While the crap was still dribbling out, she unleashed a fire hose of
A friend of mine and I witnessed a 'bitch driver', in her convertible, swerving, dodging, cutting off and generally annoying people in heavy traffic come to a stop trapped right beside a cattle truck where a cow unleashed a similar fire hose of urine right onto said driver.
The tears of laughter from us and other drivers at her inability to escape the situation incapacitated us for some time after.
A large group of people in a circle pit resembles a bunch of molecules circling? I'll be damned.
Who'd have thought being a molecule in a disordered gas reaching equilibrium could be so much fun. It's a pity that many venues want to ban emergent behaviour.
I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.
How about you stop being an idiot and actually figure out the meaning of phrases first? Here's what turn the corner means:
tsk tsk, now, now
If your position had any integrity you would not have engaged me.
Defending myself from accusation is now proof that I don't have integrity?
What accusation? I reflected on my experiences of the quality of your past predictions. I see I've been "instructive" in encouraging the improvements below and I commend your effort, would you like me to score them?
I think I'll link this gem in the future in case I should have to deal with your bullshit.
By all means do. It shows what's required to get through your condescending sense of self importance, arrogance and pride. I don't have a problem with arrogance, per se, but when it comes without any information it's just an annoying "because you say so". In other words it's your tactics and you've had a taste of ones own medicine. So stop being an asshole, old chap.
to pass a critical point in a process
The dictionary above gives an example of its use.
The patient turned the corner last night. She should begin to show improvement now.
It doesn't meant the process is finished, merely that it has passed a significant threshold or milestone.
Yes, I know what it means, you were unclear with what you meant by it.
Here, the process is bringing four nuclear reactors eventually to a stable point, "cold shut down". If one looks at the first two weeks, there was a lot of crazy stuff going on, including three meltdowns, at least one fire in a fuel rod pool, two evacuations of all personnel from the site and a number of substantial releases of radioactivity into the air.
Since, the worst problem to the outside world has been the slow leaking of contaminated water from the site and steady progress towards that final stage, "cold shut down" was made to the point that all of the reactors achieved cold shut down by early last year. The critical point was passing the stage of emergency and great danger.
Finally an answer of sorts, even if it's two years late. Two weeks is a bit optimistic to gain control of the reactor and spent pools, considering that a normal controlled shutdown takes roughly four weeks to thermally cool, but not unreasonable to get some control over the "crazy stuff" of the disaster like fires, cooling and water flow. I'll accept your _retrospective_ explanation of this point is that two weeks to control the initial disaster is what you meant.
How the legitimate, inevitable pursuit of justice through the courts of the criminal negligence of TEPCO pans out, we will just have to wait and see how that pans out.
I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
Since there is the possibility that this could be highly instructive for you, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "failure". I think failure will be such things as bankruptcy, absence of any meaningful infrastructure built or technology acquired a
...or their staffs knew half as much about technology as the average teenager.
Whoever wrote the bill knows exactly what the intent of all this monitoring and exchange of data is for. And those people did another masterful job of training these elected buffoons to spout crap like "it's only ones and zeros" to divert attention from that intent.
Maybe someone should ask Rogers exactly what an alphabetic character looks like when it is transmitted across the internet. (My guess is that he doesn't care unless he's getting a campaign contribution as a reward for knowing that.)
Indeed, and wasting the time of those who do know and understand the ramifications. It seems we need a 'Anti-Stupid legislation Organisation' that monitors for this and responds accordingly.
p>On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. This is the history of your failure
As I said, this was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, specifically lacking in any accuracy or precision.
Did I say that Fukushima had achieved cold shut down way back in March, 2011? Of course not. The reactor was not out of control the day before the Prime Minister's alleged statement, but showed steady improvement for many months, all the way from the very point I noted. Hence, why my statement was correct.
You said nothing all your claims revolve around rhetoric. You applied vague statements to maximum effect. When you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" it meant nothing then and remained undefined. as demonstrated here;
I find it incredible that you can't figure out why the two facts, my prediction and the subsequent announcement by the Japanese Prime Minister are consistent. We'd expect, if we had "turned the corner" to eventually get an announcement of this sort. And we did.
Like all of your purposely banal statements you attempt to mould them later saying "this is what I really meant" and then claim you were right all along. When you were asked to clarify what your statement meant, you never defined them. Attempting to claim your statement as correct highlights you are unable to accept that the onus for the failure to communicate your message is on you for failing to provide any specificity. You may as well say you were correct about, something?
Further, we'd expect such an announcement to be rather long in coming merely because it takes a while for a reactor to cool down due to the presence of isotopes with half lives longer than a few hours. In other words, the correctness of my position can't be determined merely on this basis - and you should know that.
I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
So what? The point of this debate isn't to surprise you, but to enlighten you.
For it to be a true debate their has to be equivalence, where you counter the fact I present with fact - you never have been able to do that. Debating you is remarkably like debating a two year old, where you are the two year old and I am the adult you are attempting to manipulate. Entertaining for a while, but ultimately, tedious. On the upside it is excellent practise for the patience required to deal with the suborn dogma of those with an inept argument.
You know who else has problems keeping their stories straight? Liars. Also during that discussion, you brought up six points which I helpfully demolished [slashdot.org] for you. Some of these were also misrepresentations of news articles. So you have a history of twisting the truth.
As evidenced, you're doing fine, any new facts presented to you would simply be a waste of my time because you would simply do what you do, as you have again demonstrated. So why would I even waste my time dignifying you who cannot accept facts placed before them. Two years later and you still can't define what "turned a corner" means yet I'm supposed to find facts to counter an amorphous argument that you change to suit your mood. Your tactics are obvious.
Yet again you demonstrate the exact behaviour when you were asked to define what you meant by "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" and were wrong about. You were wrong about your statement on March 31 2001 and are still wrong. Your attempts to back pedal and present your failure as something else has, again, failed. However, you a
On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
Did I say that Fukushima had achieved cold shut down way back in March, 2011? Of course not. The reactor was not out of control the day before the Prime Minister's alleged statement, but showed steady improvement for many months, all the way from the very point I noted. Hence, why my statement was correct.
You said nothing. You applied vague statements to maximum effect. When you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" it meant nothing then and now. Like all of your purposely banal statements you attempt to mould them later saying "this is what I really meant" and then claim you were right all along. When you were asked to clarify what your statement meant, you never defined them. Attempting to claim your statement as correct highlights you are unable to accept that the onus for the failure to communicate your message is on you for failing to provide any specificity. You may as well say you were correct about, something?
As I said, this was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, specifically lacking in any accuracy or precision.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
So what? The point of this debate isn't to surprise you, but to enlighten you.
For it to be a true debate their has to be equivalence, where you counter the fact I present with fact - you never have been able to do that. Debating you is remarkably like debating a two year old, where you are the two year old and I am the adult you are attempting to manipulate. Entertaining for a while, but ultimately, tedious. On the upside it is excellent practise for the patience required to deal with the suborn dogma of those with an inept argument.
Yet again you demonstrate the exact behaviour when you were asked to define what you meant by "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" and were wrong about. You were wrong about your statement on March 31 2001 and are still wrong. Your attempts to back pedal and present your failure as something else has, again, failed. However, you are an exceptionally talented bullshitter and observing your expertise at bullshitting is enlightening.
But so you are unable to claim you are confused about which of your, low quality, predictions I am talking about, here it is;
I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
A reasonable person would have granted that my prediction was right and moved on. Yet it is still being contested. You long ago lost this fight.
So says you, who has have already admitted you were wrong.
That you see this as win/lose demonstrates the priority for you in these discussions has always been your ego. It's the facts you've been arguing against, not me. The thread shows you present no fact, no information, demonstrate no understanding of the facts and, therefore, the ramifications. More so that the thread wasn't about your "prediction" it was showing how;
Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry FAILED to apply itself to learning the lessons of safety from Chernobyl.
Launching your ad-hominem attacks in the beginning of the thread demonstrated you had no argument. Even now you try to claim your vaguely made statements as "accurate prediction" which has taken almost two years to clarify exactly what you meant by them. Your position, there and here, remains rhetoric.
What is there to be specific about? We already have linked the relevant posts from the past almost two years. One merely needs to read those to get both the exact details of my prediction and the depth of the perfidy and delusion to which you stooped in response.
On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
This was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, you were the one who brought up the past argument. Any person with a shred of humility would have let it go. Evidently our previous encounters have affected you greatly.
As far as I'm concerned, this is over.
Well it certainly looks that way for the Nuclear Industry in Japan and many other places.
Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
So sure, I've made a bunch of predictions, but my record there looks pretty good.
So does your capacity for self delusion as anyone actually reading those threads will discover your arguments comprehensively destroyed with facts referenced from The World Nuclear Association and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. It says a lot that you now say you are correct when back then you admitted:
Your consistently fumbling, clumsy arguments really reveal that you have always been way out of your depth on this issue, You were wrong about when the reactor would be controlled, wrong about the seawall, ignorant of the operational parameters of the GE Mk1 reactor's basis design issues, wrong about the spent fuel pools, made up arguments that were refuted with *facts* from those organisations. Now you demonstrate your predictability as it is not the first time you have attempted to convert a memory of failure into one of success based on retrospective observations. Now you attempt to smear the work of those organisations in an attempt to restore your ego. Pathetic.
Still, I predict we will see many more vague nondescript statements from Dr Khallow that lack any specifics and are utterly banal. Specifically, I predict that Dr Khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
I've been entertained by how wrong your predictions were in the past. It's a remarkably vague comment for which you are sure to be right. If this is the specificity of your professional predictions then you have a quality control issue.
So are you implying that we can squander any amount of money up to $35 billion and it's okay with you?
Evergreen Solar ($25 million)
SpectraWatt ($500,000)
Solyndra ($535 million)
Beacon Power ($43 million)
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)
A123 Systems ($279 million)
oh please, this is chicken feed compared to the money that has been wasted on the existing energy industries. What do you expect an entirely new energy production method, entering a market worth trillions for dollars is not going to burn start-ups and attract people trying to get rich?
What you neatly summarise in two words would require renewable energy supplies to be in place and take 100 years to engineer properly because the current nuclear industry and fossil fuel industry are simply no longer viable, especially in the next 100 years.
It's for that reason I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations, the way a carbon legacy was forced on our generation.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box.
I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. It entails redesigning the entire industry, and it's a long term solution. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit becau
...the opinion I got from many management types were Perl was just a little too clever.
Simple addition is too clever for your average management type.
However, good management allows you to focus on the problems at hand while they deal with the organisational politics and procedural issues that stop you from getting anything done.
...the opinion I got from many management types were Perl was just a little too clever. Personally though, I find the challenge of crafting regular expressions interesting puzzles to solve, just like a more geeky crosswords. I'm better at sed and awk than with all that Perl has to offer but I found a similar scenarios. Even though the solutions look succinct, neat and, apparent to you the problems worth solving to the limit of your understanding could not be maintained by people without it. Unfortunately few people want to put the mental effort into gaining the understanding, which is what the problem is for Perl.
I like Perl, I'm just not very good at its subtilties yet, but when I get there I'll probably be another fan like many are. Perl's glory days aren't behind it, it just takes a lot longer to appreciate what Perl offers.
So much for biggest song contest. I don't doubt there is *a* metric by which it's the biggest, but this didn't spring to mind when I read the headline.
one and a half million people voted. Is there a bigger song contest put there?
The Eurovision.
Yeah, but the Eurovision is for people with talent.
Not being familiar with the music is one thing, but if you have never even heard of Kanye West then you're not paying any attention to music whatsoever.
You should check out The Black Keys. Not only are they on this list so you could feel a little more in touch, they make music that could have come from the 70s.
hahah - that's great, I like em both actually. I've never been "in touch" and neither are you because your posting to me on slashdot - which crack me up more because you're an AC and probably moderating.
no, I only know what I like. I lost count of how many concerts I'd been to at 50 when I was in my late teens and I still see heaps of bands with all the other people that don't know what "in touch" means. Them crooked vulture, Mars volta, You am I, Bluejuice, Sneaky sound system, dizzy rascal. Thanks for trying though got any other suggestions?
Slashdot Mirror
All Your Organs Are Belong To Us.
While the crap was still dribbling out, she unleashed a fire hose of
A friend of mine and I witnessed a 'bitch driver', in her convertible, swerving, dodging, cutting off and generally annoying people in heavy traffic come to a stop trapped right beside a cattle truck where a cow unleashed a similar fire hose of urine right onto said driver.
The tears of laughter from us and other drivers at her inability to escape the situation incapacitated us for some time after.
thanks for the reminder.
A large group of people in a circle pit resembles a bunch of molecules circling? I'll be damned.
Who'd have thought being a molecule in a disordered gas reaching equilibrium could be so much fun. It's a pity that many venues want to ban emergent behaviour.
tsk tsk, now, now
What accusation? I reflected on my experiences of the quality of your past predictions. I see I've been "instructive" in encouraging the improvements below and I commend your effort, would you like me to score them?
By all means do. It shows what's required to get through your condescending sense of self importance, arrogance and pride. I don't have a problem with arrogance, per se, but when it comes without any information it's just an annoying "because you say so". In other words it's your tactics and you've had a taste of ones own medicine. So stop being an asshole, old chap.
Yes, I know what it means, you were unclear with what you meant by it.
Finally an answer of sorts, even if it's two years late. Two weeks is a bit optimistic to gain control of the reactor and spent pools, considering that a normal controlled shutdown takes roughly four weeks to thermally cool, but not unreasonable to get some control over the "crazy stuff" of the disaster like fires, cooling and water flow. I'll accept your _retrospective_ explanation of this point is that two weeks to control the initial disaster is what you meant.
How the legitimate, inevitable pursuit of justice through the courts of the criminal negligence of TEPCO pans out, we will just have to wait and see how that pans out.
You were lucky, we were told that 655360 was enough!
Metrosexual man, In the Nineties, heâ(TM)s everywhere and heâ(TM)s going shopping.
And he's wearing a watch.
Dood, it's 2013, who else do you think could have designed the Windows 8's Metrosexual interface interface?
...or their staffs knew half as much about technology as the average teenager.
Whoever wrote the bill knows exactly what the intent of all this monitoring and exchange of data is for. And those people did another masterful job of training these elected buffoons to spout crap like "it's only ones and zeros" to divert attention from that intent.
Maybe someone should ask Rogers exactly what an alphabetic character looks like when it is transmitted across the internet. (My guess is that he doesn't care unless he's getting a campaign contribution as a reward for knowing that.)
Indeed, and wasting the time of those who do know and understand the ramifications. It seems we need a 'Anti-Stupid legislation Organisation' that monitors for this and responds accordingly.
As I said, this was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, specifically lacking in any accuracy or precision.
Did I say that Fukushima had achieved cold shut down way back in March, 2011? Of course not. The reactor was not out of control the day before the Prime Minister's alleged statement, but showed steady improvement for many months, all the way from the very point I noted. Hence, why my statement was correct.
You said nothing all your claims revolve around rhetoric. You applied vague statements to maximum effect. When you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" it meant nothing then and remained undefined. as demonstrated here;
I find it incredible that you can't figure out why the two facts, my prediction and the subsequent announcement by the Japanese Prime Minister are consistent. We'd expect, if we had "turned the corner" to eventually get an announcement of this sort. And we did.
Like all of your purposely banal statements you attempt to mould them later saying "this is what I really meant" and then claim you were right all along. When you were asked to clarify what your statement meant, you never defined them. Attempting to claim your statement as correct highlights you are unable to accept that the onus for the failure to communicate your message is on you for failing to provide any specificity. You may as well say you were correct about, something?
Further, we'd expect such an announcement to be rather long in coming merely because it takes a while for a reactor to cool down due to the presence of isotopes with half lives longer than a few hours. In other words, the correctness of my position can't be determined merely on this basis - and you should know that.
I do, and that it is utterly ridiculous to claim that in 14 days it "turned a corner" - and I repeat - whatever that means.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
So what? The point of this debate isn't to surprise you, but to enlighten you.
For it to be a true debate their has to be equivalence, where you counter the fact I present with fact - you never have been able to do that. Debating you is remarkably like debating a two year old, where you are the two year old and I am the adult you are attempting to manipulate. Entertaining for a while, but ultimately, tedious. On the upside it is excellent practise for the patience required to deal with the suborn dogma of those with an inept argument.
You know who else has problems keeping their stories straight? Liars. Also during that discussion, you brought up six points which I helpfully demolished [slashdot.org] for you. Some of these were also misrepresentations of news articles. So you have a history of twisting the truth.
As evidenced, you're doing fine, any new facts presented to you would simply be a waste of my time because you would simply do what you do, as you have again demonstrated. So why would I even waste my time dignifying you who cannot accept facts placed before them. Two years later and you still can't define what "turned a corner" means yet I'm supposed to find facts to counter an amorphous argument that you change to suit your mood. Your tactics are obvious.
Yet again you demonstrate the exact behaviour when you were asked to define what you meant by "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" and were wrong about. You were wrong about your statement on March 31 2001 and are still wrong. Your attempts to back pedal and present your failure as something else has, again, failed. However, you a
On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
Did I say that Fukushima had achieved cold shut down way back in March, 2011? Of course not. The reactor was not out of control the day before the Prime Minister's alleged statement, but showed steady improvement for many months, all the way from the very point I noted. Hence, why my statement was correct.
You said nothing. You applied vague statements to maximum effect. When you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" it meant nothing then and now. Like all of your purposely banal statements you attempt to mould them later saying "this is what I really meant" and then claim you were right all along. When you were asked to clarify what your statement meant, you never defined them. Attempting to claim your statement as correct highlights you are unable to accept that the onus for the failure to communicate your message is on you for failing to provide any specificity. You may as well say you were correct about, something?
As I said, this was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, specifically lacking in any accuracy or precision.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
So what? The point of this debate isn't to surprise you, but to enlighten you.
For it to be a true debate their has to be equivalence, where you counter the fact I present with fact - you never have been able to do that. Debating you is remarkably like debating a two year old, where you are the two year old and I am the adult you are attempting to manipulate. Entertaining for a while, but ultimately, tedious. On the upside it is excellent practise for the patience required to deal with the suborn dogma of those with an inept argument.
Yet again you demonstrate the exact behaviour when you were asked to define what you meant by "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago" and were wrong about. You were wrong about your statement on March 31 2001 and are still wrong. Your attempts to back pedal and present your failure as something else has, again, failed. However, you are an exceptionally talented bullshitter and observing your expertise at bullshitting is enlightening.
But so you are unable to claim you are confused about which of your, low quality, predictions I am talking about, here it is;
I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
Except we flip two coins in Australia. If the RBA is only flipping one there will be hell to pay.
A reasonable person would have granted that my prediction was right and moved on. Yet it is still being contested. You long ago lost this fight.
So says you, who has have already admitted you were wrong.
That you see this as win/lose demonstrates the priority for you in these discussions has always been your ego. It's the facts you've been arguing against, not me. The thread shows you present no fact, no information, demonstrate no understanding of the facts and, therefore, the ramifications. More so that the thread wasn't about your "prediction" it was showing how;
Fukushima shows that the Nuclear Industry FAILED to apply itself to learning the lessons of safety from Chernobyl.
Launching your ad-hominem attacks in the beginning of the thread demonstrated you had no argument. Even now you try to claim your vaguely made statements as "accurate prediction" which has taken almost two years to clarify exactly what you meant by them. Your position, there and here, remains rhetoric.
What is there to be specific about? We already have linked the relevant posts from the past almost two years. One merely needs to read those to get both the exact details of my prediction and the depth of the perfidy and delusion to which you stooped in response.
On March 31 2001, you said "Wait a month and you'll see that we turned the corner about a week ago", whilst control of the reactor wasn't achieved until 16 December 2011 according to the Japanese Prime Minister. Yet, somehow, I'm the delusional one.
This was my experience of the "quality" of your predictions, you were the one who brought up the past argument. Any person with a shred of humility would have let it go. Evidently our previous encounters have affected you greatly.
As far as I'm concerned, this is over.
Well it certainly looks that way for the Nuclear Industry in Japan and many other places.
Specifically, I predict that Dr khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
As you've demonstrated, your response was entirely predictable.
So sure, I've made a bunch of predictions, but my record there looks pretty good.
So does your capacity for self delusion as anyone actually reading those threads will discover your arguments comprehensively destroyed with facts referenced from The World Nuclear Association and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. It says a lot that you now say you are correct when back then you admitted:
Turns out I was wrong. - khallow September 24 2011
Your consistently fumbling, clumsy arguments really reveal that you have always been way out of your depth on this issue, You were wrong about when the reactor would be controlled, wrong about the seawall, ignorant of the operational parameters of the GE Mk1 reactor's basis design issues, wrong about the spent fuel pools, made up arguments that were refuted with *facts* from those organisations. Now you demonstrate your predictability as it is not the first time you have attempted to convert a memory of failure into one of success based on retrospective observations. Now you attempt to smear the work of those organisations in an attempt to restore your ego. Pathetic.
Still, I predict we will see many more vague nondescript statements from Dr Khallow that lack any specifics and are utterly banal. Specifically, I predict that Dr Khallow will be unable to be specific about the prediction he has made in this thread.
However, if you want to see reckless then watch Armstrong navigate onto the moon in a tinfoil box.
Yeah but that was cool.
I think it'll be instructive to look back on this program at the ten year mark and see what actually happened or didn't happen as the case may be. I think by that time, the failure rate will be so pronounced, it'll be highly embarrassing for defenders.
I've been entertained by how wrong your predictions were in the past. It's a remarkably vague comment for which you are sure to be right. If this is the specificity of your professional predictions then you have a quality control issue.
So are you implying that we can squander any amount of money up to $35 billion and it's okay with you?
Evergreen Solar ($25 million) SpectraWatt ($500,000) Solyndra ($535 million) Beacon Power ($43 million) Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million) SunPower ($1.2 billion) First Solar ($1.46 billion) Babcock and Brown ($178 million) EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million) Amonix ($5.9 million) Fisker Automotive ($529 million) Abound Solar ($400 million) A123 Systems ($279 million)
oh please, this is chicken feed compared to the money that has been wasted on the existing energy industries. What do you expect an entirely new energy production method, entering a market worth trillions for dollars is not going to burn start-ups and attract people trying to get rich?
We either go nuclear and hope
What you neatly summarise in two words would require renewable energy supplies to be in place and take 100 years to engineer properly because the current nuclear industry and fossil fuel industry are simply no longer viable, especially in the next 100 years.
It's for that reason I actually support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations, the way a carbon legacy was forced on our generation.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box. I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. It entails redesigning the entire industry, and it's a long term solution. A well designed and secured facility resistant to attacks even from orbit becau
When's the last time you used duct tape on a duck?
but I s/t?$/k?$/
I would be worried if it were
s/d?{4}$/f$1/
you'd be quite restrained.
Simple addition is too clever for your average management type.
However, good management allows you to focus on the problems at hand while they deal with the organisational politics and procedural issues that stop you from getting anything done.
Where the hell have all the geeks and nerds gone? Maybe it is all over for Perl.
When's the last time you used duct tape on a duck?
but I s/t?$/k?$/
just usually not with perl...
I like Perl, I'm just not very good at its subtilties yet, but when I get there I'll probably be another fan like many are. Perl's glory days aren't behind it, it just takes a lot longer to appreciate what Perl offers.
the link is broken :-(
I always thought that anything you plugged into something that was measured in thousands of Megawatts ought to get pretty hot.
So much for biggest song contest. I don't doubt there is *a* metric by which it's the biggest, but this didn't spring to mind when I read the headline.
one and a half million people voted. Is there a bigger song contest put there?
The Eurovision.
Yeah, but the Eurovision is for people with talent.
Not being familiar with the music is one thing, but if you have never even heard of Kanye West then you're not paying any attention to music whatsoever.
You should check out The Black Keys. Not only are they on this list so you could feel a little more in touch, they make music that could have come from the 70s.
hahah - that's great, I like em both actually. I've never been "in touch" and neither are you because your posting to me on slashdot - which crack me up more because you're an AC and probably moderating.
no, I only know what I like. I lost count of how many concerts I'd been to at 50 when I was in my late teens and I still see heaps of bands with all the other people that don't know what "in touch" means. Them crooked vulture, Mars volta, You am I, Bluejuice, Sneaky sound system, dizzy rascal. Thanks for trying though got any other suggestions?