Until a hurricane rolls over it and sends the solar panels out to sea in many small chunks, maybe....
The irony that this is the reason that Duke cites Levy being cancelled. Westinghouse couldn't make an AP1000 that can pass NRC hurricane regulations, here is a transcript of the radio program.
Here we see the effect of dismantling the Public Utility Companies Holding Act (PUCHA deregulation) in action. This 'New Deal' act to prevent a re-occurrence of the 1929 depression by Utility companies scamming taxpayers.
Duke received subsidies and tax incentives under provisions to build a nuclear reactor (that's the $2.50 per MWh they charged) and will now be able to activate cost recovery under "SEC. 638. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN NUCLEAR PLANT DELAYS" of the 2005 US energy policy act to the tune of half a billion dollars for these two 'proposed' nuclear reactors. Not a bad return on sunk costs of $65 million. Specifically SEC. 638, (d)(2)(A,B).
To those that cite NIMBYs, NIMBYs didn't make Westinghouse Nuclear go bankrupt and Duke is blaming the NRC for delays issuing the Combined License for the construction and operation of Levy, this is SEC. 638, (c)(1)(A). It would be interesting to know what Duke claims those delays were and US tax and ratepayers should be concerned that this isn't actually covered by SEC. 638, (c)(2)(C), i.e a normal business risk because Westinghouse can't build them a pair of AP1000s anymore and even if they could they can't pass the NRC regulations that make them safe in a hurricane.
Of interest is a 2011 Tampa Bay Times article which aired complaints that Duke have been scamming their customers $2.50 per Mwh since they proposed Levy probably under SEC. 638, (d)(4)(B). This clumsy episode shows exactly how the scam works. It's difficult to believe there was an intention to build a nuclear power plant and that the entire nuclear renaissance was a way for oil and coal companies to use the nuclear industry to plunder the taxpayer.
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I am glad that we agree here.
If people decide to assemble then the people who participate in their group have to abide by their rules. So if a union wants to have mandatory membership in that sector, that is that groups right which has no impact on freedom of choice of an individual to participate in that occupation.
While unions should be free to organize and recruit members, people should likewise be free to ignore them.
People voluntarily make them selves members of certain communities that have a set of standards. Those communities expect certain standards and some of them are mandatory if you expect to participate in that occupation. Mandatory union membership is a way of that community saying there is something important about their culture they need preserved or functioning, a certain level of discipline is required of you if you undertake this occupation.
What you're saying is like military recruits being free to ignore military culture. Soldiers could just choose to leave whenever they want. If they didn't want to be deployed somewhere - they don't have to. If they don't like an order, there is no need to obey it. If there was a battle that they didn't want to participate in, they don't have to. An aspect of training they don't really want to do, it won't be required of them. A mission they didn't want to do, they can wait it out. An individual that chooses to become a soldier is expected to participate, it's mandatory.
So, no I don't agree that people should be free to ignore the community standards of a certian occupation, if you want to work there then you damn well discipline yourself to those standards. That is what that culture, freely assembled, expects. People who don't agree with that are free to assemble their own group and create their own culture. No one has any business disrupting someone's culture in the community if mandatory membership is what they have deemed is required. It's not as if the individual has to be there, they can work somewhere else if they aren't disciplined enough.
You're saying none of the unions are sincere which seems unlikely, what about the ones that are sincere? Are you going to step in and dictate to them how they should operate their culture? If you don't agree with the rules of their culture then leave. If you are passionate about that culture and think it needs to change then you first have to discipline yourself to that culture, learn it, then master it, then you have earned the right to change it.
Again, like churches as I mentioned in my earlier reply (which I note you conveniently omitted).
I didn't think it was a realistic scenario comparable to real life. Unions are political organizations, by design, that is what they do. Churches are specifically *not* political organizations, that is the
boundary between church and state.
Unions should not be treated any differently than churches: if you want to join it is your business, but nobody should be able to force you to join.
I don't agree with that. Unions are completely different from Churches and they should be treated completely differently from churches. It is a function of unions to operate politically because they have the role of updating community standards. They are legal entities with a specifically political function in the community. For them to function some of them enforce mandatory membership.
I certainly wouldn't want a Doctor practicing medicine without being a member of the relevant medical association, that is mandatory membership in that organization. Same with Paramedics, Policemen, Firefighters all expect colleagues to have certain standards because otherwise it
In fact, the tendency of unions to breed mediocrity at the cost of personal responsibility is partly why I think that they are part of the problem
That is the sad irony. Some people really are mediocre. We're not all equal and we never will be, worse some people actually choose to be mediocre. If they have a mediocre job and a mediocre union they are still free to step out of that. They either take on the personal responsibility willingly or they remain mediocre. Nothing is going to stop a mediocre person who thinks life is meaningless from being the least they can be. Having a union that they *have* to join is probably more than they deserve formed by people only slightly less mediocre that they are.
However, if a union establishes a closed shop somewhere (i.e., you must join that particular union as a condition of employment), then they are infringing upon the right of free assembly of any worker who does not wish to join the union. Saying "that's just how it is" does not make it right.
You could also say that this free assembly of people have certain professional and cultural standards that they wish to maintain and what right has any third party earned to go in and mess with their culture or standards.
Dictating to a group how they should express their right to free assembly is not democracy, it's dictatorship. That's not right either. That's what was done in the USSR just before they butchered a bunch of unionists who realized that was the only way to challenge state power. Too tired to remember where I read that.
Free assembly as a right to unionize in the US cost a lot of people their lives and mob tactics were used several time to try to stop it happening. We should probably keep in mind that unionism has to confront corporate *and* state power at the same time so it is going to need to have some teeth.
why do unions get a special pass on forcing people to join in some cases?
I don't know. Maybe the industry sector is so ferocious. Maybe they need to ensure that people all have the same level of safety and first aid training so a colleague doesn't die. Maybe because their members are so apathetic they need to make people pay attention. Not all unions have mandatory membership so obviously it's not a widespread thing, just a thing that happens sometimes.
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I have no problems with unions anymore than I have problem with companies selling timeshares, in that while I disagree with what they do and believe that they misrepresent themselves to those who they claim to serve, I believe that individuals should have the right make the choice.
Every individual believes they should have the right to choose. The issue at stake is the right to free assembly which is at least as fundamental as the right to free speech. When you make that kind of generalization it attacks the right to free assembly in an unconscious way.
However, the problems that I have with unions are: 1) they misrepresent themselves and, 2) forced membership
1) They all do that? Really, 100% of them misrepresent themselves. Say a specific union has corrupt practices, sure, I can accept that. Lots of groups misrepresent themselves, unions do too. That's just the world and we have to try to figure out who is lying to us
2) There are countries with participatory democracies where you have to vote. If there is legal lobbying and representation that may be reasonable in some cases. Like if you do a job that's mundane or has high risk of death it might be appropriate and I wouldn't want to make that sort of generalization. I'm not saying you're wrong either, there probably are instances where it is inappropriate.
What I'm saying is I err on the side that gives the individual the most freedom, for all of the warts that come with it.
However, if you work somewhere where you are forced to join a union (because "we're here to help you with collective bargaining") and you find out that most of your dues goes to pay for large union boss salaries and political campaigns, then what recourse do you have? Right now, there is none.
Yes there is, you free assemble with people who share your beliefs and form your own union. That's why free speech is important and people should be allowed to speak their mind. They're either an idiot that should be ignored or they have a point and other people feel the same way.
This is what I've never gotten about the land of the free, people complaining that people are free to assemble in a democracy and make changes to improve their culture by expressing their truth. That's what freedom IS, that deserves celebration, look at those guys standing up for themselves, good on them.
Maybe unions have to be that way in America because business is ferocious, I don't know, maybe they are a product of the industries they operate in.
If I were forced to join a group as a condition of employment and fund its speech with which I disagree, I would consider that to be a violation of my free speech. As long as the unions are cool with membership being optional, then everything is fine.
I think this comes down to Personal Responsibility, which seems to be an unpopular concept, insofar as if you are going to work in a particular field of work then you had better know that in advance and figure out if you are comfortable with being in that union, otherwise what are you doing there? If you're so passionate about a certain field of work then you can form your own union that is optional and exercise your right to free assembly.
People who have mastered the cultural idioms of their field have earned the right to change it. What about the people who are fine with mandatory unionism, you're impinging on their free speech AND their right to free assembly. Who has the right to say to a particular group you can't assemble yourselves that way, maybe they have a perfectly good reason to do so. Your free speech ends where theirs begins and if they aren't comfortable with it then they have the right to assemble a new organization and change that cultural aspect of society which lives or dies on its merits.
That's the underutilized point of being in a democracy, the freedom to evolve it.
Unionism is a subset of the right to free assembly and is one of the underlying principles of democracy. This is a spin off of free speech, when enough people feel the same way about some aspect of culture that it needs to be changed, that is how it is changed. That's the point of free speech.
It seems to me that many people are all for free speech until a group gathers to express it, then it becomes easy to marginalize them, as a group. Personally I go by the maxim that someone's free speech ends where mine begins because if you give someone enough rope they'll either hang themselves or you'll find some sort of understanding. If you try really hard you may even find some mutual respect.
And indeed clothing/textiles was the focus of much tech before then, the spinning wheel, the loom, the cotton gin, etc. It's no surprise it's helping drive the next stage.
There was a/. poll here some time ago about what the first technology was and it came down to clothing and the knife.
cartwheeling in from stage left and stage right, big smiles and pom poms, kicking their legs out like dancers, shaking their stuff screaming EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH!
An agressive fighter like Tyson would have destroyed any UFC fighter in his weight class within seconds.
Only in boxing and only in a boxing ring. If you put a fighter like Tyson up against a machine like Bas Rutten or Hickson Gracie anywhere else it would end up the same, with the boxer, on his back on the ground, unable to use his hands getting a face massage with an elbow or with a paniced look on his face as he gets choked out, not knowing what to do or how to do it. Sure, the take down maybe difficult to get however a semi-accomplished Muay Thai Boxer would patiently chop a boxer down, and never need to take the boxer to the ground, just with leg kicks.
Bullshit. A conservative figher like Mayweather was bound to make McGregor and the UFC look credible, which was the goal.
Hahahahahaha. You have to be shitposting, MacGregor landed more scoring hits on Mayweather than the last few boxers he fought.
What you don't seem to understand is UFC is a testing ground for which fighting systems are credible and effective. Boxing was discredited as an effective fighting system with a bunch of other bullshit martial arts back in the 1990s, boxers have stepped into the UFC and they have been annihilated when that is the only skill the have.
Whatever problems the UFC has you can pick any of your current professional boxers, at the top of their game and put them in the UFC and you will find it is the end of their career from the humiliating beat down they would receive from ONE UFC bout, before they go back to boxing. Kicks in the leg, take downs and none of the boxing fast hands make a difference. Whilst I tip my hat to the professionalism to boxing as a sport, that's what it is. The UFC showed us, long ago, that boxing isn't a credible fighting system.
Even the weight classes are heavier in UFC, where a light heavyweight in UFC is a heavyweight in boxing and on the street boxing is useless against even a semi-credible martial artist who could snap your knee and keep any boxer at distance just by using kicks and denying the boxer any use of their primary weapons.
Conor may be a professional in the Octagon but he is a rank amateur in the ring and the inverse would go for Mayweather.
Well as a rank amateur in boxing he just went 10 rounds with one of boxing's best, that's a pretty professional effort. I think MacGregor has just shown that UFC fighters could hold their own in a boxing ring with a limited toolset, UFC fighters have to know how to punch even if they don't know the strategy of boxing.
Boxers don't have a kick game, a ground game, a elbow game, a choke game, a lock game. UFC fighters have to be all rounders and it shows that the punch game for some fighters in UFC is pretty good, forgetting about all the other things that can be done with hands.
All in all I think this is a good thing for both sports. The level of professionalism show by both fighters was very high and I have a new respect for Mayweather because he was classy and humble in victory.
It was 100% fake. Like most MMA matches these days.
It doesn't matter. Both fighters have similar styles and the confidence of the man to step out of UFC into boxing has to be applauded. Because boxing isn't even half a fight compared to getting an elbow in the face or a shin hitting a quad muscle dead. Goodbye leg. Forget about taking someone to the ground and doing chokes or joint locks. Boxing is about as redundant in the 21st century as two gentleman walking ten paces and firing a pistol.
Mayweather wouldn't last 20 seconds in the cage with MacGregor and everyone, especially Mayweather, knows it. MacGregor won as soon as Mayweather took the fight. This was about Boxing passing the flame to UFC because it's more exciting than boxing. You may say that MMA is fake, the difference is it can be more real than boxing ever could.
Thank you, so often people make statements and can't back up their claim. I will read and analyze this information as I have only gisted it for now.
The site is way out of date but the critique of Storm and Smith is valid.
They reference the Vattenfall work that the IPCC used in its estimates however the Vattenfall worked wasn't peer reviewed and is out of date the last time I found it. In this work it is also out of date and the link to the VattenFall work in this paper is broken. I've read the Vattenfall work, which was originally produced as a critique to Storm and Smith work and read like a product safety advisory. I have been looking for a copy of it so if you come across it please send it on. Many who cite the Vattenfall work aren't aware of this.
The energy used to mine and mill this Uranium was about 3% of a GigaWatt-year. Thus the energy produced is about 500 times more than the energy required to operate the mine.
Glad you pointed this out. This lady suffered incredible pain that required skin grafts, while the media was humiliating her. Why McD was serving coffee so hot after they had received so many complaints was a mystery and that they required a lawsuit to correct their practices showed how stubborn they were.
This calculation is absolutely wrong. It vastly over-estimates the costs of Uranium mining and the energy cost of nuclear enrichment.
Citation, please. I already did to know both sides of this argument so I'll be interested in what you present, however I doubt you will be able to present anything to back up this claim. There is one avenue that you may find, however when you do, you'll find it's much worse than energetic expenditure.
You have to dig into a whole pile of stupid formulas to find it. This is forms a part of the anti-nuclear echo chamber.
Well you're welcome to provide some fact to back that assertion up however while you obsess over pro- and anti- nuclear there are a bunch of people, including me, who would just like to understand what the truth is beyond all of the PR BS that comes from the nuclear industry. They were the ones who polarized this debate so that instead of people being able to evaluate factual information about the nuclear industry, we are left to squabble of relative ideologies.
If you were able to present some fact to back up your claim, maybe you could say that and point to why however since you can't what your saying sounds like part of the pro-nuclear echo chamber that has really become an irrelevant obstacle to uncovering facts about the nuclear industry. Fortunately wind and solar power are slowly removing the need for nuclear power.
Perhaps I read the wrong part of your article, but it is also possible you were just hoping no one would follow your link.
Not at all, they are all parts of a larger whole, I'm glad someone got something out of it. There are other aspects including the energetic cost of building and disposing of the reactors as well which have to be figured into the overall calculation of EROEI. It is a reasonably large piece of work so I wouldn't expect people to absorb it all in one go.
Jet Airliners and Jet Fighters have someone in a cockpit. They have yokes and Sticks and can take control of the aircraft at anytime.
Neither of them take off or land by themselves.
This is the reason that the astronauts wanted a manual control for the vehicle. Not having control of something before you die is not a problem you can solve as you are trying to avert a disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
Until a hurricane rolls over it and sends the solar panels out to sea in many small chunks, maybe....
The irony that this is the reason that Duke cites Levy being cancelled. Westinghouse couldn't make an AP1000 that can pass NRC hurricane regulations, here is a transcript of the radio program.
Here we see the effect of dismantling the Public Utility Companies Holding Act (PUCHA deregulation) in action. This 'New Deal' act to prevent a re-occurrence of the 1929 depression by Utility companies scamming taxpayers.
Duke received subsidies and tax incentives under provisions to build a nuclear reactor (that's the $2.50 per MWh they charged) and will now be able to activate cost recovery under "SEC. 638. STANDBY SUPPORT FOR CERTAIN NUCLEAR PLANT DELAYS" of the 2005 US energy policy act to the tune of half a billion dollars for these two 'proposed' nuclear reactors. Not a bad return on sunk costs of $65 million. Specifically SEC. 638, (d)(2)(A,B).
To those that cite NIMBYs, NIMBYs didn't make Westinghouse Nuclear go bankrupt and Duke is blaming the NRC for delays issuing the Combined License for the construction and operation of Levy, this is SEC. 638, (c)(1)(A). It would be interesting to know what Duke claims those delays were and US tax and ratepayers should be concerned that this isn't actually covered by SEC. 638, (c)(2)(C), i.e a normal business risk because Westinghouse can't build them a pair of AP1000s anymore and even if they could they can't pass the NRC regulations that make them safe in a hurricane.
Of interest is a 2011 Tampa Bay Times article which aired complaints that Duke have been scamming their customers $2.50 per Mwh since they proposed Levy probably under SEC. 638, (d)(4)(B). This clumsy episode shows exactly how the scam works. It's difficult to believe there was an intention to build a nuclear power plant and that the entire nuclear renaissance was a way for oil and coal companies to use the nuclear industry to plunder the taxpayer.
You will be harvested and rendered into Soylent for the next generation of tech workers to consume.
That brings new meaning to the phrase 'Eat me!'
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I am glad that we agree here.
If people decide to assemble then the people who participate in their group have to abide by their rules. So if a union wants to have mandatory membership in that sector, that is that groups right which has no impact on freedom of choice of an individual to participate in that occupation.
While unions should be free to organize and recruit members, people should likewise be free to ignore them.
People voluntarily make them selves members of certain communities that have a set of standards. Those communities expect certain standards and some of them are mandatory if you expect to participate in that occupation. Mandatory union membership is a way of that community saying there is something important about their culture they need preserved or functioning, a certain level of discipline is required of you if you undertake this occupation.
What you're saying is like military recruits being free to ignore military culture. Soldiers could just choose to leave whenever they want. If they didn't want to be deployed somewhere - they don't have to. If they don't like an order, there is no need to obey it. If there was a battle that they didn't want to participate in, they don't have to. An aspect of training they don't really want to do, it won't be required of them. A mission they didn't want to do, they can wait it out. An individual that chooses to become a soldier is expected to participate, it's mandatory.
So, no I don't agree that people should be free to ignore the community standards of a certian occupation, if you want to work there then you damn well discipline yourself to those standards. That is what that culture, freely assembled, expects. People who don't agree with that are free to assemble their own group and create their own culture. No one has any business disrupting someone's culture in the community if mandatory membership is what they have deemed is required. It's not as if the individual has to be there, they can work somewhere else if they aren't disciplined enough.
You're saying none of the unions are sincere which seems unlikely, what about the ones that are sincere? Are you going to step in and dictate to them how they should operate their culture? If you don't agree with the rules of their culture then leave. If you are passionate about that culture and think it needs to change then you first have to discipline yourself to that culture, learn it, then master it, then you have earned the right to change it.
Again, like churches as I mentioned in my earlier reply (which I note you conveniently omitted).
I didn't think it was a realistic scenario comparable to real life. Unions are political organizations, by design, that is what they do. Churches are specifically *not* political organizations, that is the boundary between church and state.
Unions should not be treated any differently than churches: if you want to join it is your business, but nobody should be able to force you to join.
I don't agree with that. Unions are completely different from Churches and they should be treated completely differently from churches. It is a function of unions to operate politically because they have the role of updating community standards. They are legal entities with a specifically political function in the community. For them to function some of them enforce mandatory membership.
I certainly wouldn't want a Doctor practicing medicine without being a member of the relevant medical association, that is mandatory membership in that organization. Same with Paramedics, Policemen, Firefighters all expect colleagues to have certain standards because otherwise it
In fact, the tendency of unions to breed mediocrity at the cost of personal responsibility is partly why I think that they are part of the problem
That is the sad irony. Some people really are mediocre. We're not all equal and we never will be, worse some people actually choose to be mediocre. If they have a mediocre job and a mediocre union they are still free to step out of that. They either take on the personal responsibility willingly or they remain mediocre. Nothing is going to stop a mediocre person who thinks life is meaningless from being the least they can be. Having a union that they *have* to join is probably more than they deserve formed by people only slightly less mediocre that they are.
However, if a union establishes a closed shop somewhere (i.e., you must join that particular union as a condition of employment), then they are infringing upon the right of free assembly of any worker who does not wish to join the union. Saying "that's just how it is" does not make it right.
You could also say that this free assembly of people have certain professional and cultural standards that they wish to maintain and what right has any third party earned to go in and mess with their culture or standards.
Dictating to a group how they should express their right to free assembly is not democracy, it's dictatorship. That's not right either. That's what was done in the USSR just before they butchered a bunch of unionists who realized that was the only way to challenge state power. Too tired to remember where I read that.
Free assembly as a right to unionize in the US cost a lot of people their lives and mob tactics were used several time to try to stop it happening. We should probably keep in mind that unionism has to confront corporate *and* state power at the same time so it is going to need to have some teeth.
why do unions get a special pass on forcing people to join in some cases?
I don't know. Maybe the industry sector is so ferocious. Maybe they need to ensure that people all have the same level of safety and first aid training so a colleague doesn't die. Maybe because their members are so apathetic they need to make people pay attention. Not all unions have mandatory membership so obviously it's not a widespread thing, just a thing that happens sometimes.
I'm certain not willing to dictate to anyone what form their right to free assembly takes place. I'm going to come down of the side of freedom of expression, speech and assembly every time.
I have no problems with unions anymore than I have problem with companies selling timeshares, in that while I disagree with what they do and believe that they misrepresent themselves to those who they claim to serve, I believe that individuals should have the right make the choice.
Every individual believes they should have the right to choose. The issue at stake is the right to free assembly which is at least as fundamental as the right to free speech. When you make that kind of generalization it attacks the right to free assembly in an unconscious way.
However, the problems that I have with unions are: 1) they misrepresent themselves and, 2) forced membership
1) They all do that? Really, 100% of them misrepresent themselves. Say a specific union has corrupt practices, sure, I can accept that. Lots of groups misrepresent themselves, unions do too. That's just the world and we have to try to figure out who is lying to us
2) There are countries with participatory democracies where you have to vote. If there is legal lobbying and representation that may be reasonable in some cases. Like if you do a job that's mundane or has high risk of death it might be appropriate and I wouldn't want to make that sort of generalization. I'm not saying you're wrong either, there probably are instances where it is inappropriate.
What I'm saying is I err on the side that gives the individual the most freedom, for all of the warts that come with it.
However, if you work somewhere where you are forced to join a union (because "we're here to help you with collective bargaining") and you find out that most of your dues goes to pay for large union boss salaries and political campaigns, then what recourse do you have? Right now, there is none.
Yes there is, you free assemble with people who share your beliefs and form your own union. That's why free speech is important and people should be allowed to speak their mind. They're either an idiot that should be ignored or they have a point and other people feel the same way.
This is what I've never gotten about the land of the free, people complaining that people are free to assemble in a democracy and make changes to improve their culture by expressing their truth. That's what freedom IS, that deserves celebration, look at those guys standing up for themselves, good on them.
Maybe unions have to be that way in America because business is ferocious, I don't know, maybe they are a product of the industries they operate in.
If I were forced to join a group as a condition of employment and fund its speech with which I disagree, I would consider that to be a violation of my free speech. As long as the unions are cool with membership being optional, then everything is fine.
I think this comes down to Personal Responsibility, which seems to be an unpopular concept, insofar as if you are going to work in a particular field of work then you had better know that in advance and figure out if you are comfortable with being in that union, otherwise what are you doing there? If you're so passionate about a certain field of work then you can form your own union that is optional and exercise your right to free assembly.
People who have mastered the cultural idioms of their field have earned the right to change it. What about the people who are fine with mandatory unionism, you're impinging on their free speech AND their right to free assembly. Who has the right to say to a particular group you can't assemble yourselves that way, maybe they have a perfectly good reason to do so. Your free speech ends where theirs begins and if they aren't comfortable with it then they have the right to assemble a new organization and change that cultural aspect of society which lives or dies on its merits.
That's the underutilized point of being in a democracy, the freedom to evolve it.
Unionism is a subset of the right to free assembly and is one of the underlying principles of democracy. This is a spin off of free speech, when enough people feel the same way about some aspect of culture that it needs to be changed, that is how it is changed. That's the point of free speech.
It seems to me that many people are all for free speech until a group gathers to express it, then it becomes easy to marginalize them, as a group. Personally I go by the maxim that someone's free speech ends where mine begins because if you give someone enough rope they'll either hang themselves or you'll find some sort of understanding. If you try really hard you may even find some mutual respect.
Don't lie, you're all thinking it.
The accountants are trying to work out the problem.
Well perhaps IDRC.
And indeed clothing/textiles was the focus of much tech before then, the spinning wheel, the loom, the cotton gin, etc. It's no surprise it's helping drive the next stage.
There was a /. poll here some time ago about what the first technology was and it came down to clothing and the knife.
cartwheeling in from stage left and stage right, big smiles and pom poms, kicking their legs out like dancers, shaking their stuff screaming EMBRACE, EXTEND, EXTINGUISH!
An agressive fighter like Tyson would have destroyed any UFC fighter in his weight class within seconds.
Only in boxing and only in a boxing ring. If you put a fighter like Tyson up against a machine like Bas Rutten or Hickson Gracie anywhere else it would end up the same, with the boxer, on his back on the ground, unable to use his hands getting a face massage with an elbow or with a paniced look on his face as he gets choked out, not knowing what to do or how to do it. Sure, the take down maybe difficult to get however a semi-accomplished Muay Thai Boxer would patiently chop a boxer down, and never need to take the boxer to the ground, just with leg kicks.
Bullshit. A conservative figher like Mayweather was bound to make McGregor and the UFC look credible, which was the goal.
Hahahahahaha. You have to be shitposting, MacGregor landed more scoring hits on Mayweather than the last few boxers he fought.
What you don't seem to understand is UFC is a testing ground for which fighting systems are credible and effective. Boxing was discredited as an effective fighting system with a bunch of other bullshit martial arts back in the 1990s, boxers have stepped into the UFC and they have been annihilated when that is the only skill the have.
Whatever problems the UFC has you can pick any of your current professional boxers, at the top of their game and put them in the UFC and you will find it is the end of their career from the humiliating beat down they would receive from ONE UFC bout, before they go back to boxing. Kicks in the leg, take downs and none of the boxing fast hands make a difference. Whilst I tip my hat to the professionalism to boxing as a sport, that's what it is. The UFC showed us, long ago, that boxing isn't a credible fighting system.
Even the weight classes are heavier in UFC, where a light heavyweight in UFC is a heavyweight in boxing and on the street boxing is useless against even a semi-credible martial artist who could snap your knee and keep any boxer at distance just by using kicks and denying the boxer any use of their primary weapons.
Every time MacGregor got Mayweathers back, that was where the fight ended anywhere else that wasn't a boxing ring. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or are shitposting because the scenario you spell out can only happen in boxing. Here is what happens when boxer meets a purple belt in Jui Jitsu, even when you give the boxer a few more weapons Or you can listen to what boxers have to say about stepping into UFC.
Conor may be a professional in the Octagon but he is a rank amateur in the ring and the inverse would go for Mayweather.
Well as a rank amateur in boxing he just went 10 rounds with one of boxing's best, that's a pretty professional effort. I think MacGregor has just shown that UFC fighters could hold their own in a boxing ring with a limited toolset, UFC fighters have to know how to punch even if they don't know the strategy of boxing.
Boxers don't have a kick game, a ground game, a elbow game, a choke game, a lock game. UFC fighters have to be all rounders and it shows that the punch game for some fighters in UFC is pretty good, forgetting about all the other things that can be done with hands.
All in all I think this is a good thing for both sports. The level of professionalism show by both fighters was very high and I have a new respect for Mayweather because he was classy and humble in victory.
Mayweather just toyed with him and was never even remotely in danger.
hahaha - 20 seconds in the octagon, any boxer.
It was 100% fake. Like most MMA matches these days.
It doesn't matter. Both fighters have similar styles and the confidence of the man to step out of UFC into boxing has to be applauded. Because boxing isn't even half a fight compared to getting an elbow in the face or a shin hitting a quad muscle dead. Goodbye leg. Forget about taking someone to the ground and doing chokes or joint locks. Boxing is about as redundant in the 21st century as two gentleman walking ten paces and firing a pistol.
Mayweather wouldn't last 20 seconds in the cage with MacGregor and everyone, especially Mayweather, knows it. MacGregor won as soon as Mayweather took the fight. This was about Boxing passing the flame to UFC because it's more exciting than boxing. You may say that MMA is fake, the difference is it can be more real than boxing ever could.
ummmmm, duuhhhh. Put out as much fake data as you can about yourself. May as well make it funny.
Wrong - you're completely free to use the non-forked version. Forks are just that - forks.
Until you get forked, then you're completely forked and everything is a forking mess.
Sorry for being grumpy.
It is a polarized issue so your manners are appreciated.
Here you go.
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclear...
Thank you, so often people make statements and can't back up their claim. I will read and analyze this information as I have only gisted it for now.
The site is way out of date but the critique of Storm and Smith is valid.
They reference the Vattenfall work that the IPCC used in its estimates however the Vattenfall worked wasn't peer reviewed and is out of date the last time I found it. In this work it is also out of date and the link to the VattenFall work in this paper is broken. I've read the Vattenfall work, which was originally produced as a critique to Storm and Smith work and read like a product safety advisory. I have been looking for a copy of it so if you come across it please send it on. Many who cite the Vattenfall work aren't aware of this.
The energy expenditure looks the same as In Situ Leach Mining, that explained some time ago. It is illegal in the US and Russia - for good reason.
Thanks again for the link - I'll go through it completely over the next week or so.
Reminds me of the McDonalds hot coffee suit.
Bad or intentional design ruins things as well.
Not just blaming the user.
Glad you pointed this out. This lady suffered incredible pain that required skin grafts, while the media was humiliating her. Why McD was serving coffee so hot after they had received so many complaints was a mystery and that they required a lawsuit to correct their practices showed how stubborn they were.
This calculation is absolutely wrong. It vastly over-estimates the costs of Uranium mining and the energy cost of nuclear enrichment.
Citation, please. I already did to know both sides of this argument so I'll be interested in what you present, however I doubt you will be able to present anything to back up this claim. There is one avenue that you may find, however when you do, you'll find it's much worse than energetic expenditure.
You have to dig into a whole pile of stupid formulas to find it. This is forms a part of the anti-nuclear echo chamber.
Well you're welcome to provide some fact to back that assertion up however while you obsess over pro- and anti- nuclear there are a bunch of people, including me, who would just like to understand what the truth is beyond all of the PR BS that comes from the nuclear industry. They were the ones who polarized this debate so that instead of people being able to evaluate factual information about the nuclear industry, we are left to squabble of relative ideologies.
If you were able to present some fact to back up your claim, maybe you could say that and point to why however since you can't what your saying sounds like part of the pro-nuclear echo chamber that has really become an irrelevant obstacle to uncovering facts about the nuclear industry. Fortunately wind and solar power are slowly removing the need for nuclear power.
Perhaps I read the wrong part of your article, but it is also possible you were just hoping no one would follow your link.
Not at all, they are all parts of a larger whole, I'm glad someone got something out of it. There are other aspects including the energetic cost of building and disposing of the reactors as well which have to be figured into the overall calculation of EROEI. It is a reasonably large piece of work so I wouldn't expect people to absorb it all in one go.
Jet Airliners and Jet Fighters have someone in a cockpit. They have yokes and Sticks and can take control of the aircraft at anytime.
Neither of them take off or land by themselves.
This is the reason that the astronauts wanted a manual control for the vehicle. Not having control of something before you die is not a problem you can solve as you are trying to avert a disaster.
Since nuclear has such a wildly greater EROEI than wind and solar,
No, you're wrong. Here is the science. Short answer negative EROEI on nuclear.
why isn't this story about the trillions of lives and quintillions of dollars saved by nuclear over the last 50 years?
Because there isn't any story to tell.
He fought against wind but wanted to force it on the rest of us.
Luckily, none of us were stuck in an elevator with him.