They are connected very tightly by politics - well, money paying for that politics really. One of the arguments pushed strongly by the deniers is that climate change is just a trick to force companies to cut emissions, impose water discharge standards, etc. That was really the start of the PR campaign against scientists some years ago. Since some of the companies involved were donors to Republicans it all got very political.
Before the "debate" was kicked off with millions in PR money conservatives such as Thatcher were on the side of reality instead of PR. The only reason many conservatives are opposing reality King Canute style today is because of donor money from those who think climate change will be used as a reason to cut emissions, impose water discharge standards, etc and that new regulations will cut into profits.
Who knows - if it happened today instead of back then the Koch brothers and others may have donated to Hillary instead and the political situation would be the other way around, but historically it's the Republicans that decided to deny reality despite earlier conservatives listening very closely to scientists. Eisenhower would probably tell all the deniers to fuck off and let him run the country as well as he could with expert advice instead of playing stupid PR games of make believe.
One very important thing to mention is that some of the same players were involved with the PR defending tobacco, opposing evolution and opposing the climate sciences. Most of the ones in common worked for "the heartland institute".
The problem is that the building did not collapse as intuition
That's only because movies used to show stuff as if cardboard boxes were falling over so the "intuition" of a lot of people was set by cheap special effects.
and plenty of demolition experts testified
No they did not. Various nuts lied about demolition experts that do not exist while the ones that do exist sided with reality instead of Hollywood.
As long as that is not explained
Impact. Dynamic loading not static. When a single floor collapses it hits the floor below pretty damned hard and buildings are not designed to withstand that sort of thing happening. If they were New York would look like the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.
Which would lead to a tilting of the building to the side
Hollywood and cardboard box effects in the 1970s has a lot to answer for. Stuff falls down not sideways. Even when earthquakes provide a bit of lateral movement large buildings collapse into themselves without much tilting - they do not fall sideways intact like a cardboard box as "a layman" has been encouraged to think over the last few decades.
Indeed, which is why I had to do it the way I said in the end after an offline WSUS tool and other attempts did not work. The way it behaves changes frequently, which is very annoying and means that what is good advice a month ago is often not relevant today.
Discussing stuff with Russia now is not as bad as Reagan's discussions with Iran before his election. Consider it partisan politics as usual. Why put the country ahead of a political party? That's commie talk to people in politics.
If you do a fresh install of Windows 7 these days? The update process is PAINFUL! You'll literally need to leave the PC downloading updates for a good 8-10 hours or more before it finally starts doing anything obvious
On the most recent one I did updating was completely broken. For days. Even printer drivers were unavailable. It turned that that turning updates off - rebooting - then turning them on again allowed that 8-10 hours or more. The way it behaves changes frequently.
France USED breeders and then shut them down apart from a tiny research reactor. A bit of background: In 1968 it looked as if high grade Uranium ore was going to run out since a long list of countries even including Egypt were planning to build reactors. The price of Uranium rose as a consequence. The French response to that was to plan some fast breeders, build them, run them for decades and then shut them down. They have not built new ones because high grade Uranium ore is no longer a rarity and the demand is not high (there is about a centuries worth in a single mine in Australia and quite a lot in other places).
Various green groups claimed credit for the old reactors shutting down but the reality is something designed in 1968 and built very shortly after was just too worn out in so many components that it was not worth running any longer - especially since the French weapons program no longer needed the material and the competing reactor designs are much cheaper to use.
Australian consumers pay more despite nearly all of the generating capacity being coal fired plants running at a very cheap price per MW/h. You'll need more than that assertion to show that "solar and wind can't survive", since we're discussing a group of poorly regulated local monopolies often being used as hidden taxation by governments. You are also mixing up peak and base load generation sources, where it often doesn't matter if they cost a bit more (if you need 10MW then expensive solar is going to be cheaper to bring online than 500MW of cheap coal - cheaper per MW doesn't matter so much when it only comes in very large chunks).
Taking an oversimplistic approach as you did above really gets you nowhere. It's much more productive to find out about the topic before preaching about it than the other way around.
If there were some way to build thousands of small-scale nuclear plants instead of 100 large ones,
They would be entirely pointless. Thermal power scales dramatically. Double the number of solar panels and you get double the power, scale up a thermal plant the same way and you get more than double the power. The greater the volume of steam the greater the percentage of energy you can get out of it - low pressure but a lot of it (after you've got everything out that a smaller plant could do) means you can turn a turbine that would not spin up with less. You can have a lot of little reactors instead of one big one but the important thing is to have as much steam as you can get spinning those turbines to overcome friction and all the rest. If a small nuke is doing something other than powering a ship for long range purposes or similar then it's an expensive toy. To get a return the things have to be big.
On the very simple aspects it's very easy to get a handle on things. For fine detail it matters if you are an expert or have listened to one on exactly that fine detail.
Due to people coming from different field or not having a generalised enough education there are a lot of topics where everyone who has picked up enough to attempt high school physics can get a handle on something but those that never got that far can not - hence a lot of pointless discussion here over very simple things and anger from the latter about "self appointed experts".
The most depressing one of those I've hit here is the 9/11 "truthers" who refuse to believe that hot steel gets soft. Am I an expert on that topic? Yes I fucking am and proved it with thousands of tons of steel rod with the right heat treatment before most people posting here were born - but you don't need to be an expert to know the simple thing that hot steel gets soft.
Isn't it funny how hopeless nuclear fanboys kept insisting that the government was against nuclear power the entire time despite things like this going on? You can blame government, hippies or whoever but the reality is that US nuclear companies just do not have their shit together which is why when the UK went shopping for nukes they went to the Chinese. Say whatever you like about the Chinese nuclear industry but they do not have the current mode of failure of Westinghouse etc of spending far more on public relations than they have on research and development.
So, the deeper into the gravity well you get, the bigger explosions you can "afford" without creating any more space-junk
By exploding them you are talking about adding velocity to things that are already moving at orbital velocities. I suggest you think about it in those terms as an aid to understanding. You should be able to work out that many fragments are going to go up and continue orbiting from that.
Obviously, not even a nuclear blast on the Earth's surface would send anything into orbit
We have rocks in Antarctica and many other places that have got there after something hit Mars fairly hard. Your "obviously" is an example of where thinking in terms of what you see in your immediate environment is not enough to cover some other situations.
just enough to break the contraption into several pieces. It and can be calculated so that any shrapnel would still end up burning in the air even if not right away.
Maybe try reading that fiction I mentioned or some non fiction - or perhaps even a real video of something blowing up to dispel a bit of the Hollywood thinking in action here. Those little bits flying everywhere are a problem when even paint flecks are classed as dangerous space junk.
supporting Dell corporate systems and now that I'm retired, thats is ALL I will buy/recommend... Asus all suck donkey balls
Surely you've worked out by now that Asus was making that Dell stuff until they decided to sell stuff on their own.
Who is making the Dell stuff this week? It's variable quality because it's rebadged stuff from a range of suppliers. Is SuperMicro crap because they were not on your radar since you were only supporting Dell stuff and not the high end of town?
This thing is not only neither but blatantly anti-capitalistic. It's saying you can't sell stuff because the government is saying you cannot.
We put up with that sort of obstruction to capitalism when the stuff is dangerous, but when it's this arbitrary it's behaving like a communist or other authoritarian government.
News just in - explosions send shit everywhere. Even on "the edge of the atmosphere". For a bit of good fiction which explains what I'm talking about by around a few billion, but still gets the message across in general terms, take a look at the first part of "Seven Eves". In short when you have high velocity bits going all over the place you end up with some going up as well as some going down instead of the nice neat settling of dust that most people imagine. Air resistance is very low in LEO (but not nil) and gravity isn't so strong up there so if you explode something a lot of stuff goes up and stays up for a long time.
Just letting it fall is better than a lot of other options since it's a vast amount smaller than Skylab and most bits probably won't make it to the ground anyway. It's not as if it's got huge amounts of stuff that is difficult to melt like the Kosmos satellites with shielded nuclear fuel onboard - those things have come down in large pieces.
Christ, another "AI" breakthough. We call algorithms AI now. Apparently a bunch of "if/else" statements are AI now.
It's the same depressing way that nanotech became toothpaste and sunscreen instead of the little machines Drexler wrote about. Think about it as you stand on a Hoverboard or do a little bit of Android programming.
Slashdot Mirror
They are connected very tightly by politics - well, money paying for that politics really. One of the arguments pushed strongly by the deniers is that climate change is just a trick to force companies to cut emissions, impose water discharge standards, etc. That was really the start of the PR campaign against scientists some years ago. Since some of the companies involved were donors to Republicans it all got very political.
Before the "debate" was kicked off with millions in PR money conservatives such as Thatcher were on the side of reality instead of PR. The only reason many conservatives are opposing reality King Canute style today is because of donor money from those who think climate change will be used as a reason to cut emissions, impose water discharge standards, etc and that new regulations will cut into profits.
Who knows - if it happened today instead of back then the Koch brothers and others may have donated to Hillary instead and the political situation would be the other way around, but historically it's the Republicans that decided to deny reality despite earlier conservatives listening very closely to scientists. Eisenhower would probably tell all the deniers to fuck off and let him run the country as well as he could with expert advice instead of playing stupid PR games of make believe.
Initially they were the same PR firm involved with all of it.
One very important thing to mention is that some of the same players were involved with the PR defending tobacco, opposing evolution and opposing the climate sciences.
Most of the ones in common worked for "the heartland institute".
That's only because movies used to show stuff as if cardboard boxes were falling over so the "intuition" of a lot of people was set by cheap special effects.
No they did not. Various nuts lied about demolition experts that do not exist while the ones that do exist sided with reality instead of Hollywood.
Impact. Dynamic loading not static. When a single floor collapses it hits the floor below pretty damned hard and buildings are not designed to withstand that sort of thing happening. If they were New York would look like the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.
Hollywood and cardboard box effects in the 1970s has a lot to answer for. Stuff falls down not sideways. Even when earthquakes provide a bit of lateral movement large buildings collapse into themselves without much tilting - they do not fall sideways intact like a cardboard box as "a layman" has been encouraged to think over the last few decades.
No, that's viagra spammers.
True - I stand corrected, or is that erected?
Why make it hard on yourself? Just re-use your Ashley Madison login.
I thought the point of Ashley Madison was to make it hard.
Indeed, which is why I had to do it the way I said in the end after an offline WSUS tool and other attempts did not work.
The way it behaves changes frequently, which is very annoying and means that what is good advice a month ago is often not relevant today.
Funny thing to hear from a beggar Brendan.
Do what I say not what I do?
Go ask your Dad about Kennedy.
Discussing stuff with Russia now is not as bad as Reagan's discussions with Iran before his election.
Consider it partisan politics as usual.
Why put the country ahead of a political party? That's commie talk to people in politics.
On the most recent one I did updating was completely broken. For days. Even printer drivers were unavailable. It turned that that turning updates off - rebooting - then turning them on again allowed that 8-10 hours or more.
The way it behaves changes frequently.
France USED breeders and then shut them down apart from a tiny research reactor.
A bit of background: In 1968 it looked as if high grade Uranium ore was going to run out since a long list of countries even including Egypt were planning to build reactors. The price of Uranium rose as a consequence.
The French response to that was to plan some fast breeders, build them, run them for decades and then shut them down. They have not built new ones because high grade Uranium ore is no longer a rarity and the demand is not high (there is about a centuries worth in a single mine in Australia and quite a lot in other places).
Various green groups claimed credit for the old reactors shutting down but the reality is something designed in 1968 and built very shortly after was just too worn out in so many components that it was not worth running any longer - especially since the French weapons program no longer needed the material and the competing reactor designs are much cheaper to use.
Australian consumers pay more despite nearly all of the generating capacity being coal fired plants running at a very cheap price per MW/h. You'll need more than that assertion to show that "solar and wind can't survive", since we're discussing a group of poorly regulated local monopolies often being used as hidden taxation by governments. You are also mixing up peak and base load generation sources, where it often doesn't matter if they cost a bit more (if you need 10MW then expensive solar is going to be cheaper to bring online than 500MW of cheap coal - cheaper per MW doesn't matter so much when it only comes in very large chunks).
Taking an oversimplistic approach as you did above really gets you nowhere. It's much more productive to find out about the topic before preaching about it than the other way around.
They would be entirely pointless.
Thermal power scales dramatically. Double the number of solar panels and you get double the power, scale up a thermal plant the same way and you get more than double the power.
The greater the volume of steam the greater the percentage of energy you can get out of it - low pressure but a lot of it (after you've got everything out that a smaller plant could do) means you can turn a turbine that would not spin up with less.
You can have a lot of little reactors instead of one big one but the important thing is to have as much steam as you can get spinning those turbines to overcome friction and all the rest.
If a small nuke is doing something other than powering a ship for long range purposes or similar then it's an expensive toy. To get a return the things have to be big.
On the very simple aspects it's very easy to get a handle on things.
For fine detail it matters if you are an expert or have listened to one on exactly that fine detail.
Due to people coming from different field or not having a generalised enough education there are a lot of topics where everyone who has picked up enough to attempt high school physics can get a handle on something but those that never got that far can not - hence a lot of pointless discussion here over very simple things and anger from the latter about "self appointed experts".
The most depressing one of those I've hit here is the 9/11 "truthers" who refuse to believe that hot steel gets soft. Am I an expert on that topic? Yes I fucking am and proved it with thousands of tons of steel rod with the right heat treatment before most people posting here were born - but you don't need to be an expert to know the simple thing that hot steel gets soft.
Isn't it funny how hopeless nuclear fanboys kept insisting that the government was against nuclear power the entire time despite things like this going on?
You can blame government, hippies or whoever but the reality is that US nuclear companies just do not have their shit together which is why when the UK went shopping for nukes they went to the Chinese. Say whatever you like about the Chinese nuclear industry but they do not have the current mode of failure of Westinghouse etc of spending far more on public relations than they have on research and development.
Stand? No. Squirm uncomfortably? Yes.
By exploding them you are talking about adding velocity to things that are already moving at orbital velocities. I suggest you think about it in those terms as an aid to understanding. You should be able to work out that many fragments are going to go up and continue orbiting from that.
We have rocks in Antarctica and many other places that have got there after something hit Mars fairly hard.
Your "obviously" is an example of where thinking in terms of what you see in your immediate environment is not enough to cover some other situations.
Maybe try reading that fiction I mentioned or some non fiction - or perhaps even a real video of something blowing up to dispel a bit of the Hollywood thinking in action here.
Those little bits flying everywhere are a problem when even paint flecks are classed as dangerous space junk.
The word you are looking for is "Oligarchy". Perhaps look it up instead of twisting the meaning of something else to match it.
Surely you've worked out by now that Asus was making that Dell stuff until they decided to sell stuff on their own.
Who is making the Dell stuff this week? It's variable quality because it's rebadged stuff from a range of suppliers. Is SuperMicro crap because they were not on your radar since you were only supporting Dell stuff and not the high end of town?
This thing is not only neither but blatantly anti-capitalistic.
It's saying you can't sell stuff because the government is saying you cannot.
We put up with that sort of obstruction to capitalism when the stuff is dangerous, but when it's this arbitrary it's behaving like a communist or other authoritarian government.
News just in - explosions send shit everywhere. Even on "the edge of the atmosphere".
For a bit of good fiction which explains what I'm talking about by around a few billion, but still gets the message across in general terms, take a look at the first part of "Seven Eves".
In short when you have high velocity bits going all over the place you end up with some going up as well as some going down instead of the nice neat settling of dust that most people imagine. Air resistance is very low in LEO (but not nil) and gravity isn't so strong up there so if you explode something a lot of stuff goes up and stays up for a long time.
Just letting it fall is better than a lot of other options since it's a vast amount smaller than Skylab and most bits probably won't make it to the ground anyway. It's not as if it's got huge amounts of stuff that is difficult to melt like the Kosmos satellites with shielded nuclear fuel onboard - those things have come down in large pieces.
Devices that rely on heartbeat, breathing rhythm, sweat etc. only detect (some) emotional states with normal people, but not with psychopaths.
Or it turns out from the summary even actors can fool it.
It's the same depressing way that nanotech became toothpaste and sunscreen instead of the little machines Drexler wrote about.
Think about it as you stand on a Hoverboard or do a little bit of Android programming.