um, no. they held on to his legs for the rest of the flight, but it turned out he died a horrible death long before they landed. -40 degree wind blasting at 500 knots for most of an hour will do that to you. wee bit of a wind chill factor on that ride, never mind the fluid dynamics of trying to breath in those conditions.
Can you link to this incident? Because if you can't, I'll have to consider it an urban legend; after all, the logical thing to do in that case is to drop the altitude to a kilometer or so, and drop airspeed while you're at it.
That's like saying you should try to hold your breath when you're tossed off a boat with concrete boots. You can want it as much as you like, you are not going to survive.
If it's a small boat, grab the side as you go overboard; your weight will pull it over, throwing everyone else into the water and allowing you to use it as a flotation device. If it's a big boat, try to grab any sub-surface part, such as anchor chain, climb around the boat and come up on the other side. At the very least you should try to grab one of the thugs and take him with you.
Or you could just shout "someone's dumbing concrete waste into ocean/like/whatever", and let Greenpeace deal with the thugs;).
If I were the captain of this ship, I'd just dump the whole lot overboard and blame pirates.
How would you do that? It's not like the ship has a crane capable of lifting them. And even if it had, who's going to climb on that half-collapsed pile over and over again to attach it to one container at a time, then unlocking the container from it's neighbours, possibly triggering another collapse (which might sink the ship, BTW).
Is this because kids aren't tanking algebra 2, (sarcasm people, not really asking...) or because we are in ha huge recession, and state educational budgets are being slashed like crazy, reducing funding for public higher education?
Or perhaps they're lying to attract more people to the field, in order to keep up unemployment there and depress wages?
I have noticed that when someone talks of "workforce shortages", that's almost always the case.
If I catch a burglar in my house, I will shoot to kill. I'd much rather pay a crime scene cleanup crew to get some dirtbag's blood off of my floor than to have him sue me later for only wounding him.
I'm not sure that someone who thinks killing people in order to avoid lawsuits is okay should have access to guns, or any other weapons for that matter.
Loss of property is a direct harm to the owner of the property. Ergo, defending one's own property is defending oneself, i.e. self-defense.
Self-defence isn't an all-or-nothing thing. The maximum justifiable force is proportional to the potential harm; so while it would be okay to shoot someone who's coming at you with a knife, it wouldn't be okay to shoot someone who's running away with your jewelry.
Personally, while I would encourage restraint where lethal force is concerned, I tend toward the position that anyone who knowingly invades another's property with malicious intent is wholly responsible for any harm which may come to them as a result.
"As a result", as in "had an unsecured bookshelf fall on you" or "had a psychopathic vigilante shoot you because laws are for lesser people, and besides a pot of flowers is more valuable than your life"? Because these threads tend to go towards the latter.
A vigilante developer would benefit, whether or not he targeted his own app, or a competitors.
No, he would only benefit from targeting a competitor's app. See, humans are imperfect, and sometimes make mistakes, such as uploading the wrong (booby-trapped) version to the app store. This, in turn, means I'd have to be a complete idiot to buy anything from this guy.
By playing these kinds of stupid games the developer is endangering his customers, which factors into the decision to be his customer. Also, once he does confuse the versions, he'll get slapped by a nice slander lawsuit.
None of these are "forgotten", since we're not talking about solar panels but mirrors. The dust factor is the only one that does and even then we're talking about a non-charged glass surface, so the dust won't stick. Simply "park" the mirror vertical at night and dust will fall right off.
If human life is a major factor, it's best to abandon the rooftop panels concept. Roofers have one of the highest fatality rates - a massive solar rooftop program is estimated to be more deadly than coal mining.
...I guess that where you live, roofs are neither build or maintained, but simply appear from thin air in perfect condition and stay that way.
Take the above 2 links into account and you have a pretty serious picture. South half of Japan uses different a different frequency than the northern half. Post-tsunami the northern half had severe power failures.
Frankly, the difference between a 50 and 60 herz power line powering an engine should be well within error margines for three-phase AC engine, and of course completely meaningless for a DC engine.
Additionally, you don't just plug in a motor to a transmission line. You need transformers and switches for that.
While true, that's also not a real problem: a transformer is just two coils wrapped around an iron heart (and the iron heart can go in a pinch, it's just there for efficiency). Any halfway decent engineer - indeed, any high school graduate - should be able to build one.
You'd also need to drop power to wherever you connected it to and protect the "temporary" power source so people don't accidentally wander into it (there is a reason those power lines are way up in the air).
Electrical safety is also not an issue if you're trying to prevent a nuclear meltdown. Also, I dunno about you or the general public, but I am not stupid enough to wonder near where I see lines dropping down from high-tension wires.
Also, for the lengths they were talking about, resistance of the line and availability of wire is a concern.
This is a real issue, but also one that really should had been planned for beforehand.
Please explain how your helicopter is going to lift a 100 ton 5.5 MW gen set.
It couldn't, but a boat could. And any boat which was not in a harbour when the tsunami stuck should have survived.
You armchair quarterbacks are a hoot.
While hindsight is 20/20, it's also 20/20 for the next accident. So, while it's too late now, it's worth figuring out what could had been done better, so it can be done better the next time.
I reject the notion that "greenhouse gases" are sufficiently a problem to justify anything risky.
Well there is a convincing argument! "I reject the notion" - I guess we all just have to ignore it, then.
Unfortunately for you, even if we do, we still have to go nuclear: peak oil is a real problem, and is already occurring (as evidenced by constantly rising oil prices), so we must get another source of energy ASAP. If we don't, our agriculture and industry will collapse, most of us will die, and the "lucky" survivors will descend back to dark ages at best, there to remain forever, since oil and easily accessible coal are exhausted and thus can't help another Industrial Revolution.
Now, obviously we should also be building all the renewable energy we possibly can, but it's not going to be enough. We need nuclear to survive. And because uranium and thorium, too, will eventually run out, we need to get fusion functional. And if that fails, our only remaining hope is building a helluvalot of concentrating solar power (which, mind you, could power the entire United States, but would take almost 1 percent of its land are to do so).
The most powerful greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor, good luck modeling that.
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to modify: the hotter it is, the more water evaporates from the oceans, and the hotter it gets. This won't, of course, cause a runwaway feedback effect - because airs capacity of retaining water vapour is limited in any temperature - but it does make the problem worse.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." -John Adams
Nuclear power has one thing going for it:
* * High Energy Density
In the spirit of John Adams, let's list the rest of the things going for nuclear power too:
No emissions. All the waste is in the form of solid matter which can easily be contained (at leat compared t gaseous exhaust from fossil fuels).
No enviromental effects whatsoever in normal operation, expect a few square kilometers of sea will heat up a few degrees.
No carbon footprint.
Least deaths per kilowatthour of power produced from all known forms of power production.
Doesn't require fossil fuels, which will be exhausted eventually, and must be spared for production of fertilizers until we can switch to fully synthetic oil production.
These are just from the top of my head; I have no doubt there are others.
But the one "black swan" that never gets talked about is "disruptive technology" that changes the entire energy equation.
Yeah, it's a bit like how most people don't plan their personal finances on the assumption that they'll win the main prize in lottery.
Remember that JP Morgan only financed Nikola Tesla until he realized that Tesla wanted to give electricity away to everyone for free. Perhaps Tesla groked string theory, and used it to power his touring car.
Or perhaps the whole story is an urban legend, and the First Law of Thermodynamics still holds.
Seeing how anyone having an infinite energy source could pretty much name their price, and already could at Tesla's time, I find the "urban legend" possibility more convincing.
The utility barons are going to lose their shirts, eventually. I wonder if Nuclear power has a future.
Well, as I see it, if humanity wants to have a future, it'll give nuclear power one too.
Well, should the "god" that catholizism is promoting be real - then satanism is the only option. Because that god is an evil bastard and every resistance to the old fucker is legitimate. Obviously, the only resistance fighter within that particular universe is satan, so, yea, you should count me in on the lightbringer's side.
One side being evil doesn't automatically or even likely make the other good. I really wish that people would learn this; it would make things a lot better here on Earth if people stopped assuming that fighting evil allows you to do absolutely anything and still remain non-evil. Imagine if the Bolsheviks had stuck with that, or the CIA, or even the Nazis (who thought they were fighting evil - that was their justification for the Holocaust). Imagine what life could be then.
As if monitoring temperatures at room temperature range would not be implemented in a system that can go to cold shutdown.
Yeah. It would be almost as stupid as putting the fuel tanks for emergency generators required to keep the reactors from meltdowning in case of accidents out in the open rather than safely underground. No chance of that happening in this installation, no sir!
That is precisely where the church scapegoats the Internet for the church's own hideous sins. The Internet responsible for the increase in possessions, which is why these exorcists have so many more possessions to exorcise: it's the antichrist's war against the church. The church isn't the cult of baby rape and its coverup, it's the victim of a war by the antichrist.
To be fair, there has been numerous accusations of the pope being the antichrist. These two claims sure seem to click together nicely, don't they?
Also, Catholic Church is antichrist, as defined in the Bible: it embraces power, wealth and passing judgement, thus being pretty much the polar opposite of Christ, thus an anti-Christ.
So, I guess Benedict and Palpatine looking similar isn't just a coincidence, eh ?-)
In my opinion this is the end of nuclear power plants.
Yeah. We'll just replace them all with coal plants which kill a couple hundred thousand people a year rather than a few every few decades, as nuclear power does.
The reactors actually SURVIVED the earthquake. It was the tsunami that did them in. If you're so freaking worried don't build them at the freaking coast you moronic luddites.
Unfortunately, you kinda have to build them in coasts, because you need a temperature difference to produce energy, which means you need somewhere to dump the heat, and oceans are great for that.
Furthermore, the reason Fukushima isn't worse off than it is is that there were seawater available for emergency cooling. Suppose that hadn't been the case?
also, google's implementation is such that the driver can grab the wheel at any point.
So, you're out of practice because the car drives for you, and aren't paying much attention to the situation because you're not driving, yet suddenly you find yourself in control of a malfunctioning car? Guess what happens next?
Right, the logic expressed in TFS was reasonable, but only from the collectivist POV. That is, a system where some people are sacrificed for The Greater Good(TM),
That is an outright lie. Nobody is being "sacrificed". This isn't a choice between two groups of people dying, but between more or less people dying.
If anything, it's you who wants to sacrifice people on the altar of being able to kill yourself (and them) with a car.
in this case for likely a significant increase in highway safety, vs. a system where the individual has a large amount (albeit not complete) control over his or her own life.
The problem with that logic is that you are also endangering other people with your insistence on driving yourself (assuming robot drivers really are superior, of course). What right do you have to do so?
This is just one particular case in the timeless struggle between two conflicting general philosophies.
Stupidity and correct risk assessemnt are not philosphies, no matter how comples forms the former sometimes takes.
Are you practicing for a career in lobbying, or what?
Ah, good point. The environmental impacts are lower and the efficiency can be much higher. The required land use is still astronomical, though. Or 'planetary', I guess would be more apropos.
According to Wikipedia, the yearly energy usage of United States is about 29 PWh. On the other hand, nearly all of United States gets over 5 kWh/day solar energy. Assuming the plant is even 20% efficient makes this 1 kWh/m^2/day of electric energy. There are 365 days per year, so that makes it 365 kWh/m^2/year. There are 1,000,000 square meters per square kilometer, so that makes for a 365 GWh/km^2/year. And 29 PWh/year / 365 GWh/km^2/year makes for 79,452 km^2.
Now, the land area of United States is 9,826,675 km^2, so you'd need to cover less than 1 percent (0.8%, to be exact) of it with solar power plants to power it entirely with sunlight. Note also that the 29 PWh includes energy needed for transportation, so we're talking about complete self-sustainability and zero carbon footprint here. And finally, note that solar power typically works best in deserts and such, so it's not like you'd need land that had any other use. And finally note that you could also produce smaller units to be mounted on top of buildings and such.
In other words, the project is expensive but entirely doable, especially since all the space now taken by all other energy production would be freed. And of course you wouldn't tear down existing dams and such, and nothing stops you from supplementing solar power with wind etc.
I am reminded of that lunatic Baptist sect that turns up when soldiers lost in war funerals take place. Obviously they offend almost 100% of the population by troubling those funeral services. But they do not hate the dead soldiers nor do they hate the families of the dead soldiers.
What they are against is paying attention to the dead instead of paying attention to Christ and they also try to point out that Christians may not take up arms.
Incorrect. Fred Phelps's message is that "God hates fags". I'm not sure he's ever once even mentioned Christ, much less asked people to pay attention to Him. He has, on the other hand, expressed his joy and gratitude over death of US soldiers again and again.
Yet the entire world sees them as a hate group.
They are a hate group. Their entire message - literally all of it - is that "God hates fags". They picket funerals, cheering for the deaths and praying for more of them. Fred Phelps actually managed to get himself disbarred as a lawyer. Even the likes of Ku Klux Klan refuse to have anything to do with them out of sheer disgust.
Fred Phelps is a particularly over-the-top cartoon supervillain somehow given life. That's all there is to it.
Simple: U/R = I. Voltage divided by Resistance yields the current.
If one part burns away, resistance is dropping, so current is rising, so the other part has higher chance to burn away soon as well.
If one path burns away, the total resistance rises since all the electrons now have to be crammed through just one lightbulb. This causes the total current to drop, which causes the voltage to rise, which in turn causes the current that goes through a single lamp to rise.
This doesn't happen with the elecrical grid because it is voltage-controlled and because turning a single light on or off makes an insignificant difference for the total load.
Don't need to cause a meltdown or very small yield nuclear explosion (cue the urban legend people insisting that can't happen with civilian enriched fuel, but truth is it can and I can cite the field's most respected textbooks with conditions and yields) with those by piling insulators on them.
So why didn't you just give those citations instead of simply asserting this?
It's the ones who perform above average who have to pay one of the the long-term prices.
Yeah, instead of you getting 150% base salary everyone gets 200% base salary. Woe is you.
In any case, your basic premise is wrong: collective bargaining sets the minimum salary, but in no case I'm aware of are you forbidden from paying more than that. It's simply that pretty much nobody is worth paying more than that, so most employers just pay the collectively bargained minimum salary and ignore primadonnas who think they're worth more than that.
The employees in the United States owe far more to OSHA and government oversight than to unions. They owe far more than that to the free press for exposing the working conditions and causing public outrage.
But they owe most of all to Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, which really hammered home the fact that the weak and the poor can actually choose to win the whole world for their own - in other words, revolt - if they have nothing to loose but their chains. That threat, and only that, is why capitalists curbed their most abusive practices - but those practices are creeping back in. I wonder if they wake an old ghost again? After all, even Americans aren't stupid enough to vote against their own best interests forever...
Slashdot Mirror
Can you link to this incident? Because if you can't, I'll have to consider it an urban legend; after all, the logical thing to do in that case is to drop the altitude to a kilometer or so, and drop airspeed while you're at it.
If it's a small boat, grab the side as you go overboard; your weight will pull it over, throwing everyone else into the water and allowing you to use it as a flotation device. If it's a big boat, try to grab any sub-surface part, such as anchor chain, climb around the boat and come up on the other side. At the very least you should try to grab one of the thugs and take him with you.
Or you could just shout "someone's dumbing concrete waste into ocean/like/whatever", and let Greenpeace deal with the thugs ;).
How would you do that? It's not like the ship has a crane capable of lifting them. And even if it had, who's going to climb on that half-collapsed pile over and over again to attach it to one container at a time, then unlocking the container from it's neighbours, possibly triggering another collapse (which might sink the ship, BTW).
Or perhaps they're lying to attract more people to the field, in order to keep up unemployment there and depress wages?
I have noticed that when someone talks of "workforce shortages", that's almost always the case.
I'm not sure that someone who thinks killing people in order to avoid lawsuits is okay should have access to guns, or any other weapons for that matter.
Self-defence isn't an all-or-nothing thing. The maximum justifiable force is proportional to the potential harm; so while it would be okay to shoot someone who's coming at you with a knife, it wouldn't be okay to shoot someone who's running away with your jewelry.
"As a result", as in "had an unsecured bookshelf fall on you" or "had a psychopathic vigilante shoot you because laws are for lesser people, and besides a pot of flowers is more valuable than your life"? Because these threads tend to go towards the latter.
No, he would only benefit from targeting a competitor's app. See, humans are imperfect, and sometimes make mistakes, such as uploading the wrong (booby-trapped) version to the app store. This, in turn, means I'd have to be a complete idiot to buy anything from this guy.
By playing these kinds of stupid games the developer is endangering his customers, which factors into the decision to be his customer. Also, once he does confuse the versions, he'll get slapped by a nice slander lawsuit.
None of these are "forgotten", since we're not talking about solar panels but mirrors. The dust factor is the only one that does and even then we're talking about a non-charged glass surface, so the dust won't stick. Simply "park" the mirror vertical at night and dust will fall right off.
...I guess that where you live, roofs are neither build or maintained, but simply appear from thin air in perfect condition and stay that way.
Frankly, the difference between a 50 and 60 herz power line powering an engine should be well within error margines for three-phase AC engine, and of course completely meaningless for a DC engine.
While true, that's also not a real problem: a transformer is just two coils wrapped around an iron heart (and the iron heart can go in a pinch, it's just there for efficiency). Any halfway decent engineer - indeed, any high school graduate - should be able to build one.
Electrical safety is also not an issue if you're trying to prevent a nuclear meltdown. Also, I dunno about you or the general public, but I am not stupid enough to wonder near where I see lines dropping down from high-tension wires.
This is a real issue, but also one that really should had been planned for beforehand.
It couldn't, but a boat could. And any boat which was not in a harbour when the tsunami stuck should have survived.
While hindsight is 20/20, it's also 20/20 for the next accident. So, while it's too late now, it's worth figuring out what could had been done better, so it can be done better the next time.
Well there is a convincing argument! "I reject the notion" - I guess we all just have to ignore it, then.
Unfortunately for you, even if we do, we still have to go nuclear: peak oil is a real problem, and is already occurring (as evidenced by constantly rising oil prices), so we must get another source of energy ASAP. If we don't, our agriculture and industry will collapse, most of us will die, and the "lucky" survivors will descend back to dark ages at best, there to remain forever, since oil and easily accessible coal are exhausted and thus can't help another Industrial Revolution.
Now, obviously we should also be building all the renewable energy we possibly can, but it's not going to be enough. We need nuclear to survive. And because uranium and thorium, too, will eventually run out, we need to get fusion functional. And if that fails, our only remaining hope is building a helluvalot of concentrating solar power (which, mind you, could power the entire United States, but would take almost 1 percent of its land are to do so).
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to modify: the hotter it is, the more water evaporates from the oceans, and the hotter it gets. This won't, of course, cause a runwaway feedback effect - because airs capacity of retaining water vapour is limited in any temperature - but it does make the problem worse.
In the spirit of John Adams, let's list the rest of the things going for nuclear power too:
These are just from the top of my head; I have no doubt there are others.
Yeah, it's a bit like how most people don't plan their personal finances on the assumption that they'll win the main prize in lottery.
Or perhaps the whole story is an urban legend, and the First Law of Thermodynamics still holds.
Seeing how anyone having an infinite energy source could pretty much name their price, and already could at Tesla's time, I find the "urban legend" possibility more convincing.
Well, as I see it, if humanity wants to have a future, it'll give nuclear power one too.
One side being evil doesn't automatically or even likely make the other good. I really wish that people would learn this; it would make things a lot better here on Earth if people stopped assuming that fighting evil allows you to do absolutely anything and still remain non-evil. Imagine if the Bolsheviks had stuck with that, or the CIA, or even the Nazis (who thought they were fighting evil - that was their justification for the Holocaust). Imagine what life could be then.
Yeah. It would be almost as stupid as putting the fuel tanks for emergency generators required to keep the reactors from meltdowning in case of accidents out in the open rather than safely underground. No chance of that happening in this installation, no sir!
To be fair, there has been numerous accusations of the pope being the antichrist. These two claims sure seem to click together nicely, don't they?
Also, Catholic Church is antichrist, as defined in the Bible: it embraces power, wealth and passing judgement, thus being pretty much the polar opposite of Christ, thus an anti-Christ.
So, I guess Benedict and Palpatine looking similar isn't just a coincidence, eh ?-)
Yeah. We'll just replace them all with coal plants which kill a couple hundred thousand people a year rather than a few every few decades, as nuclear power does.
Unfortunately, you kinda have to build them in coasts, because you need a temperature difference to produce energy, which means you need somewhere to dump the heat, and oceans are great for that.
Furthermore, the reason Fukushima isn't worse off than it is is that there were seawater available for emergency cooling. Suppose that hadn't been the case?
So, you're out of practice because the car drives for you, and aren't paying much attention to the situation because you're not driving, yet suddenly you find yourself in control of a malfunctioning car? Guess what happens next?
That is an outright lie. Nobody is being "sacrificed". This isn't a choice between two groups of people dying, but between more or less people dying.
If anything, it's you who wants to sacrifice people on the altar of being able to kill yourself (and them) with a car.
The problem with that logic is that you are also endangering other people with your insistence on driving yourself (assuming robot drivers really are superior, of course). What right do you have to do so?
Stupidity and correct risk assessemnt are not philosphies, no matter how comples forms the former sometimes takes.
Are you practicing for a career in lobbying, or what?
According to Wikipedia, the yearly energy usage of United States is about 29 PWh. On the other hand, nearly all of United States gets over 5 kWh/day solar energy. Assuming the plant is even 20% efficient makes this 1 kWh/m^2/day of electric energy. There are 365 days per year, so that makes it 365 kWh/m^2/year. There are 1,000,000 square meters per square kilometer, so that makes for a 365 GWh/km^2/year. And 29 PWh/year / 365 GWh/km^2/year makes for 79,452 km^2.
Now, the land area of United States is 9,826,675 km^2, so you'd need to cover less than 1 percent (0.8%, to be exact) of it with solar power plants to power it entirely with sunlight. Note also that the 29 PWh includes energy needed for transportation, so we're talking about complete self-sustainability and zero carbon footprint here. And finally, note that solar power typically works best in deserts and such, so it's not like you'd need land that had any other use. And finally note that you could also produce smaller units to be mounted on top of buildings and such.
In other words, the project is expensive but entirely doable, especially since all the space now taken by all other energy production would be freed. And of course you wouldn't tear down existing dams and such, and nothing stops you from supplementing solar power with wind etc.
Given that Westboro Babtist Church advocates praying for the death of soldiers, I think it's a reasonable conclusion that they hate them.
Incorrect. Fred Phelps's message is that "God hates fags". I'm not sure he's ever once even mentioned Christ, much less asked people to pay attention to Him. He has, on the other hand, expressed his joy and gratitude over death of US soldiers again and again.
They are a hate group. Their entire message - literally all of it - is that "God hates fags". They picket funerals, cheering for the deaths and praying for more of them. Fred Phelps actually managed to get himself disbarred as a lawyer. Even the likes of Ku Klux Klan refuse to have anything to do with them out of sheer disgust.
Fred Phelps is a particularly over-the-top cartoon supervillain somehow given life. That's all there is to it.
If one path burns away, the total resistance rises since all the electrons now have to be crammed through just one lightbulb. This causes the total current to drop, which causes the voltage to rise, which in turn causes the current that goes through a single lamp to rise.
This doesn't happen with the elecrical grid because it is voltage-controlled and because turning a single light on or off makes an insignificant difference for the total load.
So why didn't you just give those citations instead of simply asserting this?
Yeah, instead of you getting 150% base salary everyone gets 200% base salary. Woe is you.
In any case, your basic premise is wrong: collective bargaining sets the minimum salary, but in no case I'm aware of are you forbidden from paying more than that. It's simply that pretty much nobody is worth paying more than that, so most employers just pay the collectively bargained minimum salary and ignore primadonnas who think they're worth more than that.
But they owe most of all to Karl Marx and the Communist Manifesto, which really hammered home the fact that the weak and the poor can actually choose to win the whole world for their own - in other words, revolt - if they have nothing to loose but their chains. That threat, and only that, is why capitalists curbed their most abusive practices - but those practices are creeping back in. I wonder if they wake an old ghost again? After all, even Americans aren't stupid enough to vote against their own best interests forever...