... whose tenure and research grants depend on towing the party line.
Sorry, but I'm going to put my faith in chemists, physicists and meteorologists who have a broader educational experience and less professional reputation tied up in 'climate science'. More chance of an objective opinion. That's why they brought Feynman in to help investigate the Challenger accident.
Plants have a different ratio of isotopes than fossil fuels.
But that difference is due to the age of the carbon released. Plants absorb carbon isotopes (CO2) from the atmosphere in ratios similar to its recent creation by cosmic rays. Animals that eat those plants release the same spectrum of carbon isotopes. Geological carbon that which has aged, changing isotope ratios (see carbon dating) and emitted by volcanic sources may be indiscernible from carbon which has aged in geological formations, pumped to the surface, processed and burned in internal combustion engines.
This is just a few conservatives sponsoring a bill. How many times have we been laughed at for Pi = 3 or teaching the Fred Flintstone theory of evolution.
shut down quickly in response to heat could be a bad thing
Right in the middle of a Call of Duty session and the laptop shuts down. You'd have to abort the mission and lose who knows how many points. Complete disaster.
But the ATF is watching for people pouring it out on the ground, not down the drain. Perhaps we could put the CIA in the sewers to watch for illegal grease flushing.
But I first need one answer: What are we going to do with the waste?
Recycle it.
Levy a fee for each pound of spent fuel produced. Have a government truck stop by, pick it up and haul it to a reprocessing facility in the middle of a high security military compound. Extract the isotopes useful for further power generation, suitably diluted and packaged to discourage weapons use. Reduce the weight and volume of the remaining waste. Glassify and bury it.
My local government is completely enamored with the process of picking up my garbage, sorting it and recycling whatever can be. To the point that I can't even opt out of the garbage pickup process and haul my own stuff to the transfer station. In the aggregate, allowing every citizen to accumulate their own backyard garbage pile (or burn it) would be far more damaging to the environment than a few spent nuclear fuel pools. And more expensive to handle as well.
... in the Pacific Northwest. In the service territory of an electric utility that, for all intents and purposes, failed financially over a decade ago. It's getting difficult to differentiate between a terrorist's blackout and normal daily operations. So I'm ready.
A terrorist attack might take out a key substation while a windstorm will knock down a pole, taking out my neighborhood. Since the utility doesn't have a stockpile of spares or the line crews available to install them, for me its all the same. Fire up the generator and ride through it.
That's one of the few already on the books. But there is quite a bit of model legislation written and ready to go should such technology become available. Weinberg's offer to repeal the NJ law is specious particularly in light of efforts to pass similar legislation at the federal level.
The smart gun law advocates have probably done more to damage the development of the technology given their dishonest maneuvering. I'd give public sentiment between 20 and 50 years to restore the trust needed to go forward with it. Figuring that the gun grabbers don't pull anything else as shifty between now and then.
The jury is still out on the issue of fraud in that case.
you're basically just shouting "Government shouldn't pick winners and losers"
Right. If the government wants to pick winners in a market, they should step up and buy the stuff themselves. Obama's pitch to "review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety" is just weasel words to get them on the civilian market. If they are so great, let's see the FBI specify them as their approved sidearm.
As far as fraud, one could say that passing off the Armatix.22 pistol as 'available technology' meets that definition. No federal agency carries a.22 duty pistol. Nor do any state or local police departments. It is a target range plinking gun (or maybe for removing squirrels) at most. Very few civilians carry such a small caliber for self defense. So this appears to have been an offering to meet the legal threshold of 'available technology' and in some states become the only legal firearm available for sale. If the government was serious about smart weapons, they would have commissioned a.40 caliber semi-auto pistol design that would satisfy law enforcement and many civilians' requirements.
an objection to laws mandating smart guns before they are reliable/widely available.
How about "an objection to laws mandating smart guns". Period. I've got no problem with the technology being developed. If you want it, buy it. It's the legal mandate that people object to.
The same thing applies to trigger locks and gun safes. Nobody wants a mandate, which might involve visits by the local gun inspection police and resulting fines. But very few serious gun owners object to the existence of lock/safe technology. In fact, many people who own guns have safes or lock boxes for them.
The government is putting itself in the position of selecting and promoting one technology over another, instead of letting the market decide. And here, by 'market' I mean mandate the adoption of 'smart gun' technology by federal law enforcement (and local, where they receive federal funds). The market will be guaranteed and investors will be more than happy to kick in the R&D funds to multiple developers. Where the best tech will win and the failures will get sorted out by the market.
Slashdot Mirror
climate scientists
... whose tenure and research grants depend on towing the party line.
Sorry, but I'm going to put my faith in chemists, physicists and meteorologists who have a broader educational experience and less professional reputation tied up in 'climate science'. More chance of an objective opinion. That's why they brought Feynman in to help investigate the Challenger accident.
Plants have a different ratio of isotopes than fossil fuels.
But that difference is due to the age of the carbon released. Plants absorb carbon isotopes (CO2) from the atmosphere in ratios similar to its recent creation by cosmic rays. Animals that eat those plants release the same spectrum of carbon isotopes. Geological carbon that which has aged, changing isotope ratios (see carbon dating) and emitted by volcanic sources may be indiscernible from carbon which has aged in geological formations, pumped to the surface, processed and burned in internal combustion engines.
What would keep such a company now from running the reactor as long as it's profitable and then go out of business?
You have them post a bond for the reprocessing fee before taking delivery on the fresh fuel.
International waters. Under the jurisdiction of UNCLOS (to which we are not a party).
Dark matter! Yeah, that's the ticket.
Probably looking for illegal grease.
The Seattle Public Utilities - Recycling Division of course.
You watch our grease, we'll watch your network.
This is just a few conservatives sponsoring a bill. How many times have we been laughed at for Pi = 3 or teaching the Fred Flintstone theory of evolution.
shut down quickly in response to heat could be a bad thing
Right in the middle of a Call of Duty session and the laptop shuts down. You'd have to abort the mission and lose who knows how many points. Complete disaster.
But the ATF is watching for people pouring it out on the ground, not down the drain. Perhaps we could put the CIA in the sewers to watch for illegal grease flushing.
flow right past State boundaries.
Not in Seattle.
LED bulbs are superior to everything else, prove me wrong. (you can't)
I put an LED bulb in my Lava Lamp. Now the goo just sits there on the bottom.
SELECT Name, Address FROM Public WHERE Race = 'Black';
But I first need one answer: What are we going to do with the waste?
Recycle it.
Levy a fee for each pound of spent fuel produced. Have a government truck stop by, pick it up and haul it to a reprocessing facility in the middle of a high security military compound. Extract the isotopes useful for further power generation, suitably diluted and packaged to discourage weapons use. Reduce the weight and volume of the remaining waste. Glassify and bury it.
My local government is completely enamored with the process of picking up my garbage, sorting it and recycling whatever can be. To the point that I can't even opt out of the garbage pickup process and haul my own stuff to the transfer station. In the aggregate, allowing every citizen to accumulate their own backyard garbage pile (or burn it) would be far more damaging to the environment than a few spent nuclear fuel pools. And more expensive to handle as well.
exploit such interconnected social meshes or social networks and poison them
Zuckerberg plz go.
Actually, you can still park in Seattle if you slip a few people on the city council $30,000. Or your name is Diamond.
A terrorist attack might take out a key substation while a windstorm will knock down a pole, taking out my neighborhood. Since the utility doesn't have a stockpile of spares or the line crews available to install them, for me its all the same. Fire up the generator and ride through it.
Right next to the bacon.
Just push a mod to the BGP tables. Problem goes away.
New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law
That's one of the few already on the books. But there is quite a bit of model legislation written and ready to go should such technology become available. Weinberg's offer to repeal the NJ law is specious particularly in light of efforts to pass similar legislation at the federal level.
The smart gun law advocates have probably done more to damage the development of the technology given their dishonest maneuvering. I'd give public sentiment between 20 and 50 years to restore the trust needed to go forward with it. Figuring that the gun grabbers don't pull anything else as shifty between now and then.
threatened with arson for carrying a trigger lock or gun safe.
Because there are no laws that would mandate trigger locks or gun safes should they become available.
did not go bankrupt because they committed fraud.
The jury is still out on the issue of fraud in that case.
you're basically just shouting "Government shouldn't pick winners and losers"
Right. If the government wants to pick winners in a market, they should step up and buy the stuff themselves. Obama's pitch to "review the availability of smart gun technology on a regular basis, and to explore potential ways to further its use and development to more broadly improve gun safety" is just weasel words to get them on the civilian market. If they are so great, let's see the FBI specify them as their approved sidearm.
As far as fraud, one could say that passing off the Armatix .22 pistol as 'available technology' meets that definition. No federal agency carries a .22 duty pistol. Nor do any state or local police departments. It is a target range plinking gun (or maybe for removing squirrels) at most. Very few civilians carry such a small caliber for self defense. So this appears to have been an offering to meet the legal threshold of 'available technology' and in some states become the only legal firearm available for sale. If the government was serious about smart weapons, they would have commissioned a .40 caliber semi-auto pistol design that would satisfy law enforcement and many civilians' requirements.
an objection to laws mandating smart guns before they are reliable/widely available.
How about "an objection to laws mandating smart guns". Period. I've got no problem with the technology being developed. If you want it, buy it. It's the legal mandate that people object to.
The same thing applies to trigger locks and gun safes. Nobody wants a mandate, which might involve visits by the local gun inspection police and resulting fines. But very few serious gun owners object to the existence of lock/safe technology. In fact, many people who own guns have safes or lock boxes for them.
The government is putting itself in the position of selecting and promoting one technology over another, instead of letting the market decide. And here, by 'market' I mean mandate the adoption of 'smart gun' technology by federal law enforcement (and local, where they receive federal funds). The market will be guaranteed and investors will be more than happy to kick in the R&D funds to multiple developers. Where the best tech will win and the failures will get sorted out by the market.