For most all practical reasoning, we won't see a whole lot of new sites for nuclear power. This is because everyone and their pets are afraid they will end up glowing in the dark. for this reasoning, you will find the most nuclear power expansion going into existing and already approved sites where getting the neccesary permits and such are easier (unless you're in a dictatorship country like china that can just make a decision and forget what the people think about it.).
The Westinghouse AP1000 and it's successors (Which I believe the china ones are) are supposed to be able to be built modular in three separate units that are primarily built off site in controlled environments and linked together on site. What's interesting about the AP1000 is that it's not only fail safe, but it can operate completely in the dark during an automated shut down from an emergency or something. It uses a passive cooling technology on top of active cooling and in the event of a disaster, it will shut down and can do so for a number of days without any juice going to the active cooling systems at all. The design is supposed to shut down if a signal isn't updated by human interaction every so often or if the signal is severed.
Anyways, when these came about, the target build for them because site prep was minimal, was less then five years before testing the generation spin up. These follow the Generation 3 safety protocol and once the gen 4 is out, they will be upgraded in design too. Anyways, the idea of this type is that the command and control parts can be built and shelved or used for other purposes and placed on site as needed so that all that is needed on site is the foundation work, a few concrete troughs for the connecting pipes, and the final assemble of the containment vessel and housing units. This should decrease the time till live enormously. Especially seeing how the command and control centers can control multiple reactors and the pump housing can be expanded after the fact by just tying another unit to it.
This should make it shorter to build and if the two non vessel chambers are already in construction and being used in other projects, it should reduce the costs significantly too. Time will tell but it's poised to drop costs significantly if something doesn't crop up in the middle.
So what you are saying is that looking in the email header to find information like the mail box it's addressed to then looking in a data set to figure out which machine the mailbox is located on and then directing it to that resource would be covered with the patent?
I mean isn't that how email has worked from day one? The header stores information about who it is to or from and the email server decides what to do with it based on that information. I havn't read the patent but it appears like he just copied the exact same mechanism the email server might use but diverts the messages to a/dev/null instead of the user's mailbox.
It will only mean something when you are walking down the street and someone notices another failed car bomb and our image happens to be on one of the store surveillance videos they use to catch the bomber. At that point in time, how many others are on the list will be irrelevant because they have you specifically saying something remotely resembling the events of the day and in the place of the events happening.
This means that you will not get a chance to say look at all the other idiots on the list, it means that you will get a trip to club gitmo without talking to your lawyer until someone who didn't stop looking for the real bomber eventually finds something that either points to someone else or clears you by accident. But hey, when justice prevails and you are released in a couple of years, after you find another job if you can with a couple year gap in your employment record that can only be explained legitimately by the government accused you of being a terrorist, look us up and tell us how many others are on the list.
It's completely pointless to keep a list that you are going to watch. It would need way too much resources to do. Instead, they have another reason to see if you are on any lists and then it simply makes an innocent person look guilty or reaffirms their need to look into that person. It's automagic, not automatic.
And No, I don't make comments designed to piss people off. However, that is often the effect when they find out their reality or opinion is wrong or simple doesn't make sense in the real world.
Here is a good source of reactor information. Here is another source of reactors as of 2010.Be cautious because they don't clearly date their articles so it might be a few years old and all you have to do is search for the reactor names and find out if they are under construction still or built and in operation. And yes, I do understand that it is a propaganda site pushing nuclear power as it's the website of the nuclear trade organization claiming to represent the world. But that is where the information is and you can simply search for them in google and find independent sources on the costs and operations.
Now if costs is a concern, then I suggest you take a look at this wikipedia article. Yes, I know it's wikkipedia but it's referenced and you can validate the claims with a simple search is you choose to. But if you notice the costs estimates which include actual costs, you will see that cost is highly influenced by the country of installation as well as type of unit. Most are within the op's price range, some are over it. With units like the GenIII AP1000 units, the buildings are pretty much modular and construction costs can be controlled pretty well. But as you notice with their installation in Vogtle, the cost is not only higher by about 4b, but a transmission line upgrade of about 3 billion had to be installed too.
I mean it isn't hard to pay attention to the news and know that reactors like the Japanese Tomari-3 which was started in 2003 and came on line in 2009 and is in commercial operation today only took about 6 years to build. That was a genII reactor too. The genIII reactors are supposed to be quicker.
Here are a few more like the Yonggwang south korea reactors 5 and 6 which was started in 1995 and came online in 2002 (still below the 10 year mark or has my third grade math failed me?). Those are just a couple. I could list a whole bunch more that has started construction around the world and are expected to be online within the 10 year mark the op was talking about. But hey, I guess you have a google finger too.
IF you are wanting to spend extra money on generating power, then by all means do it. Just don't impose that onto others. As far as venting the exhaust, the chances are that you will never be effect by it so it's not pushing anything onto you personally. Or are you one of these people who get pissed when someone drive's their car a couple blocks instead of walking because you think they should live the way you want them to?
You are sort of there but there are exceptions. There are coal plants that sell peak and double as backups for downed plants being services. Dayton Power and light does this in which they increase the base load of a coal plant during the day by diverting the steam into a cold generator before hitting the cooling towers. The cold generator is a play on words, it's simply a generation system that doesn't need to be superheated as the normal generators are (I think they are between 400 and 700 degree F instead of the 1000 degree F regular temp). Of course they change the line pressure too in order to make it work.
It's not as efficient on the surface until you figure in the costs of peak loads compared to base loads, then it starts to make some sense on plants designed specifically to fill in while others are down.
The idea of a base load actually comes from government regulators and not really the power companies. Regulations state that a power supplier must have 10% excess power capacity at all times to account for surges in use and demand. This is where the base load actually comes from, it's the average load needed per time of day spread over the available generation facilities. The actual production may be well under the maximum base load at any given point in time depending on average historical needs, but the base load is required to be available within a certain time limit. The peak load is when the base load either isn't available at the time to meet the demand without bringing intermediate or demand generation online or buying it from another supplier. This is also why there are differing pricing levels for base power and peak power.
Now I don't think I'm disagreeing with what you were saying, just expanding a little on it. The problem with wind or solar is really with getting the power when you need it and making sure it's available when the wind stops blowing or is blowing too hard or when it rains for ten days straight or a volcano eruption eclipses your view of the sun. My electrical service provider requires a contract for a certain amount of electricity and I have to pay a penalty if my wind generator doesn't provide at least that much and the credit they give for overages isn't all the much either. It's specifically because of these problems and the requirements for base loads why they do it. The provider is a coop utility which means it's owned by the users so we are privy to all the details of the crap. They send letters explaining everything about 2 months before we vote on officers.
Net neutrality means this, and only this: all packets are created equal
And that's why net neutrality will fail. If goolge wants to pay to have faster delivery service of their videos or something, then that should be perfectly allowable. What shouldn't be allowed is the ISP restricting any content or communications or taking steps to interfere with either, to render service below the threshold advertised when the ISP sold the service.
What that would do is make it illegal for ComCast to interfere with any packets if that interference falls below any advertised speeds. So if comcast advertises speeds up to 7 megs, then regardless of your contract saying 5 meg service, comcast simply cannot purposely manipulate the traffic to be less then 7 megs. But if Google or Yahoo or Hulu wants to increase the speeds to 10 megs, they should be able to pay comcast to do so.
I have actually wrote example laws and posted them here that can be put into 3 or 4 paragraphs that simply state that you must deliver to the consumer what was clearly and plainly advertised when the service was contracted. This stops any ISP from favoring VoIP from one provider or another or their own services over others but allows then to give you more then what you paid for if some provider wished to pay for it. The problem isn't that Google is faster then Bing or that Time Warner's VoIP is faster then Skype's or vice versa, it's that the ISP sold you a service and isn't delivering it if they restrict Google or Bing or whoever to below that service level or if they manipulate torrent packets to interfere with legitimate communications. We don't deserve more then what we pay for, but we do deserve what we paid for and if we get extra, then oh well. It's just the restrictions below the service level that is a problem.
Sherrod and Duke are nothing alike. You have absolutely no evidence of Sherrod acting in a racist fashion, ever. Seriously, what did she do that was racist? She did not work as hard as she could to help a white farmer. Initially. Is that racist? Most people wouldn't even think about it. Heck, government worker, not working as hard as they could for someone, uh, sadly not uncommon. It took someone who was actively working on correcting her own racial biases to even think about that act as potentially racist.
Oh my god. Have you watched the videos or are you just repeating crap that others have said? In the video itself, she admits to stone walling the white farmer because he was white, she admits to not helping him to the capacity of her office specifically because he was white. She admits that she pawned him off onto another lawyer because he was white. It doesn't matter that it all worked out in the end, that line of reasoning is just as sick as me shooting someone then claiming I wasn't trying to kill him, I was trying to save his life because you never would have found the cancer and treated him so early if you weren't sewing his bullet holes back up.
Sure, she goes on in her video to say she regretted doing what she did, she goes on to say she attempted to make it right and now they are friends. But that doesn't erase the fact that she did act on her racism and this guy wasn't not given equal treatment as someone of another skin color would have. And as we all know, these things aren't ever isolated incidents, so how many Whites has she helped in the same way that lost everything?
And no, a government working not working hard for someone is not racism in and of itself, it's where she admits that the intent of not working hard for him was because of his races that makes it racism. That is her own admission, you cannot change those facts. There are poor employees who don't do enough, and then there are racists employees who don't do enough for certain people because of their race. And yes, that is a big deal. Or should we reverse this a little, Suppose she was white and the farmer was black, would a white government employee shrugging of their duties specifically because some black man needed their help be acceptable at all? I think not.
And when she did what few others would do and looked at her own biases, she immediately tried to correct her mistake. She went out of her way to help because she felt badly about what she would done. Right there, we have proof she is in no way racist. First, most people, even most tolerant people, would not look so closely at their own actions. Second, most people, upon realizing their mistake, offer up an 'I'm sorry' at best. They do not take on extra work to correct their mistakes.
So you are saying that because she did something to console her own guilt of doing something racist, that proves she didn't do something racist? The fact that she made it right or attempted to make it right doesn't undo the fact that someone was done. In this case, it was something that was racists. It's really no different then David Duke distancing himself from the KKK. It doesn't erase what he had done, but for some reason, it does with this black woman. Are you sure you aren't acting a bit racists right now?
Now, this is all coming from a woman whose father was murdered by a white racist, in cold blood, tied to a tree, and set on fire back in 1965. You simply can not hang the term 'racist' on this woman. She is the exact opposite of a racist. She is an exemplar of how to look at and correct your own racial biases.
So, I had a friend die less then 5 feet from me after being shot by 5 black teens in some gang retaliation thing that neither of us were part of outside of being on the street when they met. I don't care what her reasoning for being racists or acting racist in the past is. I really don't care for why she says she is
My main concern with what the FCC is pushing is not what they are pushing but how they are pushing it. The courts said that the FCC overstepped their authority and that congress didn't authorize them to regulate broadband as it has been classified over the last 10 or more years. That's fine, go to congress and present the case why the FCC needs more power.
Instead, the FCC is attempting to bypass congress and the authority granted to them by congress by reversing the stand they thought prevalent and proper through 3 different administrations so far. No government agency should have the ability to reinvent or reinterpret the rules to grant themselves power that the courts said they did not have. If they need the power, then elected officials will have to give it to them. The FCC may be saving cute cuddly baby seals from being clubbed for recreational sports, but they are doing so by destroying the very government that empowers their existence in the process and that is just wrong. IF they would have asked congress for regulatory power and presented the case for why it is needed, they would have got it instead of members of both parties attempting to limit their behavior.
Again, the problem isn't what they want to do, it's how they are trying to do it. Bypassing a court of competent jurisdiction and congress itself is absolutely no way for a government agency to behave.
Duke has preached the same tolerance. The bottom line is that both have done something racists and claim to not be racists any more. And yes, I know that Duke still preaches about heritage and crap, but that's in essence the same BS about diversity and embracing your roots that is spewed by the NAACP and other minority organizations.
It appears that we are expected to have a double standard here. One more strict standard for David Duke and one more lenient standard for Sherrod. I'm not sure why you don't see the hypocrisy in that. If it's acceptable to take one racist who toned down or even claimed to have reversed their racism stance, then it should be acceptable for all of those doing the same. Or is there some sort of extra consideration that we should give Sharrod because she is black? But wouldn't that be racist in and of itself?
PS: What is "fsck" an acronym for? I'm guessing "fucking stupid censorship, kids".
fsck is short for file system check and is the name of the program/system utility or a common alias to the name that you would use to run a file system check in *nix like operating systems similar to check disk or scan disk in the various windows operating systems.
Because it is a 4 letter F word, the missing information on a corrupt disk, and the relative state of being screwed you usually are in if you need to run it because of disk problems, it's often used in place of Fuck or "What the fuck" when someone thinks they are being coy.
I don't think I can disagree with the three points but making someone who is not connected outside of providing a communications service pay for the problems you seek to remedy is the fairy tale. And all the supposed snooping though packets only opens up more serious problems.
Have you ever seen an ISP's traffic graphs ? Surely you're not claiming that anyone would miss the obviously illegal activity on those ?
And traffic graphs, even separated by protocol are not (currently considered) invasions of privacy.
Are you suggesting that the ISP just ban certain communications? I don't think I can agree with that seeing how I have very legit traffic that would fall into the same areas that the illegal traffic is moving. Should I be reported to the police for breaking a law when I haven't? You do not know the contents of the communications unless you read the packets.
No it's not. It's a system that allows a form of theft, even if only by the complexities and cost of the law. It actively encourages theft, even.
No, it's a system that doesn't make everyone else the police and holds them harmless if they didn't participate in the crime. Your utility provider shouldn't be checking your electricity to see if it spikes then claiming you are growing pot when you purchased a welder or space heater and used it- even though your spikes appear like grow lights.
Yes you can't take de-facto free stuff away from the masses once given without a revolution. Or at least no state has ever done so, from the Roman empire (and you'll see the healthcare bill will bankrupt the US before they'll repeal this moutain of debt)... but that doesn't make it right, or sustainable. It's not.
Huh? The curent system works as designed. If you have a right granted by law (in this case copyright), then it is your job to determine when your right is being violated, not anyone else's except when it's discovered by the proper authorities in a legal action they have taken.
We both know this. And we both like to tell ourselves fairy tales that say otherwise. But one day the pound of flesh will come due... and we'll both be fucked.
If you are talking about the health care disaster, you are probably right. If you are talking about copyright, you lost me.
I sorry to tell you that your chanced with a cop are worse then with a soldier if proper medical treatment is accessible (Emergency squad/field medic and hospital) within a reasonable time.
Your average police firearm isn't fully automatic, doesn't have any sort of recoil suppressor, and doesn't get used often. Your average soldier is much, much better trained with their weapon than the average policeman is, and they get lots more practice, and lots more "actually shooting at people" than cops do.
Most soldiers do not shoot in full auto. Full auto is reserved for specific situations because of the limited ammo situation. Some soldiers who have the heavy weapons like the M60 of the current equivalent or better, will do full auto but in short bursts unless something specifically calls for it. Even when the regular soldier has their weapon in full auto mode, they generally only shoot 2 or 3 rounds at any specific target. The police however, generally shoot 2 times and move to the next threat unless they are scared and empty a clip in one person. This means with hollow point bullets, you will get shot the equivalent of 8 times by a cop with a more serious wound if the bullet breaks up into 4 shards.
Of course it sounds like I would chose neither if I had the choice.
A soldier's job is to make someone dead if they have to, or if they've been told to. A police officer's job is to not make people dead unless it's a last resort.
Cops don't shot to wound someone. They aim for body mass (the largest points of the body because it's the largest target to hit making it easier to hit.) The cops only shot when the threat is serious enough but if we are choosing between getting shot by a cop or a soldier, that mark has already passed.
It's different training, different equipment, and a different mindset. Check this list and compare, say, 1950 onward. See the difference between soldiers firing on people and police firing on people?
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the list. Most people die in gun violence because of the lack of medical attention- they bleed out. Some people are killed instantly, most aren't. Some are as good as dead because the wounds can't be treated fast enough or they are too severe for the body to recover from. Getting shot with a soldiers weapon, rifle or side arm, you are more likley to fall into the first groups then the last where with the cop's, it's the last.
Yes, a police sidearm and its load is more deadly than the average soldier's sidearm and load. But that doesn't mean much, when the soldier is better trained, with more shooting experience, an arsenal of other weapons, and a squad of trigger-happy guys with him.
A police side arm and it's load is more deadly then a soldiers riffle too. A standard NATO riffle round is/ or used to be, a 7.62x51mm. That's roughly a 30 cal bullet comming in at.308 inches. A police side arm is going to be.38 special or 9 mill or better. Nowadays, they are using.40 cal weapons commonly. A.38 special is a.358 inch which is 9.09 millimeters and you have to remember, it will break up on impact. The main differences in the military cartridge style is for velocity and distance which isn't different enough to make the bullet more dangerous when considering the fragmentation. There is another common NATO round which is the 5.56x45mm, it's impact will close the gap considerably but you have to understand that if you are shot 3 time by a soldier's riffle, you should have three holes going through you. If you are shot once by a cop bullet, you should have one hole going in about an inch or so, then 4 or more coming out if a big slab of meat isn't removed in the process.
There is another trend that has been working in the cop weapons arena th
Yea, I think we are on the same page, it's just a difference in the order of aplication of maim. I originally took you to mean the weapon was designed to main, it needs to be designed to kill and maiming is a legitimate consequence when it has failed in that task.
You seemed to go past the design and into the usage which is the later of what we are talking about. SO I think we are on the same page, some semantics simply got in the way.
Or the simple stats show that the majority of people detained during most publicized crowd control issues are not residents of the city the problem came from.
This was the truth in the Cincinnati riots that tore up the river front area a few years ago, the same with the problems in the party conventions with both the last elections and the two before that. Most of the WTO riots that I know of are the same. We spent a good deal of time here on slashdot discussing Bush and how evil he was because the law enforcement of some town raided a group house that was planning on violence and all the occupants in question were out of townees.
The majority of problems are created by people with no vested interest in the community being torn up with a few exceptions. In other words, bused-in 'anarchists' and bused-in mercenary.
Actually, you are sort of wrong. While it's true that more shots would mean more chance of death all things being equal, the simple fact is that they are not equal.
A hollow point round will explode inside the body creating a single entry point and sort of a shredded exist point effectively making the single round have the effect of 4 or more rounds at some point on it's way through the body. Also with a hollow point or non-jacketed round, you have the problem of the bullet separation causing striations in which separate holes need to be opened up in order to remove the bullets causing more trauma to the body.
The full metal jacketed round is designed to go right through or stop inside a person. Their biggest danger is blood loss from a single entry point or organ failure from damage from that single point. With 10 rounds, there are ten points and so on. Had those 10 rounds been hollow point or even the black jack style "cop killer" bullets, the bullet would shred and have the effect of 40 or more smaller shots right after the point of impact.
Another thing is the training. Cops empty clips into people because they are scared. They aren't supposed to shoot someone for looking at them funny or fleeing from them, it's reserved for when their own lived may be in danger and while danger is always present when interacting with a suspect, it's only when that danger is a real threat that they can shoot (regardless of how lax or permissive the review boards are/appear to be in siding with cops after questionable shootings).
Now military on the other hand are trained to shoot a couple rounds and move to another target. They will not empty a clip on someone if they are trained properly and use their training during combat. They simply cannot carry enough ammo into the field to operate like that. They have enough to cover a person and make a few kills before needing resupplied. IF you run out of ammo on a mission, you are more then likely not coming back from it. It's not like in the movies where they stand up and shot 200 rounds, tumble beside a car, reload and do it over and over again. A typical soldier will only carry 200 or so rounds, about seven 30 round clips and that has to last until they can be resupplied if they are engaged. Granted, there are 6 or more people shooting at the targets in the engagement, usually with some sort of pattern designed to make the shots as effective as possible but this is no different from a police shooting situation where they are serving a warrant or called into a barricade situation, robbery, or whatever.
All things being equal (number of hits and location of hits), you stand a better chance or surviving with a soldier's weapon then a cop's weapon because of the different types of bullets they are allowed to use. Of course as you pointed out, there will be a point where neither is survivable.
NO. Using weapons to specifically blind the enemy is a crime. If you blind them with fragments or fire as a consequence of trying to kill and maim them, that's perfectly acceptable.
I agree with your point except that it's a war crime to design a weapon to maim someone. Your intent has to be to kill them, not injure or disfigure or otherwise known as maim them. If maiming is the result of an ineffectual use, I believe that is acceptable but intentionally attempting to maim isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
For most all practical reasoning, we won't see a whole lot of new sites for nuclear power. This is because everyone and their pets are afraid they will end up glowing in the dark. for this reasoning, you will find the most nuclear power expansion going into existing and already approved sites where getting the neccesary permits and such are easier (unless you're in a dictatorship country like china that can just make a decision and forget what the people think about it.).
The Westinghouse AP1000 and it's successors (Which I believe the china ones are) are supposed to be able to be built modular in three separate units that are primarily built off site in controlled environments and linked together on site. What's interesting about the AP1000 is that it's not only fail safe, but it can operate completely in the dark during an automated shut down from an emergency or something. It uses a passive cooling technology on top of active cooling and in the event of a disaster, it will shut down and can do so for a number of days without any juice going to the active cooling systems at all. The design is supposed to shut down if a signal isn't updated by human interaction every so often or if the signal is severed.
Anyways, when these came about, the target build for them because site prep was minimal, was less then five years before testing the generation spin up. These follow the Generation 3 safety protocol and once the gen 4 is out, they will be upgraded in design too. Anyways, the idea of this type is that the command and control parts can be built and shelved or used for other purposes and placed on site as needed so that all that is needed on site is the foundation work, a few concrete troughs for the connecting pipes, and the final assemble of the containment vessel and housing units. This should decrease the time till live enormously. Especially seeing how the command and control centers can control multiple reactors and the pump housing can be expanded after the fact by just tying another unit to it.
This should make it shorter to build and if the two non vessel chambers are already in construction and being used in other projects, it should reduce the costs significantly too. Time will tell but it's poised to drop costs significantly if something doesn't crop up in the middle.
So what you are saying is that looking in the email header to find information like the mail box it's addressed to then looking in a data set to figure out which machine the mailbox is located on and then directing it to that resource would be covered with the patent?
I mean isn't that how email has worked from day one? The header stores information about who it is to or from and the email server decides what to do with it based on that information. I havn't read the patent but it appears like he just copied the exact same mechanism the email server might use but diverts the messages to a /dev/null instead of the user's mailbox.
It will only mean something when you are walking down the street and someone notices another failed car bomb and our image happens to be on one of the store surveillance videos they use to catch the bomber. At that point in time, how many others are on the list will be irrelevant because they have you specifically saying something remotely resembling the events of the day and in the place of the events happening.
This means that you will not get a chance to say look at all the other idiots on the list, it means that you will get a trip to club gitmo without talking to your lawyer until someone who didn't stop looking for the real bomber eventually finds something that either points to someone else or clears you by accident. But hey, when justice prevails and you are released in a couple of years, after you find another job if you can with a couple year gap in your employment record that can only be explained legitimately by the government accused you of being a terrorist, look us up and tell us how many others are on the list.
It's completely pointless to keep a list that you are going to watch. It would need way too much resources to do. Instead, they have another reason to see if you are on any lists and then it simply makes an innocent person look guilty or reaffirms their need to look into that person. It's automagic, not automatic.
NO, QuantumG is not one of my aliases.
And No, I don't make comments designed to piss people off. However, that is often the effect when they find out their reality or opinion is wrong or simple doesn't make sense in the real world.
Here is a good source of reactor information. Here is another source of reactors as of 2010.Be cautious because they don't clearly date their articles so it might be a few years old and all you have to do is search for the reactor names and find out if they are under construction still or built and in operation. And yes, I do understand that it is a propaganda site pushing nuclear power as it's the website of the nuclear trade organization claiming to represent the world. But that is where the information is and you can simply search for them in google and find independent sources on the costs and operations.
Now if costs is a concern, then I suggest you take a look at this wikipedia article. Yes, I know it's wikkipedia but it's referenced and you can validate the claims with a simple search is you choose to. But if you notice the costs estimates which include actual costs, you will see that cost is highly influenced by the country of installation as well as type of unit. Most are within the op's price range, some are over it. With units like the GenIII AP1000 units, the buildings are pretty much modular and construction costs can be controlled pretty well. But as you notice with their installation in Vogtle, the cost is not only higher by about 4b, but a transmission line upgrade of about 3 billion had to be installed too.
Damn dude, settle down.
I mean it isn't hard to pay attention to the news and know that reactors like the Japanese Tomari-3 which was started in 2003 and came on line in 2009 and is in commercial operation today only took about 6 years to build. That was a genII reactor too. The genIII reactors are supposed to be quicker.
Here are a few more like the Yonggwang south korea reactors 5 and 6 which was started in 1995 and came online in 2002 (still below the 10 year mark or has my third grade math failed me?). Those are just a couple. I could list a whole bunch more that has started construction around the world and are expected to be online within the 10 year mark the op was talking about. But hey, I guess you have a google finger too.
IF you are wanting to spend extra money on generating power, then by all means do it. Just don't impose that onto others. As far as venting the exhaust, the chances are that you will never be effect by it so it's not pushing anything onto you personally. Or are you one of these people who get pissed when someone drive's their car a couple blocks instead of walking because you think they should live the way you want them to?
You are sort of there but there are exceptions. There are coal plants that sell peak and double as backups for downed plants being services. Dayton Power and light does this in which they increase the base load of a coal plant during the day by diverting the steam into a cold generator before hitting the cooling towers. The cold generator is a play on words, it's simply a generation system that doesn't need to be superheated as the normal generators are (I think they are between 400 and 700 degree F instead of the 1000 degree F regular temp). Of course they change the line pressure too in order to make it work.
It's not as efficient on the surface until you figure in the costs of peak loads compared to base loads, then it starts to make some sense on plants designed specifically to fill in while others are down.
The idea of a base load actually comes from government regulators and not really the power companies. Regulations state that a power supplier must have 10% excess power capacity at all times to account for surges in use and demand. This is where the base load actually comes from, it's the average load needed per time of day spread over the available generation facilities. The actual production may be well under the maximum base load at any given point in time depending on average historical needs, but the base load is required to be available within a certain time limit. The peak load is when the base load either isn't available at the time to meet the demand without bringing intermediate or demand generation online or buying it from another supplier. This is also why there are differing pricing levels for base power and peak power.
Now I don't think I'm disagreeing with what you were saying, just expanding a little on it. The problem with wind or solar is really with getting the power when you need it and making sure it's available when the wind stops blowing or is blowing too hard or when it rains for ten days straight or a volcano eruption eclipses your view of the sun. My electrical service provider requires a contract for a certain amount of electricity and I have to pay a penalty if my wind generator doesn't provide at least that much and the credit they give for overages isn't all the much either. It's specifically because of these problems and the requirements for base loads why they do it. The provider is a coop utility which means it's owned by the users so we are privy to all the details of the crap. They send letters explaining everything about 2 months before we vote on officers.
And that's why net neutrality will fail. If goolge wants to pay to have faster delivery service of their videos or something, then that should be perfectly allowable. What shouldn't be allowed is the ISP restricting any content or communications or taking steps to interfere with either, to render service below the threshold advertised when the ISP sold the service.
What that would do is make it illegal for ComCast to interfere with any packets if that interference falls below any advertised speeds. So if comcast advertises speeds up to 7 megs, then regardless of your contract saying 5 meg service, comcast simply cannot purposely manipulate the traffic to be less then 7 megs. But if Google or Yahoo or Hulu wants to increase the speeds to 10 megs, they should be able to pay comcast to do so.
I have actually wrote example laws and posted them here that can be put into 3 or 4 paragraphs that simply state that you must deliver to the consumer what was clearly and plainly advertised when the service was contracted. This stops any ISP from favoring VoIP from one provider or another or their own services over others but allows then to give you more then what you paid for if some provider wished to pay for it. The problem isn't that Google is faster then Bing or that Time Warner's VoIP is faster then Skype's or vice versa, it's that the ISP sold you a service and isn't delivering it if they restrict Google or Bing or whoever to below that service level or if they manipulate torrent packets to interfere with legitimate communications. We don't deserve more then what we pay for, but we do deserve what we paid for and if we get extra, then oh well. It's just the restrictions below the service level that is a problem.
Oh my god. Have you watched the videos or are you just repeating crap that others have said? In the video itself, she admits to stone walling the white farmer because he was white, she admits to not helping him to the capacity of her office specifically because he was white. She admits that she pawned him off onto another lawyer because he was white. It doesn't matter that it all worked out in the end, that line of reasoning is just as sick as me shooting someone then claiming I wasn't trying to kill him, I was trying to save his life because you never would have found the cancer and treated him so early if you weren't sewing his bullet holes back up.
Sure, she goes on in her video to say she regretted doing what she did, she goes on to say she attempted to make it right and now they are friends. But that doesn't erase the fact that she did act on her racism and this guy wasn't not given equal treatment as someone of another skin color would have. And as we all know, these things aren't ever isolated incidents, so how many Whites has she helped in the same way that lost everything?
And no, a government working not working hard for someone is not racism in and of itself, it's where she admits that the intent of not working hard for him was because of his races that makes it racism. That is her own admission, you cannot change those facts. There are poor employees who don't do enough, and then there are racists employees who don't do enough for certain people because of their race. And yes, that is a big deal. Or should we reverse this a little, Suppose she was white and the farmer was black, would a white government employee shrugging of their duties specifically because some black man needed their help be acceptable at all? I think not.
So you are saying that because she did something to console her own guilt of doing something racist, that proves she didn't do something racist? The fact that she made it right or attempted to make it right doesn't undo the fact that someone was done. In this case, it was something that was racists. It's really no different then David Duke distancing himself from the KKK. It doesn't erase what he had done, but for some reason, it does with this black woman. Are you sure you aren't acting a bit racists right now?
So, I had a friend die less then 5 feet from me after being shot by 5 black teens in some gang retaliation thing that neither of us were part of outside of being on the street when they met. I don't care what her reasoning for being racists or acting racist in the past is. I really don't care for why she says she is
My main concern with what the FCC is pushing is not what they are pushing but how they are pushing it. The courts said that the FCC overstepped their authority and that congress didn't authorize them to regulate broadband as it has been classified over the last 10 or more years. That's fine, go to congress and present the case why the FCC needs more power.
Instead, the FCC is attempting to bypass congress and the authority granted to them by congress by reversing the stand they thought prevalent and proper through 3 different administrations so far. No government agency should have the ability to reinvent or reinterpret the rules to grant themselves power that the courts said they did not have. If they need the power, then elected officials will have to give it to them. The FCC may be saving cute cuddly baby seals from being clubbed for recreational sports, but they are doing so by destroying the very government that empowers their existence in the process and that is just wrong. IF they would have asked congress for regulatory power and presented the case for why it is needed, they would have got it instead of members of both parties attempting to limit their behavior.
Again, the problem isn't what they want to do, it's how they are trying to do it. Bypassing a court of competent jurisdiction and congress itself is absolutely no way for a government agency to behave.
Duke has preached the same tolerance. The bottom line is that both have done something racists and claim to not be racists any more. And yes, I know that Duke still preaches about heritage and crap, but that's in essence the same BS about diversity and embracing your roots that is spewed by the NAACP and other minority organizations.
It appears that we are expected to have a double standard here. One more strict standard for David Duke and one more lenient standard for Sherrod. I'm not sure why you don't see the hypocrisy in that. If it's acceptable to take one racist who toned down or even claimed to have reversed their racism stance, then it should be acceptable for all of those doing the same. Or is there some sort of extra consideration that we should give Sharrod because she is black? But wouldn't that be racist in and of itself?
I guess that's where
step 3: ????
Comes into play.
Heh.. 6 months of looking for something and about to settle on a very expensive proprietary deployment.
I'll have to see if it works as easy as he says, but it's right there for my needs too.
Would you support David Duke replacing her at the FDA if she decides not to go back?
So are you suggesting that we stop using words because uneducated twits might mistake them for something else?
Please point me to the list of permitted words or banned words.
My humor sensors must have been off line when I read your post.
Thus reinforcing my point.
fsck is short for file system check and is the name of the program/system utility or a common alias to the name that you would use to run a file system check in *nix like operating systems similar to check disk or scan disk in the various windows operating systems.
Because it is a 4 letter F word, the missing information on a corrupt disk, and the relative state of being screwed you usually are in if you need to run it because of disk problems, it's often used in place of Fuck or "What the fuck" when someone thinks they are being coy.
It's the fairy tales part that lost me.
I don't think I can disagree with the three points but making someone who is not connected outside of providing a communications service pay for the problems you seek to remedy is the fairy tale. And all the supposed snooping though packets only opens up more serious problems.
Are you suggesting that the ISP just ban certain communications? I don't think I can agree with that seeing how I have very legit traffic that would fall into the same areas that the illegal traffic is moving. Should I be reported to the police for breaking a law when I haven't? You do not know the contents of the communications unless you read the packets.
No, it's a system that doesn't make everyone else the police and holds them harmless if they didn't participate in the crime. Your utility provider shouldn't be checking your electricity to see if it spikes then claiming you are growing pot when you purchased a welder or space heater and used it- even though your spikes appear like grow lights.
Huh? The curent system works as designed. If you have a right granted by law (in this case copyright), then it is your job to determine when your right is being violated, not anyone else's except when it's discovered by the proper authorities in a legal action they have taken.
If you are talking about the health care disaster, you are probably right. If you are talking about copyright, you lost me.
I sorry to tell you that your chanced with a cop are worse then with a soldier if proper medical treatment is accessible (Emergency squad/field medic and hospital) within a reasonable time.
Most soldiers do not shoot in full auto. Full auto is reserved for specific situations because of the limited ammo situation. Some soldiers who have the heavy weapons like the M60 of the current equivalent or better, will do full auto but in short bursts unless something specifically calls for it. Even when the regular soldier has their weapon in full auto mode, they generally only shoot 2 or 3 rounds at any specific target. The police however, generally shoot 2 times and move to the next threat unless they are scared and empty a clip in one person. This means with hollow point bullets, you will get shot the equivalent of 8 times by a cop with a more serious wound if the bullet breaks up into 4 shards.
Of course it sounds like I would chose neither if I had the choice.
Cops don't shot to wound someone. They aim for body mass (the largest points of the body because it's the largest target to hit making it easier to hit.) The cops only shot when the threat is serious enough but if we are choosing between getting shot by a cop or a soldier, that mark has already passed.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with the list. Most people die in gun violence because of the lack of medical attention- they bleed out. Some people are killed instantly, most aren't. Some are as good as dead because the wounds can't be treated fast enough or they are too severe for the body to recover from. Getting shot with a soldiers weapon, rifle or side arm, you are more likley to fall into the first groups then the last where with the cop's, it's the last.
A police side arm and it's load is more deadly then a soldiers riffle too. A standard NATO riffle round is/ or used to be, a 7.62x51mm. That's roughly a 30 cal bullet comming in at .308 inches. A police side arm is going to be .38 special or 9 mill or better. Nowadays, they are using .40 cal weapons commonly. A .38 special is a .358 inch which is 9.09 millimeters and you have to remember, it will break up on impact. The main differences in the military cartridge style is for velocity and distance which isn't different enough to make the bullet more dangerous when considering the fragmentation. There is another common NATO round which is the 5.56x45mm, it's impact will close the gap considerably but you have to understand that if you are shot 3 time by a soldier's riffle, you should have three holes going through you. If you are shot once by a cop bullet, you should have one hole going in about an inch or so, then 4 or more coming out if a big slab of meat isn't removed in the process.
There is another trend that has been working in the cop weapons arena th
Yea,
I think we are on the same page, it's just a difference in the order of aplication of maim. I originally took you to mean the weapon was designed to main, it needs to be designed to kill and maiming is a legitimate consequence when it has failed in that task.
You seemed to go past the design and into the usage which is the later of what we are talking about. SO I think we are on the same page, some semantics simply got in the way.
Or the simple stats show that the majority of people detained during most publicized crowd control issues are not residents of the city the problem came from.
This was the truth in the Cincinnati riots that tore up the river front area a few years ago, the same with the problems in the party conventions with both the last elections and the two before that. Most of the WTO riots that I know of are the same. We spent a good deal of time here on slashdot discussing Bush and how evil he was because the law enforcement of some town raided a group house that was planning on violence and all the occupants in question were out of townees.
The majority of problems are created by people with no vested interest in the community being torn up with a few exceptions. In other words, bused-in 'anarchists' and bused-in mercenary.
Actually, you are sort of wrong. While it's true that more shots would mean more chance of death all things being equal, the simple fact is that they are not equal.
A hollow point round will explode inside the body creating a single entry point and sort of a shredded exist point effectively making the single round have the effect of 4 or more rounds at some point on it's way through the body. Also with a hollow point or non-jacketed round, you have the problem of the bullet separation causing striations in which separate holes need to be opened up in order to remove the bullets causing more trauma to the body.
The full metal jacketed round is designed to go right through or stop inside a person. Their biggest danger is blood loss from a single entry point or organ failure from damage from that single point. With 10 rounds, there are ten points and so on. Had those 10 rounds been hollow point or even the black jack style "cop killer" bullets, the bullet would shred and have the effect of 40 or more smaller shots right after the point of impact.
Another thing is the training. Cops empty clips into people because they are scared. They aren't supposed to shoot someone for looking at them funny or fleeing from them, it's reserved for when their own lived may be in danger and while danger is always present when interacting with a suspect, it's only when that danger is a real threat that they can shoot (regardless of how lax or permissive the review boards are/appear to be in siding with cops after questionable shootings).
Now military on the other hand are trained to shoot a couple rounds and move to another target. They will not empty a clip on someone if they are trained properly and use their training during combat. They simply cannot carry enough ammo into the field to operate like that. They have enough to cover a person and make a few kills before needing resupplied. IF you run out of ammo on a mission, you are more then likely not coming back from it. It's not like in the movies where they stand up and shot 200 rounds, tumble beside a car, reload and do it over and over again. A typical soldier will only carry 200 or so rounds, about seven 30 round clips and that has to last until they can be resupplied if they are engaged. Granted, there are 6 or more people shooting at the targets in the engagement, usually with some sort of pattern designed to make the shots as effective as possible but this is no different from a police shooting situation where they are serving a warrant or called into a barricade situation, robbery, or whatever.
All things being equal (number of hits and location of hits), you stand a better chance or surviving with a soldier's weapon then a cop's weapon because of the different types of bullets they are allowed to use. Of course as you pointed out, there will be a point where neither is survivable.
I agree with your point except that it's a war crime to design a weapon to maim someone. Your intent has to be to kill them, not injure or disfigure or otherwise known as maim them. If maiming is the result of an ineffectual use, I believe that is acceptable but intentionally attempting to maim isn't.