The Zdnet article compares an internal apple memo relating to a brand new piece of malware that they're still figuring out how to deal with to Microsoft's stated policy which can be found on their website. It's not exactly a fair or meaningfull comparison, since what Apple will end up doing in the end is not yet known. The Apple memo is just a stop gap measure.
Granted there were safety concerns, but the design has benefits too. The type of reactor is capable of using un-enriched uranium, though the commercial designs could not, and fuel is removed and replaced while the reactor is in operation. Yeah, the thermal feedback and the lack of containment (necessary to allow the fuel to be replaced while operating) is a huge draw-back. I guess they felt it was worthwhile at the time. It was designed before the three mile island accident, so they thought adequate safety could be achieved through the control process alone. When it comes down to it, people often won't believe something can happen until it does, which is a problem with Nuclear power since such bad things can happen when things go wrong.
When I look at Generation IV designs like molten salt reactors or liquid metal cooled fast reactors, I agree that safe operation is realistically achievable. And with fast reactors, you can even solve the waste disposal problem. But people have known about these designs sine the inception of nuclear power (the first power generating facility was a liquid metal cooled fast reactor) and people haven't been building them because of the cost. When I consider that, I really doubt the ability of the people who chose to build these things to make good decisions about what to build and where.
What you're not getting is that most plants are not "modern" at all. In fact, depending on what you mean, none of them are are since they haven't build any Generation IV nukes yet.
Also, Chernobyl Reactor 4 had only been operating 3 years before it exploded, so it's not like it was extremely old when it went up. It was state of the art, and brand new. Obviously it was poorly run though.
Ok, so where are all the newer, safer reactors? We have a government. According to your hypothesis they should have replaced all the old, dangerous reactors (many of which are beyond their origional design life). That simply hasn't happened.
This utility has, so far, always said "might have" when they meant "have". They knew right away that there had been a meltdown, but instead of admitting it, they waited until it had been proven by a visual inspection. And for future reference "structural damage" is jargon for crack when you are referring to a containment vessel.
It would be trivial to design such a system. You'd use a fast reactor so that your fuel doesn't dacay, and a radiative cooling system. And you'd bring enough spare parts and fuel to keep it running the whole time. The only problem is getting all that stuff into orbit and finding people who'd want to fly it.
Tsunamis happen, and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. All you can do is try mitigate the effects. Nuclear power if different, you can completely prevent meltdowns simply by not building nuclear power plants.
But the more people there are, the more energy they need . . . our best bet is actually nuclear.
There are people who used to live in the immediate vicinity of the power station who have been greatly affected. Fortunately, there were evacuated rather than waiting around for the negative health effects. Also the Japanese food supply has been disrupted. Again, that's probably better than eating the contaminated food. If you don't care what's happening in Japan, don't read the news article. But some people may want to read about it so that they can have a better idea of what might happen here if a similar scenario were to play out.
It would all be a dog and pony show anyway. You can't just write a law and expect it to be followed. And the law you are proposing would be nearly impossible to enforce. Just like anti-bribery laws or most other anti-corruption laws in general. It is foolishness.
So only people who are unemployed can talk to politicians. Or do you want to make it illegal to give someone that particular job title? Do you see what I'm getting at?
I think he means that progressives desire to consolidate power in the federal government. Of course, where he is confused is that he doesn't seem to think that conservatives desire to do the same.
How can you make lobbying illegal? Politicians need to be able to talk to people to do their job, so you can really ban lobbying. I think what you mean is lobbyists should be arrested because of all the shady, back room stuff they seem to do. I don't think the problem is that there aren't enough laws and regulations, so much as it is that the stakes are so high that no punitive measures are grave enough to discourage people from engaging in these kinds of activities. The only real solution is to not consolidate so much power and authority in one place. That would limit the scope of abuses, and it would reduce the rewards of engaging in this kind of behavior (which should reduce the number of people willing to participate in it).
USA doesn't produce anything of any value except for the raw materials
This is wrong. The industrial output of the US is still the largest in the world, and it produces quite a bit more than china. While it's true that the US produces a lot of raw materials, they also produce high-value items like aircraft, specialty chemicals, electronics, cars, pharmaceuticals, and a lot of other things I haven't listed here. The idea that the US doesn't produce these things has traction because most of it's economy (when measured in dollars) comes from hand-wavy products like financial services. But even if you cut out all that fat, there's quite a bit of meat left.
The reason the US is taking on debt while China is taking on monetary assets is an excess of consumption, not a deficit of production (when compared with China). The idea that the US is somehow incapable of paying back one and a half trillion dollars in real items it pretty silly. Think about it this way, a new 747 costs $260 million which means that our entire debt to China is equivalent to about 5,000 747 airplanes. The US is certainly capable of 5,000 747s. That means it's also capable of building other goods that would represent an equivalent value to pay back the debt. The only reason this hasn't happened is the US hasn't been put in a situation where this is necessary.
Slashdot Mirror
On the Mac, it doubles as the display connector, so it's not another connector for Mac users.
The Zdnet article compares an internal apple memo relating to a brand new piece of malware that they're still figuring out how to deal with to Microsoft's stated policy which can be found on their website. It's not exactly a fair or meaningfull comparison, since what Apple will end up doing in the end is not yet known. The Apple memo is just a stop gap measure.
Granted there were safety concerns, but the design has benefits too. The type of reactor is capable of using un-enriched uranium, though the commercial designs could not, and fuel is removed and replaced while the reactor is in operation. Yeah, the thermal feedback and the lack of containment (necessary to allow the fuel to be replaced while operating) is a huge draw-back. I guess they felt it was worthwhile at the time. It was designed before the three mile island accident, so they thought adequate safety could be achieved through the control process alone. When it comes down to it, people often won't believe something can happen until it does, which is a problem with Nuclear power since such bad things can happen when things go wrong.
When I look at Generation IV designs like molten salt reactors or liquid metal cooled fast reactors, I agree that safe operation is realistically achievable. And with fast reactors, you can even solve the waste disposal problem. But people have known about these designs sine the inception of nuclear power (the first power generating facility was a liquid metal cooled fast reactor) and people haven't been building them because of the cost. When I consider that, I really doubt the ability of the people who chose to build these things to make good decisions about what to build and where.
What you're not getting is that most plants are not "modern" at all. In fact, depending on what you mean, none of them are are since they haven't build any Generation IV nukes yet.
Also, Chernobyl Reactor 4 had only been operating 3 years before it exploded, so it's not like it was extremely old when it went up. It was state of the art, and brand new. Obviously it was poorly run though.
Any nuke plant can suffer a breach of containment.
Ok, so where are all the newer, safer reactors? We have a government. According to your hypothesis they should have replaced all the old, dangerous reactors (many of which are beyond their origional design life). That simply hasn't happened.
This utility has, so far, always said "might have" when they meant "have". They knew right away that there had been a meltdown, but instead of admitting it, they waited until it had been proven by a visual inspection. And for future reference "structural damage" is jargon for crack when you are referring to a containment vessel.
It would be trivial to design such a system. You'd use a fast reactor so that your fuel doesn't dacay, and a radiative cooling system. And you'd bring enough spare parts and fuel to keep it running the whole time. The only problem is getting all that stuff into orbit and finding people who'd want to fly it.
Not sure if you're serious or not, but it's "The Number 23".
I was referring to the scientist.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about?
Hopefully people will learn from this and avoid similar mistakes in the future. I am reminded of the professor from Atlas Shrugged.
Those numbers are debatable too.
Tsunamis happen, and there's nothing you can do to prevent them. All you can do is try mitigate the effects. Nuclear power if different, you can completely prevent meltdowns simply by not building nuclear power plants.
That is debatable.
All that means is that we should be thinking about getting rid of those too.
There are people who used to live in the immediate vicinity of the power station who have been greatly affected. Fortunately, there were evacuated rather than waiting around for the negative health effects. Also the Japanese food supply has been disrupted. Again, that's probably better than eating the contaminated food. If you don't care what's happening in Japan, don't read the news article. But some people may want to read about it so that they can have a better idea of what might happen here if a similar scenario were to play out.
It's bad for you.
Yeah, there's no corruption in Canada.
They won't be when it's illegal though.
It would all be a dog and pony show anyway. You can't just write a law and expect it to be followed. And the law you are proposing would be nearly impossible to enforce. Just like anti-bribery laws or most other anti-corruption laws in general. It is foolishness.
So only people who are unemployed can talk to politicians. Or do you want to make it illegal to give someone that particular job title? Do you see what I'm getting at?
I think he means that progressives desire to consolidate power in the federal government. Of course, where he is confused is that he doesn't seem to think that conservatives desire to do the same.
How can you make lobbying illegal? Politicians need to be able to talk to people to do their job, so you can really ban lobbying. I think what you mean is lobbyists should be arrested because of all the shady, back room stuff they seem to do. I don't think the problem is that there aren't enough laws and regulations, so much as it is that the stakes are so high that no punitive measures are grave enough to discourage people from engaging in these kinds of activities. The only real solution is to not consolidate so much power and authority in one place. That would limit the scope of abuses, and it would reduce the rewards of engaging in this kind of behavior (which should reduce the number of people willing to participate in it).
Is it now a rule that every post containing a grammatical correction must also contain grammatical error?
This is wrong. The industrial output of the US is still the largest in the world, and it produces quite a bit more than china. While it's true that the US produces a lot of raw materials, they also produce high-value items like aircraft, specialty chemicals, electronics, cars, pharmaceuticals, and a lot of other things I haven't listed here. The idea that the US doesn't produce these things has traction because most of it's economy (when measured in dollars) comes from hand-wavy products like financial services. But even if you cut out all that fat, there's quite a bit of meat left.
The reason the US is taking on debt while China is taking on monetary assets is an excess of consumption, not a deficit of production (when compared with China). The idea that the US is somehow incapable of paying back one and a half trillion dollars in real items it pretty silly. Think about it this way, a new 747 costs $260 million which means that our entire debt to China is equivalent to about 5,000 747 airplanes. The US is certainly capable of 5,000 747s. That means it's also capable of building other goods that would represent an equivalent value to pay back the debt. The only reason this hasn't happened is the US hasn't been put in a situation where this is necessary.