Do you have a link detailing those Russian reactors changes I can read? Have you considered where that presumption comes from? Automatic fail-safe are one of the design recommendations the nuclear industry made for itself then ignored in the design of the *new* AP-1000. Current reactor facilities have very limited automation, and that's US reactors, forget Russian reactors.
I don't have a link to it, but I do know that an international fund created by donations from private citizens and countries have spent close to 1 billion to help implement safety upgrades by 2000 or so. OF course there is the Wikipedia page but I don't particularly like referencing them. The IAEA has verified the safety upgrades in various press releases over the years. This gets a little complicated to track because the former soviet union states kept their own reactors so all of the information is spread out a little.
I also think you/we might be misunderstanding the AP1000 operational. It didn't ignore the fail safe, it revised how it works and relied a lot on water pressure just to keep the reaction alive. In short, it's a self contained unit during the cool down phase requiring no alternative pumps or power for three days. The fail safe is in the design in which the reactor material is dropped into a containment vessel to be extinguished as it uses stream and condensation to protect the core during this time.
Of course I may be understanding that wrong. The information from the site is a little vague and general but the passive failure mode has been around for a while in the genII stations and considered safe.
Actually, I don't know where I came up with that unless it was the instrument thing. I did a search string for what I remember and couldn't come up with anything. Perhaps the Mars Climate Orbiter is what I was thinking of, it's thruster were off by a factor of 4.5 but for some reason I remember 6.
Oh well, I'll figure it out one of these days. Thanks for catching me.
Even science goes back to some point in time where something was either just there or magically happened so don't give me the "just popping into existence and thinking to himself "Gee, it sure would be nice to have worshipers, maybe I'll make a planet of those." The former builds upon our prior knowledge, the latter defies probability." What happened before the big bang, where did the energy or the materials necessary for it come from, where did that come from. It's no less of a guess then a god doing the same.
Perhaps he is only playing Devil's Advocate (har har irony), but the point he makes is ridiculous: That the postulation of a creator is exactly as valid as a scientific theory constructed from what we currently understand about the Earth. On one hand, we have a scientist hypothesising that the Earth's magnetic field is created by electrical currents in the oceans (or more traditionally, by the spinning of the Earth's Iron core),
Actually, no. The article summery is misleading. It isn't intending to explain the magnetic field by currents in the ocean, it's attempting to explain variations and anomalies within those variations on electrical currents in the ocean. So we still have this unverified explanation of a Iron core but now the evidence suggesting that it was molten and spinning has been explained away by another process.
Further examination may lead us to understand that it could be a combination of both or one as a cause affect or the other. But that's just a guess on my part. As for the magnetic field itself, we no more understand why it is there then guessing at it. There is no real evidence to how it is created and we can't test it's creation either.
So as it stands, we have no more proof to what is causing it then an assertion that a god created it. We do have proof of it's effects/affect though, and we have knowledge of some of it's properties too. But the biggest thing suggesting the mechanics of it just got shown to be possibly creates in another way.
ctually there is no proof at all that God exists (read: 'faith'). There is plenty of mathematical evidence to explain gravity. We may not be able to reproduce it directly, but it is most certainly measurable and quantifiable.
Well, actually, no there isn't any mathematical evidence to explain gravity. There is mathematical evidence to explain the properties of gravity but that's not what your saying.
An AC answered the rest better then I can so I won't bother touching on it. I'm just going to mention that provable isn't at play here. Provable will show gravity exists, nothing we know can prove how or why, the are not yet provable. Look at it this way, A+B=C where C is greater then or less then or equal to Y. One is how to get gravity, the other is what we know about gravity. We know a lot about about gravity and can use it to manipulate object, calculate power requirements, and many other things. But we don't know how to get it or create it or manipulate it once it is there, at best we can only manipulate other things with it.
The tenets of an ancient religion are as valuable as a plausible educated guess?
They are no less valuable. The problem is that there is no difference in the guesses, educated or not. They are guesses. And this guy seems to indicate that the entire evidence for a molten core can be replicated using currents in the ocean making it less of an educated guess.
I disagree with you assertion on gravity too. We know more about gravity but we don't know why in a testable way. We thought the gravity on mars would have been different then it was when we got there. We were off by almost a factor of six if I remember right. Anyways, using A doesn't mean you know how A happens. It only means that you know enough about A's properties to be useful.
I don't think the evidence for a liquid core is much more then the magnetic fields and the secular variations and anomalies there. There is supporting evidence of the effect but as far as I know, that cause is only supported by the effect. Pointing out that it could be caused by the ocean in so much as the variations does remove more all of the proof of a molten core, but it also replaces it with the ocean theory.
I have read you other replied and don't wish to contend the premise of your statement, but I need to ask you, what happened when Occam's Razor is wrong?
I know it leaves a provision for being wrong within the application itself but swearing by it could leave something important out of the picture.
Let me explain this a little in laymens terms that everyone can understand and i would like you hear your thoughts on it. Ok suppose we are attempting to figure out how to make some dinner dish that mom used to make before she passed away. The end product is home made bread. The ingredients are flour, water, salt, yeast, and perhaps a pinch of sugar to help set the yeast off. We mix them all, together, let knead, let rise, punch down, knead, shape, and let rise in the pan before baking. That's the simplest, easiest way to make bread which would follow Occam's Razor. Now what if it didn't turn out like moms, still edible and good, but not quite the same. Lets suppose this is because mom let the doe rise three times and lined the bread pan with olive oil and sprinkled a butter substitute on top of it instead of just greasing the sides with butter. In one hand, we have a general explanation. In the other, we have more complicated steps that fail Occam's Razor when we are looking at the smallest detail.
Now, I hoped that was an overly simplified explanation to what I meant by when Occam's Razor is wrong. It could be hundreds of years before something else is discovered and the simplest explanation no longer works where looking at the more complicated explanations sooner could result in more useful knowledge.
Why, he telling the truth of the situation, there is no particular evidence backing the scientific claims outside of rationed self justification.
On another note, I don't believe he said he believed that god did anything, he said that it was just as valuable as the current explanation. Either way, it's like gravity, we don't know exactly how to product it, what caused it, or how to recreate it but we know it is there and can use it for out benefit just like the magnetosphere.
Anyways, the study's importance doesn't really mean that the oceans cause the magnetic field, more so as it is interacting with it and there are common effects with each. Perhaps there are more then one way to have a magnetic field and we are just understanding one of them.
Yeah, and it was happening since the end of the first war. We hardly cared, including Bush pre-wtc, because he was mostly happy to kill his own people.
Then something happened, it was called 9/11. And these people who thought it wasn't worth enough to care about started wondering what would happen if Al Qeada or other terrorist got their hands on the weapons. We did know that there were terrorist in Iraq and we know that Saddam had some links to Al Qeada.
It is against the law of some magical force to change you minds about something once another even or information becomes known?
When FOX starts trumpeting the evils of Saddam, ignoring the tons of actual atrocities and starts quoting UN documents you know they're up to something. If they really cared they had years to notice, but they only care when Bush is trying to make his Iraq-war case.
I don't think what Fox news does is important here. The UN documents and the quotes they used are. They say things totally different then what Hans Blix himself stated even though he was responsible for the UN reports after 2000. Now tell me, do you trust what a guy says publicly to anyone who will listen in the 2 months leading up to a war or what he has officially endorsed to group representing every country in the world for the three years prior when they come into conflict with each other?
BTW, Fox news was right there reading the UN reports and railing on the evils of Iraq way back when Clinton was president. The idea that they were up to something is only convenient to your plot if you forget that.
This is when Bush was trying vainly to connect Saddam to wtc?
Outside of one gaf, I don't remember him doing so. I do remember him attempting to connect Saddam with links to terrorism and Al Qeada which while that was true to some extent, doesn't mean Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. As I already pointed out, Saddam was either supporting or ignoring and therefore allowing a terrorist training camp to operate within the borders of Iraq for about a year leading up to the war. Saddam claimed he couldn't find it but we specifically pointed to it and informed him where it was. There was also the pensions he was offering the families of any suicide bomber who killed themselves in Israel. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that was supporting terrorism.
Don't take links to terrorism as a link to the WTC.
Perhaps the Turkish people merely didn't want to be parties to war crimes?
Perhaps we can guess all we want and eventually come up with something that makes our plot work then act like it's real. The protests at the time were anti war in general and it had to so with non-Muslims invading Muslim lands. We know this because the demonstrations were very public and vocal.
You know, history is full of master strategists - at least in their own heads, who think that having one really good plan makes up for it inevitably falling apart and them having nothing.
This is part of what people point to when they say Bush was Saddam focused. While certain military incursions into parts of Iraq might have helped us and the Iraqis, Bush let his quest for Saddam lead him into a badly planned war.
You can't really fault the collapse of a plan for political reasons and making a new one up on the fly on the creator of the plan. Bush didn't develop any of the plans, others did, he just used them. He also received assurances of the confidence in them. If you actually think Bush was in the war room moving troops around rubbing his hands together while whispering "common saddam, show yourself", you might need a better understanding on who things work.
You mean, investing in commodities? Or alternatively, ditching the dollar?
I've had poor lines, static and noised in the calls over POTS lines. I'm defining a good quality call as the same as POTS calls on average with the good and the bad and perhaps the added fudder of cordless phone static and so on.
I've been on a couple VoIP calls that I couldn't distinguish between them and a regular call. I do know know how much bandwidth they were using though, it was where the VoIP feature on the phone allowed me to take a Avaya phone home and set it up as an extension to several sites I work with.
It's interesting to see the bandwidth information though. I guess VoIP isn't as far as I thought.
See, something has been added. Your grammar was frequently atrocious in your earlier screeds, but I decided to give you a free pass for those ones. You really should concentrate on getting the basics of English down, because using it poorly reflects badly on your message, no matter what you are saying. Or trying to say.
As if I actually care about grammar or proof reading when talking to a troll. You need to get a sense of reality.
BTW, a grammar error that small doesn't change the content of the message, but good job attempting to claim it totally invalidates it.
I addressed the merits of your case earlier, with regard to the physical location of the plant used to operate the gaming, versus the residence of the gamers. You argued that the WTO had no remit in this case. The WTO panel disagreed, and in accepting arbitration, the US *and* Antigua both accepted remit. You are, in effect, second guessing the legal and political teams from two countries as well as an international panel of jurists. As with idiosyncratic stock picking, there is a very, very small probability of you being correct in this instance, versus a very high probability of you not being correct in this case. I have read your bloggish/fisking-style arguments againt the WTO decision and they are unconvincing and merely reiterate or restate many of the initial arguments of the US deposition in the first round of hearings. These arguments were judged at the time to be of insufficient merit to prevent the arbitration from proceeding. Your stubborn refusal to recognise that a legally constituted body delegated to come to a resolution of this difficult problem bespeaks a cognitive difficulty in accepting wisdom.
The problem is that you failed to give the argument any consideration at all and instead attempted to ignore the fact that I said the Arbitration panel acted outside it's real in order to retaliate against the US for it's perceived other trade position.
Now you linked to a few scientific article abstracts concerning various aspect of knowledge processing. The problem is that you failed to consider the content of the statements and are instead ignoring them in favor of randomly picking the side you want to believe has more merit. What I showed was in black and white and written within the treaty, US law, as well as the appellate panel and the appellate boards findings. When it went to arbitration which we were forced to participate in (the rules say it will happen with or without us), the arbitration considered the previous complaints, upheld the the appellate boards determinations, and then ignored the entire principle in order to create a ruling based on an argument that was never made by either side that also would have been excepted under the same concept as the other actual complaints. Now you can point to any papers you want, but you cannot deny that fact. It's right there in black and white. The ruling knows only political motivation outside the realm of the treaty and even the complaints being made. If the argument had been presented, it could have been demonstrated that the particular US law used to justify the ruling only says that the gambling has to be legal in both states and then follow certain guidelines to protect against fraud. You have not addresses that at all, and instead attempted to point to "Well, these people know what they are doing". That is not addressing anything, especially when the text of the law says something completely different then what they claimed.
You cannot look at the availible evidence and find any rationell to support the decision outside or other political motivations.
Sometimes, you just have to admit that you are wrong. The problem is that when your intellectual capabilities constrain you from recognising the domain borders of your inexpertise, there is a high probability that you will overestimate your capabilities.
I don't disagree with you insomuch as what you say, however, I was more or less only dealing with the concerns of a "Chernobyl style" accident happening again. The fact is that Many of Russia's faulty designed fascility has been closed down or redesigned to incorporation automatic safe fail measures.
Also, those features were inherent in the rest of the world facilities since that time.
Keep in mind, I'm not of the opinion that nothing could ever happen, it's just that it won't be on that scale. About the worse that I know of capable of happening is that the rector facility itself will become contaminated with minor leakage that will dissipate quickly.
Look, And SUV is considered a light truck. How dangerous you think they are verses how many people died while driving them compared to driving compacts seem to counter the importance of your suggestion. I linked to the federal numbers on that and it clear that while your concerns may have some validity, they aren't what your attempting to make it out to be.
SUV's are roomier and more comfortable for a lot of people, the extra height alone allow better visibility and therefore the the opportunity for less crashed or more reaction time to make the crashed less severe. If people felt safer in them, it was because they were "feeling safer".
As for rollover, that is more of a concern for people who don't drive them properly and not for someone who has a feel for what they vehicle can do. They are not dangerous or they wouldn't be allowed on the roads. And yes, while SUV on SUV is a zero sum gain as far as mass is concerned, you are also forgetting that the extra weight allows for more metal and therefor more crumble zones which means more impact of the collision is absorbed by the vehicle and not transferred to the passengers. There are benefits to driving an SUV, Just as there are benefits to driving a sports car or a compact. We live in a free society and it isn't either of our places to mandate who can drive what for whatever reason. Especially when they are perfectly legal. I know people who wear black or strips because it makes them look thinner, it doesn't actually, but that doesn't mean it's my duty to tell them. They make their choices, you make your, and its obvious that you made your knowing about the dangers of their choices so just live with it.
Either address the merrits of the points made or go troll somewhere else.
BTW, it's not an ad hominem attack when I call you a moron or an idiot. I am addressing you directly and not attempting to hide this fact. The truth of whether it's an attack or stating the obvious rests in your own actions in which case it's not even an attack. Anecdote evidence is the actual fucking treaty that you refuse to review or comment on and the ruling from the arbitration panel that you also refuse to look at while blindly accepting what the evidence clearly shows is an error. That evidence however, is fact, as in scientific fact or direct observation and not anecdotal.
You can complain and side step the issues all you want, point to a collage of quasi dumbwhit internet slogans but the simple fact remains that you still have not addresses a single point I made and it's obvious you aren't going to. That being the case, I can only assume that you are deflecting your own ignorance and stupidity in a mad attempt to make yourself feel better in order not to cry yourself asleep while attempting to kill yourself every night. Perhaps you should seriously think about letting it go and doing the deed. It will make the world a better place and I suspect your family will thank you for it. You could also get some professional help.
The difference between you and me is that while insulting your (and i did), I actually addressed your points. You OTOH, ignore the entire context and attempt to stick to the insults but you can't even do that right. Perhaps you should forget I ever mentioned you should seek help and just end it all. Your not adding anything to the conversation and your comments are doing nothing but wasting time that no one will ever be able to get back.
Quit arguing the hypothetical merits of a body or people that I already challenged the integrity of and either count one of the points I made or troll somewhere else.
Fuck dude, I told you they were in error, pointed to where the error was, showed how they ignored the original complaint, the treaty and instead made their own complaint up without provocation and ignored the plain English text of the treaty in order to make their ruling. Hell, their ruling didn't even consider the argument made. No one ever made the argument that their ruling supported, otherwise it would have been documented before it got to arbitration and during the arbitration. It simply wasn't there. They went looking for something they couldn't find and took it out of context, ignored the treaty and made a ruling based on their desire not any fact presented.
You sound just like my niece when she was 7 years old in 2004 and she attempted to tell me that there was only 26 amendments to the US constitution because that's what her teacher said and she went to school to be a teacher. I had to go to school and show her teacher that they slipped one in all the way back in 1992 in order for her to correct what she had taught the class. You are this naive 7 year old refusing to look at the evidence that is there in plain English and availible to anyone concerned. But worse yet, you instead- trust someone you don't even know, never heard of before their boondoggle, who can be showed to be in error by a simple look at the evident and fact at hand.
I think it might be more to the point of increasing safety standards then the SUV craze. That is one reason for discontinued cars as well as them becoming heavier.
Now these safety standards that were imposed in the US also increased the weight of some import cars from the early 80's. Things like crumble zones that protect the occupants by absorbing a portion of the impact of an accident and controlled crunches so the engine drops under the front seat instead of ending up in the drivers lap as well as sloped or cushioned designs that attempt to minimize pedestrian injury if involved. Then you have added weight from pollution controls and so on.
A lot of the safety features and pollution controls add a lot of weight. The anti lock breaking system on my old corolla ended up adding something like 80 lbs to the curb weight alone.
Yes I called Americans cowards. I am one but I don't watch TV and find that most Americans are afraid of their own shadow if the TV tells them to be. Oddly, motorcycles, mopeds, bicycles are still used in small numbers; largely because the TV doesn't market against their safety, I suspect...
I suspect you are a moron then. No seriously. I'm an american too and I ride, however, it's not practicle when it's raining, it's damn uncomfortable when it's below 60 degrees F, and I can't go to the grocery on it unless I make ten trips, I can't take the family on one, so what's the point except for enjoyment? Other people think it's dangerous because they read in the newspaper or watch on the news "fatality accident, motorcycle verses car, drive of car walks away with minor scratches". Now that's not the TV of newspaper promoting it wrong, it's them reporting the news. It's not the job of the TV or news paper or any media outlet to tell people to like motorcycles. It is their jobs to run advertisements as well as report the news.
BTW, what TV show tells people that motorcycles are dangerous?
1st thing people get concerned about is safety with compact cars; wasn't such a big deal before the 90s push to have massive SUV killers-- and the promoted attitude of "at least I'll be in better shape than the other driver" plus marketing it to mothers-- the few mothers I discussed this with were all for killing others to lower injury to their family. It wasn't a question of equality but a COLD WAR of wanting to be safer at the expense of others (and their pocketbook.)
This SUV is safer craze isn't something that was little more then a promotional gimmick, it was started and perpetuated with old timers complaining that the cars are crap and don't protect you like their '72 impala did or they saw on TV or in the news, fatality accident, SUV driver walks away. The fact is that you are safer in an SUV then you are in a compact car in most common accidents.
BTW, what's wrong with a mother looking to protect herself and her family? That's human nature and basic animal instinct that drives survival of the fittest. I'm all for killing someone who might kill me, and no, I'm not a bad person for believing that because I don't want to be dead over some hippy idealist rant. I also believe you are confusing wanting to be safer with wanting to injure someone else. The two aren't exclusive. Tell me, do you seriously want to be injured just as much as someone else or less? It goes against the very grain of self preservation to want to be injured more then you have to. So when you phrase the question "do you want to be injured as much as someone else or safer at their expense", the majorty of people are going to say safer and ignore the rest of your comment. Even if you attempt to tell them that their safety means someone else will be injured more, they just want to be safe. It takes a moron to volunteer for injury in order to match someone else' injuries when it can be avoided in the first place.
In the 80s people were not nearly as bad; some sort of marketing push must have happened around the 90s probably trying to broaden the appeal of "small dick" vehicles to women.
What happened in the 90's was more like the larger and safer cars left over from the 70's were shot and people who knew what it felt like to have some steel between them and the first person to the accident scene couldn't stand the small cars. I know several girls right now who drive pickup trucks, not because of some marketing scam, but because it's what their dad drove and it what they learned how to drive in and they are comfortable with them.
You may think large cars are small dick vehicles, but it's more likely then not that you are attempting to compensate for your own size by ragging on others. A real man doesn't have to bring up dick size at all. And just because you do or don't need or want someth
I live in Japan, one of those countries where small cars are prevalent. Kei cars aren't exactly 700 lbs. but the smallest are close. This country is decidedly not third world, last I checked.
Oh god, I want to just say "it's because you people are small" so bad but I guess that isn't a truthful or proper statement. There will be exceptions to about everything, japan is probably one of them. Of course I'm going to use the "usually" to show that I intended not to be all inclusive so please don't take offense.
Anyways, I was attempting to look and I could find one of those cars in production today that didn't come in at almost twice as heavy as this thing. The smallest one I can find still in production was the Suzuki Twin which comes in at around 1300lbs (600kg) Perhaps you know of a smaller one that's actually still in productions?
You have met the wrong People. I lived in Cologne (Germany), Luxemburg, Spain, and came around much. And I know for sure, that not a single person i ever met would call himself an "European", when asked for his country.
Actually the question is usually where are you from, not what country are you from. Perhaps it's all in the semantics.
Maybe someone thought: "Oh, an US-American. From the funny TV-Spots know that they can't tell Iraq from their own country on a map. So I say 'Europe', and maybe get a chance at him knowing it" Sure, this is just as insulting and filled with prejudice. But, here too, as everywhere, not all people are great. ^^
Actually, as I already pointed out, from an american standpoint, it has more to do with all the multilateral agreements we have with countries in Europe stemming from the end of WWII and the cold war. We helped defeat the axis powers in Europe, not just France or Germany or Italy or any single country. After the war was over, we rebuilt Europe, not just a single country (although operations in Germany when the wall went up was a single country, all of Europe participated in some way with the air drops of food and supplies and stuff). During the cold war, we worked with Europe, not just a single county, NATO was an organization created from a treaty based around the common defense of North Atlantic countries that included western Europe, not just France, or Germany or England or Ireland or a single country.
It's rooted in our history books and it's especially favorable to anyone who grew up or lived during the cold war (like me) when these facts were being blasted every week on the evening news. Now there is the EU which pretends to be the same as the original US federal government's role giving the appearance as Europe being a federation of state just like the "United States of America". State being a country as it is used everywhere else in the world and not as a political subdivision as some people in America see it.
I hope you can understand where it comes from and it isn't out of malice. (well, maybe some will do it out of malice, especially since you made it clear that it irritates you).
Those throw away cars don't go to the dump to get buried with all the household waste.
They get sold to people willing to do some work to them and drive them for a while longer or they go to a salvage yard and get cannibalized for parts until everything of value if picked from them, then they get recycled. All the throw away mentality does is present poorer people with an opportunity to own a car or repair their cars at a decent rate.
You mean there would be no trouble selling it to people who want to drive motorcycles and didn't care about style or performance.
Many people don't consider motorcycles safe enough to own one let alone drive it. The difference here is that it is being presented as a car and people are taking the same objections as they would have for motorcycles.
Fuel prices will never get that high. There is ample supplies of oil and just like the so called solutions of cap and trade, the people will just demand more pay to compensate for the extra costs.
We usualy call those places third world countries.
Lets be practical here, when buying this car (leasing it) they are asking a first world country to lower it's standards to the lowest denominator. What next, no plumbing or electricity for a 20 year lease?
It's not a good thing yet it's not a bad thing either. At that state is only temporary until the rods have cooled sufficiently. Your are statistically more likely to be fatally injured in a car crash on the way to or from work then to ever be effected by decommissioned nuclear fuel rods erupting into a fire. Does that make going to work a good thing? No, it just a risk we can live with and take precautions so that it won't or is unlikely to happen.
So I wonder how many of them are still having PBX systems with the ability to call in and dial out via an 800 number?
I would say quite a few. I have noticed that a lot of VoIP systems are added-on instead of replacing older phone systems. They also already have the copper and it's cheaper to purchase lines by the bundle then to separate them.
BTW, large businesses would connect different campuses across a T1 point to point connection(s) before VoIP was around. Basically, the software/hardware in the phone system will use a channel on the T1 line as a phone line and allow the cross campus communications including passing inbound calls to the other facilities (one 800 number for 10 facilities across 5 states.) You can get 24 voice channels from one t1 line too. This also cuts down on long distance because you can program it to call out on the loop closest to the call termination. This means that if your in Buffalo NY and a customer is in Orangevale California and you have a branch office in Fair Oaks, it will be a local call for you. Some long distance telecoms offer T1 loops directly to their long distance center eliminating much of the costs in a normal switched call. That means they would be paying about 1/3 of what normal people would pay if you didn't consider the costs of the T1 loop.
VoIP has basically gotten around the T1 costs (you need one for each location). Some switched networks already use VoIP on controlled backbones to consolidate long distance calls as the telecoms saw the savings way before it was economical for normal people to play with it. VoIP has come a long ways since that has started and the bandwidth needed for good quality calls have dropped quite a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a link to it, but I do know that an international fund created by donations from private citizens and countries have spent close to 1 billion to help implement safety upgrades by 2000 or so. OF course there is the Wikipedia page but I don't particularly like referencing them. The IAEA has verified the safety upgrades in various press releases over the years. This gets a little complicated to track because the former soviet union states kept their own reactors so all of the information is spread out a little.
I also think you/we might be misunderstanding the AP1000 operational. It didn't ignore the fail safe, it revised how it works and relied a lot on water pressure just to keep the reaction alive. In short, it's a self contained unit during the cool down phase requiring no alternative pumps or power for three days. The fail safe is in the design in which the reactor material is dropped into a containment vessel to be extinguished as it uses stream and condensation to protect the core during this time.
Of course I may be understanding that wrong. The information from the site is a little vague and general but the passive failure mode has been around for a while in the genII stations and considered safe.
Actually, I don't know where I came up with that unless it was the instrument thing. I did a search string for what I remember and couldn't come up with anything. Perhaps the Mars Climate Orbiter is what I was thinking of, it's thruster were off by a factor of 4.5 but for some reason I remember 6.
Oh well, I'll figure it out one of these days. Thanks for catching me.
Even science goes back to some point in time where something was either just there or magically happened so don't give me the "just popping into existence and thinking to himself "Gee, it sure would be nice to have worshipers, maybe I'll make a planet of those." The former builds upon our prior knowledge, the latter defies probability." What happened before the big bang, where did the energy or the materials necessary for it come from, where did that come from. It's no less of a guess then a god doing the same.
Actually, no. The article summery is misleading. It isn't intending to explain the magnetic field by currents in the ocean, it's attempting to explain variations and anomalies within those variations on electrical currents in the ocean. So we still have this unverified explanation of a Iron core but now the evidence suggesting that it was molten and spinning has been explained away by another process.
Further examination may lead us to understand that it could be a combination of both or one as a cause affect or the other. But that's just a guess on my part. As for the magnetic field itself, we no more understand why it is there then guessing at it. There is no real evidence to how it is created and we can't test it's creation either.
So as it stands, we have no more proof to what is causing it then an assertion that a god created it. We do have proof of it's effects/affect though, and we have knowledge of some of it's properties too. But the biggest thing suggesting the mechanics of it just got shown to be possibly creates in another way.
Well, actually, no there isn't any mathematical evidence to explain gravity. There is mathematical evidence to explain the properties of gravity but that's not what your saying.
An AC answered the rest better then I can so I won't bother touching on it. I'm just going to mention that provable isn't at play here. Provable will show gravity exists, nothing we know can prove how or why, the are not yet provable. Look at it this way, A+B=C where C is greater then or less then or equal to Y. One is how to get gravity, the other is what we know about gravity. We know a lot about about gravity and can use it to manipulate object, calculate power requirements, and many other things. But we don't know how to get it or create it or manipulate it once it is there, at best we can only manipulate other things with it.
They are no less valuable. The problem is that there is no difference in the guesses, educated or not. They are guesses. And this guy seems to indicate that the entire evidence for a molten core can be replicated using currents in the ocean making it less of an educated guess.
I disagree with you assertion on gravity too. We know more about gravity but we don't know why in a testable way. We thought the gravity on mars would have been different then it was when we got there. We were off by almost a factor of six if I remember right. Anyways, using A doesn't mean you know how A happens. It only means that you know enough about A's properties to be useful.
I don't think the evidence for a liquid core is much more then the magnetic fields and the secular variations and anomalies there. There is supporting evidence of the effect but as far as I know, that cause is only supported by the effect. Pointing out that it could be caused by the ocean in so much as the variations does remove more all of the proof of a molten core, but it also replaces it with the ocean theory.
I have read you other replied and don't wish to contend the premise of your statement, but I need to ask you, what happened when Occam's Razor is wrong?
I know it leaves a provision for being wrong within the application itself but swearing by it could leave something important out of the picture.
Let me explain this a little in laymens terms that everyone can understand and i would like you hear your thoughts on it. Ok suppose we are attempting to figure out how to make some dinner dish that mom used to make before she passed away. The end product is home made bread. The ingredients are flour, water, salt, yeast, and perhaps a pinch of sugar to help set the yeast off. We mix them all, together, let knead, let rise, punch down, knead, shape, and let rise in the pan before baking. That's the simplest, easiest way to make bread which would follow Occam's Razor. Now what if it didn't turn out like moms, still edible and good, but not quite the same. Lets suppose this is because mom let the doe rise three times and lined the bread pan with olive oil and sprinkled a butter substitute on top of it instead of just greasing the sides with butter. In one hand, we have a general explanation. In the other, we have more complicated steps that fail Occam's Razor when we are looking at the smallest detail.
Now, I hoped that was an overly simplified explanation to what I meant by when Occam's Razor is wrong. It could be hundreds of years before something else is discovered and the simplest explanation no longer works where looking at the more complicated explanations sooner could result in more useful knowledge.
Why, he telling the truth of the situation, there is no particular evidence backing the scientific claims outside of rationed self justification.
On another note, I don't believe he said he believed that god did anything, he said that it was just as valuable as the current explanation. Either way, it's like gravity, we don't know exactly how to product it, what caused it, or how to recreate it but we know it is there and can use it for out benefit just like the magnetosphere.
Anyways, the study's importance doesn't really mean that the oceans cause the magnetic field, more so as it is interacting with it and there are common effects with each. Perhaps there are more then one way to have a magnetic field and we are just understanding one of them.
Then something happened, it was called 9/11. And these people who thought it wasn't worth enough to care about started wondering what would happen if Al Qeada or other terrorist got their hands on the weapons. We did know that there were terrorist in Iraq and we know that Saddam had some links to Al Qeada.
It is against the law of some magical force to change you minds about something once another even or information becomes known?
I don't think what Fox news does is important here. The UN documents and the quotes they used are. They say things totally different then what Hans Blix himself stated even though he was responsible for the UN reports after 2000. Now tell me, do you trust what a guy says publicly to anyone who will listen in the 2 months leading up to a war or what he has officially endorsed to group representing every country in the world for the three years prior when they come into conflict with each other?
BTW, Fox news was right there reading the UN reports and railing on the evils of Iraq way back when Clinton was president. The idea that they were up to something is only convenient to your plot if you forget that.
Outside of one gaf, I don't remember him doing so. I do remember him attempting to connect Saddam with links to terrorism and Al Qeada which while that was true to some extent, doesn't mean Iraq or Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. As I already pointed out, Saddam was either supporting or ignoring and therefore allowing a terrorist training camp to operate within the borders of Iraq for about a year leading up to the war. Saddam claimed he couldn't find it but we specifically pointed to it and informed him where it was. There was also the pensions he was offering the families of any suicide bomber who killed themselves in Israel. I'm not sure how anyone can deny that was supporting terrorism.
Don't take links to terrorism as a link to the WTC.
Perhaps we can guess all we want and eventually come up with something that makes our plot work then act like it's real. The protests at the time were anti war in general and it had to so with non-Muslims invading Muslim lands. We know this because the demonstrations were very public and vocal.
You can't really fault the collapse of a plan for political reasons and making a new one up on the fly on the creator of the plan. Bush didn't develop any of the plans, others did, he just used them. He also received assurances of the confidence in them. If you actually think Bush was in the war room moving troops around rubbing his hands together while whispering "common saddam, show yourself", you might need a better understanding on who things work.
No, I mean o
I've had poor lines, static and noised in the calls over POTS lines. I'm defining a good quality call as the same as POTS calls on average with the good and the bad and perhaps the added fudder of cordless phone static and so on.
I've been on a couple VoIP calls that I couldn't distinguish between them and a regular call. I do know know how much bandwidth they were using though, it was where the VoIP feature on the phone allowed me to take a Avaya phone home and set it up as an extension to several sites I work with.
It's interesting to see the bandwidth information though. I guess VoIP isn't as far as I thought.
As if I actually care about grammar or proof reading when talking to a troll. You need to get a sense of reality.
BTW, a grammar error that small doesn't change the content of the message, but good job attempting to claim it totally invalidates it.
The problem is that you failed to give the argument any consideration at all and instead attempted to ignore the fact that I said the Arbitration panel acted outside it's real in order to retaliate against the US for it's perceived other trade position.
Now you linked to a few scientific article abstracts concerning various aspect of knowledge processing. The problem is that you failed to consider the content of the statements and are instead ignoring them in favor of randomly picking the side you want to believe has more merit. What I showed was in black and white and written within the treaty, US law, as well as the appellate panel and the appellate boards findings. When it went to arbitration which we were forced to participate in (the rules say it will happen with or without us), the arbitration considered the previous complaints, upheld the the appellate boards determinations, and then ignored the entire principle in order to create a ruling based on an argument that was never made by either side that also would have been excepted under the same concept as the other actual complaints. Now you can point to any papers you want, but you cannot deny that fact. It's right there in black and white. The ruling knows only political motivation outside the realm of the treaty and even the complaints being made. If the argument had been presented, it could have been demonstrated that the particular US law used to justify the ruling only says that the gambling has to be legal in both states and then follow certain guidelines to protect against fraud. You have not addresses that at all, and instead attempted to point to "Well, these people know what they are doing". That is not addressing anything, especially when the text of the law says something completely different then what they claimed.
You cannot look at the availible evidence and find any rationell to support the decision outside or other political motivations.
I don't disagree with you insomuch as what you say, however, I was more or less only dealing with the concerns of a "Chernobyl style" accident happening again. The fact is that Many of Russia's faulty designed fascility has been closed down or redesigned to incorporation automatic safe fail measures.
Also, those features were inherent in the rest of the world facilities since that time.
Keep in mind, I'm not of the opinion that nothing could ever happen, it's just that it won't be on that scale. About the worse that I know of capable of happening is that the rector facility itself will become contaminated with minor leakage that will dissipate quickly.
Look, And SUV is considered a light truck. How dangerous you think they are verses how many people died while driving them compared to driving compacts seem to counter the importance of your suggestion. I linked to the federal numbers on that and it clear that while your concerns may have some validity, they aren't what your attempting to make it out to be.
SUV's are roomier and more comfortable for a lot of people, the extra height alone allow better visibility and therefore the the opportunity for less crashed or more reaction time to make the crashed less severe. If people felt safer in them, it was because they were "feeling safer".
As for rollover, that is more of a concern for people who don't drive them properly and not for someone who has a feel for what they vehicle can do. They are not dangerous or they wouldn't be allowed on the roads. And yes, while SUV on SUV is a zero sum gain as far as mass is concerned, you are also forgetting that the extra weight allows for more metal and therefor more crumble zones which means more impact of the collision is absorbed by the vehicle and not transferred to the passengers. There are benefits to driving an SUV, Just as there are benefits to driving a sports car or a compact. We live in a free society and it isn't either of our places to mandate who can drive what for whatever reason. Especially when they are perfectly legal. I know people who wear black or strips because it makes them look thinner, it doesn't actually, but that doesn't mean it's my duty to tell them. They make their choices, you make your, and its obvious that you made your knowing about the dangers of their choices so just live with it.
Either address the merrits of the points made or go troll somewhere else.
BTW, it's not an ad hominem attack when I call you a moron or an idiot. I am addressing you directly and not attempting to hide this fact. The truth of whether it's an attack or stating the obvious rests in your own actions in which case it's not even an attack. Anecdote evidence is the actual fucking treaty that you refuse to review or comment on and the ruling from the arbitration panel that you also refuse to look at while blindly accepting what the evidence clearly shows is an error. That evidence however, is fact, as in scientific fact or direct observation and not anecdotal.
You can complain and side step the issues all you want, point to a collage of quasi dumbwhit internet slogans but the simple fact remains that you still have not addresses a single point I made and it's obvious you aren't going to. That being the case, I can only assume that you are deflecting your own ignorance and stupidity in a mad attempt to make yourself feel better in order not to cry yourself asleep while attempting to kill yourself every night. Perhaps you should seriously think about letting it go and doing the deed. It will make the world a better place and I suspect your family will thank you for it. You could also get some professional help.
The difference between you and me is that while insulting your (and i did), I actually addressed your points. You OTOH, ignore the entire context and attempt to stick to the insults but you can't even do that right. Perhaps you should forget I ever mentioned you should seek help and just end it all. Your not adding anything to the conversation and your comments are doing nothing but wasting time that no one will ever be able to get back.
Quit arguing the hypothetical merits of a body or people that I already challenged the integrity of and either count one of the points I made or troll somewhere else.
Fuck dude, I told you they were in error, pointed to where the error was, showed how they ignored the original complaint, the treaty and instead made their own complaint up without provocation and ignored the plain English text of the treaty in order to make their ruling. Hell, their ruling didn't even consider the argument made. No one ever made the argument that their ruling supported, otherwise it would have been documented before it got to arbitration and during the arbitration. It simply wasn't there. They went looking for something they couldn't find and took it out of context, ignored the treaty and made a ruling based on their desire not any fact presented.
You sound just like my niece when she was 7 years old in 2004 and she attempted to tell me that there was only 26 amendments to the US constitution because that's what her teacher said and she went to school to be a teacher. I had to go to school and show her teacher that they slipped one in all the way back in 1992 in order for her to correct what she had taught the class. You are this naive 7 year old refusing to look at the evidence that is there in plain English and availible to anyone concerned. But worse yet, you instead- trust someone you don't even know, never heard of before their boondoggle, who can be showed to be in error by a simple look at the evident and fact at hand.
There is a word for you too, Fucktard Fucktards do not simply defy common sense, they are pathologically incapable of recognizing the obvious, that even mirrors fail them. Go ahead and try the test on that page.
I think it might be more to the point of increasing safety standards then the SUV craze. That is one reason for discontinued cars as well as them becoming heavier.
Now these safety standards that were imposed in the US also increased the weight of some import cars from the early 80's. Things like crumble zones that protect the occupants by absorbing a portion of the impact of an accident and controlled crunches so the engine drops under the front seat instead of ending up in the drivers lap as well as sloped or cushioned designs that attempt to minimize pedestrian injury if involved. Then you have added weight from pollution controls and so on.
A lot of the safety features and pollution controls add a lot of weight. The anti lock breaking system on my old corolla ended up adding something like 80 lbs to the curb weight alone.
I suspect you are a moron then. No seriously. I'm an american too and I ride, however, it's not practicle when it's raining, it's damn uncomfortable when it's below 60 degrees F, and I can't go to the grocery on it unless I make ten trips, I can't take the family on one, so what's the point except for enjoyment? Other people think it's dangerous because they read in the newspaper or watch on the news "fatality accident, motorcycle verses car, drive of car walks away with minor scratches". Now that's not the TV of newspaper promoting it wrong, it's them reporting the news. It's not the job of the TV or news paper or any media outlet to tell people to like motorcycles. It is their jobs to run advertisements as well as report the news.
BTW, what TV show tells people that motorcycles are dangerous?
This SUV is safer craze isn't something that was little more then a promotional gimmick, it was started and perpetuated with old timers complaining that the cars are crap and don't protect you like their '72 impala did or they saw on TV or in the news, fatality accident, SUV driver walks away. The fact is that you are safer in an SUV then you are in a compact car in most common accidents.
BTW, what's wrong with a mother looking to protect herself and her family? That's human nature and basic animal instinct that drives survival of the fittest. I'm all for killing someone who might kill me, and no, I'm not a bad person for believing that because I don't want to be dead over some hippy idealist rant. I also believe you are confusing wanting to be safer with wanting to injure someone else. The two aren't exclusive. Tell me, do you seriously want to be injured just as much as someone else or less? It goes against the very grain of self preservation to want to be injured more then you have to. So when you phrase the question "do you want to be injured as much as someone else or safer at their expense", the majorty of people are going to say safer and ignore the rest of your comment. Even if you attempt to tell them that their safety means someone else will be injured more, they just want to be safe. It takes a moron to volunteer for injury in order to match someone else' injuries when it can be avoided in the first place.
What happened in the 90's was more like the larger and safer cars left over from the 70's were shot and people who knew what it felt like to have some steel between them and the first person to the accident scene couldn't stand the small cars. I know several girls right now who drive pickup trucks, not because of some marketing scam, but because it's what their dad drove and it what they learned how to drive in and they are comfortable with them.
You may think large cars are small dick vehicles, but it's more likely then not that you are attempting to compensate for your own size by ragging on others. A real man doesn't have to bring up dick size at all. And just because you do or don't need or want someth
Oh god, I want to just say "it's because you people are small" so bad but I guess that isn't a truthful or proper statement. There will be exceptions to about everything, japan is probably one of them. Of course I'm going to use the "usually" to show that I intended not to be all inclusive so please don't take offense.
Anyways, I was attempting to look and I could find one of those cars in production today that didn't come in at almost twice as heavy as this thing. The smallest one I can find still in production was the Suzuki Twin which comes in at around 1300lbs (600kg) Perhaps you know of a smaller one that's actually still in productions?
Actually the question is usually where are you from, not what country are you from. Perhaps it's all in the semantics.
Actually, as I already pointed out, from an american standpoint, it has more to do with all the multilateral agreements we have with countries in Europe stemming from the end of WWII and the cold war. We helped defeat the axis powers in Europe, not just France or Germany or Italy or any single country. After the war was over, we rebuilt Europe, not just a single country (although operations in Germany when the wall went up was a single country, all of Europe participated in some way with the air drops of food and supplies and stuff). During the cold war, we worked with Europe, not just a single county, NATO was an organization created from a treaty based around the common defense of North Atlantic countries that included western Europe, not just France, or Germany or England or Ireland or a single country.
It's rooted in our history books and it's especially favorable to anyone who grew up or lived during the cold war (like me) when these facts were being blasted every week on the evening news. Now there is the EU which pretends to be the same as the original US federal government's role giving the appearance as Europe being a federation of state just like the "United States of America". State being a country as it is used everywhere else in the world and not as a political subdivision as some people in America see it.
I hope you can understand where it comes from and it isn't out of malice. (well, maybe some will do it out of malice, especially since you made it clear that it irritates you).
Those throw away cars don't go to the dump to get buried with all the household waste.
They get sold to people willing to do some work to them and drive them for a while longer or they go to a salvage yard and get cannibalized for parts until everything of value if picked from them, then they get recycled. All the throw away mentality does is present poorer people with an opportunity to own a car or repair their cars at a decent rate.
You mean there would be no trouble selling it to people who want to drive motorcycles and didn't care about style or performance.
Many people don't consider motorcycles safe enough to own one let alone drive it. The difference here is that it is being presented as a car and people are taking the same objections as they would have for motorcycles.
Fuel prices will never get that high. There is ample supplies of oil and just like the so called solutions of cap and trade, the people will just demand more pay to compensate for the extra costs.
We usualy call those places third world countries.
Lets be practical here, when buying this car (leasing it) they are asking a first world country to lower it's standards to the lowest denominator. What next, no plumbing or electricity for a 20 year lease?
It's not a good thing yet it's not a bad thing either. At that state is only temporary until the rods have cooled sufficiently. Your are statistically more likely to be fatally injured in a car crash on the way to or from work then to ever be effected by decommissioned nuclear fuel rods erupting into a fire. Does that make going to work a good thing? No, it just a risk we can live with and take precautions so that it won't or is unlikely to happen.
I would say quite a few. I have noticed that a lot of VoIP systems are added-on instead of replacing older phone systems. They also already have the copper and it's cheaper to purchase lines by the bundle then to separate them.
BTW, large businesses would connect different campuses across a T1 point to point connection(s) before VoIP was around. Basically, the software/hardware in the phone system will use a channel on the T1 line as a phone line and allow the cross campus communications including passing inbound calls to the other facilities (one 800 number for 10 facilities across 5 states.) You can get 24 voice channels from one t1 line too. This also cuts down on long distance because you can program it to call out on the loop closest to the call termination. This means that if your in Buffalo NY and a customer is in Orangevale California and you have a branch office in Fair Oaks, it will be a local call for you. Some long distance telecoms offer T1 loops directly to their long distance center eliminating much of the costs in a normal switched call. That means they would be paying about 1/3 of what normal people would pay if you didn't consider the costs of the T1 loop.
VoIP has basically gotten around the T1 costs (you need one for each location). Some switched networks already use VoIP on controlled backbones to consolidate long distance calls as the telecoms saw the savings way before it was economical for normal people to play with it. VoIP has come a long ways since that has started and the bandwidth needed for good quality calls have dropped quite a bit.