Long live Byte. Goodbye, Byte, Circuit Cellar, Pournelle, and so many other characters. Long live Ars Technica, Wired, GigaOm, and dozens of other sites like NetworkWorld, InfoWorld, The Register, and so forth. Print will never come back. You won't feel it in your hands until your foldable smartphone makes this comfy some day in the future-- to do again.
I loved reading Byte! starting from the beginning. Reading what hardware and software hackers, who followed hacker ethics not the criminals called hackers in the press today, were doing was terrific. My two favorite columns were Steve Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar, which is now a compleat magazine of it's own, and Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor.
As children most cops and most judges were the bullies. For that matter, so were a lot of school administrators. They don't understand the problem, or that there even is a problem. I was suspended for finally hitting back in junior high school, and almost expelled when I did it a second time.
And, what if this kid commits a Columbine-esque revenge scenario?
Appropriately, the page with TFA has an ad encouraging me to "Win an AR-15 from Sebastian Ammo". Google is getting scary...
I have the same ad, and it's not from Google. The link is to another page on the same site. Now that page does have a Google ad, about slimming fat wallets.
As for the action taken by the school, one really has to wonder as to what kind of cretins make up the school administration. And what they could possibly have hoped to achieve by filing charges, other than a nasty (and well deserved) publicity backlash? Although for a society run by lawyers, that's perhaps what one would expect. Squeaky wheel gets a beating, and a teenager gets hauled in front of a judge on charges of "disorderly conduct" in a school. Seriously... Can any of the officials involved in this case look in the mirror and tell themselves that they are doing the Right Thing?
Accidents happen, yes, but nuclear is still arguably the safest (deaths/TWh) form of energy on the planet: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
Even wind, hydro and solar are more dangerous.
If left to market forces, and not state planners, the markets would not build nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. Notice how that is a CATO Institute reprint of a "Forbes" article first published on November 26, 2007. And in case you don't know what CATO is, from their about page "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues."
At this point Greenpeace is as stuck in its position of advocating against Nuclear Energy as the NRA is against gun control, and they are both looking like obstacles to any positive change in the status quo
I oppose taxpayers paying for nuclear power. Actually I advocate eliminating all subsidies. And don't think energy companies aren't subsidized. Allocation of subsidies in the United States lists some subsidies different energy producers received between 1950 and 2010. Nuclear power received $73 billion in federal subsidies. "BusinessWeek" has the article When It Comes to Government Subsidies, Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up date 21 October 2012..
I also support the NRA and their stance on gun controls. The only effective gun control is when the shooter hits what they aim at. And if they hit someone they should pay for it. I find it ironic the first "environmentalists", those who cared for the environment, were conservationists and hunters. Now how can hunters be environmentalists? They kill wildlife. Guess what, they also want the environment that that wildlife lives in to be clean and not polluted. Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter who as president created the National Park Service. He wanted to preserve wild lands for hunting among other reasons. Many hunters supported this too.
France has not done well with nuclear power. Sure they get most of their electricity from nuclear power plants, however despite their lead in reprocessing France still has trouble with storage. While reprocessing allows spent fuel to be reused and shortens it's half-life doing so creates toxins and hotter fuel.
As far as building nuclear power plants go state planners on free market determines what gets built. CATO, that is the institute "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace" printed the article "Hooked on Subsidies that was first published in the November 26, 2007 issue of "Forbes". The opening statements is "Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power." Further down it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Now if private businesses want to build nuclear power plants they should get, and pay for, their own insurance. They would also have to finance the construction, not government. I might even invest in such a company that uses thorium as it's fuel. Provided the finances come out good.
That post must of been below mine. Am I supposed to read all posts before replying? Now interestingly the wiki article you link to says that the Chicago area encloses parts of 3 different states, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. While I thought the greater Chicago area may include Gary, Indiana, I didn't know it included any of Wisconsin.
So, to follow up, can a person take public transit to go from Wisconsin to Gary, Indiana? That is other than Greyhound and other national or regional transportation systems? After all your reply was about public transit. And the Greater Houston is also 10,000 sq miles.
And yet Chicago, roughly 10,000 square miles, manages to do so nicely (contrary to what locals bitch about).
The Chicago area is 234 sq miles (606.1 km). Jacksonville, FL at 885 sq miles (2,292 km) is the largest city in the 48 contiguous states and is more than twice Chicago's size but still is not nearly as big as 10,000 square miles.
I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about; this all started with me coming up with a use for which 1Gbit is useful. You make it sound like I'm saying we should all stick with 5Mbps cable modems, when I'm saying exactly the opposite.
I am arguing with your statement that "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time." As I've said twice, and will again, that statement depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined.
With 1Gbit upstream, your 750GB hard drive could be completely transferred in something like two hours.
And my 3TB drive? 8 hours? My 4 TB drive would take more than 10 hours. So again "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time" depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. Of course 4TB is what I have now, who knows how big my storage will be in 1, 2, or 5 years? Saying "1Gbit upstream is reasonable" is just as ridiculous as saying "nobody will ever need 640KB of memory". Nobody can accurately see what the future will bring. That is except for a supernatural supreme deity, which I don't believe in.
Is there some benefit to these super duper broadband speeds besides talking about how cool it is? It takes a tiny fraction of this speed to send a HD movie.
You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time.
That depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. I have a 750 GB hard disc drive in the PC I'm typing this on and it is mostly full. I want to replace the PC with another, as my main computer. Currently I use a 3 TB external drive for backups, along with smaller drives too. I have another PC I want to use as my main PC, it has a 120 GB HDD as well as a second HDD that's 4 TB. The first drive is for the OSes used and software to run so the second one is for my data. Of course as it's a laptop I can and will still use this PC. But I do not expect to use the internet to transfer my data for storage and backups.
In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.
What FCC broadband page? I didn't see a link this.
In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.
kansas city gives it up for google...., provides the first, third, and last paragraph of six paragraphs on what Kansas City gave up to Google printed in a Harper's Magazine article of the same title. The online article is only available to magazine subscribers.
In the second paragraph there's this:
"According to its contract, Kansas City must give Google access to its underground conduits, fiber, poles, rack space, nodes, buildings, facilities, and available land. It cannot charge the company for 'access to, or use of any city facilities...nor will it impose any permit and inspection fees.' And what does the city get in return? It has no say in the pricing of Google's services, nor can it ensure that Google will deliver fiber-optic service to all of the city's residents. Google's offices, meeting spaces, and showrooms are provided free of charge, and the city pays the company's electric bill. The major, moreover, is barred from commenting on Google's activities without the express permission of Google."
The Harper's page linked to does have this correction, "The space the company maintains in city-owned buildings is indeed free; its other local facilities are privately rented." Otherwise it appears Google is getting more than Kansas City is getting in return. And that does not count all the marketing data Google gains with all the eyeballs of surfers.
To get an idea, consider the energy output of a windmill and divide it by the span of the prop to get the amount of energy removed per centimetre of length, assuming the width is about the same all the way is good enough. That puts it at the scale of a small fragile bat. The number you get is very small because it is less than the pressure of the prevailing wind on an area the size of a bat since you can't get all the energy out of the wind due to bearing friction etc.
Now do you see why I am dismissing the "bats killed by pressure drop" stupid bullshit as the PR campaign lie it is? It's the sort of thing that sounds OK initially due to technical terms thrown in to hide the really stupid lie, but if you think about how a windmill works the audacious lie is apparent. People caught out with it are also likely to be embarrassed that they fell for something so stupid so it's hard to talk them out of it.
I don 't know if the length is directly proportional to the amount of energy captured by wind mills. I bet the area of the blade, as well as it's pitch, is more important. Oh, and obviously the height. The bottom of the blades are supposed to be higher than the tallest thing that can block the wind. That includes trees. And I bet that that is higher than most bats will be flying.
And no I don't expect your explanation as to why you dismiss the "bats killed by pressure drop" as stupid bullshit. For all I know what you said was bullshit. More of the NIMBY shit delaying wind farms, even off the coast. You still did not provide evidence which is what I asked for. Can you provide scientific studies supporting your position? That is what I'm looking for.
The Wind Turbine Interactions with Birds, Bats, and their Habitats: A Summary of Research Results and Priority Questions [pdf] section "What is the effect of barotrauma injuries to bats" says
"While direct collision is thought to be responsible for most of the bat fatalities observed at wind facilities (Horn et al. 2008), recent work by Baerwald et al. (2008) suggests that some of the observed bat fatality may be due to barotrauma (i.e., injury resulting from suddenly altered air pressure). Fast- moving wind turbine blades create vortices and turbulence in their wakes, and bats may experience rapid pressure changes as they pass through this disturbed air, potentially causing internal injuries leading to death. The occurrence of barotrauma in bats, the proportion of individuals that succumb immediately versus those that fly away injured, and the associated influences on the estimation of bat fatalities are uncertain."
Your claim was that by deregulating the producers and distributors but leaving the *existing* price caps on the cost to consumers, the industry went aground.
I made no such claim. Throughout this thread I have said the opposite, that CA did not deregulate energy. "Deregulating the producers" is only partial, not full, deregulation. I have stated the state dropped some regulations but made new regulations too. That is reregulation, which I have been stating throughout though I admit I did not use the word "reregulation".
I think it's pretty obvious people either don't or can't read and if they do read they don't understand what they read. They also make ridiculous or outrageous claims about what others did say.
No, I'm saying, as should have been very clear, that if bats are close enough to experience a significant pressure drop they would be in direct proximity with the blades and death would be due to blunt trauma instead of some bad SF story of their lungs exploding. So yes, I'm saying you've been mislead.
And where's your evidence of this? It is not clear.
So what you're saying is that there is simply no way the free market could ever produce electricity as cheaply as a strongly regulated industry and so it was unfair to insist that it should? Doesn't that suggest that a strongly regulated industry is superior to the free market?
How in the world did you come up with this? In my post you replied to I said nothing about free markets. Because I didn't I also didn't say they couldn't produce electricity cheaper than a regulated market. As a matter of fact I do support free markets, however because power cables need government granted rights of way or easements I do agree there should be some regulations. Especially if a monopoly is granted as well. In the case of power transmission, ie cables, I believe the ownership of them should be separated from ownership of electrical generation. However unlike CA I would not cap how much electrical sellers could charge end users. I would allow prices to fluctuate with supply and demand. I believe the same about cable TV, fiber optics, and phone landlines. For instance the fiber Verizon is laying down. I would split the ownership of the fiber from the services that fiber can provide.The company that owned the fiber would then have to allow any others to use it to provide the services it can provide. That is the existing infrastructure. For new infrastructure I would require a separate entity to build it.
The pressure drop isn't very large otherwise the things wouldn't need such big blades, and besides, if the bats are right next to the airfoil of the blade they are probably in the act of being hit by it and turned into roadkill by a far better understood means (blunt trauma).
I included the quote from the link saying it was pressure drops, not being hit And it says nothing about roadkill. Are you saying they are wrong? Some studies have shown cars do kill more birds than wind generators. So do cats, and buildings.
Smaller blades have to spin faster to generate the same amount of electricity. But obviously faster spinning blades kill more bats and birds than slower ones.
Lol. In Linux or free unix desktop land you're a slave to software dependencies and chasing down half-assed solutions to common desktop application type tasks. On my mac, I spend a total of about 1 hour per 18 months on operating system upgrades. I've been there, done that, and will GLADLY pay the software licensing cost to get what I want done with a minimum of fucking about.
On my Mac I run Snow Leopard and Ubuntu 12.04 and I love the freedom to run whatever software I can. Now if Adobe were to port Photoshop CS to Linux, and drop the price, I and many other Linux users would use it too. Because I can't afford CS for OS X I'll try both CinePaint and Krita for deep color editing of my photos. I am willing to give up a little tyme maintaining my system for freedom to do what I want. Giving up freedom is what makes you a slave, not the other way around.
Fukushima's problem was caused by flooding in the basement where diesel generators were.
Not according to Kirk Sorensen, a nuclear technologist who operates the site energyfromthorium.com who for Forbes wrote the article Explainer: What Caused The Incident At Fukushima-Daiichi. At first he writes "The tsunami destroyed the diesel generators that provide power to drive the pumps that circulate the water coolant through the reactor that removes decay heat." But a bit later he writes generators ran "until their day tanks emptied" of diesel fuel. If emergency generators were running then they could have been refueled. The hard part would of been finding the people who were willing to put their lives at risk. However anyone who supports nuclear power should be so willing, if they aren't willing to put their own lives at risk why do they support putting other people's lives at risk?
All of the mentioned things could potentially cause enough problems in nuclear plants, but they would need to huge (like >7.75 magnitude earthquake *directly* under the reactor)
people should be smart enough to shutdown the reactor & do other preparations in time as hurricanes can be detected way earlier than tsunamis/earthquakes.
And what of tornadoes? They aren't as predicable as hurricanes. And at specific points they strike they are more powerful than hurricanes.
The biggest reason I oppose nuclear power though is because nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
If all energy subsidies were dropped, including for fossil fuels and nuclear power then geothermal, solar, wind, and other clean(er) energy sources would be more cost competitive. Coal get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies. Without government loan guaranties Wall Street would not finance nuclear power. And if fossil fuels had to pay all of it's costs, instead of passing on external cost to others, their cost would be higher.
Slashdot Mirror
You won't get the US centric perspective that you get from the economist.
I am an American and only 2 American print magazines come as close as The Economist does to my pov. Those are Reason magazine and Liberty magazine.
Falcon Wolf
Long live Byte. Goodbye, Byte, Circuit Cellar, Pournelle, and so many other characters. Long live Ars Technica, Wired, GigaOm, and dozens of other sites like NetworkWorld, InfoWorld, The Register, and so forth. Print will never come back. You won't feel it in your hands until your foldable smartphone makes this comfy some day in the future-- to do again.
I loved reading Byte! starting from the beginning. Reading what hardware and software hackers, who followed hacker ethics not the criminals called hackers in the press today, were doing was terrific. My two favorite columns were Steve Ciarcia's Circuit Cellar, which is now a compleat magazine of it's own, and Jerry Pournelle's Chaos Manor.
Falcon Wolf
Agreed
Falcon Wolf
As children most cops and most judges were the bullies. For that matter, so were a lot of school administrators. They don't understand the problem, or that there even is a problem. I was suspended for finally hitting back in junior high school, and almost expelled when I did it a second time.
Do you have data to prove that? If so share it.
Falcon Wolf
And, what if this kid commits a Columbine-esque revenge scenario?
Appropriately, the page with TFA has an ad encouraging me to "Win an AR-15 from Sebastian Ammo". Google is getting scary...
I have the same ad, and it's not from Google. The link is to another page on the same site. Now that page does have a Google ad, about slimming fat wallets.
As for the action taken by the school, one really has to wonder as to what kind of cretins make up the school administration. And what they could possibly have hoped to achieve by filing charges, other than a nasty (and well deserved) publicity backlash? Although for a society run by lawyers, that's perhaps what one would expect. Squeaky wheel gets a beating, and a teenager gets hauled in front of a judge on charges of "disorderly conduct" in a school. Seriously... Can any of the officials involved in this case look in the mirror and tell themselves that they are doing the Right Thing?
Agreed.
Falcon Wolf
Accidents happen, yes, but nuclear is still arguably the safest (deaths/TWh) form of energy on the planet: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja... Even wind, hydro and solar are more dangerous.
If left to market forces, and not state planners, the markets would not build nuclear power plants. Nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies. Notice how that is a CATO Institute reprint of a "Forbes" article first published on November 26, 2007. And in case you don't know what CATO is, from their about page "The Cato Institute is a public policy research organization — a think tank – dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace. Its scholars and analysts conduct independent, nonpartisan research on a wide range of policy issues."
FalconWolf
At this point Greenpeace is as stuck in its position of advocating against Nuclear Energy as the NRA is against gun control, and they are both looking like obstacles to any positive change in the status quo
I oppose taxpayers paying for nuclear power. Actually I advocate eliminating all subsidies. And don't think energy companies aren't subsidized. Allocation of subsidies in the United States lists some subsidies different energy producers received between 1950 and 2010. Nuclear power received $73 billion in federal subsidies. "BusinessWeek" has the article When It Comes to Government Subsidies, Dirty Energy Still Cleans Up date 21 October 2012..
I also support the NRA and their stance on gun controls. The only effective gun control is when the shooter hits what they aim at. And if they hit someone they should pay for it. I find it ironic the first "environmentalists", those who cared for the environment, were conservationists and hunters. Now how can hunters be environmentalists? They kill wildlife. Guess what, they also want the environment that that wildlife lives in to be clean and not polluted. Teddy Roosevelt was an avid hunter who as president created the National Park Service. He wanted to preserve wild lands for hunting among other reasons. Many hunters supported this too.
FalconWolf
France has not done well with nuclear power. Sure they get most of their electricity from nuclear power plants, however despite their lead in reprocessing France still has trouble with storage. While reprocessing allows spent fuel to be reused and shortens it's half-life doing so creates toxins and hotter fuel.
As far as building nuclear power plants go state planners on free market determines what gets built. CATO, that is the institute "dedicated to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets and peace" printed the article "Hooked on Subsidies that was first published in the November 26, 2007 issue of "Forbes". The opening statements is "Why conservatives should join the left’s campaign against nuclear power." Further down it says:
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
Now if private businesses want to build nuclear power plants they should get, and pay for, their own insurance. They would also have to finance the construction, not government. I might even invest in such a company that uses thorium as it's fuel. Provided the finances come out good.
FalconWolf
Had you read my previous response in this very thread, you'd have noticed I was talking about metro Chicago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Metropolitan_Area
That post must of been below mine. Am I supposed to read all posts before replying? Now interestingly the wiki article you link to says that the Chicago area encloses parts of 3 different states, Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. While I thought the greater Chicago area may include Gary, Indiana, I didn't know it included any of Wisconsin.
So, to follow up, can a person take public transit to go from Wisconsin to Gary, Indiana? That is other than Greyhound and other national or regional transportation systems? After all your reply was about public transit. And the Greater Houston is also 10,000 sq miles.
Since we're considering metro areas, why don't we expand that to include Megalopolis (city type)? Then Chicago is only a part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis.
Falcon
And yet Chicago, roughly 10,000 square miles, manages to do so nicely (contrary to what locals bitch about).
The Chicago area is 234 sq miles (606.1 km). Jacksonville, FL at 885 sq miles (2,292 km) is the largest city in the 48 contiguous states and is more than twice Chicago's size but still is not nearly as big as 10,000 square miles.
Falcon
I'm not sure what you're arguing with me about; this all started with me coming up with a use for which 1Gbit is useful. You make it sound like I'm saying we should all stick with 5Mbps cable modems, when I'm saying exactly the opposite.
I am arguing with your statement that "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time." As I've said twice, and will again, that statement depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined.
Falcon
With 1Gbit upstream, your 750GB hard drive could be completely transferred in something like two hours.
And my 3TB drive? 8 hours? My 4 TB drive would take more than 10 hours. So again "You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time" depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. Of course 4TB is what I have now, who knows how big my storage will be in 1, 2, or 5 years? Saying "1Gbit upstream is reasonable" is just as ridiculous as saying "nobody will ever need 640KB of memory". Nobody can accurately see what the future will bring. That is except for a supernatural supreme deity, which I don't believe in.
Falcon
Is there some benefit to these super duper broadband speeds besides talking about how cool it is? It takes a tiny fraction of this speed to send a HD movie.
640K of memory should be enough for anybody.
Falcon
You can actually back up all your stuff to another machine across the Internet in a reasonable amount of time.
That depends on how "reasonable amount of time" is defined. I have a 750 GB hard disc drive in the PC I'm typing this on and it is mostly full. I want to replace the PC with another, as my main computer. Currently I use a 3 TB external drive for backups, along with smaller drives too. I have another PC I want to use as my main PC, it has a 120 GB HDD as well as a second HDD that's 4 TB. The first drive is for the OSes used and software to run so the second one is for my data. Of course as it's a laptop I can and will still use this PC. But I do not expect to use the internet to transfer my data for storage and backups.
Falcon
In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.
What FCC broadband page? I didn't see a link this.
Falcon
In the very announcement they link to the FCC broadband page about how to build out your own community gigabit municipal fiber network. You don't have to wait for Google. They would rather you didn't.
What FCC broadband page would that be? The only FCC page I found linked to is WCB Announces Workshop on Gigabit Community Broadband Networks but it does not say how to build gigabit fiber. It may be in the video on the page, but that is more than 5 hours long. Searching FCC how to build gigabit municipal fiber networks doesn't return the how to either in the first five pages of results. Only the first result is an FCC link.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
kansas city gives it up for google...., provides the first, third, and last paragraph of six paragraphs on what Kansas City gave up to Google printed in a Harper's Magazine article of the same title. The online article is only available to magazine subscribers.
In the second paragraph there's this:
"According to its contract, Kansas City must give Google access to its underground conduits, fiber, poles, rack space, nodes, buildings, facilities, and available land. It cannot charge the company for 'access to, or use of any city facilities...nor will it impose any permit and inspection fees.' And what does the city get in return? It has no say in the pricing of Google's services, nor can it ensure that Google will deliver fiber-optic service to all of the city's residents. Google's offices, meeting spaces, and showrooms are provided free of charge, and the city pays the company's electric bill. The major, moreover, is barred from commenting on Google's activities without the express permission of Google."
The Harper's page linked to does have this correction, "The space the company maintains in city-owned buildings is indeed free; its other local facilities are privately rented." Otherwise it appears Google is getting more than Kansas City is getting in return. And that does not count all the marketing data Google gains with all the eyeballs of surfers.
Falcon
You're playing semantic games as well as lying about what others say. This is my last reply to you.
Falcon
To get an idea, consider the energy output of a windmill and divide it by the span of the prop to get the amount of energy removed per centimetre of length, assuming the width is about the same all the way is good enough. That puts it at the scale of a small fragile bat. The number you get is very small because it is less than the pressure of the prevailing wind on an area the size of a bat since you can't get all the energy out of the wind due to bearing friction etc.
Now do you see why I am dismissing the "bats killed by pressure drop" stupid bullshit as the PR campaign lie it is? It's the sort of thing that sounds OK initially due to technical terms thrown in to hide the really stupid lie, but if you think about how a windmill works the audacious lie is apparent. People caught out with it are also likely to be embarrassed that they fell for something so stupid so it's hard to talk them out of it.
I don 't know if the length is directly proportional to the amount of energy captured by wind mills. I bet the area of the blade, as well as it's pitch, is more important. Oh, and obviously the height. The bottom of the blades are supposed to be higher than the tallest thing that can block the wind. That includes trees. And I bet that that is higher than most bats will be flying.
And no I don't expect your explanation as to why you dismiss the "bats killed by pressure drop" as stupid bullshit. For all I know what you said was bullshit. More of the NIMBY shit delaying wind farms, even off the coast. You still did not provide evidence which is what I asked for. Can you provide scientific studies supporting your position? That is what I'm looking for.
Now here are some of the things I found:
"While direct collision is thought to be responsible for most of the bat fatalities observed at wind facilities (Horn et al. 2008), recent work by Baerwald et al. (2008) suggests that some of the observed bat fatality may be due to barotrauma (i.e., injury resulting from suddenly altered air pressure). Fast- moving wind turbine blades create vortices and turbulence in their wakes, and bats may experience rapid pressure changes as they pass through this disturbed air, potentially causing internal injuries leading to death. The occurrence of barotrauma in bats, the proportion of individuals that succumb immediately versus those that fly away injured, and the associated influences on the estimation of bat fatalities are uncertain."
That's 5 links to science to your zero links. I found those by Googling
Your claim was that by deregulating the producers and distributors but leaving the *existing* price caps on the cost to consumers, the industry went aground.
I made no such claim. Throughout this thread I have said the opposite, that CA did not deregulate energy. "Deregulating the producers" is only partial, not full, deregulation. I have stated the state dropped some regulations but made new regulations too. That is reregulation, which I have been stating throughout though I admit I did not use the word "reregulation".
I think it's pretty obvious people either don't or can't read and if they do read they don't understand what they read. They also make ridiculous or outrageous claims about what others did say.
Falcon
No, I'm saying, as should have been very clear, that if bats are close enough to experience a significant pressure drop they would be in direct proximity with the blades and death would be due to blunt trauma instead of some bad SF story of their lungs exploding. So yes, I'm saying you've been mislead.
And where's your evidence of this? It is not clear.
Falcon
So what you're saying is that there is simply no way the free market could ever produce electricity as cheaply as a strongly regulated industry and so it was unfair to insist that it should? Doesn't that suggest that a strongly regulated industry is superior to the free market?
How in the world did you come up with this? In my post you replied to I said nothing about free markets. Because I didn't I also didn't say they couldn't produce electricity cheaper than a regulated market. As a matter of fact I do support free markets, however because power cables need government granted rights of way or easements I do agree there should be some regulations. Especially if a monopoly is granted as well. In the case of power transmission, ie cables, I believe the ownership of them should be separated from ownership of electrical generation. However unlike CA I would not cap how much electrical sellers could charge end users. I would allow prices to fluctuate with supply and demand. I believe the same about cable TV, fiber optics, and phone landlines. For instance the fiber Verizon is laying down. I would split the ownership of the fiber from the services that fiber can provide.The company that owned the fiber would then have to allow any others to use it to provide the services it can provide. That is the existing infrastructure. For new infrastructure I would require a separate entity to build it.
Falcon
The pressure drop isn't very large otherwise the things wouldn't need such big blades, and besides, if the bats are right next to the airfoil of the blade they are probably in the act of being hit by it and turned into roadkill by a far better understood means (blunt trauma).
I included the quote from the link saying it was pressure drops, not being hit And it says nothing about roadkill. Are you saying they are wrong? Some studies have shown cars do kill more birds than wind generators. So do cats, and buildings.
Smaller blades have to spin faster to generate the same amount of electricity. But obviously faster spinning blades kill more bats and birds than slower ones.
Falcon
Lol. In Linux or free unix desktop land you're a slave to software dependencies and chasing down half-assed solutions to common desktop application type tasks. On my mac, I spend a total of about 1 hour per 18 months on operating system upgrades. I've been there, done that, and will GLADLY pay the software licensing cost to get what I want done with a minimum of fucking about.
On my Mac I run Snow Leopard and Ubuntu 12.04 and I love the freedom to run whatever software I can. Now if Adobe were to port Photoshop CS to Linux, and drop the price, I and many other Linux users would use it too. Because I can't afford CS for OS X I'll try both CinePaint and Krita for deep color editing of my photos. I am willing to give up a little tyme maintaining my system for freedom to do what I want. Giving up freedom is what makes you a slave, not the other way around.
Falcon
Fukushima's problem was caused by flooding in the basement where diesel generators were.
Not according to Kirk Sorensen, a nuclear technologist who operates the site energyfromthorium.com who for Forbes wrote the article Explainer: What Caused The Incident At Fukushima-Daiichi. At first he writes "The tsunami destroyed the diesel generators that provide power to drive the pumps that circulate the water coolant through the reactor that removes decay heat." But a bit later he writes generators ran "until their day tanks emptied" of diesel fuel. If emergency generators were running then they could have been refueled. The hard part would of been finding the people who were willing to put their lives at risk. However anyone who supports nuclear power should be so willing, if they aren't willing to put their own lives at risk why do they support putting other people's lives at risk?
All of the mentioned things could potentially cause enough problems in nuclear plants, but they would need to huge (like >7.75 magnitude earthquake *directly* under the reactor)
The title of the article Earthquake threat to nuclear reactors far higher than realized sums it up pretty well. Risk from earthquake is up to 24 tymes higher than previously thought.
people should be smart enough to shutdown the reactor & do other preparations in time as hurricanes can be detected way earlier than tsunamis/earthquakes.
And what of tornadoes? They aren't as predicable as hurricanes. And at specific points they strike they are more powerful than hurricanes.
The biggest reason I oppose nuclear power though is because nuclear power is Hooked on Subsidies
"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don’t. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."
If all energy subsidies were dropped, including for fossil fuels and nuclear power then geothermal, solar, wind, and other clean(er) energy sources would be more cost competitive. Coal get tens of billions of dollars in subsidies. Without government loan guaranties Wall Street would not finance nuclear power. And if fossil fuels had to pay all of it's costs, instead of passing on external cost to others, their cost would be higher.
Falcon