasn't the only help he got.
The "nerd virgins" social media shit certainly has hit this place with in the past with overt "astroturfing" (fake "grass-roots" activism) and overt product shilling by paid social media workers. I've almost given up on this place a few times when it got especially annoying.
"Nerd virgins" sounds like exactly the sort of insulting term political staffers would use for the people they employ for social media PR.
Yes but it's possible they did it anyway.
Putin has had intense personal hatred of Bill Clinton for years since Kosovo was bombed without Russia being informed - he just about built his political career on ranting about Clinton's America. He's not fond of Hillary either. Russia does that sort of shit and Putin has a motive so it can't be dismissed out of hand.
Hillary using email doesn't sound so bad in comparison now does it?
Yes I know Hillary is old news and did far worse things than her email server, but I could not resist a smug "I told you so".
That's actually more serious than Snowden's leak to reporters who are US citizens.
Seriously?
Models getting checked and refined against reality is a bad thing?
If reality shows that it was all based on a faulty premise as you suggest then the models will get changed to match reality. Your comparison the religion is bullshit and applied scientists are not stuck in their ways as you suggest. Look at the history of physics, chemistry, geology and so on for examples of some massive changes in approach.
Your anti-science rant is all completely pointless anyway because Finland had nukes and are currently building a new one.
I worry about the anti-science losers that are trying to con you who argue that wishful thinking is enough to fix everything.
There was an utter bastard called Alex Gabbard doing PR for Oak Ridge Labs who used that argument in the early 1990s - the one that started the "coal ash is nuclear waste too" thing. By 1996 he'd even managed to get something in Scientific American. Also the science deniers hadn't got as much traction in 1996 as they have now and Al Gore among many others was making a lot of noise about the carbon dioxide from coal fired power stations.
So I can't say I see much of a difference, in fact I think it was even a bigger issue back then due to less PR from the science deniers.
I've worked with a few people from a research reactor and read a few papers on issues that also applied to components in coal fired boilers - based on that I think you are wrong - I think it's specialised as fuck. The Toshiba factory that makes some major reactor components and has a waiting list of years seems to support that.
Funny you should mention the company that laid off all their skilled nuke staff, managed to stumble through after taking over a Japanese nuke company, then sacked most of those new staff as well. The current AP1000 projects have been a learning exercise for newbies, one of the reasons why the first few took so long.
Not why it happened. That's the political attack lie but reality is different. Was Thatcher green? Carter? Reagan? Kohl? You have been conned. The increase in influence of economists who despised large projects of any kind is a very major part of the answer. Nukes have a massive capital cost and some people just cannot see past that to any benefits.
By the way, Finland has a nuclear power plant under construction. As with Japan the situation there is to have an energy source that doesn't require continuously shipping in or piping in vast amounts of material from somewhere else outside of their control.
It's not stupid, building up a nuclear industry from scratch again would cost far more again than piggybacking on the infrastructure of somewhere else. If you think the cost of that huge project is staggering you haven't considered what it would take to do it without China (or you have not considered the scale and expected returns over decades).
A lot has changed in the last century with power transmission and it takes quite some distance before those losses are significant.