It is interesting to note that some of Disney's most well-known films are based on public domain works, while Disney has been one of the biggest factors in eliminating the public domain altogether.
can you open that up for us? I wasn't aware of this, and would appreciate a short schooling session
Mr AC is referring to many of the Disney stories being old European stories that were in the public domain. They used those stories in many of their works - I don't know which ones.
Ok so this is completely anecdotal from some people in my family who watched it in Australia. They watched/listened to it live off the feed from Parkes and a bit after the Eagle landed they heard a very excited Armstrong say: "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut.
* could have also been suspiciously.
Personally, I don't go in for the whole UFO thing or conspiracy theories about the moon landings but they have both maintained this story as what they both heard. I always thought those stories were just covers for intelligence operations - which seemed more feasible. I just think the moon landings were a pretty amazing achievement.
People will just hate the people who make it, no matter how intrinsically interesting it is or how much benefit it can provide in other areas of society.
Bye bye freedom to walk anywhere and not be geolocated by a fucking computer with some exif data. They must be licking their lips for the amount of association data they can mine with people using this technology.
We could call it 'getting facefucked' and the cameras could now squirt semen in people's face to complete the experience.
The fact that even less people understand the difference between the non-weapon grade Pu238, and the weapon grade Pu239/Pu241. For them, it's Pu, so it's bad.
No one is afraid of an RTG turning into a bomb. However it is launched, int space, by a carefully contained bomb igniting in a controlled manner. Even the particulate matter from u-238 (roughly a killo IIRC) introduced into the environment from an exploding launch vehicle is far from benign.
Besides I'm unclear if the RTG was justified for this mission mass or duration wise.
a HUGE part of the problem is in domestic nuclear industry that isn't replacing plants far past their operational lifetime with the newer and MUCH safer designs, since that would cost real money and the stockholders want that to be reexamined next quarter, after they sell.
Unfortunately AP-1000 doesn't offer much in the way of improvements, EPR is a better design however it should really be a combination of the best from both of them. New Russian reactors have significant design advances also.
And short. Greed and stupidity on both sides...
Which is the problem, design improvements aren't there to make the reactor better, they're there to make it cheaper.
Actually the amount of cases of thyroid cancer recorded was around 25,000 6 years after Chernobyl and climbing before the funding was cut for the research. It's difficult to wrap your head around because it happens so slowly, you almost have to accelerate time to understand it in context however I have very little doubt that future generations will hate us for what we have done now.
The real kicker though is the pu-239, leukemia and lung cancer are the primary cancers from that element and no one has recorded data on that.
As an aside though, I've got no problem with using RTG in space however I think the mass may have introduced all sorts of complications. The other thing is that I don't think that the mission was of sufficient duration to justify a RTG.
It's unlikely to ever get much higher in a verifiable way. How will we ever know? You can say that this or that cancer is most likely caused by irradiation or ingestion of some isotope that could only come from the incident, but it's rarely that cut and dried.
Collect the data, over the long term, continuously and never stop doing so. Capture widespread information about which radio isotopes are released, understand the elements that in analogues and then look for the statistical changes in the types of cancers those radio isotopes produce.
Perhaps if intelligence services weren't gathering so much domestic intelligence on the taxpayers who fund them and, if citizens could rely on public oversights with enough teeth to ensure that the intelligence powers were being used ethically then there wouldn't be a motivation for leaks.
However there isn't and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
While a coal, nuclear or gas plant can hit utilization rates of 90 - 99%
I'm curious how you arrive at this figure. You are implying that a Nuclear reactor is utilized for 99% of its lifetime which can't be true simply because of the Availability of the plant when it is being refueled and serviced pushes that figure well below 99%.
How do you arrive at a 99% utilization rate for a Nuclear Reactor?
Hate to tell you, but you're stereotyping...Most people in support of drastic intervention fail to grasp that we have no real alternative to fossil fuels in the pipe.
Ok, this looks like a stereotype to me.
Furthermore, renewables research isn't moving fast enough for their sensibilities, and they tend to overestimate the possibility of an imminent solution.
So if renewable research isn't moving fast enough how can there be an imminent solution. From what I see there is plenty of renewable technology available and that, even in its infancy it is disrupting the status quo. When a disruptive new player comes to an established market it is not inconceivable for them to use a number of disinformation tactics to maintain their profit margins, regardless of the consequences.
A very common aversion to nuclear power alongside global warming extremism just puts in the last nail. We should go nuclear. That would fix carbon emissions.
This is the very point of the article, that people can't process abstract threats like radionuclide poisoning of the food chain and bio-accumulation of these toxic elements.
It is a common myth that it would fix carbon emissions, however the real discussion is it trades a carbon externality for a radio isotope externality. Peer reviewed science on the subject shows that there are many issues that have to be addressed before a net energy return is provided and that means it may not ween us of carbon based energy as many people expect.
In essence, we would just have another problem to deal with.
Most warming interventionists don't want that either.
Still, I'm glad the renewables research is happening. Fossil fuels are decidedly finite. So is nuclear. We need a means to survive, I'm just doubtful that we need to flail about with solutions that may cause more harm than good.
The problem here is money. The energy establishment is the most established player and they really don't have 'the future of humanity' listed as a profitability goal - because long term vision is rare. Nuclear could be good if the solutions to its problems were implemented. Notice I say 'implemented' because the problems have been solved however the costs to implement them into reactor designs and roll them out is deemed 'not cost effective'. Again long term vision is rare.
Sincerely,
Not anti-science, not a creationist, never owned a gun, am very good with math, and independent as far as political leanings go. Don't stuff me into your box. Thanks.
I'm not anti-nuclear either, but if you want a long term solution you have to look at these industries as a whole and solve the issues, not just shroud them with doubt the way the coal industry does.
But isn't it meant to be Congresses job to know what the government is doing.
You'll have to forgive if this comment is in ignorance, I'm from a country with the Westminster system where the parliament is meant to know what various agencies are up to.
It seems that politicians jobs now are to launch into ridiculous amounts of rhetoric, deceive the population in a way that makes us feel like idiots when we finally figure out whatever agenda was being rolled out and then high five each other when it passes.
I'm from a Westminster system country too, however it was never designed for a two party system and the original purpose of evolving a nations laws seems to have been subverted to shackling the population of the entire western world to debt and a new form of slavery.
The new low is that the actual text of the bill is being kept under lock and key.
The text of the bill is not secret, because there is no bill. There are only preliminary drafts, that are still under negotiation. When/if a final agreement is reached, it will be submitted to congress for approval, and will not be secret.
Yes, that's true. Usually it will pan out like this. A 3000 page bill is presented to the House. Some Urgent! reason is invented for a fast track through the house before it can be properly evaluated and they pass it. You HAVE to read it to understand what it is then you have to analyze it for what it will do. It is a lot of work but it has to be done.
Politician don't take people seriously if they don't get letters making sure the politicians know what you expect of them and that it will cost them votes if they force is on people. Apathy is and always has been the enemy of western political stability and even Franklin himself said of the constitution 'for all its flaws' IIRC would not protect the US from slipping into despotism. The TPP sure looks like pretty good way to start a slide.
People died to earn the rights we have now and its sad to see people just pissing them away as if they are nothing because people don't understand how to use them, how they came to be or why they're important. You can't blame people because it was achieved by carefully de-educating the population and aggregating the sources of news into a few manageable mega-outlets.
The audacity of these people to chase the very legal core of all western nations makes me wonder where your morals must be to participate in such an activity, which is really just a robbery of rights for capital. That's not Capitalism any more, it's Corporatism dressed in its finest deceptive cowardice come to steal the common good and make it a slave, for life.
Will we get any protection from this domestic enemy? No - you'll be labelled as it.
Dennis Hastert was one of the most powerful people in America, 2nd in line to the presidency. During that time, he did nothing to reform these abusive reporting laws, or do much of anything else to protect common citizens from government power. So it is hard to feel sympathy for someone victimized by a system that they helped to create.
It's true and you are right however you should remember that the way to judge a society is by how they treat their most despised. I suspect that these event are the cracks that show before everything falls apart for him as natural justice does what formal justice won't.
You can see the parameters, the cost of Price-Anderson covering them in the event of a catastrophic accident beyond the minimums is not covered.
The availability of the reactor, the impact of increased energetic inputs to produce the fuel are limited to $600 and reactor disposal cost would be would be a good addition especially considering the 'reactor economic lifetime' is there.
I can think of two interesting modifications. The first would be to show the energetic costs as input vs output that factors the above but also allows for increasing the reactor lifetime beyond 100 years. That way you could explore things like 'what is the impact on cost if we built the entire reactor underground'?
The second would be to use it on different reactor technologies so you can ask, 'how much energy in, cost of an underground IFR that is disposed of with the reactor in place', what are the static costs of setting up burner reprocessing underground vs Thorium reactors that have the very nasty Thallium 233 (IIRC) as a spent fuel product. Of course factoring the availability of U-238 as a fuel would be interesting too.
Enrichment is factored however it excludes the cost impact of CFC114 on atmospheric oxygen production which is quite a serious issue vs using Ultracentrifuge technology that eliminates that issue.
I'm still getting a few referrals from time to time.
I only ever mined Dogecoins months ago, I was way too late in the game to mine Bitcoins.
Totally agree, I did it a few years ago to try it out however once I calculated electricity costs and having to buy and update asics all the time, it didn't look like a game you could profit from.
Either you have skills or energy to negotiate as the value you bring to an organization. If you are a capitalist then that is the capital you have to work with.
If you are less experienced you are trading your time to develop skills, if you are more experienced you are trading your skills for more time.
Yeah surely the fact that medical bills constitute the largest single source of bankruptcy in this country, even with most of those people having medical insurance, is proof that people fucked up spending too much. Those idiots shouldn't have gotten hit by a drunk driver, or sick, or hurt...
I think that it is one of the things that corporate America can do to ensure that American people always conduct a negotiation with a disadvantage in the U.S.
In one job that I took, there was the initial lowball offer, which I laughed off and said "No, really, we both know that is a low-ball value, try again". Their second offer was a bit better but still below prevailing wages.
When I was in a similar situation I changed the game by saying I would be happy to work for 4 days a weeks at that rate and would accept the role on that basis. I didn't care what the answer was because I was already employed and the extra time I would simply dedicate to additional income streams.
Your negotiation is even more compelling when both parties get what they want, it's called a win-win situation and the one time when it isn't a cliche.
This.... because for some ridiculous reason, the salary for your next job is based upon the salary of your current or previous job. Whenever I get called by a recruiter for a position I'm semi-serious about, they undoubtedly ask me what my current salary is so they can base my future salary on it. I always lie lie and lie some more up to the point of what I think their position is worth.
Don't lie, just say 'it's confidential'. A reason will be challenged, to challenge confidentiality an inquiry first has to broach the reason for the confidentiality before they get to the answer. The answer to why it is confidential is 'it's confidential and I can't breach confidentiality agreements'. See no lying required.
Every single IT person should be negotiating salaries UP, all the time. There should never be downward salary pressure on skilled I.T staff. Please take note of this people starting in IT, you may not be very skilled now however as you get older you will be. Remember that any agism you encounter or practice is effectively a cap on your salary in the future.
IT work is hard, don't forget that. Make employers pay for either your energy OR your skills.
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting to note that some of Disney's most well-known films are based on public domain works, while Disney has been one of the biggest factors in eliminating the public domain altogether.
can you open that up for us? I wasn't aware of this, and would appreciate a short schooling session
Mr AC is referring to many of the Disney stories being old European stories that were in the public domain. They used those stories in many of their works - I don't know which ones.
Ok so this is completely anecdotal from some people in my family who watched it in Australia. They watched/listened to it live off the feed from Parkes and a bit after the Eagle landed they heard a very excited Armstrong say: "Huston, Huston, There is something large and unusually* white coming off the crater ri..." and then the feed was cut.
* could have also been suspiciously.
Personally, I don't go in for the whole UFO thing or conspiracy theories about the moon landings but they have both maintained this story as what they both heard. I always thought those stories were just covers for intelligence operations - which seemed more feasible. I just think the moon landings were a pretty amazing achievement.
I just realized, the drone streaming video is reality TV for the military and it's a hit!!
Imagine the commercial breaks!!
People will just hate the people who make it, no matter how intrinsically interesting it is or how much benefit it can provide in other areas of society.
We could call it 'getting facefucked' and the cameras could now squirt semen in people's face to complete the experience.
The fact that even less people understand the difference between the non-weapon grade Pu238, and the weapon grade Pu239/Pu241. For them, it's Pu, so it's bad.
No one is afraid of an RTG turning into a bomb. However it is launched, int space, by a carefully contained bomb igniting in a controlled manner. Even the particulate matter from u-238 (roughly a killo IIRC) introduced into the environment from an exploding launch vehicle is far from benign.
Besides I'm unclear if the RTG was justified for this mission mass or duration wise.
a HUGE part of the problem is in domestic nuclear industry that isn't replacing plants far past their operational lifetime with the newer and MUCH safer designs, since that would cost real money and the stockholders want that to be reexamined next quarter, after they sell.
Unfortunately AP-1000 doesn't offer much in the way of improvements, EPR is a better design however it should really be a combination of the best from both of them. New Russian reactors have significant design advances also.
And short. Greed and stupidity on both sides...
Which is the problem, design improvements aren't there to make the reactor better, they're there to make it cheaper.
That's a statistic I'd find hard to believe.
Actually the amount of cases of thyroid cancer recorded was around 25,000 6 years after Chernobyl and climbing before the funding was cut for the research. It's difficult to wrap your head around because it happens so slowly, you almost have to accelerate time to understand it in context however I have very little doubt that future generations will hate us for what we have done now.
The real kicker though is the pu-239, leukemia and lung cancer are the primary cancers from that element and no one has recorded data on that.
As an aside though, I've got no problem with using RTG in space however I think the mass may have introduced all sorts of complications. The other thing is that I don't think that the mission was of sufficient duration to justify a RTG.
It's unlikely to ever get much higher in a verifiable way. How will we ever know? You can say that this or that cancer is most likely caused by irradiation or ingestion of some isotope that could only come from the incident, but it's rarely that cut and dried.
Collect the data, over the long term, continuously and never stop doing so. Capture widespread information about which radio isotopes are released, understand the elements that in analogues and then look for the statistical changes in the types of cancers those radio isotopes produce.
Use the shell. You can even encapsulate it in the device.
For FUCK sake LEAVE us ALONE. Your supposed to be the countries foundation, not our overloads - fuck off.
Perhaps if intelligence services weren't gathering so much domestic intelligence on the taxpayers who fund them and, if citizens could rely on public oversights with enough teeth to ensure that the intelligence powers were being used ethically then there wouldn't be a motivation for leaks.
However there isn't and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
While a coal, nuclear or gas plant can hit utilization rates of 90 - 99%
I'm curious how you arrive at this figure. You are implying that a Nuclear reactor is utilized for 99% of its lifetime which can't be true simply because of the Availability of the plant when it is being refueled and serviced pushes that figure well below 99%.
How do you arrive at a 99% utilization rate for a Nuclear Reactor?
Hate to tell you, but you're stereotyping...Most people in support of drastic intervention fail to grasp that we have no real alternative to fossil fuels in the pipe.
Ok, this looks like a stereotype to me.
Furthermore, renewables research isn't moving fast enough for their sensibilities, and they tend to overestimate the possibility of an imminent solution.
So if renewable research isn't moving fast enough how can there be an imminent solution. From what I see there is plenty of renewable technology available and that, even in its infancy it is disrupting the status quo. When a disruptive new player comes to an established market it is not inconceivable for them to use a number of disinformation tactics to maintain their profit margins, regardless of the consequences.
A very common aversion to nuclear power alongside global warming extremism just puts in the last nail. We should go nuclear. That would fix carbon emissions.
This is the very point of the article, that people can't process abstract threats like radionuclide poisoning of the food chain and bio-accumulation of these toxic elements.
It is a common myth that it would fix carbon emissions, however the real discussion is it trades a carbon externality for a radio isotope externality. Peer reviewed science on the subject shows that there are many issues that have to be addressed before a net energy return is provided and that means it may not ween us of carbon based energy as many people expect.
In essence, we would just have another problem to deal with.
Most warming interventionists don't want that either.
Still, I'm glad the renewables research is happening. Fossil fuels are decidedly finite. So is nuclear. We need a means to survive, I'm just doubtful that we need to flail about with solutions that may cause more harm than good.
The problem here is money. The energy establishment is the most established player and they really don't have 'the future of humanity' listed as a profitability goal - because long term vision is rare. Nuclear could be good if the solutions to its problems were implemented. Notice I say 'implemented' because the problems have been solved however the costs to implement them into reactor designs and roll them out is deemed 'not cost effective'. Again long term vision is rare.
Sincerely,
Not anti-science, not a creationist, never owned a gun, am very good with math, and independent as far as political leanings go. Don't stuff me into your box. Thanks.
I'm not anti-nuclear either, but if you want a long term solution you have to look at these industries as a whole and solve the issues, not just shroud them with doubt the way the coal industry does.
But isn't it meant to be Congresses job to know what the government is doing.
You'll have to forgive if this comment is in ignorance, I'm from a country with the Westminster system where the parliament is meant to know what various agencies are up to.
It seems that politicians jobs now are to launch into ridiculous amounts of rhetoric, deceive the population in a way that makes us feel like idiots when we finally figure out whatever agenda was being rolled out and then high five each other when it passes.
I'm from a Westminster system country too, however it was never designed for a two party system and the original purpose of evolving a nations laws seems to have been subverted to shackling the population of the entire western world to debt and a new form of slavery.
The new low is that the actual text of the bill is being kept under lock and key.
The text of the bill is not secret, because there is no bill. There are only preliminary drafts, that are still under negotiation. When/if a final agreement is reached, it will be submitted to congress for approval, and will not be secret.
Yes, that's true. Usually it will pan out like this. A 3000 page bill is presented to the House. Some Urgent! reason is invented for a fast track through the house before it can be properly evaluated and they pass it. You HAVE to read it to understand what it is then you have to analyze it for what it will do. It is a lot of work but it has to be done.
Politician don't take people seriously if they don't get letters making sure the politicians know what you expect of them and that it will cost them votes if they force is on people. Apathy is and always has been the enemy of western political stability and even Franklin himself said of the constitution 'for all its flaws' IIRC would not protect the US from slipping into despotism. The TPP sure looks like pretty good way to start a slide.
People died to earn the rights we have now and its sad to see people just pissing them away as if they are nothing because people don't understand how to use them, how they came to be or why they're important. You can't blame people because it was achieved by carefully de-educating the population and aggregating the sources of news into a few manageable mega-outlets.
The audacity of these people to chase the very legal core of all western nations makes me wonder where your morals must be to participate in such an activity, which is really just a robbery of rights for capital. That's not Capitalism any more, it's Corporatism dressed in its finest deceptive cowardice come to steal the common good and make it a slave, for life.
Will we get any protection from this domestic enemy? No - you'll be labelled as it.
That's kind of a creepy dynamic, that the government is your mommy or daddy or something. Ew!
Big Mother!
to turn anyone it wants into a felon!
Dennis Hastert was one of the most powerful people in America, 2nd in line to the presidency. During that time, he did nothing to reform these abusive reporting laws, or do much of anything else to protect common citizens from government power. So it is hard to feel sympathy for someone victimized by a system that they helped to create.
It's true and you are right however you should remember that the way to judge a society is by how they treat their most despised. I suspect that these event are the cracks that show before everything falls apart for him as natural justice does what formal justice won't.
You can see the parameters, the cost of Price-Anderson covering them in the event of a catastrophic accident beyond the minimums is not covered.
The availability of the reactor, the impact of increased energetic inputs to produce the fuel are limited to $600 and reactor disposal cost would be would be a good addition especially considering the 'reactor economic lifetime' is there.
I can think of two interesting modifications. The first would be to show the energetic costs as input vs output that factors the above but also allows for increasing the reactor lifetime beyond 100 years. That way you could explore things like 'what is the impact on cost if we built the entire reactor underground'?
The second would be to use it on different reactor technologies so you can ask, 'how much energy in, cost of an underground IFR that is disposed of with the reactor in place', what are the static costs of setting up burner reprocessing underground vs Thorium reactors that have the very nasty Thallium 233 (IIRC) as a spent fuel product. Of course factoring the availability of U-238 as a fuel would be interesting too.
Enrichment is factored however it excludes the cost impact of CFC114 on atmospheric oxygen production which is quite a serious issue vs using Ultracentrifuge technology that eliminates that issue.
My 2 cents
I'm still getting a few referrals from time to time.
I only ever mined Dogecoins months ago, I was way too late in the game to mine Bitcoins.
Totally agree, I did it a few years ago to try it out however once I calculated electricity costs and having to buy and update asics all the time, it didn't look like a game you could profit from.
Thanks!
If you are less experienced you are trading your time to develop skills, if you are more experienced you are trading your skills for more time.
Yeah surely the fact that medical bills constitute the largest single source of bankruptcy in this country, even with most of those people having medical insurance, is proof that people fucked up spending too much. Those idiots shouldn't have gotten hit by a drunk driver, or sick, or hurt...
I think that it is one of the things that corporate America can do to ensure that American people always conduct a negotiation with a disadvantage in the U.S.
In one job that I took, there was the initial lowball offer, which I laughed off and said "No, really, we both know that is a low-ball value, try again". Their second offer was a bit better but still below prevailing wages.
When I was in a similar situation I changed the game by saying I would be happy to work for 4 days a weeks at that rate and would accept the role on that basis. I didn't care what the answer was because I was already employed and the extra time I would simply dedicate to additional income streams.
Your negotiation is even more compelling when both parties get what they want, it's called a win-win situation and the one time when it isn't a cliche.
How to negotiate for a better salary.
This.... because for some ridiculous reason, the salary for your next job is based upon the salary of your current or previous job. Whenever I get called by a recruiter for a position I'm semi-serious about, they undoubtedly ask me what my current salary is so they can base my future salary on it. I always lie lie and lie some more up to the point of what I think their position is worth.
Don't lie, just say 'it's confidential'. A reason will be challenged, to challenge confidentiality an inquiry first has to broach the reason for the confidentiality before they get to the answer. The answer to why it is confidential is 'it's confidential and I can't breach confidentiality agreements'. See no lying required.
Every single IT person should be negotiating salaries UP, all the time. There should never be downward salary pressure on skilled I.T staff. Please take note of this people starting in IT, you may not be very skilled now however as you get older you will be. Remember that any agism you encounter or practice is effectively a cap on your salary in the future.
IT work is hard, don't forget that. Make employers pay for either your energy OR your skills.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) [goo.gl] and Dogecoins [goo.gl]
Just out of curiosity - are you still 'mining' for digital coins?