If Republicans don't care about winning, then they will force a primary. Trump will run again if he wants to, and so will split the vote and let a Dem win. Republicans have to decide whether that is a better outcome for them.
Apple sells about 200 million iPhones each year. Apple is definitely not attempting to stop tens of thousands of iPhones from being reused to encourage more sales. If anything, iPhones tend to be used longer than other smartphones - https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
So this idea that Apple just wants you to get a new one is not supported by the facts.
But your friend would be wilfully committing fraud. And also, they would need to be friends (on FB) with the person whose account they want their friend to take over.
There are no perfect solutions, but just making this difficult enough may be enough to deter most would be hijackings of accounts.
how is FB supposed to know that the John Doe on your DL is the owner of the account, and not a John Doe on someone else's DL?
Well, on something like Facebook, I imagine if you have a friend, you can also ask them to vouch for you as well. So yes, you might be a John Smith with a specific date of birth, but you also have to be a John Smith that knows a specific Other Person who also has another specific date of birth.
Mark Zuckerbeg really wants the government to construct a moat around his business to make sure that other companies will find it difficult to break his stranglehold over social networking.
Autonomous robots are the new great equaliser. The only hope a small country can have to defend itself against aggression is:
- To have nukes
- Killer robots
Both of these neutralise large countries greatest advantage - the ability to produce large armies and physically overwhelm with numbers. Yes, large countries can also produce more killer robots, but the advantage is reduced for them.
I understand that the plane may well have been having the stick shaker warning. In that scenario, it ma not be unreasonable that pilots focus on addressing that, and do not notice the subtle movements in the trim - movements which may not have been continuous either, so you had to be "lucky" to spot that while trying to deal with a scary stick shaker.
1. Residents unhappy that their neighbourhood has been renamed on a map. This is something that needs fixing and appears to have already happened.
2. The second is gentrification, particularly the kind that happens when something like a medical campus opens near your neighbourhood. The neighborhood becomes attractive to others, rents rise, prices rise and artisan coffee shops open up. Yes, this can cause problems for long time residents, but the alternative is no economic development near that neighbourhood. Tough call.
I am not doing that at all. The point I made was that the lifecycle emissions for a nuclear power plant were lower than for solar. The IPCC has figures suggesting that solar CO2 emissions on a lifecycle basis are 4 times higher than for nuclear - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
The claim that had been made was that because nuclear required refuelling, it would continue to produce CO2 because mining nuclear fuel produces CO2. I just countered that once we take everything in the round, nuclear still produces lower CO2. I also made the point that both are still low CO2 sources anyway, so both are good from a climate change perspective.
Solar is not zero emissions because it doesn't demand fuel any more than nuclear power. Solar panels require mined material as much as if not more than nuclear. The fact that with solar power you get to incur all your carbon costs at the outset is not an advantage.
To use an analogy, if I was buying a house and I had two options - pay for the house at the outset and pay X, or pay for the house in instalments and pay half as much. Your position is that the first option is better because it doesn't involve continuing instalments even though it is twice as expensive. I say that is a silly way to evaluate the options. In case this has gone over your head, the instalment represent the CO2 emissions in this scenario, and the house represents the power generation source.
Saying nuclear produces continuing emissions because you need fuel is intellectually dishonest or ignorant. In any case, I would put it to you that a nuclear power plant has a 60 year life while solar panels will need to be replaced after between 20-25 years. Therefore the solar solution will require additional emissions in the future to replace solar panels anyway.
In any case, the fixation on fuel is misguided. If we want to choose the option that puts less CO2 in the atmosphere between solar and nuclear, then the choice should be nuclear. The facts say so. The fact that the nuclear option emits the CO2 more slowly is actually a positive but you are trying hard to spin it as a negative. However, it appears that you have some alternative facts that you would like to lean on.
Yes, solar is zero emissions, IF you completely ignore all the emissions producing solar panels.
Nuclear is also zero emissions - "burning" uranium does not produce CO2.
I choose not to ignore that bit, because, well, I don't like to be ignorant of facts I guess. But the facts are, solar is NOT lower CO2 than nuclear, unless you choose a measure that is misleading.
Let me put it another way. I could choose, at the outset, to mine all the materials I need (iron, rare earth metals, uranium etc) that I will need over a 60 year operational lifetime of a nuclear power plants*, put them in a pile and use them as i need them i.e. use the building materials at the outset, and the uranium as and when needed. I could then claim that nuclear is CO2 free because it will not produce any CO2 in operation. And it still comes out better than solar if I do this (from a pure CO2 emission perspective). The bottom line is nuclear power requires less CO2 over its lifetime than solar and that is all that should matter.
I don't know why this fact threatens your view. This isn't to say NM or anyone else should go for nuclear. But that arguing against nuclear for CO2 reasons is misleading and wrong when compared to the alternatives. There are many valid reasons to oppose nuclear, but CO2 emissions is not one of them.
* I obviously wouldn't buy 60 year's worth of fuel at the outset because it is completely unnecessary to do so, but as a thought experiment, it is a valid way of looking at things.
Power plants going off for maintenance is par for the course and is generally planned. This is generally scheduled for when demand is low, or no other plants are being take offline for maintenance.
Unplanned shutdowns are a bit trickier, but it's not like nuclear (or coal) power plants are networked such that one going off affects the rest. Besides, in the US, there are 60 odd nuclear power plants. If one suddenly went offline in an unplanned way, that is less than 2% capacity (give or take) disappearing without notice. Not ideal, but very manageable. Heck, if 10% of the capacity disappeared, that would still be manageable - maybe painful.
With wind, for example, it is not unheard of for plants to be running at less than 10% of their nameplate capacity over a decent period of time over a fairly large region (such as the UK). You can see some charts at http://gridwatch.co.uk/ and the data for the UK is available at bmreports.com - if you are so inclined, you can download and play with it. The data basically shows inverted demand between CCGT and wind because CCGT has to pick up the slack whenever wind is down. Heck, even coal has had to pick up the slack for wind at times.
And have a look at how consistent the nuclear supply is there too! I don't think we should be worrying about incredibly low probability events like multiple unconnected nuclear power plants all getting into issues at the same time, while dismissing the very real and present challenges that variability of sources like wind present right now.
YOU brought up how low CO2 production must be to be low carbon to someone who said that nuclear wasn't really an option for NM because it's not that low.
Now we are getting somewhere. For the bit in bold, I disagree. Nuclear IS that low. It is very low indeed, close to the lowest CO2 generating source out there. SO your claim is demonstrably false, as per IPCC data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources).
If you are claiming otherwise, then show us the data / information.
And here I though I was replying to a response to my initial post (in which I did not bring up solar by the way).
The point I was making, and the point I originally made, was that nuclear is low carbon. Heck, the link I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources) shows it is indeed close to the lowest carbon source of energy, and that solar produces 4 times as much CO2 on average, when lifetime emissions are taken into account.
And yes, I also consider solar to be low carbon too if you are asking.
And of course the average American CO2 output is kinda relevant since the US produces about a sixth of global CO2 emissions!
The link - it is right there - shows you than nuclear is pretty much the lowest energy source (next to onshore wind). Solar is, on average (or median) about 4 times more CO2 emissions on a lifecycle basis.
Yes, solar doesn't need any fuel, but solar panels also don't grow on trees.
5 kg of uranium contains enough energy for one (American) person's lifetime on average. It also costs about $200 per kg, so you need about $1,000 worth of uranium to power an energy hungry American lifestyle for a lifetime.
$1,000 buys about 1,000 litres of petrol (gasoline for you Americans) I reckon. 1,000 litres of petrol produces about 2,300kg of CO2 (or 2.3 metric tonnes of CO2).
The per capita CO2 emissions for the average American is 15.53 metric tonnes per year.
So, assuming that all of the cost of mining uranium is all expended in the burning of petrol then it follows if you incur a CO2 cost of (much less than) 15% of one year's worth of the average American's output in mining uranium, you will be able to provide that American with enough energy for a lifetime.
Assuming the average American lives 80 years, then switching to an all nuclear future will reduce carbon emissions by more than 99% - 15% / 80 is less than 1%.
Therefore, I think it follows that nuclear is a low carbon solution (unless in your book, a 99% reduction in CO2 doesn't qualify as low carbon).
Why prevent a default at all. Lending them money to avoid default was not charity. A default would have been bad for Greece but it would give them a clean slate and a much healthier "national balance sheet". They wouldn't be the first country to ever default.
If you are comparing GDP, you really ought to use PPP (purchasing power parity), which makes the UK economy larger than California.
Secondly, the US is richer than the UK and just about every other large country.
I also think the value of being part of an economic bloc is overstated.
Lastly, the EU and the Euro in particular, has been extremely damaging for smaller members like Greece. Some of the things they did to Greece are borderline unconscionable.
The problem with email is that there are various kinds of emails.
Sometimes, email is directed specifically to you and you alone. This you must deal with.
Sometimes you are cc'd - these ones, you may or may not need to do anything with.
Then there are the mailing list emails!
Maybe we need something other than email. What we need is a system where you assign someone work to do, set a deadline and have it added automatically to said person's to do list. In effect, something like a bug tracking system. There should also be a clear way to determine if this task is to be prioritised over others.
These tasks should be re-assignable, so you can pass it on to someone else. This will also encourage to writer of the email replacement to include as much information as is necessary to enable any reasonably competent and end experienced person to pick up the work.
Actually, most of the "heavy" infrastructure for delivery of charging stations pretty much exists already. Tends to be that you can access electricity anywhere you can access petroleum. Might need to beef it up a bit, but we don't have to do this overnight.
The fact that there are now literally millions electric cars out there in the US shows that the infrastructure is there. People don't buy cars they can't move around in.
There are now more electric vehicles in the US that there were iPhones in the world in 2007!
Slashdot Mirror
Primaries don't matter.
If Republicans don't care about winning, then they will force a primary. Trump will run again if he wants to, and so will split the vote and let a Dem win. Republicans have to decide whether that is a better outcome for them.
Apple sells about 200 million iPhones each year. Apple is definitely not attempting to stop tens of thousands of iPhones from being reused to encourage more sales. If anything, iPhones tend to be used longer than other smartphones - https://www.sciencedaily.com/r...
So this idea that Apple just wants you to get a new one is not supported by the facts.
But your friend would be wilfully committing fraud. And also, they would need to be friends (on FB) with the person whose account they want their friend to take over.
There are no perfect solutions, but just making this difficult enough may be enough to deter most would be hijackings of accounts.
how is FB supposed to know that the John Doe on your DL is the owner of the account, and not a John Doe on someone else's DL?
Well, on something like Facebook, I imagine if you have a friend, you can also ask them to vouch for you as well. So yes, you might be a John Smith with a specific date of birth, but you also have to be a John Smith that knows a specific Other Person who also has another specific date of birth.
The Prius was not the 1st mass produced "green" car. Honda Insight beat it.
The Prius was a full 2 years before the Insight. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Mark Zuckerbeg really wants the government to construct a moat around his business to make sure that other companies will find it difficult to break his stranglehold over social networking.
Obligatory Yes Minister - https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Autonomous robots are the new great equaliser. The only hope a small country can have to defend itself against aggression is:
- To have nukes
- Killer robots
Both of these neutralise large countries greatest advantage - the ability to produce large armies and physically overwhelm with numbers. Yes, large countries can also produce more killer robots, but the advantage is reduced for them.
I understand that the plane may well have been having the stick shaker warning. In that scenario, it ma not be unreasonable that pilots focus on addressing that, and do not notice the subtle movements in the trim - movements which may not have been continuous either, so you had to be "lucky" to spot that while trying to deal with a scary stick shaker.
There are two issues.
1. Residents unhappy that their neighbourhood has been renamed on a map. This is something that needs fixing and appears to have already happened.
2. The second is gentrification, particularly the kind that happens when something like a medical campus opens near your neighbourhood. The neighborhood becomes attractive to others, rents rise, prices rise and artisan coffee shops open up. Yes, this can cause problems for long time residents, but the alternative is no economic development near that neighbourhood. Tough call.
Calm down dear!
If you dispute what the bloody IPCC says, then show us the data. I.e put up or shut up.
Oh, and here is yet another study showing similar results.
http://www.dae.nic.in/writerea...
Nuclear power produces lower emissions than solar. Again!
I am not doing that at all. The point I made was that the lifecycle emissions for a nuclear power plant were lower than for solar. The IPCC has figures suggesting that solar CO2 emissions on a lifecycle basis are 4 times higher than for nuclear - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
The claim that had been made was that because nuclear required refuelling, it would continue to produce CO2 because mining nuclear fuel produces CO2. I just countered that once we take everything in the round, nuclear still produces lower CO2. I also made the point that both are still low CO2 sources anyway, so both are good from a climate change perspective.
Sigh.
Solar is not zero emissions because it doesn't demand fuel any more than nuclear power. Solar panels require mined material as much as if not more than nuclear. The fact that with solar power you get to incur all your carbon costs at the outset is not an advantage.
To use an analogy, if I was buying a house and I had two options - pay for the house at the outset and pay X, or pay for the house in instalments and pay half as much. Your position is that the first option is better because it doesn't involve continuing instalments even though it is twice as expensive. I say that is a silly way to evaluate the options. In case this has gone over your head, the instalment represent the CO2 emissions in this scenario, and the house represents the power generation source.
Saying nuclear produces continuing emissions because you need fuel is intellectually dishonest or ignorant. In any case, I would put it to you that a nuclear power plant has a 60 year life while solar panels will need to be replaced after between 20-25 years. Therefore the solar solution will require additional emissions in the future to replace solar panels anyway.
In any case, the fixation on fuel is misguided. If we want to choose the option that puts less CO2 in the atmosphere between solar and nuclear, then the choice should be nuclear. The facts say so. The fact that the nuclear option emits the CO2 more slowly is actually a positive but you are trying hard to spin it as a negative. However, it appears that you have some alternative facts that you would like to lean on.
Solar uses no fuel.
So it is zero emissions.
Yes, solar is zero emissions, IF you completely ignore all the emissions producing solar panels.
Nuclear is also zero emissions - "burning" uranium does not produce CO2.
I choose not to ignore that bit, because, well, I don't like to be ignorant of facts I guess. But the facts are, solar is NOT lower CO2 than nuclear, unless you choose a measure that is misleading.
Let me put it another way. I could choose, at the outset, to mine all the materials I need (iron, rare earth metals, uranium etc) that I will need over a 60 year operational lifetime of a nuclear power plants*, put them in a pile and use them as i need them i.e. use the building materials at the outset, and the uranium as and when needed. I could then claim that nuclear is CO2 free because it will not produce any CO2 in operation. And it still comes out better than solar if I do this (from a pure CO2 emission perspective). The bottom line is nuclear power requires less CO2 over its lifetime than solar and that is all that should matter.
I don't know why this fact threatens your view. This isn't to say NM or anyone else should go for nuclear. But that arguing against nuclear for CO2 reasons is misleading and wrong when compared to the alternatives. There are many valid reasons to oppose nuclear, but CO2 emissions is not one of them.
* I obviously wouldn't buy 60 year's worth of fuel at the outset because it is completely unnecessary to do so, but as a thought experiment, it is a valid way of looking at things.
Power plants going off for maintenance is par for the course and is generally planned. This is generally scheduled for when demand is low, or no other plants are being take offline for maintenance.
Unplanned shutdowns are a bit trickier, but it's not like nuclear (or coal) power plants are networked such that one going off affects the rest. Besides, in the US, there are 60 odd nuclear power plants. If one suddenly went offline in an unplanned way, that is less than 2% capacity (give or take) disappearing without notice. Not ideal, but very manageable. Heck, if 10% of the capacity disappeared, that would still be manageable - maybe painful.
With wind, for example, it is not unheard of for plants to be running at less than 10% of their nameplate capacity over a decent period of time over a fairly large region (such as the UK). You can see some charts at http://gridwatch.co.uk/ and the data for the UK is available at bmreports.com - if you are so inclined, you can download and play with it. The data basically shows inverted demand between CCGT and wind because CCGT has to pick up the slack whenever wind is down. Heck, even coal has had to pick up the slack for wind at times.
And have a look at how consistent the nuclear supply is there too! I don't think we should be worrying about incredibly low probability events like multiple unconnected nuclear power plants all getting into issues at the same time, while dismissing the very real and present challenges that variability of sources like wind present right now.
YOU brought up how low CO2 production must be to be low carbon to someone who said that nuclear wasn't really an option for NM because it's not that low.
Now we are getting somewhere. For the bit in bold, I disagree. Nuclear IS that low. It is very low indeed, close to the lowest CO2 generating source out there. SO your claim is demonstrably false, as per IPCC data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources).
If you are claiming otherwise, then show us the data / information.
And here I though I was replying to a response to my initial post (in which I did not bring up solar by the way).
The point I was making, and the point I originally made, was that nuclear is low carbon. Heck, the link I provided (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC,_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources) shows it is indeed close to the lowest carbon source of energy, and that solar produces 4 times as much CO2 on average, when lifetime emissions are taken into account.
And yes, I also consider solar to be low carbon too if you are asking.
And of course the average American CO2 output is kinda relevant since the US produces about a sixth of global CO2 emissions!
The link - it is right there - shows you than nuclear is pretty much the lowest energy source (next to onshore wind). Solar is, on average (or median) about 4 times more CO2 emissions on a lifecycle basis.
Yes, solar doesn't need any fuel, but solar panels also don't grow on trees.
Bottom line is nuclear is lower CO2 than solar!
OK. I'll bite again.
5 kg of uranium contains enough energy for one (American) person's lifetime on average. It also costs about $200 per kg, so you need about $1,000 worth of uranium to power an energy hungry American lifestyle for a lifetime.
$1,000 buys about 1,000 litres of petrol (gasoline for you Americans) I reckon. 1,000 litres of petrol produces about 2,300kg of CO2 (or 2.3 metric tonnes of CO2).
The per capita CO2 emissions for the average American is 15.53 metric tonnes per year.
So, assuming that all of the cost of mining uranium is all expended in the burning of petrol then it follows if you incur a CO2 cost of (much less than) 15% of one year's worth of the average American's output in mining uranium, you will be able to provide that American with enough energy for a lifetime.
Assuming the average American lives 80 years, then switching to an all nuclear future will reduce carbon emissions by more than 99% - 15% / 80 is less than 1%.
Therefore, I think it follows that nuclear is a low carbon solution (unless in your book, a 99% reduction in CO2 doesn't qualify as low carbon).
Oh, and even the IPCC has published figures suggesting my less than 1% is broadly right - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
QED
I'll bite.
How much lower lifetime CO2 emission than coal of natural gas must a generation source emit to qualify as low carbon?
Why prevent a default at all. Lending them money to avoid default was not charity. A default would have been bad for Greece but it would give them a clean slate and a much healthier "national balance sheet". They wouldn't be the first country to ever default.
If you are comparing GDP, you really ought to use PPP (purchasing power parity), which makes the UK economy larger than California.
Secondly, the US is richer than the UK and just about every other large country.
I also think the value of being part of an economic bloc is overstated.
Lastly, the EU and the Euro in particular, has been extremely damaging for smaller members like Greece. Some of the things they did to Greece are borderline unconscionable.
The problem with email is that there are various kinds of emails.
Sometimes, email is directed specifically to you and you alone. This you must deal with.
Sometimes you are cc'd - these ones, you may or may not need to do anything with.
Then there are the mailing list emails!
Maybe we need something other than email. What we need is a system where you assign someone work to do, set a deadline and have it added automatically to said person's to do list. In effect, something like a bug tracking system. There should also be a clear way to determine if this task is to be prioritised over others.
These tasks should be re-assignable, so you can pass it on to someone else. This will also encourage to writer of the email replacement to include as much information as is necessary to enable any reasonably competent and end experienced person to pick up the work.
Apple didn't sell 6 million iPhones in 2007!
Actually, most of the "heavy" infrastructure for delivery of charging stations pretty much exists already. Tends to be that you can access electricity anywhere you can access petroleum. Might need to beef it up a bit, but we don't have to do this overnight.
The fact that there are now literally millions electric cars out there in the US shows that the infrastructure is there. People don't buy cars they can't move around in.
There are now more electric vehicles in the US that there were iPhones in the world in 2007!