Which comes from different backgrounds and experiences. The most effective teams I've been in almost sound like the start of a joke about different people coming into a bar. In one case there was a technician who repaired military jets, a doctor with most of an anestesia specialty, an engineer who had designed the process in a large yak milk bottling factory and me, an engineer that worked out why bits of power stations broke. We turned out decent code quickly unlike others with a background that stopped with simple algebra and simpler geometry. There was no separation and no step of trying to spoon feed the science to the coder in easily digestible chunks.
Rubbish, there is XWin32 and many others. If some rare edge cases of gnome3 don't work on it then that's more likely a sign of not fully tested new parts of gnome3 than a lack of support for a "modern X desktop".
However all of that aside, since you appear to know very little about this topic the only thing of interest at this point is why you feel so compelled to lie about it. The unanswered questions I asked above are all that matters at this point:
What's your game? Why are you playing it? Why is it ok for you to dismiss the utterly stupid 100% with the excuse "if you want to get technical" yet now are demanding a "technical contribution"?
You are making the claim - you provide something other than a source that not only does not say what you suggest it does but you also appear to not understand it - and are deliberately using it as a bluff in the hope that others do as well. I suspect the multiple 75% stuff is a guess rounded up to the nearest 25% - however you've been bleating about accuracy so much and have been deliberately lying and mucking people about with the language bluff so I'm expecting better from you than a guess. If you haven't worked it out yet - it's not the number I object to, since it's probably wasn't a lot less than that back in 2006, but the slimy underhanded way you attempted to baffle me with a report in a language that I'm not good at reading (and apparently you cannot read any of it at all and you were hoping I could not!). Coming on top of the other tricks it was not a good look. After so much crying wolf you've hit the point where you need to put up something other than a prop used to baffle or shut up. Your distraction didn't work and there's a REAL 2.6GW plant you can VISIT so who gives a shit if it's also listed on wikipedia. Fuck your semantics. Google fucking streetview is a "primary source" if you wish. I'm amazed that you just keep on digging. If i'd made that stupid 100% claim about something you are not a fan of I'm betting you wouldn't be leaving me alone on that - you've were almost rabid with just a suggestion that windwills were not entirely useless!
That should be what interviews are for instead of sorting by narcissism by whoever has the nicest things to say about themselves on their facebook page or rejecting people based on misunderstood jokes (eg. the court case over firing due to a "drunken pirate" caption on a facebook photo).
Resorting to semantics to protest that your deliberate attempt to confuse was in some way more valid than my pointing out that it does not actually describe the situation as you pretend - with a huge 2.6GW example? Your "we can define our own reality" political bullshit is pathetic. That single example I gave above, a coal fired power station larger than what you pretended was the maximum for coal, was enough to demonstrate the the figures in your source did not represent what you said it does. And now you rabbit on about requiring more "technical contributions" to counter your politically motivated lies? I'll remind you that you are making the extraordinary claim so you are not in the place to be demanding evidence are you? It's a petty little control game on your part Mr 100%. Are you enjoying this rubbish because why are you continuing when we both know you are lying and that the report you linked above does not support your argument. So tell me then. If the existence of a single coal fired plant in France that is larger than your supposed maximum coal capacity in France is not enough of a "technical contribution" then what is? Do you really dispute that it does not exist? You've established a pattern - the wind thing was a lie, the 100% was a lie and even the 75% turned out to have at least a 2.6GW hole in it. Why so much lying on this topic? Is it some sort of petty election fever due to your countries upcoming senate election and some desire to exhibit a Soviet style devotion to "The Party" or do you have some other dog in the fight? I've worked with nuclear scientists (there's some stuff that crosses over with high temperature pipework under stress in comparison to neutron damage under stress) and they did not try to mislead me in the way you have been attempting to gull the readers here. What's your game? Why are you playing it? Why is it ok for you to dismiss the utterly stupid 100% with the excuse "if you want to get technical" yet now are demanding a "technical contribution" other than one that has better references listed at the bottom if you really want to see if it's authentic.
It appears I shouldn't have used the word "you". It was a general comment to anyone browsing on what people wishing to be hired should do since now HR in a lot of places are starting to sort based on whether they approve of what they can find out about people's social lives online - don't give the pricks anything to object to (just as was written above about not having the profile open - good idea). The old "cyber-safety" line was never give anyone your real name unless you have contact with them offline - facebook taught a generation the opposite. When you have potential employers that would reject you in preference for other based on even just a list of the fiction recently read it's better to not let them get anything via that channel, and to do their jobs properly. Enough ranting I suppose but I've had HR people wasting far too much time looking up people on facebook trying to find trivial things to sort on instead of actually doing their job and finding potential hires who know how to use a computer - why should I give a shit if they like line dancing or whatever?
Why are you still digging Mr 100%? You are way out of your depth. You can't bluff an engineer who used to work in the power industry with your ignorant efforts. Instead of being driven to pretend to be an idiot due to a desire to be a good loyal little Comrade for your chosen politics how about giving up on this, stop trying to fool the kiddies, who have long ago left in boredom, and comment on a topic that you actually do know something about.
let me tell you about the advantages for the employer side
The disadvantage (as seen most clearly with autocratic governments but it also applies to companies) is that if say your multinational company has executives drawn from the same University swimming club it ends up no better run than a University swimming club. You end up with the shallow end of the gene pool instead of having a widespread bunch of people who are capable of running the place. It can happen at any scale and it tends to drive away anyone you can catch who may be talented but isn't one of the "in crowd".
Yes I'd also like to see an accomplished inventor turn up on their own initiative in response to a simple job advertisement instead of having to go looking for them or do some sort of deal other than give them a small chance at a job, but I don't ever expect it to actually see it happen.
over judgemental gatekeepers to inflate their own sense of value.
Hence the facebook profile inspection weirdness becoming a mainstream part of recruiting instead of just an excuse for lazy HR folks to waste time on facebook. There are actually losers who will exclude potential employees based on their posts, so don't let those dickheads anywhere near an online presence that shows you drinking, partying or spending time on a hobby that may be considered frivolous or even geeky.
I've got no idea why you expect some sort of trust of something in a different language that we are supposed to take you word for - especially after your vehement 100% rubbish above. I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.
Pilot plant. Everyone is too risk averse to put up money anything more. Contrast that with strange dotcoms, cable tv and almost ponzi-like financial companies that spring up.
Check your units. If you are talking about coal go up from kW to MW. As an example to get some perspective, a power station I worked at had a backup generator to run the coal conveyers in case of a cold start and that was a single jet engine running as a gas turbine - a tiny one of it's type cable of producing 20MW. The steam turbines running from the coal fired boilers were 650MW each and there's now six units at that power station.
A "unit", as in boiler, turbine and half a cooling tower is around 500MW these days, putting recent power plants typically around 2GW with four units. Of course older stuff built before the 1980s is smaller. A "tiny" power station with six 120MW units that was near where I live was demolished a couple of years ago.
It's a no-brainer but there are not that many sites where it's viable without getting in the way of other activities, or close enough to civilisation to be easy to build. Undersea turbines don't get in the way.
Depends on the size of the turbines and the head pressure of the dam. Some tidal races move very quickly which would be equivalent to having a dam quite some distance above the turbines.
Tides go in and out, so yes, there's a peak when you can get maximum flow through the turbines and there's points where you don't get any flow at all. That one doesn't have an enormous reservoir to be able to maintain maximum flow for very long either.
What do you do when the entire underwater "windmill" is covered in barnacles?
What do I do? Curse the idiot designer who didn't go to high school and didn't specify anti-fouling paint.
WTF is it with you guys? As soon as something that can be linked in some way to green politics we get people who pretend their IQ has dropped by one hundred and roll out utterly cretinous reasons when the thing that could be seen as green will not work?
How about shedding the politically inspired stupidity (lot of it about this week) and discuss it as you would a space probe. Either that or keep up the silly games so that I can point at you and laugh, using you as an prize example of why coders shouldn't call themselves engineers.
It may not be large but the Le Havre tidal hydro power station has been running since the 1960s and certainly has been economically viable. This is a new approach but not a new idea to be condemned on "maybe it won't get it's money back" grounds.
Slashdot Mirror
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Says the man who used the Forbes magazine as a source.
So why are you doing this?
Which comes from different backgrounds and experiences.
The most effective teams I've been in almost sound like the start of a joke about different people coming into a bar.
In one case there was a technician who repaired military jets, a doctor with most of an anestesia specialty, an engineer who had designed the process in a large yak milk bottling factory and me, an engineer that worked out why bits of power stations broke. We turned out decent code quickly unlike others with a background that stopped with simple algebra and simpler geometry. There was no separation and no step of trying to spoon feed the science to the coder in easily digestible chunks.
Because people who know different stuff know different stuff. That's why it was taken as read and not stated.
Rubbish, there is XWin32 and many others. If some rare edge cases of gnome3 don't work on it then that's more likely a sign of not fully tested new parts of gnome3 than a lack of support for a "modern X desktop".
However all of that aside, since you appear to know very little about this topic the only thing of interest at this point is why you feel so compelled to lie about it. The unanswered questions I asked above are all that matters at this point:
What's your game?
Why are you playing it?
Why is it ok for you to dismiss the utterly stupid 100% with the excuse "if you want to get technical" yet now are demanding a "technical contribution"?
You are making the claim - you provide something other than a source that not only does not say what you suggest it does but you also appear to not understand it - and are deliberately using it as a bluff in the hope that others do as well.
I suspect the multiple 75% stuff is a guess rounded up to the nearest 25% - however you've been bleating about accuracy so much and have been deliberately lying and mucking people about with the language bluff so I'm expecting better from you than a guess. If you haven't worked it out yet - it's not the number I object to, since it's probably wasn't a lot less than that back in 2006, but the slimy underhanded way you attempted to baffle me with a report in a language that I'm not good at reading (and apparently you cannot read any of it at all and you were hoping I could not!). Coming on top of the other tricks it was not a good look.
After so much crying wolf you've hit the point where you need to put up something other than a prop used to baffle or shut up. Your distraction didn't work and there's a REAL 2.6GW plant you can VISIT so who gives a shit if it's also listed on wikipedia. Fuck your semantics. Google fucking streetview is a "primary source" if you wish.
I'm amazed that you just keep on digging. If i'd made that stupid 100% claim about something you are not a fan of I'm betting you wouldn't be leaving me alone on that - you've were almost rabid with just a suggestion that windwills were not entirely useless!
That should be what interviews are for instead of sorting by narcissism by whoever has the nicest things to say about themselves on their facebook page or rejecting people based on misunderstood jokes (eg. the court case over firing due to a "drunken pirate" caption on a facebook photo).
Resorting to semantics to protest that your deliberate attempt to confuse was in some way more valid than my pointing out that it does not actually describe the situation as you pretend - with a huge 2.6GW example? Your "we can define our own reality" political bullshit is pathetic. That single example I gave above, a coal fired power station larger than what you pretended was the maximum for coal, was enough to demonstrate the the figures in your source did not represent what you said it does. And now you rabbit on about requiring more "technical contributions" to counter your politically motivated lies?
I'll remind you that you are making the extraordinary claim so you are not in the place to be demanding evidence are you? It's a petty little control game on your part Mr 100%. Are you enjoying this rubbish because why are you continuing when we both know you are lying and that the report you linked above does not support your argument.
So tell me then. If the existence of a single coal fired plant in France that is larger than your supposed maximum coal capacity in France is not enough of a "technical contribution" then what is? Do you really dispute that it does not exist?
You've established a pattern - the wind thing was a lie, the 100% was a lie and even the 75% turned out to have at least a 2.6GW hole in it. Why so much lying on this topic? Is it some sort of petty election fever due to your countries upcoming senate election and some desire to exhibit a Soviet style devotion to "The Party" or do you have some other dog in the fight? I've worked with nuclear scientists (there's some stuff that crosses over with high temperature pipework under stress in comparison to neutron damage under stress) and they did not try to mislead me in the way you have been attempting to gull the readers here. What's your game? Why are you playing it? Why is it ok for you to dismiss the utterly stupid 100% with the excuse "if you want to get technical" yet now are demanding a "technical contribution" other than one that has better references listed at the bottom if you really want to see if it's authentic.
It appears I shouldn't have used the word "you". It was a general comment to anyone browsing on what people wishing to be hired should do since now HR in a lot of places are starting to sort based on whether they approve of what they can find out about people's social lives online - don't give the pricks anything to object to (just as was written above about not having the profile open - good idea).
The old "cyber-safety" line was never give anyone your real name unless you have contact with them offline - facebook taught a generation the opposite. When you have potential employers that would reject you in preference for other based on even just a list of the fiction recently read it's better to not let them get anything via that channel, and to do their jobs properly.
Enough ranting I suppose but I've had HR people wasting far too much time looking up people on facebook trying to find trivial things to sort on instead of actually doing their job and finding potential hires who know how to use a computer - why should I give a shit if they like line dancing or whatever?
Why are you still digging Mr 100%? You are way out of your depth. You can't bluff an engineer who used to work in the power industry with your ignorant efforts. Instead of being driven to pretend to be an idiot due to a desire to be a good loyal little Comrade for your chosen politics how about giving up on this, stop trying to fool the kiddies, who have long ago left in boredom, and comment on a topic that you actually do know something about.
The disadvantage (as seen most clearly with autocratic governments but it also applies to companies) is that if say your multinational company has executives drawn from the same University swimming club it ends up no better run than a University swimming club. You end up with the shallow end of the gene pool instead of having a widespread bunch of people who are capable of running the place. It can happen at any scale and it tends to drive away anyone you can catch who may be talented but isn't one of the "in crowd".
Yes I'd also like to see an accomplished inventor turn up on their own initiative in response to a simple job advertisement instead of having to go looking for them or do some sort of deal other than give them a small chance at a job, but I don't ever expect it to actually see it happen.
Hence the facebook profile inspection weirdness becoming a mainstream part of recruiting instead of just an excuse for lazy HR folks to waste time on facebook. There are actually losers who will exclude potential employees based on their posts, so don't let those dickheads anywhere near an online presence that shows you drinking, partying or spending time on a hobby that may be considered frivolous or even geeky.
I've got no idea why you expect some sort of trust of something in a different language that we are supposed to take you word for - especially after your vehement 100% rubbish above.
I suggest you stop making a fool of yourself.
I've certainly heard people loudly calling for sodomy when their Apple products stop working or get damaged :)
Pilot plant. Everyone is too risk averse to put up money anything more. Contrast that with strange dotcoms, cable tv and almost ponzi-like financial companies that spring up.
Check your units. If you are talking about coal go up from kW to MW. As an example to get some perspective, a power station I worked at had a backup generator to run the coal conveyers in case of a cold start and that was a single jet engine running as a gas turbine - a tiny one of it's type cable of producing 20MW. The steam turbines running from the coal fired boilers were 650MW each and there's now six units at that power station.
A "unit", as in boiler, turbine and half a cooling tower is around 500MW these days, putting recent power plants typically around 2GW with four units. Of course older stuff built before the 1980s is smaller. A "tiny" power station with six 120MW units that was near where I live was demolished a couple of years ago.
It's a no-brainer but there are not that many sites where it's viable without getting in the way of other activities, or close enough to civilisation to be easy to build. Undersea turbines don't get in the way.
Depends on the size of the turbines and the head pressure of the dam. Some tidal races move very quickly which would be equivalent to having a dam quite some distance above the turbines.
Tides go in and out, so yes, there's a peak when you can get maximum flow through the turbines and there's points where you don't get any flow at all. That one doesn't have an enormous reservoir to be able to maintain maximum flow for very long either.
Slack tide.
What do I do? Curse the idiot designer who didn't go to high school and didn't specify anti-fouling paint.
WTF is it with you guys? As soon as something that can be linked in some way to green politics we get people who pretend their IQ has dropped by one hundred and roll out utterly cretinous reasons when the thing that could be seen as green will not work?
How about shedding the politically inspired stupidity (lot of it about this week) and discuss it as you would a space probe. Either that or keep up the silly games so that I can point at you and laugh, using you as an prize example of why coders shouldn't call themselves engineers.
It may not be large but the Le Havre tidal hydro power station has been running since the 1960s and certainly has been economically viable. This is a new approach but not a new idea to be condemned on "maybe it won't get it's money back" grounds.