Why is anyone even bothering to report this story?
One part time employee doesn't like his job, but his first thought isn't to quit and go work elsewhere?
Unions are a relic of the "one job for life" generation. These days worker mobility does more to keep a check on pay and conditions than any of the unions, who care only about what power they can hold on to for the union leaders themselves.
Perhaps this chap might be about to discover a thing or two about the flexible job market himself - I doubt very much a part time retail drone generating headlines like this would go down well with any employer.
Or maybe his ability to organise people will. Funny thing is you are criticising him for something you don't have the courage to do yourself. Your mind is totally Pwded, just admit it, you rather like being fisted, don't you, slave.
Yeah I knew someone who worked in a union shop he was well paid to and didn't have to work more than the 'accepted' eight hours a day, got four weeks holiday a year and if he was ever injured, unfairly dismissed the union had access to legal representation and even make up pay to tide him over if things got tough.
Eventually he got tired of this treatment and went back to the non-union job he worked before with less pay, he had to put in ten to fourteen hours a day with one day off paid per year for holidays and the boss would fist him before he went home. He's so much happier now. I'm actually looking forward to institutionalised slavery so everyone gets fisted, fairly.
Won't it be great when all of America is a third world country and everyone will think how much better off America is without unions to protect their interests. You are important to the man, his fist would get real cold without you.
So who are these new players in the game? Old players just firing a shot off the IMF's bow with this new fangled warfare of cyberwarfare? Here's a question, who's to gain from all of this?
The IMF is a privately owned bank. It's been set up by the oldest players there is, Rothschilds. They are American Royalty and no one really knows what their worth is. Immense just isn't immense enough, there is plenty of documentation online though it's unlikely any of us breeders will know their intent. Probably to wrestle more power from the population and control us more.
This has to be the geek/mercenary wet dream for job opportunities. Perhaps espionage should become part of a good geeks resume'? Put down the bag of Cheetos, pick up some weights, walk for the beer instead of drive. We might be in for a long run at this, so might as well get with the program now.
It might also be a death sentence, at least for a career. These players have the most comprehensive intelligence network that is centuries old. They are very smart, I'd be surprised if this wasn't part of some sort of plan they have whose motivation will always be concealed and misdirected.
The biggest problem with lightsabers isn't even the science of them.
It's that they're insane weapons.
Any more insane than a sword? It's only insane by the characteristics you have defined for it. A weapon has as much to do with tradition and training as it does with form, for example Gurkha knives look kinda kooky until you realise how effective they are.
There could be lots of technology reasons in that realm that would make it practical, even before you bring the force into it. Or let me guess you think "there's no all powerful mystical force controlling my destiny!":-P
Look, if you have something that can cut through anything, you shoot it at people. Imagine a dual-lightsaber that's 3 inches long, operates for five seconds, and is shot, spinning, at people. Hell, forget shot, you could put a release timer on them and throw them at people, having them spring into action a quarter second after release.
Perhaps there could be spinning death frisbees. Can you curve a light blade around the edge?;)
Or perhaps you could just fire the 'blade' itself, leave the generator behind. But I think that's disallowed under the 'rules' of lightsabers, which says the light blade goes out and then comes back, which also has the benefit of saying that lightsabers don't use power unless they're actually cutting something, otherwise, they're 100% efficient. (Except that they're always cutting the air, hence the hum, so always use a tiny amount of power.)
Look I'm pretty sure all that stuff is covered in the games.
All I really know is waving it around near your body is a good way to lose parts of your body.
But, even stupider, there appears to be no reason you can't slide your blade down the other guy's blade and cut off his fingers. Unlike traditional swords, there's no guard, nor can there be one.
You don't need a light sabre for that ask anyone who's done any hanbo training, stick, knife or machete fighting. You don't train with a actual weapon otherwise you end up permanently injured.
Try the knuckle thing and you get your head attacked, besides how do you know there isn't some sort of guard. I've competed in knife fighting contest (and actually won!!) it's a cold passionless style of fighting where one mistake leads to death (the comps use a special type of knife). It's comparable to chess, with blood.
Likewise, as they're weightless, there's no reason to not have very long ones. Lightpikes, you just aim them at the enemy, push a button, and the blade extends twenty feet out, straight through their torso. You jerk it upward, slicing them in half. Then cut off the blade and go to the next guy, or just wave it back in forth in an arch if they're all coming at once. (Hell, you wouldn't even need to be a Jedi to safely use one of those!)
Granted, you couldn't block blaster fire with one, but there's no reason you couldn't have short and long setting, or at least a duel-weapon with a short and long side.
Look your lack of faith disturbs me. Maybe the wave is captured at a particular resonant frequency so it can only be a certain length. Maybe its a gravitaional wave that contains the blade. You seem so focused on the things in your definition that make it insane instead of asking What is it about this that would make it a useful weapon? throwing it like a boomerang, hitting it on the floor, Does something about it attract the blaster bolts to the "blade", WIll it cut AND roast a leg of lamb at the same time, Do you need the "Force" to use one?
Don't forget though, it's a science fiction and it's supposed to be fun, so don't get hung up on the detail cause it just makes you not very much fun.
Nuclear safety is amazingly safe as-is, what is needed is replacing older plants with new designs that are inherently more safe and provide that safety more cost effectively.
The reactionary approach due to Fukushima is precisely the wrong way to look at things, the takeaway lesson should be that even with the worst possible scenario nuclear is vastly safer than coal, gas and hydro and possibly safer than solar. It's the small frequent events vs large singular event problem that plagues the car vs airplane safety disparity all over again.
We as a species need to learn to evaluate risk better or at least try to be more fact based in global infrastructure matters.
Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Nuclear Industry at all levels. Please refer to to my other postings on this subject which *only* refer to reactor operation, not mining, enrichment, or logistics planning for long term spent fuel containment which all illustrate similar levels of negligence.
An accident there would pretty much mean the end of Nuclear power.
From your detailed description one could easily argue that nuclear power deserves to come to an end.
Indeed. I have often said that we should allow the existing commercial reactor programs to reach the end of their lives and build a geologically stable waste containment facility in granite before proceeding any further with Nuclear energy.
You describe a reactor that had well-known issues that was operated by a utility that is by international standards pretty well run and relatively free of corruption. Despite this the issues were never addressed, and that failure led directly to the mess we are in today.
I did not say that the utility was "relatively free of corruption". I was one of the first to accuse TEPCO of criminal negligence back in March citing the exact reasoning I gave here. If you read my post carefully you will see I am now calling for the prosecution of TEPCO officials to reveal the nature of other BDI's that were covered up so they can be included in a general audit of all GE MK 1 reactors.
I was also careful to lay blame where I think it's appropriate. GE designed a reactor 50-60 years ago, it has design flaws but they have been tested and mitigated by procedures recommended by the NRC and IAEA. It's the *operators* who own the plants who are dragging their feet to implement these recommendations.
I'll also wanted to point out that despite the ramblings of many pro-nuclear fanbois accusing "NIMBYS" of not wanting newer reactors that it wasn't the reactors but the supporting systems that failed due to said negligence.
The downside risk of nuclear power is huge and the costs of "power too cheap to meter" are staggeringly large. While nuclear is certainly better than coal, that's setting the bar pretty low.
How is Nuclear better than coal? CFC114, U-238 accumulation, DU babies in Iraq. They both look like two fairly belligerent industries that like to throw their weight around and do pretty much as they please. This is the consequence of for profit Nuclear Power.
On a sub you have an entire crew living and working in very close proximity to a nuclear reactor. What type of shielding is capable of preventing the crew for taking high levels of radiation?
Well water is an excellent moderator but since accessing the Dummies Guide to US Nuclear Submarine Design is classified;-) , I guess we will both have to use our imaginations, eh?
First thing I will say is that despite the criticisms of many "pro-nuclear" folk protesting that newer reactor facilities be built, the reactors themselves performed to specification. They scrammed, shutdown and survived the quake. What they did not survive was the negligence of the operator despite the BDIs known and circulated by GE and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
According to the Seismic design criteria for Nuclear facilities, S and B class facilities (those that contain radionuclides (S) or attached to pressure vessels that contain radionuclides (B) ) should not be affected by the loss of a C class facility (a support facility like a backup generator). The actual quake measured around 140Gal at Fukushima but the plant was designed to tolerate 600Gal (S class). As evidenced the C class facilities were not as the power lines were severed in the quake, and B class facilities (the pumps) were inundated by the tsunami. To quote World Nuclear Association(note that ALL reactor manufacturers and TEPCO are members of this organisation)
In March 2008 Tepco upgraded its estimates of likely Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion Ss for Fukushima to 600 Gal, and other operators have adopted the same figure. (The magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Taiheiyou-Oki earthquake in March 2011 did not exceed this at Fukushima.) In October 2008 Tepco accepted 1000 Gal (1.02g) DBGM as the new Ss design basis for Kashiwazaki Kariwa, following the July 2007 earthquake there.
Through two known Basis Design Issues (BDI or DBI if you want to be pedantic) it is demonstrated that a loss of electricity to the plant is the key factor for the loss of cooling for the reactor and the failure of the seals holding water in the spent fuel pools.
The first Basis Design Issue of the General Electric MK 1 reactor revealed comes from the tests of the reactor prototype by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in Brunswick in the 1970's. Testers of the reactor prototype at Brunswick discovered that the reactor would leak when the internal pressure reached 70psi (they are operated at 65psi approx). Quite obviously this is the primary source of hydrogen that led to the explosion at Fukushima as this design has proven itself vulnerable to this kind of failure. The vessel is an "S" class facility.
The second is that a General Electric Nuclear reactor of that design requires a constant supply of power due to the nature of the refueling gate pairs that separate the reactor head from the spent fuel containment pool. I understand that, due to the nature of the seals on the gates, they need to be constantly powered to prevent a loss of coolant. Each pool has a volume of 1300 tons of water, they are 12 meters deep and there is 850 tons of water above the spent fuel in each (except for Fukushima reactor 1 spent fuel pool which is smaller by 400 tons). The failure mode for a loss of coolant event in those spent fuel pools was *exactly* in line with what would happen if plutonium in those spent fuel pools was exposed, hydrogen was produced and, subsequently, an explosion occurred. Without those spent fuel containment pools leaking there should have been several *months* to do something (60 Million calories per hour heating capacity in the spent fuel rods in reactor 1 spent fuel pool, 400Mcal/h in reactor 2 spent fuel pool, 200 Mcal/h in reactor 3 and 1600 Mcal/h in reactor 4)
This clearly proves that the backup power systems were absolutely essential to maintain the safe operation of the Mk1 GE reactor, yet at Fukushima they were not engineered to the same survivability criteria of the reactor for a known Basis Design Issue in *direct* contravention of the Seismic Design criteria for Reactor plants.
Along with the known basis design issues for a GE Mk 1 reactor (pressure vessel limits of 70psi, cooling pool seals require constant power) this is a clear cut case of criminal negligence at Fukushima. The importance of which, internationally, ca
Things are a lot worse then anyone is willing to admit.
I think it has surpassed Chernobyl in terms of potential danger and is on a par in terms of actualised danger. The question is what the tipping point is to make Chernobyl the second worst reactor accident.
Excuse me, are you living in some kind of alternate reality that we're not aware of? A reality where Fukushima exploded in a nuclear excursion (not hydrogen explosion), threw up large portions of actual core material into the air (I mean the goddamn nuclear core, not activated gases) and where there was a graphite fire burning at a couple of thousand degrees Celsius for a few days? No, I didn't think so, because that was Chernobyl. Fukushima isn't even in the same division. For gods sake, read up on basic facts and history!
Mr Ac there are 4 spent fuel pools with a minimum of a core in each one. Chernobyl was a relatively new reactor compared to Fukushima. The older the reactor the more accumulation of activated (and unidentified) radioisotopes, which Fukushima is leaking into the environment *right now*. You are talking 7-8 times the core volume of Chernobyl exposed coming into Japans typhoon season and the incident isn't under control yet.
I remember calculating the core material ejected at Chernobyl to be approximately 5 tons. This disaster is still unfolding and there is much more material exposed. I, therefore, *think* it is on a par in terms of actualised danger, but we won't know for another half decade when we start counting cancer rates. My question still remains valid as for how much worse Fukushima can get, because it ain't over yet.
Things are a lot worse then anyone is willing to admit.
I think it has surpassed Chernobyl in terms of potential danger and is on a par in terms of actualised danger. The question is what the tipping point is to make Chernobyl the second worst reactor accident.
The amount of expertise and trained personnel required to keep the reactors under control is not an endless tap. These people will eventually fatigue and continue to put there lives on the line for a management that were too incompetent to run a reactor in the first place.
According to the Seismic design criteria for Nuclear facilities, S and B class facilities (those that contain radionuclides (S) or attached to pressure vessels that contain radionuclides (B) ) should not be affected by the loss of a C class facility (a support facility like a backup generator). The actual quake measured around 140Gal at Fukushima but the plant was designed to tolerate 600Gal (S class). As evidenced the C class facilities were not as the power lines were severed in the quake, and B class facilities (the pumps) were inundated by the tsunami.
Along with the know basis design issues for a GE Mk 1 reactor (pressure vessel limits of 70psi, cooling pool seals require constant power) this is a clear cut case of criminal negligence. The importance of which, internationally, cannot be underlined enough due to the size of the installed base of GE Mk 1 reactors around the world. We need to prosecute immediately. Why?
The reactors themselves performed to specification. They scrammed, shutdown and survived the quake. What they did not survive was the negligence of the operator despite the BDIs known and circulated by GE and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Many of these Mk 1 plants are in operation. They should be audited immediately for failure modes that affect C class facilities, lest we encounter more of these "accidents".
The French Government, with a solid base of nuclear experience described Fukushima as "An accident of Apocalyptic proportions" and I struggle to find a better description.
I have always wondered why we can use Nuclear power on our aircraft carriers and submarines which operate in small contained environments without any reported catastrophes.
Operational procedures, reactor and sub recertification and an Admirial (who is a hero to me) who recognised the absolute danger of these devices and engineered the safest program possible.
Well since varying types of cancers from the ingested isotopes take 5 years plus to gestate we will have to wait that long before we can even begin to get some bearing on the amount of casualties caused by the accident. There are some frightening estimates of the premature death toll emerging. The data that emerged from Chernobyl was the death toll clearly trending up until the funding for gathering the data was cut.
Japan was just very lucky that the wind was blowing off shore when the accident occurred otherwise the death toll and the amount of affected area would be much higher due to radionuclide deposit onto the ground.
I'm struggling to work out if you post is sheer comedic genius or sheer ignorance. If you are serious then it's little wonder that the fate of the nuclear industry is doomed with supporters such as yourself. If not, Bravo sir!!
Xoltri you may not be aware but did you realise your post makes you out to be a sock puppet? Yes, you are being fisted. Because (I don't doubt) you are young it's slow and gentle so you get used to it, so you kind of enjoy it, even though it's uncomfortable and confronting for you, so you go around saying "I rather enjoy being fisted". You don't understand why other don't share your enthusiasm.
I'm actually the guy you begged to move the vending machine so you could hide behind it when the weird guy walked into the room. I shrugged as if I didn't know what you were panicing about. The weird guy thought you were an insignificant idiot. You've offered me a chocolate bar several times in the past but I've politely declined cited my fitness regimen and commitment to my out-side-of-work sporting activities. You are constantly amazed at how fit I am for my age. You respect my capabilities and you actually look up to me. I see you as a not-unpleasant, somewhat naive, smart-ass, so I'll be using you to sheild me from the lifer's, you know - the weird guy's, wrath on a day to day basis so I don't have to deal with that stress. You see, I'm fisting you too.
When I leave both you and the weird guy will write me a glowing reference, espousing my expertise, affable nature - an all round great guy. I'll be leaving because I recognise the weird guy is about to go postal and I'm actually afraid of him. Unlike you I actually talk and laugh with him, he thinks I respect him because I do things to make his day to day life a little easier. I do it to offer him something more sincere than a chocolate bar in case he decides to *SNAP* and go postal whilst I am still on the premises. More than likely I will be gone before that happens.
You will survive the weird guy going postal because you offered him the chocolate bar, but you will be tramatised for years. Eventually you will come to terms with it, find an easy job, settle into it and then realise you have been there for 15 years. Finally, when their elbow reaches your anus and they start working towards getting the fist in up to the shoulder, that's when you'll will finally understand the weird guy.
Then one day some young guy will offer you a chocolate bar.
The reason why tech salaries and job satisfaction are on the decline is because, on average, most IT professionals are good at tech, but not negotiation. If they were tech pays and conditions, on average, would be a lot better. You, dear reader, need to be a better negotiator so that every tech gets a better deal and employers are afraid that the next guy will drive a much harder bargain. I don't mean showing the finger type of negotiation, I mean your fist right up their ass feeling their internal organs type of negotiation. My mentor described this as "negotiating from a position of strength".
If you are squeamish about that description, then you don't belong in IT, or you need to consider an IT union. I've never been a member of a union because I'm an ok negotiator, but I sure wish they were more common. Most IT practitioners shun the idea of a union because they think they are going to be the next Gates or Zuckerberg. So instead of supporting the idea of someone who could negotiate on their behalf and focusing on what is needed to get comfortable they refuse to, because they think one day it's gonna be me, I'll have the power, I'll be "the Fister", but they never will be because they're a pussy. IT is a ruthless business and because IT practitioners have spent so much time fisting each other over, management figure thats the way to treat IT professionals. To loan from southpark, I am a dick, you need to be to deal with these assholes so stop being a pussy. Your boss is your enemy, if you don't leave first you boss *WILL* fire you. It's inevitable.
You know that indispensable guy you've been working with who is so cool that has worked there forever, don't trust him. He is so spineless that he hasn't been able to negotiate a better deal for himself the entire ten years he has been there, despite being the fister. Despite being able to turn off the money tap his misguided loyalty is going to make him knife you in the back after he fists you. You may never know it was him, it might be obvious. He will smile, shake your hand and say it's a real pity. His remorse will last as long as it takes for you to walk out the door, probably less. He is a pussy, he will earn peoples hate. I've been him, he's been you.
That's the reality of IT today kids. No more parties on triple hulled catamarans cause the company did a good year, just "you get to keep your job,,, for now". Thats why I keep enough pay in the bank to last 6 months to a year so I can tolerate being fired by an asshole. I don't like something, anything, I look for a new job say "You guys are great, I wish I can stay" then leave withdrawing my fist and a gaping hole where it was. They'll be back in 6 months asking what my consultancy rates are.
Whilst I am polite co-operative, amenable and agreeable I realise these things hold true, there is no loyalty, show me the fucking money and it's all about me. I know you're young, earning 100K a year, well guess what it's the most you'll ever earn. You are a devalued commodity from day one in this ageist industry. Am I bitter, fuck yeah, I love IT. I've seen what it was over 25 years and I see what it is now. So many good people chewed up and spat out. My bitterness and cynicism is what helps me to survive all the assholes I've met.
Outraged, or don't like my attitude, fuck you, I get interesting projects and plenty of variety, which also means I get lots of invaluable experience so pay is comfortable. IT is a ruthless cesspit of spineless two faced liars that will screw you over because that is easier than standing up for themselves. They have no balls. If you can't be a better negotiator then you had better find a union paid not to have those scruples or get out of IT, pussy, they're your choices.
If you can't accept that analysis it's more than likely you are the one being fisted.
The cruel irony about this debate is that people who want to (or need to) die are sentenced to an indeterminate amount of suffering before they actually die and people convicted to death have their lives taken for a crime they should spend the rest of their natural lives contemplating in a steel and concrete cell.
The way the most despised are treated says a lot about a society, but the way a society treats it's least despised says a lot more.
Getting run over while I am sms'ing and walking across the phone with my headphones on and getting run over by a stewpid driver talking on their mobile phone cause *they* wern't paying attention
Having to catch stupoid from a shitty provider because they all are stupoid
getting knee cancer in my knees cause my leg is on the phone
getting ball cancer in my balls because my dick dials numbers
getting bum cancer in my bum because my phone makes bum calls from my back pocket leading to an anus transplant
Almost getting hit while I am waiting at the lights in my car cause the guy has one hand on the wheel and the other talking on his phone while he is going around a corner (it really happened) DRIVING A TRUCK
being gps tracked, triangulated and targetted for sms advertising
having the cops go through it to search for any useful drug contacts that they can score from and then bust
My boss can call me
Getting brain cancer from a stoopid phone because hey when it's on your head is when it needs full power *sorta mostly*
now your telling me I can get SARs from a phone. I'm just wondering if it's just me that would find it immensely satisfying to smash their phone with a hammer, sometimes.
Parent post sounds like a reasoned assessment, up until the last sentence.
Why on Earth would anyone believe that changing the transmitter attached to your skull from a cell phone to a bluetooth device would reduce the risk is more than I can see. Surely anyone whose brain has not been totally irradiated would realize that a wired headset would be the thing.
Since the technology is available it becomes a question of reducing exposure to risk. In this case it was the power output of the bluetooth device versus an accident caused by having my hands tangled by a cable while I go around a corner in a suburban street. I decided that I would incur that risk rather than have a cable interfering with my driving in suburban traffic or while there were pedestrians around.
I am tempted to mod parent "funny" rather than respond to it, but if parent is a troll, it is sufficiently subtle and droll that it deserves the reward of a response.
I trust my reasoning is sufficient since your statement belittles it either way while you hold the power to censor it according to your opinions.
Lots of the "cell phones cause cancer!" people think that lower power EMFs are even worse for you.
If you're going to buy into the crazy, why stop at the moderately crazy?
Depends on the emitter doesn't it. I've worked with RF several times in my career. Early on (I was still in my teens) it was with 25watt transmitters and I think it was about 800Mhz. My hand got a mild RF burn while I was screwing in an antenna on the roof of a truck and a workmate accidentally powered up the transmitter. It ached for at least a week. Given that experience it's not hard to extrapolate what long term exposure to RF in higher frequency with lower power would do to the most sensitive part of the body.
Er, what makes you think bluetooth isnt giving radiation as well, or that it doesnt operate in the 2.4ghz range?
I don't, I just the accept risk because bluetooth is in the milliwatt range of power and that a mobile phone is in the watt range of power. All these responses are centred around bluetooth this or bluetooth that but ignore that the issue of vehicle control is the dominant factor and that a headset is available is a *choice* I make to reduce exposing my brain to radio transmissions.
When I am at work or out of a vehicle I use a wired headset to talk on the phone.
I don't think it's that complicated really. 15 years of mobile phone use and I've rarely put a mobile phone near my head not because of fear but because of caution. At first I just wanted a headset so I could keep two hands on the wheel of my car, so in a sense it was a safety issue to begin with.
With a little research in to understanding how these devices worked from an electronics perspective I discovered that a mobile phone frequency transmits between 900Mhz and 2400Mhz. A rough calculation revealed the wavelength of 2400Mhz is roughly 13cms with the wavelength getting longer as it gets lower. That means your head is within the wavelength of the transmission. When the device is in contact with your head absorption quadruples due to inductance AND the device varies it's power output according to signal strength, so if your brain is absorbing the wavelength then the device increases it's power output. Even simply breaking contact with your head reduces absorption by three quarters, put the device in speaker mode and turn the volume down.
I think to anyone who understands the nature of the devices this is a no brainer, one of my relations recently died of brain cancer so I witnessed first hand that it is a very bad way to die. A bluetooth headset is about $200, why would you bother taking the risk?
Slashdot Mirror
Why is anyone even bothering to report this story?
One part time employee doesn't like his job, but his first thought isn't to quit and go work elsewhere?
Unions are a relic of the "one job for life" generation. These days worker mobility does more to keep a check on pay and conditions than any of the unions, who care only about what power they can hold on to for the union leaders themselves.
Perhaps this chap might be about to discover a thing or two about the flexible job market himself - I doubt very much a part time retail drone generating headlines like this would go down well with any employer.
Or maybe his ability to organise people will. Funny thing is you are criticising him for something you don't have the courage to do yourself. Your mind is totally Pwded, just admit it, you rather like being fisted, don't you, slave.
Yeah I knew someone who worked in a union shop he was well paid to and didn't have to work more than the 'accepted' eight hours a day, got four weeks holiday a year and if he was ever injured, unfairly dismissed the union had access to legal representation and even make up pay to tide him over if things got tough.
Eventually he got tired of this treatment and went back to the non-union job he worked before with less pay, he had to put in ten to fourteen hours a day with one day off paid per year for holidays and the boss would fist him before he went home. He's so much happier now. I'm actually looking forward to institutionalised slavery so everyone gets fisted, fairly.
Won't it be great when all of America is a third world country and everyone will think how much better off America is without unions to protect their interests. You are important to the man, his fist would get real cold without you.
The IMF is a privately owned bank. It's been set up by the oldest players there is, Rothschilds. They are American Royalty and no one really knows what their worth is. Immense just isn't immense enough, there is plenty of documentation online though it's unlikely any of us breeders will know their intent. Probably to wrestle more power from the population and control us more.
It might also be a death sentence, at least for a career. These players have the most comprehensive intelligence network that is centuries old. They are very smart, I'd be surprised if this wasn't part of some sort of plan they have whose motivation will always be concealed and misdirected.
The biggest problem with lightsabers isn't even the science of them.
It's that they're insane weapons.
Any more insane than a sword? It's only insane by the characteristics you have defined for it. A weapon has as much to do with tradition and training as it does with form, for example Gurkha knives look kinda kooky until you realise how effective they are.
There could be lots of technology reasons in that realm that would make it practical, even before you bring the force into it. Or let me guess you think "there's no all powerful mystical force controlling my destiny!" :-P
Look, if you have something that can cut through anything, you shoot it at people. Imagine a dual-lightsaber that's 3 inches long, operates for five seconds, and is shot, spinning, at people. Hell, forget shot, you could put a release timer on them and throw them at people, having them spring into action a quarter second after release.
Perhaps there could be spinning death frisbees. Can you curve a light blade around the edge? ;)
Or perhaps you could just fire the 'blade' itself, leave the generator behind. But I think that's disallowed under the 'rules' of lightsabers, which says the light blade goes out and then comes back, which also has the benefit of saying that lightsabers don't use power unless they're actually cutting something, otherwise, they're 100% efficient. (Except that they're always cutting the air, hence the hum, so always use a tiny amount of power.)
Look I'm pretty sure all that stuff is covered in the games.
All I really know is waving it around near your body is a good way to lose parts of your body.
But, even stupider, there appears to be no reason you can't slide your blade down the other guy's blade and cut off his fingers. Unlike traditional swords, there's no guard, nor can there be one.
You don't need a light sabre for that ask anyone who's done any hanbo training, stick, knife or machete fighting. You don't train with a actual weapon otherwise you end up permanently injured.
Try the knuckle thing and you get your head attacked, besides how do you know there isn't some sort of guard. I've competed in knife fighting contest (and actually won!!) it's a cold passionless style of fighting where one mistake leads to death (the comps use a special type of knife). It's comparable to chess, with blood.
Likewise, as they're weightless, there's no reason to not have very long ones. Lightpikes, you just aim them at the enemy, push a button, and the blade extends twenty feet out, straight through their torso. You jerk it upward, slicing them in half. Then cut off the blade and go to the next guy, or just wave it back in forth in an arch if they're all coming at once. (Hell, you wouldn't even need to be a Jedi to safely use one of those!)
Granted, you couldn't block blaster fire with one, but there's no reason you couldn't have short and long setting, or at least a duel-weapon with a short and long side.
Look your lack of faith disturbs me. Maybe the wave is captured at a particular resonant frequency so it can only be a certain length. Maybe its a gravitaional wave that contains the blade. You seem so focused on the things in your definition that make it insane instead of asking What is it about this that would make it a useful weapon? throwing it like a boomerang, hitting it on the floor, Does something about it attract the blaster bolts to the "blade", WIll it cut AND roast a leg of lamb at the same time, Do you need the "Force" to use one?
Don't forget though, it's a science fiction and it's supposed to be fun, so don't get hung up on the detail cause it just makes you not very much fun.
Nuclear safety is amazingly safe as-is, what is needed is replacing older plants with new designs that are inherently more safe and provide that safety more cost effectively. The reactionary approach due to Fukushima is precisely the wrong way to look at things, the takeaway lesson should be that even with the worst possible scenario nuclear is vastly safer than coal, gas and hydro and possibly safer than solar. It's the small frequent events vs large singular event problem that plagues the car vs airplane safety disparity all over again. We as a species need to learn to evaluate risk better or at least try to be more fact based in global infrastructure matters.
Your post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the Nuclear Industry at all levels. Please refer to to my other postings on this subject which *only* refer to reactor operation, not mining, enrichment, or logistics planning for long term spent fuel containment which all illustrate similar levels of negligence.
An accident there would pretty much mean the end of Nuclear power.
From your detailed description one could easily argue that nuclear power deserves to come to an end.
Indeed. I have often said that we should allow the existing commercial reactor programs to reach the end of their lives and build a geologically stable waste containment facility in granite before proceeding any further with Nuclear energy.
You describe a reactor that had well-known issues that was operated by a utility that is by international standards pretty well run and relatively free of corruption. Despite this the issues were never addressed, and that failure led directly to the mess we are in today.
I did not say that the utility was "relatively free of corruption". I was one of the first to accuse TEPCO of criminal negligence back in March citing the exact reasoning I gave here. If you read my post carefully you will see I am now calling for the prosecution of TEPCO officials to reveal the nature of other BDI's that were covered up so they can be included in a general audit of all GE MK 1 reactors.
I was also careful to lay blame where I think it's appropriate. GE designed a reactor 50-60 years ago, it has design flaws but they have been tested and mitigated by procedures recommended by the NRC and IAEA. It's the *operators* who own the plants who are dragging their feet to implement these recommendations.
I'll also wanted to point out that despite the ramblings of many pro-nuclear fanbois accusing "NIMBYS" of not wanting newer reactors that it wasn't the reactors but the supporting systems that failed due to said negligence.
The downside risk of nuclear power is huge and the costs of "power too cheap to meter" are staggeringly large. While nuclear is certainly better than coal, that's setting the bar pretty low.
How is Nuclear better than coal? CFC114, U-238 accumulation, DU babies in Iraq. They both look like two fairly belligerent industries that like to throw their weight around and do pretty much as they please. This is the consequence of for profit Nuclear Power.
On a sub you have an entire crew living and working in very close proximity to a nuclear reactor. What type of shielding is capable of preventing the crew for taking high levels of radiation?
Well water is an excellent moderator but since accessing the Dummies Guide to US Nuclear Submarine Design is classified ;-) , I guess we will both have to use our imaginations, eh?
First thing I will say is that despite the criticisms of many "pro-nuclear" folk protesting that newer reactor facilities be built, the reactors themselves performed to specification. They scrammed, shutdown and survived the quake. What they did not survive was the negligence of the operator despite the BDIs known and circulated by GE and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
According to the Seismic design criteria for Nuclear facilities, S and B class facilities (those that contain radionuclides (S) or attached to pressure vessels that contain radionuclides (B) ) should not be affected by the loss of a C class facility (a support facility like a backup generator). The actual quake measured around 140Gal at Fukushima but the plant was designed to tolerate 600Gal (S class). As evidenced the C class facilities were not as the power lines were severed in the quake, and B class facilities (the pumps) were inundated by the tsunami. To quote World Nuclear Association(note that ALL reactor manufacturers and TEPCO are members of this organisation)
In March 2008 Tepco upgraded its estimates of likely Design Basis Earthquake Ground Motion Ss for Fukushima to 600 Gal, and other operators have adopted the same figure. (The magnitude 9.0 Tohoku-Taiheiyou-Oki earthquake in March 2011 did not exceed this at Fukushima.) In October 2008 Tepco accepted 1000 Gal (1.02g) DBGM as the new Ss design basis for Kashiwazaki Kariwa, following the July 2007 earthquake there.
Through two known Basis Design Issues (BDI or DBI if you want to be pedantic) it is demonstrated that a loss of electricity to the plant is the key factor for the loss of cooling for the reactor and the failure of the seals holding water in the spent fuel pools.
The first Basis Design Issue of the General Electric MK 1 reactor revealed comes from the tests of the reactor prototype by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers in Brunswick in the 1970's. Testers of the reactor prototype at Brunswick discovered that the reactor would leak when the internal pressure reached 70psi (they are operated at 65psi approx). Quite obviously this is the primary source of hydrogen that led to the explosion at Fukushima as this design has proven itself vulnerable to this kind of failure. The vessel is an "S" class facility.
The second is that a General Electric Nuclear reactor of that design requires a constant supply of power due to the nature of the refueling gate pairs that separate the reactor head from the spent fuel containment pool. I understand that, due to the nature of the seals on the gates, they need to be constantly powered to prevent a loss of coolant. Each pool has a volume of 1300 tons of water, they are 12 meters deep and there is 850 tons of water above the spent fuel in each (except for Fukushima reactor 1 spent fuel pool which is smaller by 400 tons). The failure mode for a loss of coolant event in those spent fuel pools was *exactly* in line with what would happen if plutonium in those spent fuel pools was exposed, hydrogen was produced and, subsequently, an explosion occurred. Without those spent fuel containment pools leaking there should have been several *months* to do something (60 Million calories per hour heating capacity in the spent fuel rods in reactor 1 spent fuel pool, 400Mcal/h in reactor 2 spent fuel pool, 200 Mcal/h in reactor 3 and 1600 Mcal/h in reactor 4)
This clearly proves that the backup power systems were absolutely essential to maintain the safe operation of the Mk1 GE reactor, yet at Fukushima they were not engineered to the same survivability criteria of the reactor for a known Basis Design Issue in *direct* contravention of the Seismic Design criteria for Reactor plants.
Along with the known basis design issues for a GE Mk 1 reactor (pressure vessel limits of 70psi, cooling pool seals require constant power) this is a clear cut case of criminal negligence at Fukushima. The importance of which, internationally, ca
I think it has surpassed Chernobyl in terms of potential danger and is on a par in terms of actualised danger. The question is what the tipping point is to make Chernobyl the second worst reactor accident.
Excuse me, are you living in some kind of alternate reality that we're not aware of? A reality where Fukushima exploded in a nuclear excursion (not hydrogen explosion), threw up large portions of actual core material into the air (I mean the goddamn nuclear core, not activated gases) and where there was a graphite fire burning at a couple of thousand degrees Celsius for a few days? No, I didn't think so, because that was Chernobyl. Fukushima isn't even in the same division. For gods sake, read up on basic facts and history!
Mr Ac there are 4 spent fuel pools with a minimum of a core in each one. Chernobyl was a relatively new reactor compared to Fukushima. The older the reactor the more accumulation of activated (and unidentified) radioisotopes, which Fukushima is leaking into the environment *right now*. You are talking 7-8 times the core volume of Chernobyl exposed coming into Japans typhoon season and the incident isn't under control yet.
I remember calculating the core material ejected at Chernobyl to be approximately 5 tons. This disaster is still unfolding and there is much more material exposed. I, therefore, *think* it is on a par in terms of actualised danger, but we won't know for another half decade when we start counting cancer rates. My question still remains valid as for how much worse Fukushima can get, because it ain't over yet.
No way my mad skillz are average.
I think it has surpassed Chernobyl in terms of potential danger and is on a par in terms of actualised danger. The question is what the tipping point is to make Chernobyl the second worst reactor accident.
The amount of expertise and trained personnel required to keep the reactors under control is not an endless tap. These people will eventually fatigue and continue to put there lives on the line for a management that were too incompetent to run a reactor in the first place.
According to the Seismic design criteria for Nuclear facilities, S and B class facilities (those that contain radionuclides (S) or attached to pressure vessels that contain radionuclides (B) ) should not be affected by the loss of a C class facility (a support facility like a backup generator). The actual quake measured around 140Gal at Fukushima but the plant was designed to tolerate 600Gal (S class). As evidenced the C class facilities were not as the power lines were severed in the quake, and B class facilities (the pumps) were inundated by the tsunami.
Along with the know basis design issues for a GE Mk 1 reactor (pressure vessel limits of 70psi, cooling pool seals require constant power) this is a clear cut case of criminal negligence. The importance of which, internationally, cannot be underlined enough due to the size of the installed base of GE Mk 1 reactors around the world. We need to prosecute immediately. Why?
The reactors themselves performed to specification. They scrammed, shutdown and survived the quake. What they did not survive was the negligence of the operator despite the BDIs known and circulated by GE and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Many of these Mk 1 plants are in operation. They should be audited immediately for failure modes that affect C class facilities, lest we encounter more of these "accidents".
The French Government, with a solid base of nuclear experience described Fukushima as "An accident of Apocalyptic proportions" and I struggle to find a better description.
I thank you for the information you provided.
I have always wondered why we can use Nuclear power on our aircraft carriers and submarines which operate in small contained environments without any reported catastrophes.
Operational procedures, reactor and sub recertification and an Admirial (who is a hero to me) who recognised the absolute danger of these devices and engineered the safest program possible.
Show us deaths and / or injuries.
Well since varying types of cancers from the ingested isotopes take 5 years plus to gestate we will have to wait that long before we can even begin to get some bearing on the amount of casualties caused by the accident. There are some frightening estimates of the premature death toll emerging. The data that emerged from Chernobyl was the death toll clearly trending up until the funding for gathering the data was cut.
Japan was just very lucky that the wind was blowing off shore when the accident occurred otherwise the death toll and the amount of affected area would be much higher due to radionuclide deposit onto the ground.
I'm struggling to work out if you post is sheer comedic genius or sheer ignorance. If you are serious then it's little wonder that the fate of the nuclear industry is doomed with supporters such as yourself. If not, Bravo sir!!
Either way, I encourage you to post more.
The first, and probably the last
Xoltri you may not be aware but did you realise your post makes you out to be a sock puppet? Yes, you are being fisted. Because (I don't doubt) you are young it's slow and gentle so you get used to it, so you kind of enjoy it, even though it's uncomfortable and confronting for you, so you go around saying "I rather enjoy being fisted". You don't understand why other don't share your enthusiasm.
I'm actually the guy you begged to move the vending machine so you could hide behind it when the weird guy walked into the room. I shrugged as if I didn't know what you were panicing about. The weird guy thought you were an insignificant idiot. You've offered me a chocolate bar several times in the past but I've politely declined cited my fitness regimen and commitment to my out-side-of-work sporting activities. You are constantly amazed at how fit I am for my age. You respect my capabilities and you actually look up to me. I see you as a not-unpleasant, somewhat naive, smart-ass, so I'll be using you to sheild me from the lifer's, you know - the weird guy's, wrath on a day to day basis so I don't have to deal with that stress. You see, I'm fisting you too.
When I leave both you and the weird guy will write me a glowing reference, espousing my expertise, affable nature - an all round great guy. I'll be leaving because I recognise the weird guy is about to go postal and I'm actually afraid of him. Unlike you I actually talk and laugh with him, he thinks I respect him because I do things to make his day to day life a little easier. I do it to offer him something more sincere than a chocolate bar in case he decides to *SNAP* and go postal whilst I am still on the premises. More than likely I will be gone before that happens.
You will survive the weird guy going postal because you offered him the chocolate bar, but you will be tramatised for years. Eventually you will come to terms with it, find an easy job, settle into it and then realise you have been there for 15 years. Finally, when their elbow reaches your anus and they start working towards getting the fist in up to the shoulder, that's when you'll will finally understand the weird guy.
Then one day some young guy will offer you a chocolate bar.
The reason why tech salaries and job satisfaction are on the decline is because, on average, most IT professionals are good at tech, but not negotiation. If they were tech pays and conditions, on average, would be a lot better. You, dear reader, need to be a better negotiator so that every tech gets a better deal and employers are afraid that the next guy will drive a much harder bargain. I don't mean showing the finger type of negotiation, I mean your fist right up their ass feeling their internal organs type of negotiation. My mentor described this as "negotiating from a position of strength".
If you are squeamish about that description, then you don't belong in IT, or you need to consider an IT union. I've never been a member of a union because I'm an ok negotiator, but I sure wish they were more common. Most IT practitioners shun the idea of a union because they think they are going to be the next Gates or Zuckerberg. So instead of supporting the idea of someone who could negotiate on their behalf and focusing on what is needed to get comfortable they refuse to, because they think one day it's gonna be me, I'll have the power, I'll be "the Fister", but they never will be because they're a pussy. IT is a ruthless business and because IT practitioners have spent so much time fisting each other over, management figure thats the way to treat IT professionals. To loan from southpark, I am a dick, you need to be to deal with these assholes so stop being a pussy. Your boss is your enemy, if you don't leave first you boss *WILL* fire you. It's inevitable.
You know that indispensable guy you've been working with who is so cool that has worked there forever, don't trust him. He is so spineless that he hasn't been able to negotiate a better deal for himself the entire ten years he has been there, despite being the fister. Despite being able to turn off the money tap his misguided loyalty is going to make him knife you in the back after he fists you. You may never know it was him, it might be obvious. He will smile, shake your hand and say it's a real pity. His remorse will last as long as it takes for you to walk out the door, probably less. He is a pussy, he will earn peoples hate. I've been him, he's been you.
That's the reality of IT today kids. No more parties on triple hulled catamarans cause the company did a good year, just "you get to keep your job,,, for now". Thats why I keep enough pay in the bank to last 6 months to a year so I can tolerate being fired by an asshole. I don't like something, anything, I look for a new job say "You guys are great, I wish I can stay" then leave withdrawing my fist and a gaping hole where it was. They'll be back in 6 months asking what my consultancy rates are.
Whilst I am polite co-operative, amenable and agreeable I realise these things hold true, there is no loyalty, show me the fucking money and it's all about me. I know you're young, earning 100K a year, well guess what it's the most you'll ever earn. You are a devalued commodity from day one in this ageist industry. Am I bitter, fuck yeah, I love IT. I've seen what it was over 25 years and I see what it is now. So many good people chewed up and spat out. My bitterness and cynicism is what helps me to survive all the assholes I've met.
Outraged, or don't like my attitude, fuck you, I get interesting projects and plenty of variety, which also means I get lots of invaluable experience so pay is comfortable. IT is a ruthless cesspit of spineless two faced liars that will screw you over because that is easier than standing up for themselves. They have no balls. If you can't be a better negotiator then you had better find a union paid not to have those scruples or get out of IT, pussy, they're your choices.
If you can't accept that analysis it's more than likely you are the one being fisted.
Almost as lame as this comment.
The cruel irony about this debate is that people who want to (or need to) die are sentenced to an indeterminate amount of suffering before they actually die and people convicted to death have their lives taken for a crime they should spend the rest of their natural lives contemplating in a steel and concrete cell.
The way the most despised are treated says a lot about a society, but the way a society treats it's least despised says a lot more.
now your telling me I can get SARs from a phone. I'm just wondering if it's just me that would find it immensely satisfying to smash their phone with a hammer, sometimes.
I'm certain Microsoft will maintain the development of the excellent proprietary drivers for Linux should they ever acquire nVidia.
Parent post sounds like a reasoned assessment, up until the last sentence.
Why on Earth would anyone believe that changing the transmitter attached to your skull from a cell phone to a bluetooth device would reduce the risk is more than I can see. Surely anyone whose brain has not been totally irradiated would realize that a wired headset would be the thing.
Since the technology is available it becomes a question of reducing exposure to risk. In this case it was the power output of the bluetooth device versus an accident caused by having my hands tangled by a cable while I go around a corner in a suburban street. I decided that I would incur that risk rather than have a cable interfering with my driving in suburban traffic or while there were pedestrians around.
I am tempted to mod parent "funny" rather than respond to it, but if parent is a troll, it is sufficiently subtle and droll that it deserves the reward of a response.
I trust my reasoning is sufficient since your statement belittles it either way while you hold the power to censor it according to your opinions.
Lots of the "cell phones cause cancer!" people think that lower power EMFs are even worse for you.
If you're going to buy into the crazy, why stop at the moderately crazy?
Depends on the emitter doesn't it. I've worked with RF several times in my career. Early on (I was still in my teens) it was with 25watt transmitters and I think it was about 800Mhz. My hand got a mild RF burn while I was screwing in an antenna on the roof of a truck and a workmate accidentally powered up the transmitter. It ached for at least a week. Given that experience it's not hard to extrapolate what long term exposure to RF in higher frequency with lower power would do to the most sensitive part of the body.
Er, what makes you think bluetooth isnt giving radiation as well, or that it doesnt operate in the 2.4ghz range?
I don't, I just the accept risk because bluetooth is in the milliwatt range of power and that a mobile phone is in the watt range of power. All these responses are centred around bluetooth this or bluetooth that but ignore that the issue of vehicle control is the dominant factor and that a headset is available is a *choice* I make to reduce exposing my brain to radio transmissions.
When I am at work or out of a vehicle I use a wired headset to talk on the phone.
With a little research in to understanding how these devices worked from an electronics perspective I discovered that a mobile phone frequency transmits between 900Mhz and 2400Mhz. A rough calculation revealed the wavelength of 2400Mhz is roughly 13cms with the wavelength getting longer as it gets lower. That means your head is within the wavelength of the transmission. When the device is in contact with your head absorption quadruples due to inductance AND the device varies it's power output according to signal strength, so if your brain is absorbing the wavelength then the device increases it's power output. Even simply breaking contact with your head reduces absorption by three quarters, put the device in speaker mode and turn the volume down.
I think to anyone who understands the nature of the devices this is a no brainer, one of my relations recently died of brain cancer so I witnessed first hand that it is a very bad way to die. A bluetooth headset is about $200, why would you bother taking the risk?