Nuclear technology as well as construction and information systems have improved dramatically each decade, so how is it that people can react to modern reactors as if they have no safety advantages over their retro-ancestors?
FYI; You should understand the economics of building a Nuclear reactor and you will find your answer. A brand new AP-1000 reactor has a lower thermal containment ratio than an older reactor, especially lower than one such as TMI. You should also understand that the Nuclear Industry did not implement it's own safety findings, roughly thirty of them, that would have dramatically improved safety as it increased the cost of building a reactor.
The perception that a modern reactor is safer is just that. Real safety improvements are those based on solid engineering principles for example the four trains concept in the EPR reactors, separating control rooms and most importantly, the reactor is underground.
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
Even if true, it still doesn't mean they valued profit over lives.
You asked;Enlighten us. Name that decision.
The question was;Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.
TEPCO wanted to be able to restart the reactor and risked a meltdown by not using the seawater option earlier. Had they valued lives more they would have used seawater immediately. I have enlightened you about the decision.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
In other words, Fukushima met specs, but new information came out a few years ago that indicated that the reactor's specs might not be sufficient. Abd of course the tsunami of last year demonstrated the specs were insufficient.
No, you are wrong again. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not understand the reactor, it's support systems and the interactions required to maintain the integrity of the reactor.
And I see you have yet to come up with an example of criminal negligence on the part of TEPCO. It's libel to make such claims in the absence of such evidence. Just saying that's what it is.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility.
With who? I explained things more than adequately. I was merely stating facts and there's no ambiguity in my words. I doubt I have lost credibility with anyone, including you.
Instead you try to justify the contradiction.
There's no contradiction. You are simply wrong here.
"As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
"The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative." - khallow
Only in your mind there is no contradiction here. I cannot even imagine the mental gymnastics you go through deluding yourself.
It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
So what makes you think Fukushima wasn't "held to spec"?
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
Even if true, it still doesn't mean they valued profit over lives.
You asked;Enlighten us. Name that decision.
The question was;Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.
TEPCO wanted to be able to restart the reactor and risked a meltdown by not using the seawater option earlier. Had they valued lives more they would have used seawater immediately. I have enlightened you about the decision.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
In other words, Fukushima met specs, but new information came out a few years ago that indicated that the reactor's specs might not be sufficient. Abd of course the tsunami of last year demonstrated the specs were insufficient.
No, you are wrong again. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not understand the reactor, it's support systems and the interactions required to maintain the integrity of the reactor.
And I see you have yet to come up with an example of criminal negligence on the part of TEPCO. It's libel to make such claims in the absence of such evidence. Just saying that's what it is.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility.
With who? I explained things more than adequately. I was merely stating facts and there's no ambiguity in my words. I doubt I have lost credibility with anyone, including you.
Instead you try to justify the contradiction.
There's no contradiction. You are simply wrong here.
"As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
"The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative." - khallow
Only in your mind there is no contradiction here. I cannot even imagine the mental gymnastics you go through deluding yourself.
It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
So what makes you think Fukushima wasn't "held to spec"?
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
Even if true, it still doesn't mean they valued profit over lives.
You asked;Enlighten us. Name that decision.
The question was;Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.
TEPCO wanted to be able to restart the reactor and risked a meltdown by not using the seawater option earlier. Had they valued lives more they would have used seawater immediately. I have enlightened you about the decision.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
In other words, Fukushima met specs, but new information came out a few years ago that indicated that the reactor's specs might not be sufficient. Abd of course the tsunami of last year demonstrated the specs were insufficient.
No, you are wrong again. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not understand the reactor, it's support systems and the interactions required to maintain the integrity of the reactor.
And I see you have yet to come up with an example of criminal negligence on the part of TEPCO. It's libel to make such claims in the absence of such evidence. Just saying that's what it is.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility.
With who? I explained things more than adequately. I was merely stating facts and there's no ambiguity in my words. I doubt I have lost credibility with anyone, including you.
Instead you try to justify the contradiction.
There's no contradiction. You are simply wrong here.
"As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
"The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative." - khallow
Only in your mind there is no contradiction here. I cannot even imagine the mental gymnastics you go through deluding yourself.
It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
So what makes you think Fukushima wasn't "held to spec"?
Those enrichment plants use gaseous diffusion, which is a very inefficient way of enriching uranium. Centrifuge enrichment is much more efficient and use less energy.
The only reason gaseous diffusion plants still operate is because the capital cost is paid off.
If SILEX enrichment, which is vastly more efficient yet again, is approved and deployed, maybe the gaseous diffusion plants can finally be shut.
Indeed, but it's the bearing technology that proves problematic with centrifuge enrichment. That's what surprised me about the Iranians, flaunting their bearing technology all over the media several years ago, you'd of thought that's best kept a secret.
Your claim above, for example, that they should have used sea water, just is a claim that they should have been more aggressive with cooling efforts than they were. However, it fails to demonstrate that things are even the slightest bit worse because they delayed making that choice.
It's not a bit flag khallow. Had they not delayed the degree of consequence may have been between a hydrogen explosion or not instead of a hydrogen explosion and the reactor melting down.
As an aside, you have yet to come up with an example of so-called "criminal negligence".
I don't have to come up with anything at your request. You haven't produced anything to back up you claims except reams of double speak and Dr khallow eschermind bullshit. I don't blame you for not being able to get you head around the magnitude of what is happening at Fukushima but the sheer arrogance of your ignorant claims means it's so entertaining to expose your bullshit.
You were wrong about when the reactor would be under control, you were wrong about the seawall, you were wrong about the earthquake exceeding reactor tolerances for ground acceleration.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
TEPCO decided to delay cooling the reactor with seawater as TEPCO knew it would mean they wouldn't be able to recover the reactor.
And that doesn't indicate that they valued lives over profit, but merely that they thought for a time that they could deal with the accident and recover use of the reactors. It didn't take long for them to change their mind.
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative.
Indeed, I'll quote you, "As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
Who here sees a contradiction? I don't. There was a specification for the plant which the plant met. In that sense, Fukushima was "held to spec".
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility. Instead you try to justify the contradiction. It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
BAS push a similar argument that Vattenfall does. If you were to look at the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" (In particular 4.3.2 pp. 269-270 "Nuclear Power", and also the summary graph Figure 4.19 on page 283, which compares the lifecycle CO2 emissions per unit energy of different primary source) you would find the conclusions reached in that chapter are based on Vattenfall and they build nuclear power plants so it's not surprising the results favor nuclear power. Whilst they are the best run nuclear reactors in the world and an example of what a *baseline* nuclear program should look like, U.S reactors fall dreadfully short.
The work of Vattenfall *and* Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, upon which that chapter cites as references, both use the same method to calculate energy consumption funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and are used in 80 odd industry sectors. The exceptionally detailed work of Dr Phillip Smith, Nuclear Physicist and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc) (Stormsmith.nl), who both work in the nuclear industry and have specialisation on energy system analysis, is mostly ignored in the IPCC report. They have no vested interest in the outcome whilst Vattenfall does.
Their criticisms of Vattenfall include "Process analysis leads to a large underestimation of the total construction energy requirements when labor and supporting activities of the construction are not included".
When considering the energy density of the enriched uranium isotope you find that Pressure Water Reactors use 0.3% of the available energy density. This brings us back to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the Net Energy Return of the Nuclear industry.
For example, for the expected 300TWh's output of a new AP-1000 (low side Vattenfall, high side Storm/Smith) energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh, energy cost for demolition around 55TWh to 70TWh, that's around a third before you start. Yet you still have to factor dismantling and clean up of the core alone 5.6TWh's - 16TWh's. They talk in Peta-joules but I've done the conversions to put it in a frame of reference that will be easier to understand.
Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enrichment you've consumed over 100TWhs without a 1/3 core refuel every ten years for forty and we haven't even factored energetic costs of a spent fuel containment facility or the logistics of moving spent fuel safely.
I'm not saying we shouldn't develop nuclear power plants as I think this is an essential step to dealing with Pu-239 and U-238 - but that's another conversation (also touched on by the IPCC in that chapter). The peer-reviewed data based on scientific approach to energy use calculation shows the energetic returns for PWR in this Nuclear Industry do not exist no matter how much carbon they displace and all that is happening is the IPCC is trading one externality (Carbon Dioxide) for another (Radioactive isotopes).
This is the reality anyone will uncover if you explore the subject of Nuclear Power.
The problem with the Nuclear power debate is that it is so polarised. As soon as you talk about solving it's problems your labeled as 'anti-nuclear' by the 'pro-nuclear' people for mentioning the problems and labeled as 'pro-nuclear' by the 'anti-nuclear' people for actually talking about a solution. Either way there seems to be little room for the responsible nuclear advocacy required to move the industry forward.
One thing that is not immediately obvious is that the primary greenhouse gas from the Nuclear industry is not Carbon Dioxide but Chlorinated Fluro-Carbons (CFC114) a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02. Whilst it's equivalent effect is slightly over 8 megatons of C02 (a conservative estimate per year since the bans on CFC began) more potent is the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer and it's eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon.
whilst the focus is on the negation of C02 it's important to recognise the systemic effect in the environment of the industrial compounds used to produce the fuel in the first place. Here are some quick quotes and links to understand Phytoplankton's role and susceptibility to ozone depletion;
However, in this case, inadequate preparation is the same as no preparation. The degree of consequence was the effect the tsunami had on the integrity of the reactor. Inadequate preparation still resulted in a disaster at Fukushima and Onagawa demonstrated that it was survivable with better preparation.
As we see from the outcome of the Fukushima accident, you are wrong here. "Disaster" is not a bit flag, but a matter of degree.
The degree of consequence. That is what I said. Agreeing with me doesn't mean I am wrong.
Again, the basis design issues of this series of reactor was well documented by GE and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The desired outcome was obvious, to avoid a situation where the reactor could melt down and to avoid losing a billion dollar reactor installation.
And when that can't be achieved, the reactor is designed to meltdown in a certain way so that it remains contained and can still be cooled by outside effort. That happened. Desired outcome too is not a bit flag that either is set or not.
So what, it failed in the way the design specified it would. It doesn't mean that the circumstances that allowed it to happen should have. But they arose through not following the specifications for operating the reactor. The only bit flag is; Fukushima reactors being operated in according to Design Criteria:False.
Seawall, backup generators or any other mitigation means so that they would comply with redundancy required to operate the reactor. As a result the degree of consequence or the scale of the disaster or the seriousness of the situation or the mass of the fuckup or the just plain old how hard the shit hit the fan is best measured by the International Nuclear Event Scale and fuckupshima is categorised as an INES level 7 event.
In other words, Pretty Fucken Bad or Thats a lot of shit, where did the fan go? or in the Giga Fuckup range or at least as bad as Chernobyl. I think the French Nuclear Authorities described the disaster as "apocolyptic", so don't try to convert a memory of failure into success.
What is clear is we maybe able to design the technology but, as TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima show, humans may not poses the organisational competence to operate it safely.
What is clear here is that they were doing what every board has been shown that it would do, even with regulatory guidelines, maximise profit. They took the risk and these are the consequences that have manifest. There was plenty of geological science available as opposed to using historical records. By saying that you just look like an apologist for the nuclear industry.
You have to also consider when that geological and historical knowledge was found out and understood, and the time lag involved in the nuclear regulatory bureaucracy. I get the impression that people believe it's an afternoon's work to go from a raw scientific paper indicating tsunami danger to actually making the decision to enlarge a sea wall and other preparation for a higher tsunami danger than previously expected. These thing take years to happen. For example, see how long it took the neighboring Tokai plant to do so.
All this does is confirm my point that the Nuclear Industry is run with profit as the operating mode as opposed to safety. NISA say that fourteen reactors at four sites (including Tokai) were affected with varying degrees of consequence. This indicates systemic failures and inaction, industry wide with no acceptable time frame for action.
I get the impression TEPCO found it cost effective to do nothing. Where is your evidence that TEPCO intended to perform any enhancements on the seawall? Everything I have seen or read shows TEPCO were ignoring this risk and where you doubted it was an issue before now you c
We do miracles in planetary exploration; making the Mars Rovers work is incomprehensible magic to ordinary people. Yet it doesn't get as much publicity as sending a few descendants of monkeys to where the air is thin.
There's pretty clear evidence that at least some managers of Japanese nuclear-power stations understood the tsunami danger and prepared for it.
They all did. And only one location had any trouble with tsunami. Inadequate preparation is not the same as no preparation.
No, as jc42 pointed out, a second location had a problem with the Tsunami and was down to a single backup power supply. Had it not been for the efforts of a single man pushing TEPCO management to improve the seawall it would have been worse.
However, in this case, inadequate preparation is the same as no preparation. The degree of consequence was the effect the tsunami had on the integrity of the reactor. Inadequate preparation still resulted in a disaster at Fukushima and Onagawa demonstrated that it was survivable with better preparation.
So the main questions should be: Why wasn't this understood by the entire management chain?
Understand what? Everyone understood that tsunami were dangerous and every ocean-side Japanese nuclear plant has sea walls or similar things for thwarting tsunami.
What they were supposed to understand was the consequences of the basis design issues that they had not prepared adequately for. The consequences of not maintaining power to the spent fuel pool gate pair seals and the pressure the reactor could sustain (70psi) before it started to vent hydrogen.
The same applies to the amount of water that should have been sustained above the spent fuel in the pools (450 tons) that would have maintained a safety margin of up to 40 days to perform repairs on the reactor. Unfortunately the backup generators were neatly packed together and on the ocean side of the reactor ensuring that they were the first thing hit by the tsunami.
As I have often said to you khallow, this is a case of criminal negligence, this report is another step in preparing ground for that action to be taken.
And what are they doing to make sure they're preparing for the next such disaster?
Everyone has always been preparing for the next disaster. Again, it's not a matter of if they're doing it, but whether such preparation is adequate or not. To give an example, we don't actually have that TEPCO's preparation for the Fukushima accident was inadequate given what was known prior to the accident.
What is clear here is that they were doing what every board has been shown that it would do, even with regulatory guidelines, maximise profit. They took the risk and these are the consequences that have manifest. There was plenty of geological science available as opposed to using historical records. By saying that you just look like an apologist for the nuclear industry.
We also need to have some desired level of outcome in order to agree on whether preparation is adequate. There's never going to be a zero probability of death from accident (even in the case where nuclear power is scuttled, the alternatives have their own risks).
Again, the basis design issues of this series of reactor was well documented by GE and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The desired outcome was obvious, to avoid a situation where the reactor could melt down and to avoid losing a billion dollar reactor installation.
While you probably are very aware of my points above, it remains that your language is inappropriate. The problem wasn't a lack of understanding of basic risks, but ignorance of the degree of the risk. Similarly, discussion of preparedness not only has to discuss what is being done to reduce risks, but also what level of risks are acceptable in the first place.
This discussion is not necessary because the requirements are spelled out for operating the reactor. The consequences of not adhering to the manufacturers requirem
No one is going out there except for the ".gov guys", because there is no immediate profit motive. Once the.gov guys have got it figured out (at public expense), the.com guys will go out there and extract the profit (for themselves). This is called "private enterprise". T'was ever thus. It's a big joke.
I think it makes sense the government building some of the highly specialised equipment like the crew module because NASA has the expertise in this area. The aviation giants pretty much have the rest of the market anyway, they will be the ones that fly humans beyond LEO.
It maybe an opportunity for smaller players to do supply missions that don't need to be human rated.
Lets not forget we are NOT talking about file compression here but audio Compression that adjusts the gain on an audio analogue input.
Leaving out the discussion of Ad loudness, I always marvel at the many different ways that compression can be used in audio production. It's so easy to get it wrong and I always give it a lot of attention when I produce audio. There is aart in it:-) and the thing about using compression right is not to crush the transients that give music dynamic range. It terms of an emotive response this is the difference between turning music up (because it's exciting to listen too) or down (because it's a compressed moosh of noise).
Talking Heads "Stop Making Sense" and Tool's "Anima" are great examples of compression used properly but even these recordings can be butchered by a crappy psychoacoustic file compression. I think the differences are what produce many differences of opinion on this subject. Waveforms such as crash cymbals and ambient sounds are generally ruined by this processing especially when it is close to a more significant transient sound. I do listen to a lot of music so I may be more sensitised to it than most but the lossy way mp3 (and other formats) makes me wonder when we will start to have a conversation about the quality of this form of compression.
It would be great to be able to start talking about the music again instead of the media.
Umm, no. What I said is that you are entitled to your opinions, not your own facts. If you think don't Australia is a racist country then that is your opinion. Whether you are right or wrong is simply someone else's opinion.
I understand that but the statement the troll said was "your country is known primarily for racism and government-led patent trolling". Australia certainly contains racist people but the definition of Australia as a racist country is not acceptable because our country protects equality by law. Discrimination in Australia is against the Law. I could no more accept that *primary* characterisation of Australia, as a Country, than I could of New Zealand, Canada, UK, US etc.
If you say Apartheid Africa was known as a racist Country, Nazi Germany etc then yes it's some thing that they were known for. It's because those things are against the law in Australia that the characterisation doesn't make sense as anything other than a troll, which it is. We certainly have more to do, like Immigration and Marriage equality and a Human Rights Charter but it's more than my opinion, it's a fact of law.
I didn't think Australia was all that racist until I travelled out west. It was a shock to me the way that people spoke (black & white people) of other races. It is my opinion that in the cities Australia is multicultural and quite tolerant, but in many (but not all) of the small country towns they party like it's 1912, not 2012.
This is a reasonable characterisation. It takes time and I think that one of the ways for our country to grow is to allow immigration to occur to country towns. They have a shortage of many of the types of Human Resources that good immigration policy could solve. I think that because they struggle so much it creates a Catch-22 situation of fear, that creates racism. But I have had similar experiences.
BTW, the Maori in NZ gained the right to vote in 1840 with the Treaty of Waitangi. From that point, Maori and Caucasion/Pakeha were all treated the same. If you needed to be a land owning man to vote, then race was irrelevant. When universal suffrage was granted in 1983, all men and women could vote in the national elections.
New Zealand has always been, as a primary characterisation, a strong advocate for Human Rights issues and is ahead of Australia in many respects. I have had many Maori friends over the years, one of my mates is an Islander, so yeah I completely recognise that Australia has followed New Zealand's lead there.
If an Australian colony (there were no states in the 1800s) gave the vote to all before NZ did, then that's great, but which was it (I'd like to read up on that history)?
I only said that because I was watching a documentary on women's suffrage and I'm sure it said 1857, I only watched it the night before. It was fascinating the political manuvering that went on, the last minute the conservative party amendments to the legislation that allowed white and aboriginal woman to not only vote but to stand for office because they thought no one would possibly vote for it, and they did, it passed into law.
I'm also certain that it said that South Australia was the first place in the world to achieve it. If I haven't recalled correctly it's on the ABC website somewhere, way to tired to find a link. I checked the wiki for South Australia and it said Official settlement began on 28 December 1836, when the colony was proclaimed at The Old Gum Tree by Governor John Hindmarsh.. - Cheers
Australia gave women the vote in 1902. New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893.South Australia gave women the vote in 1895. Aborigines had the vote in some states prior to Federation, but this was not universal until 1962.
Great, thanks for clearing that up.
You are full of wrong. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
So because I'm wrong does it mean that that Australia is a racist country? Some dickheads are, and if Australia was a racist country we wouldn't have the diversity of peoples we have. So thanks for pointing out my error in dates but it still shows that an Australian state was the first in the world to give Women and Aboriginals the right to vote including the right to stand for office, and that it was bloodless revolution.
It's not my fault that your country is known primarily for racism and government-led patent trolling.
Australia, in 1857, was the first country in the world to grant the vote to Women, indigenous people and allow them to stand for seats of parliament. There were no riots and no one died. So fuck you very much for your misguided and misinformed post.
Did they patent any of their wonderful 'discoveries' so that they could leech off of others for decades? Or did Australians not figure that scam out until later?
Australia got scammed out of royalties for plenty of things. A research paper on the photoconductivity properties of selenium, published in 1907 by Professor O U Vonwiller from the University of Sydney, provided the key technology for the subsequent invention of the xerographic process in the United States by Chester Carlston in 1937. The result was the Xerox copier.
Australia got scammed out of plenty of royalties and manufacturing jobs there.
Wifi: patented! For shame australia. I am legitimately disgusted.
For sure Patented because the research into fast fourier transform and echo cancellation were sufficiently costly that the CSIRO *should* collect royalties on it's inventions so it can make more technology inventions because that's what it does!!!, it's not gear towards profit. The CSIRO is a legitimate user of the patent system because it is using the patent system they way it is intended to be used, where the actual creator and developer of the technology is being paid for the work it has done and can fund more technology development.
It's really odd to you that "MS", an abbreviation that Microsoft itself uses, doesn't get the same attention as M$?
Boy, did you wake up on the wrong side of the smarts bed today.
MS has long been the abbreviation for Multiple Sclerosis. M$ has long been the abbreviation for Microsoft. I don't understand why it's such a big deal to call Microsoft by the long known abbreviation to some people.
Anyway I'm just glad that skype client for Linux has been updated - so thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
The TRS-80 model II was my very first computer, and I learned basic coding on it. I can't remember the language
Yes you can.
Absolutely friggin priceless sir!
Nuclear technology as well as construction and information systems have improved dramatically each decade, so how is it that people can react to modern reactors as if they have no safety advantages over their retro-ancestors?
FYI; You should understand the economics of building a Nuclear reactor and you will find your answer. A brand new AP-1000 reactor has a lower thermal containment ratio than an older reactor, especially lower than one such as TMI. You should also understand that the Nuclear Industry did not implement it's own safety findings, roughly thirty of them, that would have dramatically improved safety as it increased the cost of building a reactor.
The perception that a modern reactor is safer is just that. Real safety improvements are those based on solid engineering principles for example the four trains concept in the EPR reactors, separating control rooms and most importantly, the reactor is underground.
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
Even if true, it still doesn't mean they valued profit over lives.
You asked;Enlighten us. Name that decision.
The question was;Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.
TEPCO wanted to be able to restart the reactor and risked a meltdown by not using the seawater option earlier. Had they valued lives more they would have used seawater immediately. I have enlightened you about the decision.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
In other words, Fukushima met specs, but new information came out a few years ago that indicated that the reactor's specs might not be sufficient. Abd of course the tsunami of last year demonstrated the specs were insufficient.
No, you are wrong again. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not understand the reactor, it's support systems and the interactions required to maintain the integrity of the reactor.
And I see you have yet to come up with an example of criminal negligence on the part of TEPCO. It's libel to make such claims in the absence of such evidence. Just saying that's what it is.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility.
With who? I explained things more than adequately. I was merely stating facts and there's no ambiguity in my words. I doubt I have lost credibility with anyone, including you.
Instead you try to justify the contradiction.
There's no contradiction. You are simply wrong here.
"As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
"The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative." - khallow
Only in your mind there is no contradiction here. I cannot even imagine the mental gymnastics you go through deluding yourself.
It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
So what makes you think Fukushima wasn't "held to spec"?
I see you are lost again. So I'll remind you that it was me who pointed out to you that You are wrong about the facts of the earthquake being beyond the design basis for the reactor.
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
Even if true, it still doesn't mean they valued profit over lives.
You asked;Enlighten us. Name that decision.
The question was;Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.
TEPCO wanted to be able to restart the reactor and risked a meltdown by not using the seawater option earlier. Had they valued lives more they would have used seawater immediately. I have enlightened you about the decision.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
In other words, Fukushima met specs, but new information came out a few years ago that indicated that the reactor's specs might not be sufficient. Abd of course the tsunami of last year demonstrated the specs were insufficient.
No, you are wrong again. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not understand the reactor, it's support systems and the interactions required to maintain the integrity of the reactor.
And I see you have yet to come up with an example of criminal negligence on the part of TEPCO. It's libel to make such claims in the absence of such evidence. Just saying that's what it is.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility.
With who? I explained things more than adequately. I was merely stating facts and there's no ambiguity in my words. I doubt I have lost credibility with anyone, including you.
Instead you try to justify the contradiction.
There's no contradiction. You are simply wrong here.
"As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
"The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative." - khallow
Only in your mind there is no contradiction here. I cannot even imagine the mental gymnastics you go through deluding yourself.
It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
So what makes you think Fukushima wasn't "held to spec"?
I see you are lost again. So I'll remind you that it was me who pointed out to you that You are wrong about the facts of the earthquake being beyond the design basis for the reactor.
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
Even if true, it still doesn't mean they valued profit over lives.
You asked;Enlighten us. Name that decision.
The question was;Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.
TEPCO wanted to be able to restart the reactor and risked a meltdown by not using the seawater option earlier. Had they valued lives more they would have used seawater immediately. I have enlightened you about the decision.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
In other words, Fukushima met specs, but new information came out a few years ago that indicated that the reactor's specs might not be sufficient. Abd of course the tsunami of last year demonstrated the specs were insufficient.
No, you are wrong again. Yet again you demonstrate that you do not understand the reactor, it's support systems and the interactions required to maintain the integrity of the reactor.
And I see you have yet to come up with an example of criminal negligence on the part of TEPCO. It's libel to make such claims in the absence of such evidence. Just saying that's what it is.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility.
With who? I explained things more than adequately. I was merely stating facts and there's no ambiguity in my words. I doubt I have lost credibility with anyone, including you.
Instead you try to justify the contradiction.
There's no contradiction. You are simply wrong here.
"As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
"The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative." - khallow
Only in your mind there is no contradiction here. I cannot even imagine the mental gymnastics you go through deluding yourself.
It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
So what makes you think Fukushima wasn't "held to spec"?
I see you are lost again. So I'll remind you that it was me who pointed out to you that You are wrong about the facts of the earthquake being beyond the design basis for the reactor.
Those enrichment plants use gaseous diffusion, which is a very inefficient way of enriching uranium. Centrifuge enrichment is much more efficient and use less energy. The only reason gaseous diffusion plants still operate is because the capital cost is paid off.
If SILEX enrichment, which is vastly more efficient yet again, is approved and deployed, maybe the gaseous diffusion plants can finally be shut.
Indeed, but it's the bearing technology that proves problematic with centrifuge enrichment. That's what surprised me about the Iranians, flaunting their bearing technology all over the media several years ago, you'd of thought that's best kept a secret.
Your claim above, for example, that they should have used sea water, just is a claim that they should have been more aggressive with cooling efforts than they were. However, it fails to demonstrate that things are even the slightest bit worse because they delayed making that choice.
It's not a bit flag khallow. Had they not delayed the degree of consequence may have been between a hydrogen explosion or not instead of a hydrogen explosion and the reactor melting down.
As an aside, you have yet to come up with an example of so-called "criminal negligence".
I don't have to come up with anything at your request. You haven't produced anything to back up you claims except reams of double speak and Dr khallow eschermind bullshit. I don't blame you for not being able to get you head around the magnitude of what is happening at Fukushima but the sheer arrogance of your ignorant claims means it's so entertaining to expose your bullshit.
You were wrong about when the reactor would be under control, you were wrong about the seawall, you were wrong about the earthquake exceeding reactor tolerances for ground acceleration.
As I said to you in our previous conversation the evidence for seawall height increase was made available to TEPCO in 2004. The manufacturers specifications about operating S, B and C class facilities are well known as this is a popular reactor design. As this is investigated more closely I'm certain more questions will arise as the fact that they failed at all indicates negligence, the specifications are quite clear about the consequences and which basis design issues will be exposed.
It's not my problem if you do not posses sufficient comprehension skills to understand a specification and the consequences of not adhering to it. This is what the available evidence indicates has happened at Fukushima which is why an example is unnecessary when the facts speak quite clearly for themselves.
Whether this is officially recognised as criminal negligence in any subsequent investigation remains to be seen.
TEPCO decided to delay cooling the reactor with seawater as TEPCO knew it would mean they wouldn't be able to recover the reactor.
And that doesn't indicate that they valued lives over profit, but merely that they thought for a time that they could deal with the accident and recover use of the reactors. It didn't take long for them to change their mind.
Just long enough to allow the reactors to melt down.
The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative.
Indeed, I'll quote you, "As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough." - khallow.
Who here sees a contradiction? I don't. There was a specification for the plant which the plant met. In that sense, Fukushima was "held to spec".
You could have easily had said that you had learned things since your original statement and maintained some credibility. Instead you try to justify the contradiction. It's plain to see your arrogance has exposed more evidence that you are bullshitting, again. If you knew anything about how the "spec" for the GE MkI came about you would understand why it can't be "held to spec".
BAS push a similar argument that Vattenfall does. If you were to look at the IPCC 4th assessment report, working group 3, chapter 4 "Energy Supply" (In particular 4.3.2 pp. 269-270 "Nuclear Power", and also the summary graph Figure 4.19 on page 283, which compares the lifecycle CO2 emissions per unit energy of different primary source) you would find the conclusions reached in that chapter are based on Vattenfall and they build nuclear power plants so it's not surprising the results favor nuclear power. Whilst they are the best run nuclear reactors in the world and an example of what a *baseline* nuclear program should look like, U.S reactors fall dreadfully short.
The work of Vattenfall *and* Storm van Leeuwen and Smith, upon which that chapter cites as references, both use the same method to calculate energy consumption funded by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and are used in 80 odd industry sectors. The exceptionally detailed work of Dr Phillip Smith, Nuclear Physicist and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen (MSc) (Stormsmith.nl), who both work in the nuclear industry and have specialisation on energy system analysis, is mostly ignored in the IPCC report. They have no vested interest in the outcome whilst Vattenfall does.
Their criticisms of Vattenfall include "Process analysis leads to a large underestimation of the total construction energy requirements when labor and supporting activities of the construction are not included".
When considering the energy density of the enriched uranium isotope you find that Pressure Water Reactors use 0.3% of the available energy density. This brings us back to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the Net Energy Return of the Nuclear industry.
For example, for the expected 300TWh's output of a new AP-1000 (low side Vattenfall, high side Storm/Smith) energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh, energy cost for demolition around 55TWh to 70TWh, that's around a third before you start. Yet you still have to factor dismantling and clean up of the core alone 5.6TWh's - 16TWh's. They talk in Peta-joules but I've done the conversions to put it in a frame of reference that will be easier to understand.
Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enrichment you've consumed over 100TWhs without a 1/3 core refuel every ten years for forty and we haven't even factored energetic costs of a spent fuel containment facility or the logistics of moving spent fuel safely.
I'm not saying we shouldn't develop nuclear power plants as I think this is an essential step to dealing with Pu-239 and U-238 - but that's another conversation (also touched on by the IPCC in that chapter). The peer-reviewed data based on scientific approach to energy use calculation shows the energetic returns for PWR in this Nuclear Industry do not exist no matter how much carbon they displace and all that is happening is the IPCC is trading one externality (Carbon Dioxide) for another (Radioactive isotopes).
This is the reality anyone will uncover if you explore the subject of Nuclear Power.
The problem with the Nuclear power debate is that it is so polarised. As soon as you talk about solving it's problems your labeled as 'anti-nuclear' by the 'pro-nuclear' people for mentioning the problems and labeled as 'pro-nuclear' by the 'anti-nuclear' people for actually talking about a solution. Either way there seems to be little room for the responsible nuclear advocacy required to move the industry forward.
One thing that is not immediately obvious is that the primary greenhouse gas from the Nuclear industry is not Carbon Dioxide but Chlorinated Fluro-Carbons (CFC114) a greenhouse gas 20,000 times more potent than C02. Whilst it's equivalent effect is slightly over 8 megatons of C02 (a conservative estimate per year since the bans on CFC began) more potent is the destruction this compound causes to the ozone layer and it's eventual effect on Phytoplankton which creates more breathable oxygen than the Amazon.
whilst the focus is on the negation of C02 it's important to recognise the systemic effect in the environment of the industrial compounds used to produce the fuel in the first place. Here are some quick quotes and links to understand Phytoplankton's role and susceptibility to ozone depletion;
Overall, the production of oxygen in the oceans is at least equal to the production on land if not a bit more
Field studies indicate that photosynthesis is impaired first, followed by decreases in protein concentration and changes in pigment composition. As a result, a dramatic decrease in photosynthetic oxygen production can be measured after exposure to solar radiation
Or of course you could just go straight to UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMME: Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment. Sure it's over 10 years old, but that's roughly an extra 450,000 kilograms of CFC114 per year from enrichment operating, I don't imaging it's got any better.
The plant was held to spec. That was not an issue. I don't know why people insist on sticking to an erroneous narrative.
Indeed, I'll quote you, As I pointed out earlier, the specs for Fukushima were exceeded, but worked well enough. - khallow.
Instead, somebody who valued money over other peoples lives, decided to make a profitable decision instead of a safe one.
Enlighten us. Name that decision.
TEPCO decided to delay cooling the reactor with seawater as TEPCO knew it would mean they wouldn't be able to recover the reactor.
What can possibly go wrong? When nerds are involved? Wet pants!!!
Once a nerd is involved a WHOLE LOT can go wrong with dating.
Nerd or not, it looks like a WHOLE LOT can go wrong undoing this bra.
The degree of consequence. That is what I said. Agreeing with me doesn't mean I am wrong.
So what, it failed in the way the design specified it would. It doesn't mean that the circumstances that allowed it to happen should have. But they arose through not following the specifications for operating the reactor. The only bit flag is; Fukushima reactors being operated in according to Design Criteria:False.
Seawall, backup generators or any other mitigation means so that they would comply with redundancy required to operate the reactor. As a result the degree of consequence or the scale of the disaster or the seriousness of the situation or the mass of the fuckup or the just plain old how hard the shit hit the fan is best measured by the International Nuclear Event Scale and fuckupshima is categorised as an INES level 7 event.
In other words, Pretty Fucken Bad or Thats a lot of shit, where did the fan go? or in the Giga Fuckup range or at least as bad as Chernobyl. I think the French Nuclear Authorities described the disaster as "apocolyptic", so don't try to convert a memory of failure into success.
What is clear is we maybe able to design the technology but, as TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima show, humans may not poses the organisational competence to operate it safely.
All this does is confirm my point that the Nuclear Industry is run with profit as the operating mode as opposed to safety. NISA say that fourteen reactors at four sites (including Tokai) were affected with varying degrees of consequence. This indicates systemic failures and inaction, industry wide with no acceptable time frame for action.
I get the impression TEPCO found it cost effective to do nothing. Where is your evidence that TEPCO intended to perform any enhancements on the seawall? Everything I have seen or read shows TEPCO were ignoring this risk and where you doubted it was an issue before now you c
Space is not a suitable environment for people.
and cabin fever is a bitch.
We do miracles in planetary exploration; making the Mars Rovers work is incomprehensible magic to ordinary people. Yet it doesn't get as much publicity as sending a few descendants of monkeys to where the air is thin.
Monkey see, monkey do.
No, as jc42 pointed out, a second location had a problem with the Tsunami and was down to a single backup power supply. Had it not been for the efforts of a single man pushing TEPCO management to improve the seawall it would have been worse.
However, in this case, inadequate preparation is the same as no preparation. The degree of consequence was the effect the tsunami had on the integrity of the reactor. Inadequate preparation still resulted in a disaster at Fukushima and Onagawa demonstrated that it was survivable with better preparation.
What they were supposed to understand was the consequences of the basis design issues that they had not prepared adequately for. The consequences of not maintaining power to the spent fuel pool gate pair seals and the pressure the reactor could sustain (70psi) before it started to vent hydrogen.
The same applies to the amount of water that should have been sustained above the spent fuel in the pools (450 tons) that would have maintained a safety margin of up to 40 days to perform repairs on the reactor. Unfortunately the backup generators were neatly packed together and on the ocean side of the reactor ensuring that they were the first thing hit by the tsunami.
As I have often said to you khallow, this is a case of criminal negligence, this report is another step in preparing ground for that action to be taken.
What is clear here is that they were doing what every board has been shown that it would do, even with regulatory guidelines, maximise profit. They took the risk and these are the consequences that have manifest. There was plenty of geological science available as opposed to using historical records. By saying that you just look like an apologist for the nuclear industry.
Again, the basis design issues of this series of reactor was well documented by GE and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The desired outcome was obvious, to avoid a situation where the reactor could melt down and to avoid losing a billion dollar reactor installation.
This discussion is not necessary because the requirements are spelled out for operating the reactor. The consequences of not adhering to the manufacturers requirem
No one is going out there except for the ".gov guys", because there is no immediate profit motive. Once the .gov guys have got it figured out (at public expense), the .com guys will go out there and extract the profit (for themselves). This is called "private enterprise". T'was ever thus. It's a big joke.
I think it makes sense the government building some of the highly specialised equipment like the crew module because NASA has the expertise in this area. The aviation giants pretty much have the rest of the market anyway, they will be the ones that fly humans beyond LEO.
It maybe an opportunity for smaller players to do supply missions that don't need to be human rated.
Maybe he was lonely. Pity, they were so delicious, I've heard and such a delicious animal should never be lonely - muhahahahaha.
Lets not forget we are NOT talking about file compression here but audio Compression that adjusts the gain on an audio analogue input.
Leaving out the discussion of Ad loudness, I always marvel at the many different ways that compression can be used in audio production. It's so easy to get it wrong and I always give it a lot of attention when I produce audio. There is aart in it :-) and the thing about using compression right is not to crush the transients that give music dynamic range. It terms of an emotive response this is the difference between turning music up (because it's exciting to listen too) or down (because it's a compressed moosh of noise).
Talking Heads "Stop Making Sense" and Tool's "Anima" are great examples of compression used properly but even these recordings can be butchered by a crappy psychoacoustic file compression. I think the differences are what produce many differences of opinion on this subject. Waveforms such as crash cymbals and ambient sounds are generally ruined by this processing especially when it is close to a more significant transient sound. I do listen to a lot of music so I may be more sensitised to it than most but the lossy way mp3 (and other formats) makes me wonder when we will start to have a conversation about the quality of this form of compression.
It would be great to be able to start talking about the music again instead of the media.
Umm, no. What I said is that you are entitled to your opinions, not your own facts. If you think don't Australia is a racist country then that is your opinion. Whether you are right or wrong is simply someone else's opinion.
I understand that but the statement the troll said was "your country is known primarily for racism and government-led patent trolling". Australia certainly contains racist people but the definition of Australia as a racist country is not acceptable because our country protects equality by law. Discrimination in Australia is against the Law. I could no more accept that *primary* characterisation of Australia, as a Country, than I could of New Zealand, Canada, UK, US etc.
If you say Apartheid Africa was known as a racist Country, Nazi Germany etc then yes it's some thing that they were known for. It's because those things are against the law in Australia that the characterisation doesn't make sense as anything other than a troll, which it is. We certainly have more to do, like Immigration and Marriage equality and a Human Rights Charter but it's more than my opinion, it's a fact of law.
I didn't think Australia was all that racist until I travelled out west. It was a shock to me the way that people spoke (black & white people) of other races. It is my opinion that in the cities Australia is multicultural and quite tolerant, but in many (but not all) of the small country towns they party like it's 1912, not 2012.
This is a reasonable characterisation. It takes time and I think that one of the ways for our country to grow is to allow immigration to occur to country towns. They have a shortage of many of the types of Human Resources that good immigration policy could solve. I think that because they struggle so much it creates a Catch-22 situation of fear, that creates racism. But I have had similar experiences.
BTW, the Maori in NZ gained the right to vote in 1840 with the Treaty of Waitangi. From that point, Maori and Caucasion/Pakeha were all treated the same. If you needed to be a land owning man to vote, then race was irrelevant. When universal suffrage was granted in 1983, all men and women could vote in the national elections.
New Zealand has always been, as a primary characterisation, a strong advocate for Human Rights issues and is ahead of Australia in many respects. I have had many Maori friends over the years, one of my mates is an Islander, so yeah I completely recognise that Australia has followed New Zealand's lead there.
If an Australian colony (there were no states in the 1800s) gave the vote to all before NZ did, then that's great, but which was it (I'd like to read up on that history)?
I only said that because I was watching a documentary on women's suffrage and I'm sure it said 1857, I only watched it the night before. It was fascinating the political manuvering that went on, the last minute the conservative party amendments to the legislation that allowed white and aboriginal woman to not only vote but to stand for office because they thought no one would possibly vote for it, and they did, it passed into law.
I'm also certain that it said that South Australia was the first place in the world to achieve it. If I haven't recalled correctly it's on the ABC website somewhere, way to tired to find a link. I checked the wiki for South Australia and it said Official settlement began on 28 December 1836, when the colony was proclaimed at The Old Gum Tree by Governor John Hindmarsh.. - Cheers
Australia gave women the vote in 1902. New Zealand gave women the vote in 1893.South Australia gave women the vote in 1895. Aborigines had the vote in some states prior to Federation, but this was not universal until 1962.
Great, thanks for clearing that up.
You are full of wrong. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
So because I'm wrong does it mean that that Australia is a racist country? Some dickheads are, and if Australia was a racist country we wouldn't have the diversity of peoples we have. So thanks for pointing out my error in dates but it still shows that an Australian state was the first in the world to give Women and Aboriginals the right to vote including the right to stand for office, and that it was bloodless revolution.
i.e. the way democracy *should* work!
It's not my fault that your country is known primarily for racism and government-led patent trolling.
Australia, in 1857, was the first country in the world to grant the vote to Women, indigenous people and allow them to stand for seats of parliament. There were no riots and no one died. So fuck you very much for your misguided and misinformed post.
Did they patent any of their wonderful 'discoveries' so that they could leech off of others for decades? Or did Australians not figure that scam out until later?
Australia got scammed out of royalties for plenty of things. A research paper on the photoconductivity properties of selenium, published in 1907 by Professor O U Vonwiller from the University of Sydney, provided the key technology for the subsequent invention of the xerographic process in the United States by Chester Carlston in 1937. The result was the Xerox copier.
Australia got scammed out of plenty of royalties and manufacturing jobs there.
Wifi: patented! For shame australia. I am legitimately disgusted.
For sure Patented because the research into fast fourier transform and echo cancellation were sufficiently costly that the CSIRO *should* collect royalties on it's inventions so it can make more technology inventions because that's what it does!!!, it's not gear towards profit. The CSIRO is a legitimate user of the patent system because it is using the patent system they way it is intended to be used, where the actual creator and developer of the technology is being paid for the work it has done and can fund more technology development.
It's really odd to you that "MS", an abbreviation that Microsoft itself uses, doesn't get the same attention as M$?
Boy, did you wake up on the wrong side of the smarts bed today.
MS has long been the abbreviation for Multiple Sclerosis. M$ has long been the abbreviation for Microsoft. I don't understand why it's such a big deal to call Microsoft by the long known abbreviation to some people.
Anyway I'm just glad that skype client for Linux has been updated - so thanks.
what a beowulf cluster of Rasberry Pi would be good for.