No, kW the measure of power, not energy. Joule is the measure of energy, with kWh being derived instead to make the unit in something that's more easily relatable to users.
And again, every unit you use is written wrong.
"kW", "kWh" and such. When you correct others (incorrectly), at least you could try to appear competent by using units correctly. I am (not only in use, but in definition). You are the only one that doesn't understand what they are used for, or how to write them.
A real engineer would be fired for that, as mistakes like that cost lives.
You are a lying piece of shit if you are trying to imply that I said W was "energy". Read TFA, power plants are "rated" in W, not Wh. That you don't like the practice because you hate renewable energy doesn't change reality.
The few times I've seen all the maths done, you could power the entire world from the roofs of the world. You'd need some lines to connect continents, but the power would be there and usable at all times. No need for storage, and no outages for the sun.
Google was better for printing long ago, and is now better for being on the screen. Why are you printing? You have a desktop, and no other computing device?
And paper maps don't need to be recharged.
In the car, it's a real shame they don't have some power points so that you could plug in your personal electronics to the car's electrical system. Then you could use the phone/tablet/whatever without worrying about the battery and how much charging you need to do before/after the trip.
1) Have you never tried to fold a map? 2) Only if you never zoom in and out with an electronic map 3) again, only if you never zoom in and out.
Apparently the primary issue is that you can't zoom. Fix that, and learn to pre-load maps for remote areas, and you'll be fine. I've never had a fault on the move. The only benefit of paper maps is when hiking. Be without power for a week or so, and most electronic maps won't work so well. And using compasses doesn't work the same on an electronic map as paper. But for driving (where you have power), there's no advantage in paper maps. Well, unless you don't know where you are going. I remember as a kid, using the map book and a phone book to look up addresses, then plot them on the map, with my location, then trace between them, and relay the directions to the driver. But these days, you look up your destination before you start, which loads the necessary information, and details between start and destination. So you don't need mobile data at all, so long as you have data available when you look it up to start.
In 1800, Google assumed that people would see a map, and print a map, taking paper with them in the car. In 2000, google assumes someone will see a map and use it while traveling, so they will zoom and such when needed.
In fact, federal law prohibits exclusive franchises.
Federal law may prevent "exclusive" franchises, but doesn't prevent sole franchises. The local government is enforcing "sole franchise" status, even if not "exclusive".
So what if they are the only incumbent cable-TV delivered internet service? That doesn't make them a monopoly as an ISP. "ISP" and "cable" are not synonyms.
Non sequitur. Read GP. " Comcast's enforced monopoly " There was no mention that the enforced monopoly was an ISP monopoly. That was asserted by you, as a strawman non sequitur. Either they are the sole licensee for the CATV service (making them the "exclusive" one, for the English definition of that word, even if not the legal definition), or they are not.
A 25 year old woman is an adult and cartoons are only vaguely similar to real people (and indeed are not real at all). What the hell are you talking about?
That in Australia, a 25 year old woman can make what Australia defines as "child porn".
And in the US, a person has been convicted of possessing "child porn" from his collections of cartoons (Japanese Manga that contained some tentacle scenes).
Child porn prosecutions that don't involve children at all. That's why they aren't the same issue.
Not being able to distribute child porn is now "oppression"? Is it also oppression that you aren't allowed to rape and murder?
Is a picture of a rape illegal? No (unless child porn). Is a picture of a murder illegal? No. Those are separate legal issues. So why is it that the depiction of the crime is linked to the crime for one and only one crime?
You just agreed with me in the most disagreeable way possible. You are complaining about apples to oranges comparisons, and use the wrong units of generation to do that. Before renewables were used, all electricity generation was measured in W (or MW or GW). Nobody ever used hours. That's stupid. Also, it's undefined. hours over the day, week, year, lifetime? Different people use different hours, and so none of them allow for comparison.
Now, if you don't care about how much energy is produced and used, and only care about "how big it is", then you can stick with Watts.
Which is why that was the *only* measure ever used, until people like you started a coordinated campaign against renewable energy.
What's the total area of all the roofs in the UK? I don't have the numbers on me, but every time I've seen someone do the numbers, if we roofed all human structures with solar panels, we'd have much more power than we need (even if not where we needed it). No need to make big plants, or any of that.
After 2 near-extinction events (Chernobyl, Fukushima)
How were those near "extinction" level? Please explain the damage to someone on McMurdo and the length of time for those ill effects to get to them. Chernobyl was about worst-case, and didn't do great damage internationally.
You don't need the h. You assume that everything will run. The only time it mattes is when you are talking about a plant that's there for purely peak capacity, like a natural-gas plant. You'd generally not run it at nominal power 100% of the time. If that were the case, you'd use coal.
Oh, yes, I just though of the real reason you brought that up, to "punish" anything that's not continuous, so you can make renewable energy look worse by comparison. Though, again, "h" is irrelevant, if one compares "average daily" W, rather than always citing "peak" W, as the renewable haters do.
No, the regulations are long and tedious. That there are some seems quite prudent, but any individual regulation in isolation is likely irrelevant, especially when building newer plants. I've run into the same thing in other engineering practices. Take cars, everyone loves a good car analogy. Build a car that has perfect rollover protection, accomplished with extra material up-high for strength, and a restraint system that makes the car 100% safe in a rollover crash. But you'd fail rollover protection because the extra material up top makes the car more likely to tip. So you reduce the material on top, making the car less safe to comply with safety regulations.
The same seems to be happening with newer generations of nuclear plants. The safety requirements were designed on previous designs, and on newer designs, the safety regulations are too detailed and assume an old design.
The production of child porn involves the rape of children.
A female age 25 in Australia with small breasts making porn is making child porn. What child was harmed?
A cartoonist in the US that draws cartoon sex of a child has created child porn. What child was harmed?
Your repeated assertion that child porn is child rape is not true anymore.
And why did my original comment get modded -1 troll?
Because you insulted all Slashdotters that believe in freedoms from government oppression. The comment was a troll, and was modded as such.
This is pure projection.
Nope. Pure fact. You are the only one here the repeatedly states that child porn equals child rape. So you obviously make that connection when you hear child porn. If you can't defend it, don't say it.
If a person collects simulated imagery of lynching black people, can you justify it by stating that racists are less likely to lynch people if they have a safe outlet for enjoying lynchings?
Have there been studies done that show that access to pictures of lynchings reduces the numbers of lynchings? You are making another emotional appeal, rather than sticking to facts.
The problem with your analogy is that being Jewish or Gay isn't inherently icky.
Then why do I hear so much about gay being icky? Lots of people think it is. That's one of the reasons why gay marriage is under attack. The very thought of it disturbs some people, about as much as child porn disturbs others.
Or are we appointing you the emperor of moral standards, so you can decree what is and is not icky, and we can base all laws around your opinion of icky?
What a surprise that Slashdotters are defending child porn and by extension raping children
Adult women with small breasts is child porn in Australia. A cartoon child is child porn in the US. Child porn has nothing to do with child rape. Child rape is something different. That you dream of raping children every time someone mentions child porn doesn't mean anyone else does.
Child pornography is something that should be prevented,
Why? Given that the definition almost everywhere now seems to include simulated child porn that didn't involve an actual child, the issue is obviously not about child-harm. The studies show that a pedophile with access to CP offends less, because they have an outlet. So, in actual fact, the only reason to ban CP is because someone finds it icky. Once icky is the only requirement, lots of things get put on the list, being gay, being a jew, whatever.
They aren't arresting the people making the images, nor those profiting from them. They are deleting them, and going after anyone who viewed them. If they went after the producers of such content, it would be a different story, but that's hard, so Law Enforcement doesn't even try.
but there's really is no financial incentive to them support the government.
They are bought out long before their appointment. They are paid $200k per year to rubber-stamp the requests. It's a fancy bribe. Most of the US is based on bribes and corruption. It's just so institutionalized that it's all 100% legal.
And the necessary details to make a judgment are in the contract, which nobody posted, so we can't know, we can only talk in generalities (no matter how specific) as the details of this are not given here. And likely the contract, and laws covering it, are written in a language most here don't speak.
Great non sequitur. They are only good for 90% of the people 99% of the time, we shouldn't allow them to be sold. Would that make you feel better?
And the battery myth has moved from myth to outright lie. You know they aren't that bad when it takes people lying about them to find anything bad to say about them.
Doesn't matter. At worst, it's a little delay in cleaning up, but electric cars are more efficient than burners. Internal combustion will never pass 50% efficiency. A power plant would be above 90%. Then, the electricity lost to get oil from the fields, refined, and into a car is greater than that to move the electricity from generation into the batteries (including battery loss). So even if you used "dirty" generation, you are still twice as good as internal combustion, and that's worst case. It only gets better from there. And it's much easier to upgrade the grid than billions of cars.
Also peak car charging is at lowest power usage time, so the baseload will already cover it. It's essentially "free" power, given the constraint on generation already.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, KW does not represent an amount of energy,
No, kW the measure of power, not energy. Joule is the measure of energy, with kWh being derived instead to make the unit in something that's more easily relatable to users.
And again, every unit you use is written wrong.
"kW", "kWh" and such. When you correct others (incorrectly), at least you could try to appear competent by using units correctly. I am (not only in use, but in definition). You are the only one that doesn't understand what they are used for, or how to write them.
A real engineer would be fired for that, as mistakes like that cost lives.
You are a lying piece of shit if you are trying to imply that I said W was "energy". Read TFA, power plants are "rated" in W, not Wh. That you don't like the practice because you hate renewable energy doesn't change reality.
The few times I've seen all the maths done, you could power the entire world from the roofs of the world. You'd need some lines to connect continents, but the power would be there and usable at all times. No need for storage, and no outages for the sun.
And paper maps don't need to be recharged.
In the car, it's a real shame they don't have some power points so that you could plug in your personal electronics to the car's electrical system. Then you could use the phone/tablet/whatever without worrying about the battery and how much charging you need to do before/after the trip.
1) Have you never tried to fold a map?
2) Only if you never zoom in and out with an electronic map
3) again, only if you never zoom in and out.
Apparently the primary issue is that you can't zoom. Fix that, and learn to pre-load maps for remote areas, and you'll be fine. I've never had a fault on the move. The only benefit of paper maps is when hiking. Be without power for a week or so, and most electronic maps won't work so well. And using compasses doesn't work the same on an electronic map as paper. But for driving (where you have power), there's no advantage in paper maps. Well, unless you don't know where you are going. I remember as a kid, using the map book and a phone book to look up addresses, then plot them on the map, with my location, then trace between them, and relay the directions to the driver. But these days, you look up your destination before you start, which loads the necessary information, and details between start and destination. So you don't need mobile data at all, so long as you have data available when you look it up to start.
In 1800, Google assumed that people would see a map, and print a map, taking paper with them in the car. In 2000, google assumes someone will see a map and use it while traveling, so they will zoom and such when needed.
In fact, federal law prohibits exclusive franchises.
Federal law may prevent "exclusive" franchises, but doesn't prevent sole franchises. The local government is enforcing "sole franchise" status, even if not "exclusive".
So what if they are the only incumbent cable-TV delivered internet service? That doesn't make them a monopoly as an ISP. "ISP" and "cable" are not synonyms.
Non sequitur. Read GP. " Comcast's enforced monopoly " There was no mention that the enforced monopoly was an ISP monopoly. That was asserted by you, as a strawman non sequitur. Either they are the sole licensee for the CATV service (making them the "exclusive" one, for the English definition of that word, even if not the legal definition), or they are not.
A 25 year old woman is an adult and cartoons are only vaguely similar to real people (and indeed are not real at all). What the hell are you talking about?
That in Australia, a 25 year old woman can make what Australia defines as "child porn".
And in the US, a person has been convicted of possessing "child porn" from his collections of cartoons (Japanese Manga that contained some tentacle scenes).
Child porn prosecutions that don't involve children at all. That's why they aren't the same issue.
Not being able to distribute child porn is now "oppression"? Is it also oppression that you aren't allowed to rape and murder?
Is a picture of a rape illegal? No (unless child porn). Is a picture of a murder illegal? No. Those are separate legal issues. So why is it that the depiction of the crime is linked to the crime for one and only one crime?
Now, if you don't care about how much energy is produced and used, and only care about "how big it is", then you can stick with Watts.
Which is why that was the *only* measure ever used, until people like you started a coordinated campaign against renewable energy.
What's the total area of all the roofs in the UK? I don't have the numbers on me, but every time I've seen someone do the numbers, if we roofed all human structures with solar panels, we'd have much more power than we need (even if not where we needed it). No need to make big plants, or any of that.
After 2 near-extinction events (Chernobyl, Fukushima)
How were those near "extinction" level? Please explain the damage to someone on McMurdo and the length of time for those ill effects to get to them. Chernobyl was about worst-case, and didn't do great damage internationally.
You don't need the h. You assume that everything will run. The only time it mattes is when you are talking about a plant that's there for purely peak capacity, like a natural-gas plant. You'd generally not run it at nominal power 100% of the time. If that were the case, you'd use coal.
Oh, yes, I just though of the real reason you brought that up, to "punish" anything that's not continuous, so you can make renewable energy look worse by comparison. Though, again, "h" is irrelevant, if one compares "average daily" W, rather than always citing "peak" W, as the renewable haters do.
No, the regulations are long and tedious. That there are some seems quite prudent, but any individual regulation in isolation is likely irrelevant, especially when building newer plants. I've run into the same thing in other engineering practices. Take cars, everyone loves a good car analogy. Build a car that has perfect rollover protection, accomplished with extra material up-high for strength, and a restraint system that makes the car 100% safe in a rollover crash. But you'd fail rollover protection because the extra material up top makes the car more likely to tip. So you reduce the material on top, making the car less safe to comply with safety regulations.
The same seems to be happening with newer generations of nuclear plants. The safety requirements were designed on previous designs, and on newer designs, the safety regulations are too detailed and assume an old design.
ISS as an object is cheap. It's the delivery fees that drove up the cost.
Based on the wording, the contract is summarized by one and only one party in TFA, and the actual words of the contract are not represented.
The production of child porn involves the rape of children.
A female age 25 in Australia with small breasts making porn is making child porn. What child was harmed?
A cartoonist in the US that draws cartoon sex of a child has created child porn. What child was harmed?
Your repeated assertion that child porn is child rape is not true anymore.
And why did my original comment get modded -1 troll?
Because you insulted all Slashdotters that believe in freedoms from government oppression. The comment was a troll, and was modded as such.
This is pure projection.
Nope. Pure fact. You are the only one here the repeatedly states that child porn equals child rape. So you obviously make that connection when you hear child porn. If you can't defend it, don't say it.
If a person collects simulated imagery of lynching black people, can you justify it by stating that racists are less likely to lynch people if they have a safe outlet for enjoying lynchings?
Have there been studies done that show that access to pictures of lynchings reduces the numbers of lynchings? You are making another emotional appeal, rather than sticking to facts.
The problem with your analogy is that being Jewish or Gay isn't inherently icky.
Then why do I hear so much about gay being icky? Lots of people think it is. That's one of the reasons why gay marriage is under attack. The very thought of it disturbs some people, about as much as child porn disturbs others.
Or are we appointing you the emperor of moral standards, so you can decree what is and is not icky, and we can base all laws around your opinion of icky?
What a surprise that Slashdotters are defending child porn and by extension raping children
Adult women with small breasts is child porn in Australia. A cartoon child is child porn in the US. Child porn has nothing to do with child rape. Child rape is something different. That you dream of raping children every time someone mentions child porn doesn't mean anyone else does.
Child pornography is something that should be prevented,
Why? Given that the definition almost everywhere now seems to include simulated child porn that didn't involve an actual child, the issue is obviously not about child-harm. The studies show that a pedophile with access to CP offends less, because they have an outlet. So, in actual fact, the only reason to ban CP is because someone finds it icky. Once icky is the only requirement, lots of things get put on the list, being gay, being a jew, whatever.
They aren't arresting the people making the images, nor those profiting from them. They are deleting them, and going after anyone who viewed them. If they went after the producers of such content, it would be a different story, but that's hard, so Law Enforcement doesn't even try.
The ones that don't play ball don't get appointed to the next level.
but there's really is no financial incentive to them support the government.
They are bought out long before their appointment. They are paid $200k per year to rubber-stamp the requests. It's a fancy bribe. Most of the US is based on bribes and corruption. It's just so institutionalized that it's all 100% legal.
And the necessary details to make a judgment are in the contract, which nobody posted, so we can't know, we can only talk in generalities (no matter how specific) as the details of this are not given here. And likely the contract, and laws covering it, are written in a language most here don't speak.
Great non sequitur. They are only good for 90% of the people 99% of the time, we shouldn't allow them to be sold. Would that make you feel better?
And the battery myth has moved from myth to outright lie. You know they aren't that bad when it takes people lying about them to find anything bad to say about them.
So, rather than just being 2x more efficient baseline, electric vehicles are 3x as efficient? Doesn't change the result.
Doesn't matter. At worst, it's a little delay in cleaning up, but electric cars are more efficient than burners. Internal combustion will never pass 50% efficiency. A power plant would be above 90%. Then, the electricity lost to get oil from the fields, refined, and into a car is greater than that to move the electricity from generation into the batteries (including battery loss). So even if you used "dirty" generation, you are still twice as good as internal combustion, and that's worst case. It only gets better from there. And it's much easier to upgrade the grid than billions of cars.
Also peak car charging is at lowest power usage time, so the baseload will already cover it. It's essentially "free" power, given the constraint on generation already.