"Similar to the Fukushima problem in that you don't build critical infrastructure where nature has a tendency to beat the shit out of things."
Or you build the infrastructure properly...similar to the Fukushima problem...and you operate it correctly.
They call the people who address these challenges engineers, not/. posters.
A proper solution includes more than just wind turbines not able to sustain high winds but placed in vulnerable areas, but you couldn't tell otherwise from from the geniuses here.
If Nicole Foss advocated for using less energy in that video, I couldn't stand the ignorance long enough to see it. Fact is, she predicted a non-industrial future based on unsustainable energy production which she justified by junk science she didn't understand and who's numbers were old, out of date and did not support her claims. She didn't "advocate' for using less energy, she predicted the collapse of known civilization which would force it.
Talking about faith based, to believe her you have as willfully ignorant as any religion.
You know, technology improves. Perhaps Nicole Foss should realize that.
That was unbearably ignorant. Her logic could just as easily justify a future with no energy at all, and considering that she demonstrates no understanding of the complexities of which she comments, it's unclear how she decides between a future of locally generated power and one where we live in caves. Just how is local generation equipment made when we no longer have an industrial society? Seriously, she's an idiot.
"what is clear is that Fuchsia devices are intended to run Android applications."
No, what is clear is that Fuchsia devices can be configured to run Android applications. That was never in doubt.
There is no evidence that this is anything beyond a transition technology nor is there any assurance that the runtime doesn't come with downsides. Intel Macs, after all, were capable of running PowerPC applications, but that doesn't mean they were *intended* to run them...and they weren't.
"spews EM in all directions" is inaccurate not because it's not EM but because it's not "in all directions" and it doesn't "spew". Furthermore, a charging mat is not accurately described as a "tiny radio station" nor is is it "just for people who can afford to waste power" by operating such a relatively useless "radio station". In summary, the entire description is inaccurate except for EM being involved, the one thing you zeroed in on.
Also, your definition of "induction" is inaccurate.
This makes no sense. "quarters" is plural but that doesn't make "headquarters" plural, "headquarters" being a specific one (the head one) of the quarters. There could be one or more "head" quarters, therefore the "construction" is ambiguous.
'"There is not one "headquarter". '
No, but there could be one "headquarters", as above.
"Though language evolves, the plural is the original..."
Furthermore, it's not something you need to be aware of for it to matter nor does anyone care that you care.
Lastly, it's something that a camera can do in order to make the things that cameras do (that you may care about) better. It's a capability under the covers, not a feature sold directly to the customer.
So yes, there are cameras that do these things and there is consumer demand for those cameras.
Exactly, even the simplest look shows how bad that comparison is. Healthcare is best when risk is spread across the largest population. It's a problem uniquely well suited to government participation. Nuclear energy is nothing like that.
"Some want government to solely fund the entirety of healthcare costs."
You post would be more interesting if it didn't include off-topic comments that give away your game. You might also consider including actual content in the analysis.
Furthermore, regarding your off-topic content, the government "solely funding" healthcare costs is grossly misleading. The people solely fund healthcare costs one way or the other, the issue is the most effective way to accomplish it. It would be helpful for you to understand what's to be accomplished and how best to accomplish it, not merely how one piece looks based on your world view.
You should really put your name on a piece of work like this. Your mother would be so proud.
Why, though, do you feel the need to declare yourself "left-leaning"? Aren't all left-leaning people triggered into racist, misogynistic, homophobic rants by discussions of UI? Isn't it generally accepted by all "regular people with opinions" that "libtards" are to blame for everything? Sounds totally mainstream to me.
There is no such thing as making Skeuomorphism "fairly subtle". You are using the term improperly.
Skeuomorphism is the literal imitating or mimicking of materials, it is not the implementing of subtle visual cues that provide visual complexity. It is the fake woodgrain or yellow lined notepad, not the shading of a UI widget.
Skeuomorphism is abhorrent and must die a painful death. Reducing "flatness" is not a "comeback" for Skeuomorphism.
"GM is adjusting to the transition from internal combustion engines to electric; it's not one manager or one company, it's the entire industry. Some product lines and manufacturing facilities are obsolescent. Society will move on."
While this is true, it's not insightful. It's misleading.
Sure the "entire industry" is transitioning, hopefully, but the entire industry isn't failing while doing so. Other companies aren't laying off due to obsolesce, in fact there's no evidence that the transition has produced obsolesce at all. Look where GM has laid off, does closing down EV lines look like something a company would do because EV transition has made facilities obsolete?
Yes, this is a whale shark equivalent to "feeding stations" which are well known to be unsustainable and are frequently made illegal for just this kind of reason.
This choice was never made because it doesn't work that way.
No one is in the position to decide whether damage from tourism is allowable prior to it occurring. The sequence is: (1) people notice the appeal of the area, (2) business develop to support demand, and (3) consequences of the business are felt.
Odds are, very little benefit to the locals is realized.
"When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone."
This is an absurd claim that doesn't pass the most basic smell test.
If everyone is a stander, then the latency for everyone is fixed once they are on the device. Therefore, the only way to "save time for everyone" is for everyone to literally have to wait extra time to get on otherwise. That is clearly NEVER the case for everyone and is, in most instances, never the case for ANYONE.
If the most important thing is absolute throughput, then you need to pack like sardines to minimize wait on entry. This is likely never true except in an exceptional place during exceptional demand. Otherwise, it will always be best to yield space to those who need to minimize transit time since your latency will be unaffected. This is so trivially easy to understand it's a joke.
It's not wonder "transit users around the world just can't be convinced", it's because it's wrong. Laughably wrong.
Right, this absurd value judgement has utterly no meaning. It is also a quote attributed to "NASA scientists" but does not appear in the quoted study.
"We are lucky to be around to see Saturn’s ring system, which appears to be in the middle of its lifetime," said O'Donoghue.
This is also not at all clear and is completely meaningless. What is special about the rings that makes us lucky to have seen them and how are we not unlucky to have not lived at another time to have seen even greater things? How do we not know that the time to live is when the rings disappear and we're unlucky to have lived too soon?
Well, in "sports terms" you neglected to mention that the rules of the game were biased (gerrymandering, voter suppression), refs were bought (electoral fraud) and there was a significant home field advantage (gross imbalance in free media coverage). Then there's the huge difference in respect for the rules, one team had none. While there's nothing wrong with your analogies, they are carefully chosen to paint an inaccurate picture of what happened.
It's all fine to say that the better team failed to win because it didn't execute, but that doesn't excuse the cheating by their opponent. Had the election been honest, had there not been an unprecedented shitstorm of propaganda from every direction, had there not been possibly treasonous conspiracies with foreign actors, the outcome would have been different. Sure Hillary fumbled, but her opponent runs a corrupt criminal organization and was assisted by foreign powers.
Slashdot Mirror
"Similar to the Fukushima problem in that you don't build critical infrastructure where nature has a tendency to beat the shit out of things."
Or you build the infrastructure properly...similar to the Fukushima problem...and you operate it correctly.
They call the people who address these challenges engineers, not /. posters.
A proper solution includes more than just wind turbines not able to sustain high winds but placed in vulnerable areas, but you couldn't tell otherwise from from the geniuses here.
Do the "transmission lines" for wind and solar not "do well" while the "transmission lines" for everything else "do well"?
How well do refineries, fossil fuel storage and transportation do in serious storms? Better than wind and solar? Really?
In typical /. fashion, people just make stuff up. Renewal infrastructure largely doesn't exist yet, it's not a given that it can't withstand weather.
If Nicole Foss advocated for using less energy in that video, I couldn't stand the ignorance long enough to see it. Fact is, she predicted a non-industrial future based on unsustainable energy production which she justified by junk science she didn't understand and who's numbers were old, out of date and did not support her claims. She didn't "advocate' for using less energy, she predicted the collapse of known civilization which would force it.
Talking about faith based, to believe her you have as willfully ignorant as any religion.
You know, technology improves. Perhaps Nicole Foss should realize that.
If only someone could invent the idea of two modes of operation!
Humanity owes you a debt of gratitude for identifying this issue that no engineer ever thought of before.
But you could use it to run your home without an inverter!
Completely representative of the kind of intellect that would disagree with my comments.
That was unbearably ignorant. Her logic could just as easily justify a future with no energy at all, and considering that she demonstrates no understanding of the complexities of which she comments, it's unclear how she decides between a future of locally generated power and one where we live in caves. Just how is local generation equipment made when we no longer have an industrial society? Seriously, she's an idiot.
"what is clear is that Fuchsia devices are intended to run Android applications."
No, what is clear is that Fuchsia devices can be configured to run Android applications. That was never in doubt.
There is no evidence that this is anything beyond a transition technology nor is there any assurance that the runtime doesn't come with downsides. Intel Macs, after all, were capable of running PowerPC applications, but that doesn't mean they were *intended* to run them...and they weren't.
"spews EM in all directions" is inaccurate not because it's not EM but because it's not "in all directions" and it doesn't "spew". Furthermore, a charging mat is not accurately described as a "tiny radio station" nor is is it "just for people who can afford to waste power" by operating such a relatively useless "radio station". In summary, the entire description is inaccurate except for EM being involved, the one thing you zeroed in on.
Also, your definition of "induction" is inaccurate.
"The word is plural in construction ..."
This makes no sense. "quarters" is plural but that doesn't make "headquarters" plural, "headquarters" being a specific one (the head one) of the quarters. There could be one or more "head" quarters, therefore the "construction" is ambiguous.
'"There is not one "headquarter". '
No, but there could be one "headquarters", as above.
"Though language evolves, the plural is the original..."
A misreading of the origin of the word.
"I honestly wasn't even aware that this was something that phones could do, and I'm not particular sure that I care."
Well, first, it's not phones, it's cameras. It's something cameras "can do".
Furthermore, it's not something you need to be aware of for it to matter nor does anyone care that you care.
Lastly, it's something that a camera can do in order to make the things that cameras do (that you may care about) better. It's a capability under the covers, not a feature sold directly to the customer.
So yes, there are cameras that do these things and there is consumer demand for those cameras.
You're using people you know in Minnesota to explain solar economics for the average homeowner? You don't spend much time thinking about this, do you?
Exactly, even the simplest look shows how bad that comparison is. Healthcare is best when risk is spread across the largest population. It's a problem uniquely well suited to government participation. Nuclear energy is nothing like that.
"Some want government to solely fund the entirety of healthcare costs."
You post would be more interesting if it didn't include off-topic comments that give away your game. You might also consider including actual content in the analysis.
Furthermore, regarding your off-topic content, the government "solely funding" healthcare costs is grossly misleading. The people solely fund healthcare costs one way or the other, the issue is the most effective way to accomplish it. It would be helpful for you to understand what's to be accomplished and how best to accomplish it, not merely how one piece looks based on your world view.
You should really put your name on a piece of work like this. Your mother would be so proud.
Why, though, do you feel the need to declare yourself "left-leaning"? Aren't all left-leaning people triggered into racist, misogynistic, homophobic rants by discussions of UI? Isn't it generally accepted by all "regular people with opinions" that "libtards" are to blame for everything? Sounds totally mainstream to me.
Is that different from other browsers? Looks no different to me.
"The trick is to make it fairly subtle."
There is no such thing as making Skeuomorphism "fairly subtle". You are using the term improperly.
Skeuomorphism is the literal imitating or mimicking of materials, it is not the implementing of subtle visual cues that provide visual complexity. It is the fake woodgrain or yellow lined notepad, not the shading of a UI widget.
Skeuomorphism is abhorrent and must die a painful death. Reducing "flatness" is not a "comeback" for Skeuomorphism.
Because his country doesn't have personal property rights.
"GM is adjusting to the transition from internal combustion engines to electric; it's not one manager or one company, it's the entire industry. Some product lines and manufacturing facilities are obsolescent. Society will move on."
While this is true, it's not insightful. It's misleading.
Sure the "entire industry" is transitioning, hopefully, but the entire industry isn't failing while doing so. Other companies aren't laying off due to obsolesce, in fact there's no evidence that the transition has produced obsolesce at all. Look where GM has laid off, does closing down EV lines look like something a company would do because EV transition has made facilities obsolete?
Yes, this is a whale shark equivalent to "feeding stations" which are well known to be unsustainable and are frequently made illegal for just this kind of reason.
This choice was never made because it doesn't work that way.
No one is in the position to decide whether damage from tourism is allowable prior to it occurring. The sequence is: (1) people notice the appeal of the area, (2) business develop to support demand, and (3) consequences of the business are felt.
Odds are, very little benefit to the locals is realized.
"When one side isn't reserved for walkers, it saves time for everyone."
This is an absurd claim that doesn't pass the most basic smell test.
If everyone is a stander, then the latency for everyone is fixed once they are on the device. Therefore, the only way to "save time for everyone" is for everyone to literally have to wait extra time to get on otherwise. That is clearly NEVER the case for everyone and is, in most instances, never the case for ANYONE.
If the most important thing is absolute throughput, then you need to pack like sardines to minimize wait on entry. This is likely never true except in an exceptional place during exceptional demand. Otherwise, it will always be best to yield space to those who need to minimize transit time since your latency will be unaffected. This is so trivially easy to understand it's a joke.
It's not wonder "transit users around the world just can't be convinced", it's because it's wrong. Laughably wrong.
How does this maintain "US supremacy"? Is it really necessary to pollute this news with tribalism?
Right, this absurd value judgement has utterly no meaning. It is also a quote attributed to "NASA scientists" but does not appear in the quoted study.
"We are lucky to be around to see Saturn’s ring system, which appears to be in the middle of its lifetime," said O'Donoghue.
This is also not at all clear and is completely meaningless. What is special about the rings that makes us lucky to have seen them and how are we not unlucky to have not lived at another time to have seen even greater things? How do we not know that the time to live is when the rings disappear and we're unlucky to have lived too soon?
Well, in "sports terms" you neglected to mention that the rules of the game were biased (gerrymandering, voter suppression), refs were bought (electoral fraud) and there was a significant home field advantage (gross imbalance in free media coverage). Then there's the huge difference in respect for the rules, one team had none. While there's nothing wrong with your analogies, they are carefully chosen to paint an inaccurate picture of what happened.
It's all fine to say that the better team failed to win because it didn't execute, but that doesn't excuse the cheating by their opponent. Had the election been honest, had there not been an unprecedented shitstorm of propaganda from every direction, had there not been possibly treasonous conspiracies with foreign actors, the outcome would have been different. Sure Hillary fumbled, but her opponent runs a corrupt criminal organization and was assisted by foreign powers.