"You've been denied access to the United States because your Facebook account is only three months old and likes boring stuff."
Remember how an entire Boeing 747 load of people were diverted to another airport to teach Cat Stevens a lesson for converting to Islam? The TSA is arbitrary and not held responsible for their actions and is not known for disciplining screeners who take extreme actions. I can see the above happening if it in some way makes a mall cop reject think it is out of the ordinary.
It demonstrates that "something has been done". IMHO the entire TSA is a waste of time and resources. They took the equivalent of the lowest bidder in the airport security business, vastly increased the size and then added the libertarian's nightmare of government bloat (IMHO). In more polite and informative terms without the reference to rapiscan corruption and so on there's this podcast and transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/safety-in-the-skies-%E2%80%93-the-story-of-aviation-security/8005092
Besides, if they get password access how can they use ANYTHING they find as evidence of anything?
It doesn't really matter to them. They are security and not law enforcement. It's not as someone they throw out of the country can take them to court without dealing with a lot of obstructions on the way so they usually do not answer to a court. Another reason to have some professionals doing the job instead of one step below mall cops.
If anyone else is using your token to access their service they should be hit with some felony "unlawful access to computer resources" hacking charges
Sounds good to me to apply that to the DHS, but we are sliding into "might makes right" territory these days like in China, Russia and other places we've been told for years act in an "unAmerican" manner.
That ridiculous fiction of convenience again? Thought experiment - murder in airport - do you REALLY think the police will not be allowed to investigate? It is extremely obvious, of course US law applies inside the USA.
I suppose now it will be alright for foreign governments to demand the same of US citizens traveling abroad?
It will be taken up like it is a fashion if it is adopted in one place. For all I know that could be why Fatherland Security is doing it, because they heard it's being done in Russia or Iran or somewhere.
You counted the ones starting construction in 2018 in that number as "under construction", while even the ones slated to start this year would be too much of a stretch for an honest person to include. I know you have trouble with the calendar and thought Bush stepped down in November, but seriously this is even more ridiculous. Why bother to try something like that? It's a bit of an insult to everyone who has the misfortune to read your posts.
Look at your own link - "planned" and "under construction" are two different things and your own link does not support your irrelevant claim. Also given the Chinese press it's best to count actual operating plants coming on line instead of claims about what might be happening somewhere.
You again?
So you've moved the goalposts from local to global to encompass places with planned economies. You win your special little game! Now can you just piss off and stop following me around while we get back to why the above poster is not getting a nuke plant in their state, the one next door or even the same continent?
Once again you are accusing me of your pretended problem. Aren't you getting bored by now? You are being unbelievably petty over such a trivial issue of your disgusting "debate" tactic. Do you really think you can deliberately pretend to be stupid without someone treating you as if you are?
Very good idea, I've loved it for decades, only nobody is putting the money up for anything big so large scale thermal plants with a tiny generating cost per MW do not get built. With photovoltaics, the cost for a GW of capacity is insane but the unit size is tiny so they get bought a few at a time.
nuclear would be more efficient at providing baseload power
So the PR says but nobody is putting up the money to build those either for the same reason as above.
The mining isn't that expensive but the fuel costs are not the only thing you need to pay to run a coal fired power station. Coal mining is likely to reduce but it's not going away - steel production needs coal for reasons of chemistry (reducing iron oxide to iron) and not heat. Of course the steel is probably going to be made in other countries.
How often is it economic to do power station coal to gas conversions?
It isn't. I was involved on the edge of one of those proposals in 1994. Putting gas burners in a boiler is a huge waste of fuel and in the long run just gutting the building and putting gas turbines in makes a vast amount more sense than all of the very difficult mucking about with water, steam, etc you have to do with a large thermal power station. Within a very short time running costs of a retrofitted plant would exceed the cost of getting gas turbines. With the idea of reusing the site we couldn't even use the existing stack because the exhaust temperature of the gas turbines would be a lot higher. In the end new turbines were placed elsewhere since selling the site made more sense than trying to reuse a small portion of a very large site, and we would get very little savings by having existing walls, roof and an antiquated switchyard.
Also I think the bit you quoted is simplistic and misleading with the source either not being entirely honest or not having a good grasp on a very major factor. The plants are closing because they are old and nearly all of the ones closing have exceeded their design life but are kept going by increasingly expensive repairs. Parts of boilers don't cost a lot to fix since they can be done a few tubes at a time, turbine blades can be replaced a few at a time, but turbine rotors are a different story. A combination of heat and stress means they will be dangerous to use eventually with replacement as the only option (and a waiting list of years for a new one - though spares are often kept). Those old plants are going to have to be replaced entirely with something new, and since nobody wants to outlay the huge amount of capital for a large thermal power station they get replaced with stuff you can buy piecemeal instead of putting down the cash for gigawatts of capacity at once.
There would be more jobs but ideological opposition to solar meant that all the US funded research and development ended up being used for free by the Chinese to make panels to sell to us. If Carter hadn't put solar panels on the White House and Reagan hadn't taken them down to show how politically different he was maybe they would be seen as the space age technology they are instead of something "green" to hate just to toe a party line.
It's not really a role for an "engineer". A coder skilled in mathematics or mathematician skilled in coding is a better fit. They are just calling them "engineers" because it sounds impressive and not because the IEEE or any other professional body would recognize them as engineers. Yes, yes, I'm perfectly aware that there are programmers who fit the description of engineer in every way, but I doubt these ones are.
I pointed out that some leftist moron's analogy failed as an analogy.
No - you pretended it was not one. And yet more examples of dishing it out in industrial quantities (your stupid remark about literacy) and not taking it - pathetic. So it's OK for you to insult but everyone else must not do so in response?
comment without even noticing such a blatant typo
Yet you missed the "yawl" "merkin" and the other "blatant typos"? Maybe I should have written "lurned ta reed" to make it more obvious merkin banjo boy.
Don't take it personally - I'm describing all those who are suggesting everyone who is "politically correct" should shut up. I should have replaced the word "you" in that final two sentences but missed it.
As I see it a lot of the "alt-right" shit is about shouting other people down. That's not good IMHO from either end and is the way to spot an extremist.
Grade school? Urk, the university I went to was still using those. A girl in my class got some purple from it on her new white blouse from the thing and one of the chemistry lecturers helpfully poured some acetone on it to clean up - he seemed sure he could pour on just a drop instead of spilling a lot on her, but he spilled it. Not just a white blouse a white NYLON blouse. In seconds she was half naked and sticky from dissolved nylon (like wearing cobwebs by that point) in front of an almost all male class of around fifty students. The office staff didn't have a polite word to say to that chemist for a couple of years.
seems to morph into the "tyranny of the politically correct" every goddamn time.
It used to be called being polite in polite company and only ranting about all women being whores useless even for that (Milo is a nasty piece of shit isn't he?) among those who didn't care what crap came out of a mouth. Of course people can do it just like some people always have, but of course it's going to piss people off when it's the wrong time and place. This "tyranny of the politically correct" is IMHO just a new way of whining about an age-old situation, unless it's complaining about not being able to insult people in certain ways.
So to all of you self-righteous silencers out there
OK, you want to silence the "silencers"? Pointing shit out is not exactly silencing people even if you don't want to hear their shit, it cuts both ways.
It was kind of fun when some documents where released in PDF format with the redaction placed as a easily removable layer over the top. I forget which government made that mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Lock him up! He knows what we changed the launch code to for Trump!
Remember how an entire Boeing 747 load of people were diverted to another airport to teach Cat Stevens a lesson for converting to Islam?
The TSA is arbitrary and not held responsible for their actions and is not known for disciplining screeners who take extreme actions. I can see the above happening if it in some way makes a mall cop reject think it is out of the ordinary.
It demonstrates that "something has been done".
IMHO the entire TSA is a waste of time and resources. They took the equivalent of the lowest bidder in the airport security business, vastly increased the size and then added the libertarian's nightmare of government bloat (IMHO). In more polite and informative terms without the reference to rapiscan corruption and so on there's this podcast and transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/rearvision/safety-in-the-skies-%E2%80%93-the-story-of-aviation-security/8005092
It doesn't really matter to them. They are security and not law enforcement. It's not as someone they throw out of the country can take them to court without dealing with a lot of obstructions on the way so they usually do not answer to a court.
Another reason to have some professionals doing the job instead of one step below mall cops.
Sounds good to me to apply that to the DHS, but we are sliding into "might makes right" territory these days like in China, Russia and other places we've been told for years act in an "unAmerican" manner.
That ridiculous fiction of convenience again?
Thought experiment - murder in airport - do you REALLY think the police will not be allowed to investigate? It is extremely obvious, of course US law applies inside the USA.
That dishonest and blaming the person you've decided to follow around? No wonder you've got an empty life.
It will be taken up like it is a fashion if it is adopted in one place. For all I know that could be why Fatherland Security is doing it, because they heard it's being done in Russia or Iran or somewhere.
Gas turbines are just so much better than using a gas flame to boil water.
Why are you following me around?
Is your life that empty?
You counted the ones starting construction in 2018 in that number as "under construction", while even the ones slated to start this year would be too much of a stretch for an honest person to include.
I know you have trouble with the calendar and thought Bush stepped down in November, but seriously this is even more ridiculous. Why bother to try something like that? It's a bit of an insult to everyone who has the misfortune to read your posts.
Look at your own link - "planned" and "under construction" are two different things and your own link does not support your irrelevant claim. Also given the Chinese press it's best to count actual operating plants coming on line instead of claims about what might be happening somewhere.
You again? So you've moved the goalposts from local to global to encompass places with planned economies.
You win your special little game!
Now can you just piss off and stop following me around while we get back to why the above poster is not getting a nuke plant in their state, the one next door or even the same continent?
Once again you are accusing me of your pretended problem. Aren't you getting bored by now? You are being unbelievably petty over such a trivial issue of your disgusting "debate" tactic.
Do you really think you can deliberately pretend to be stupid without someone treating you as if you are?
So the PR says but nobody is putting up the money to build those either for the same reason as above.
The mining isn't that expensive but the fuel costs are not the only thing you need to pay to run a coal fired power station. Coal mining is likely to reduce but it's not going away - steel production needs coal for reasons of chemistry (reducing iron oxide to iron) and not heat. Of course the steel is probably going to be made in other countries.
It isn't.
I was involved on the edge of one of those proposals in 1994. Putting gas burners in a boiler is a huge waste of fuel and in the long run just gutting the building and putting gas turbines in makes a vast amount more sense than all of the very difficult mucking about with water, steam, etc you have to do with a large thermal power station. Within a very short time running costs of a retrofitted plant would exceed the cost of getting gas turbines. With the idea of reusing the site we couldn't even use the existing stack because the exhaust temperature of the gas turbines would be a lot higher. In the end new turbines were placed elsewhere since selling the site made more sense than trying to reuse a small portion of a very large site, and we would get very little savings by having existing walls, roof and an antiquated switchyard.
Also I think the bit you quoted is simplistic and misleading with the source either not being entirely honest or not having a good grasp on a very major factor.
The plants are closing because they are old and nearly all of the ones closing have exceeded their design life but are kept going by increasingly expensive repairs. Parts of boilers don't cost a lot to fix since they can be done a few tubes at a time, turbine blades can be replaced a few at a time, but turbine rotors are a different story. A combination of heat and stress means they will be dangerous to use eventually with replacement as the only option (and a waiting list of years for a new one - though spares are often kept). Those old plants are going to have to be replaced entirely with something new, and since nobody wants to outlay the huge amount of capital for a large thermal power station they get replaced with stuff you can buy piecemeal instead of putting down the cash for gigawatts of capacity at once.
There would be more jobs but ideological opposition to solar meant that all the US funded research and development ended up being used for free by the Chinese to make panels to sell to us.
If Carter hadn't put solar panels on the White House and Reagan hadn't taken them down to show how politically different he was maybe they would be seen as the space age technology they are instead of something "green" to hate just to toe a party line.
I never pretended the awful analogy was anything but. That was your sad misunderstanding of plain English, and your desire to have alternative facts.
Never?
And that kiddies is what is known as an incredibly blatant lie.
It's not really a role for an "engineer". A coder skilled in mathematics or mathematician skilled in coding is a better fit. They are just calling them "engineers" because it sounds impressive and not because the IEEE or any other professional body would recognize them as engineers.
Yes, yes, I'm perfectly aware that there are programmers who fit the description of engineer in every way, but I doubt these ones are.
No - you pretended it was not one.
And yet more examples of dishing it out in industrial quantities (your stupid remark about literacy) and not taking it - pathetic. So it's OK for you to insult but everyone else must not do so in response?
Yet you missed the "yawl" "merkin" and the other "blatant typos"? Maybe I should have written "lurned ta reed" to make it more obvious merkin banjo boy.
Don't take it personally - I'm describing all those who are suggesting everyone who is "politically correct" should shut up.
I should have replaced the word "you" in that final two sentences but missed it.
As I see it a lot of the "alt-right" shit is about shouting other people down. That's not good IMHO from either end and is the way to spot an extremist.
Grade school? Urk, the university I went to was still using those.
A girl in my class got some purple from it on her new white blouse from the thing and one of the chemistry lecturers helpfully poured some acetone on it to clean up - he seemed sure he could pour on just a drop instead of spilling a lot on her, but he spilled it. Not just a white blouse a white NYLON blouse. In seconds she was half naked and sticky from dissolved nylon (like wearing cobwebs by that point) in front of an almost all male class of around fifty students. The office staff didn't have a polite word to say to that chemist for a couple of years.
It used to be called being polite in polite company and only ranting about all women being whores useless even for that (Milo is a nasty piece of shit isn't he?) among those who didn't care what crap came out of a mouth. Of course people can do it just like some people always have, but of course it's going to piss people off when it's the wrong time and place.
This "tyranny of the politically correct" is IMHO just a new way of whining about an age-old situation, unless it's complaining about not being able to insult people in certain ways.
OK, you want to silence the "silencers"? Pointing shit out is not exactly silencing people even if you don't want to hear their shit, it cuts both ways.
It was kind of fun when some documents where released in PDF format with the redaction placed as a easily removable layer over the top. I forget which government made that mistake.