> For some reason there's a huge number of people who absolutely hate on people who are fat.
No, there's a huge number of people who hate on people who are fat that say it's perfectly healthy to be fat.
I've also seen people hating on fit people as if there is something wrong with it. Criticizing them because they are in shape. It's hard work but enjoyable work to be in shape. If people think it's hard work or too expensive to be in shape wait until they see how much the medical bills will cost them later in life. Humans adapted to walking about 35km a day to get food and we are still the fastest animal to *accelerate* to our top speed so there is little doubt that we all have to do some exercise.
Personally I've found that having martial arts in my life, like Muay Thai, Jui Jitsu and others has made being fit more fun because it was a consequence of trying to achieve a new grading, stripe or belt - I wasn't trying to get fit, I just did. The added benefit was not only did the fitness make me a better coder by clearing my mind and making for better sleep, learning things like meditation helped me tame some of the anti-social aspects of my character.
Nothing wrong with big people that are carrying fat, some of those big guys have got a lot of power. Despite the fantasy, many Spartan warriors carried extra fat because it added some protection against weapons penetrating vital organs. Also I've experienced getting a flu while I had very low body fat and it is a very unpleasant experience, very painful. The issue is when big people don't exercise *and* they're fat, it's a recipe for diabetes.
However in almost every instance of a fat guy coming to our gym (BJJ) and fighting is that if they stick with it they turn into big powerful guys and loose most, but never all of their fat.
they considered that innocent person's life to be disposable, even as they'd like to preserve their own.
Indeed, so how can we consider the lives of those who are wrongly accused, and you cannot deny it doesn't happen, disposable? I am certainly not implying that the guilty not be punished, I am saying those who are not deserve to have their lives valued as well, otherwise you are not only allowing the guilty to go free but add another victim of their crime.
The death penalty is obsolete because justice can never be perfect.
Listen friend, the corporations follow the law and pay as little tax as possible, just like thee and me. When you're ready to give up personal deductions, or the home mortgage deduction, then come back to me about cutting corporate deductions. Until then...
The difference is their capital is mobile and they can move their legal tax paying entities to lower threshold countries thus avoiding paying their fair share of tax. It maybe legal, however it isn't ethical, nor can an ordinary citizen behave this way.
And I won't blame Apple or anybody else for doing the same.
Playing one countries tax system against another is a race to the bottom that is best not participated in. The penalty for this behaviour should be to revoke that companies charter in that country, impose import penalties on their products until they comply so they are forced to contribute to the markets they operate in.
My money is my own. I earned it, not you or the government. When the government institutes true zero based budgeting with no earmarks, set asides, or automatic spending, get back to me with your guilt trip, till then...
So you are arguing for those companies to behave unethically and not make their fair contribution to the communities they draw income from. You are arguing for them not to pay their share when everyone else does. You haven't made a credible argument.
To get an idea of what's already in the general area of Yucca Mountain, completely uncontained, go to Google Earth and search for "Sedan Crater." Scan south from there. Count the nuclear bomb craters.
non sequitur
I've yet to hear any explanation, or even wacky hypothesis, as to how glassified waste at Yucca Mountain could be more hazardous than what's already there.
Why do you nukkers *always* jump straight to the ad hom. If you are still there I'll explain, but please don't be a fanboi.
If only they were as educated... because those reactors are designed to withstand ship-to-ship missile impacts, and are so heavily encased
The NS Savannah, the U.S' only nulcear powered merchant ship was designed specifically *without* the military shock protections that you assume would be in a civilian ship. If they were the cost to install and run the vessel would be significantly high due to them requiring even more specialized crews required to run the reactor, let alone the rest of the vessel.
Having said that the NS Savannah is a beautiful looking ship.
I believe, and should not, I think, I don't know the exact numbers nor can I site any sources, but my gut feeling is
The NS Savannah required a special vessel just to handle its waste cooling water, that is it required a second vessel, a second crew that was oil powered to service it. Were you to make those vessels nuclear powered as well you would have the beginnings of a nuclear waste water issue that makes complaining about smoke from oil powered ships look benign in comparison.
The Savannah also required a special ground and maintenance crew to service her as well, so given that this was a prototype extrapolating those servicing costs onto the shipping industry makes it rapidly spiral out of control.
Just one of these vessels would make a juicy target for any trorist organization seeking to use it to crash into any major port in any city. It may not cause a nuclear accident, however it would cripple any port anywhere for decades while the mess was cleaned up.
Military nuclear makes sense because of an Admiral named Rickover who established nuclear safety systems in the military and had a clear disdain for stupid people and ideas and would not allow them around nuclear facilities. In a civilian program there would be no such protections.
With the average age of a land based reactor being anywhere between 40-60 years how would you propose disposing of a nuclear powered ship at the end of its 25 year service life? Apart from its historical significance, the Savannah is still in one piece 50 years after it's service life whilst waiting for the reactor to cool.
I get it why it looks like a good idea on the surface however the NS Savannah paved the way for the world to understand why a civilian nuclear ship program isn't such a good idea when used in operation.
This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power.
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel.
I think we only have to look the Costa Concordia and the way for profit land based reactors are run to realize why it isn't a good idea have a for profit nuclear powered cruise ships running around the ocean.
You'll need to learn some politics too. Specifically the Integral Fast Reactor was a burner reactor prototyped in the US that showed promise with a burn up rate of 19%. It promised to replace coal and oil but Clinton shut it down and W.Bush funded its demolition in Sec 628 of the 2005 US Energy policy act. Oil and coal companies don't want something around that will replace their product, you see. To rub salt into the wound, the same act fund pilot programs to replicate some of IFR's hydrogen production functionality in Sec. 634 - as far as we know the funds haven't been accessed.
Of course the issue with the burner technology you suggest, apart from using sodium as a coolant, is that these reactors will be insanely radioactive at the end of their service lifespan. The only proper way to deploy them would be to build them inside a mountain where the reactor could be disposed of in-situ to cool and they simply would not be economically viable unless you could make one with a service life that exceeds 100 years. You won't get that without a significant advancement in materials technology.
I hoped burners would work too as it looked like promising technology for nuclear disarmament, however I'm afraid we are still a long way off.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of NIMBYs and anti-nuke environmental activists, we are storing spent waste in absolutely the most dangerous possible way.
You nukkers should stop blaming NIMBYs all the time because they have no political power in the placement of nuclear facilities. Yucca is not being used because it is about as effective at storing radio-isotopes as a sponge is to carry water. Hopefully some geologists here will chime in with some more details but getting the geology right for storing nuclear materials is very difficult in granite (the DOE's prefered choice) due to the way the rock fractures, let alone the pumice Yucca mountain is made of.
Yucca was selected because one of the representatives from Nevada didn't show up for the vote that placed it - nothing to do with science, it was placed inappropriately *because* of NIMBYism. There are probably more approriate sites in the US to choose from if science is applied to selecting one instead of politics. Once you do place it you are going to be building a lot of railways to move the spent fuel and NIMBYs and environmentalists have no control over investment funding for that.
You nukkers should start to look at how the oil and coal industry affects the nuclear industry with their lobbying power instead of blaming environmentalists and NIMBYs who have very little influence. It's all there (and more) in the laws that govern the way the taxpayer and government interact with funding of all of the energy industries. A core component of the US 'New Deal' the PUCHA is repealed in the 2005 energy act (see Subtitle F—Repeal of PUHCA in the same act) so that oil and coal interests can access taxpayer funding via accessing provisions in Sec 638 of the same act. They were *exactly* the conditions that created the US depression in the first place only this time oil and coal are using the nuclear industry to access the taxpayer's rates instead of other utilities.
"NIMBY" is a tired accusation that ignores how coal and oil interests are the main face of lobbying power that determines how these laws are shaped to distribute funding.
Revoke their charter if they are not prepared to contribute to the societies that grant them a license to exist. After all they are users of infrastructure and they expect the community to absorb all manner of negative externalities. It's only right that they contribute their share of tax if the rest of us do.
You are likely at this point not capable of letting your mind process the information objectively. So, I am wasting my time writing all this.
I think you make too many assumptions about my position. Just because I call people out on the fact doesn't mean I'm against nuclear power. I support the responsible use of nuclear power and development of infrastructure to achieve that goal.
Once upon a time I thought nuclear power would be the way to secure the worlds energy supply. The more I learned the more I saw this was not achievable with only nuclear power. The more questions I asked and the more fact I uncovered the more times I got called "anti-nuke" by people like you who could never provide the facts to support their suppositions.
I support the development of reactor technology however it is a difficult proposition considering the mess the industry has left and people who argue the way you do are more of a liability to achieving safe nuclear power. This is the reality that nukkers like you don't accept because you argue it is always NIMBYs or anyone else's responsibility for the problems the nuclear industry creates. It is this type of dogmatic scepticism that prevents the nuclear industry from advancing, accepting responsibility for it's mistakes and improving itself. It's always someone else's problem.
If you were sincere you would argue for improvement to the nuclear industry to ensure it's longevity, however you simply don't demonstrate that there is any need for it and anyone pointing out the *facts* must be anti-nuclear.
I never said there were no issues. But I will say they are all manageable.
So why haven't they been solved? The very fact that you say they are *all* manageable shows that you display the very lack of objectivity that you accuse me of. We can't even begin to have a discussion about how the issues might be solved without identifying what they are. There was plenty of opportunity for managable issues like seawall upgrades and back up generator relocation at Fukushima and they didn't occur.
It's also this attitude according to the report into the Fukushima accident that led to the management conditions that caused the accident in the first place. Fukushima proved that the Nuclear industry wasn't capable of learning the lessons from Chernobyl. From the Official report into the Fukushima accident:
[NISA] firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively create new regulations and The regulators also had a negative attitude toward the importation of new advances in knowledge and technology from overseas. If NISA had passed on to TEPCO measures that were included in the B.5.b subsection of the U.S. security order that followed the 9/11 terrorist action, and if TEPCO had put the measures in place, the accident may have been preventable.
I also support it because I understand it, my opinions are based on knowing what it is, and realistic perception of the risks, rather than fear and hyperbole from the anti-nuke ignorant.
Well your certainly not demonstrating an understanding of how the Fukushima accident occurred. Instead demonstrated an argument based on social proof instead of actual proof. It's understandable because you are transmuting an idealistic view of reality onto reality. Look at my sig, I'm talking about *your* ism.
In practically every anti-nuke rant I've ever seen there were significant errors, misconceptions, or flat out lies.
Well I can't speak to other discussions you have had. My assertions have been backed with citations and references that you refuse to accept calling them FUD. The only time you actually presented any fact to back up an argument with me it turned out to support what I was saying. This is a classic dogmatic sceptical
Why do you think that not getting to live out your life for decades after you've
Because living in a box for the rest of your days with nothing but your regrets and no freedom is not a life, it's being alive. What if the death peanalty is an escape for people who commit those types of serious crimes. Have you considered that they want to die and that their way of acheiving notoriety is by commiting grusome crimes?
Have you considered that a punishment far worse than death is to let them rot in a cell for the rest of their days with only their sick thoughts to keep them company and no way for them to act out their impulses, even suicide? Or beaten up everyday for the rest of their live because the *other* prisoners despise them.
Is it justice that the family of that girl gets to wake up every morning and look at her empty chair at the table before they head off to work to spend a bit of each day working so that some of their income can buy for her killer the breakfast she'll never again have?
Nothing is justice to someone in that scenario. Justice is that the criminal will never do it again, that regret will tear them apart from the inside out, unless they are a sociopath who is simply removed from society to live their days out in frustration, forgotten and discarded. What if the father decided to save the breakfast money to pay someone to beat the shit out of the asshole once a month for the rest of their life. You ignore the possibilities that the death penalty denies.
You're presuming that the justice system and policing is perfect, it isn't. Imagine the burden you have placed on that same family when the justice system returns to them and says "uuhhh, we executed the wrong person, but we're sure we will execute the right person *this time*. - do you want to watch - again. How about the criminal who set someone up for a crime so they get executed in a by-proxy state sanctioned murder? Two crimes for the price of one.
How does brutalizing the familiy of the murdered girl bring their girl back? Have you asked the families what *they* consider justice to be? What about those who want to forgive the killers so *they* can move on?
Spending decades providing food, medical care, education, housing, and entertainment for the person who, say, killed your mom with a knife in the gut in order to steal $5 from her purse - that's your idea of justice?
No, just shelter, food and medical because it is saying that the society is stronger than the individual commiting the crime and risen above the calls for vengance. You judge a society by the way it treats it's most despised.
Have you considered that some criminals view the death penalty as a *justification* for commiting serious crime? By reasoning "if the society is prepared to kill, then it is ok to kill and if it is ok for society to kill with brutality, then it is ok to kill with brutality."
The death penalty is a flawed institution, because it forgets that innocent people actually get imprisioned and that justice and policing isn't perfect. Sure I'm going to get a lot of critcizm for pointing these veiws out however if the death penalty was such a perfect detterent, why are so many people waiting to be executed for those crimes? All it shows is that society is failing in so many other ways whilst unable to rise above the need for vengence. That society lacks the strength of character of it's convictions.
Which brings us to the innocent person awaiting execution, they are the true victim of this revenge mentality. If just one innocent party is executed why aren't all those that call for the death penalty guilty of murder subject to the same penalty of death. Where is the innocent persons chance for redemption after they have been executed?
I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing.
These people are fine. Regarless of how wreckless or destructive to company profits or moral, they are law abiding citizens and therefore can be trusted to have good judgement.
Spoken like a true narcissist justifying a lack of morality.
Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything.
Just out of curiosity, if someone is suffering depression but is a high functioning individual are you saying you won't work with them because they are on prescribed medications? Are you aware that there are many people who have to take these medications do so to prevent them from commiting suicide?
Are you also aware that it is that attitude that keeps many people in a depressed state because they cannot speak openly about what is affecting them forcing them into a cycle of dishonesty that exacerbates their condition?
My terms extend to coworkers and employers. I won't tolerate it if having sound judgement matters. And in anything important... sound judgement matters.
I could extend the same reasoning to people who have very little or no emotional intelligence as it is often their lack of impulse control that causes endless conflict. They don't need to consume drugs to do millions of dollars worth of damage in lost productivity to other employees. They appear to have sound judgement, but in reality they undermine everyone around them with emotional manipulation so that they look good.
Perceptions of judgement can be manipulated and I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing. I would take working with someone who smoked weed over someone suffering from narrcissism or worse, occupational psychopathy, yet I am forced to work with these people who are obviously psychologically impaired.
The best people to work with are the ones able to overcome differences and display empathy towards others because they make *everyone* more productive.
You cannot force me to employ you. You cannot force me to work with you. You cannot force me to work for you.
Do you drink coffee? I don't see why I should tolerate peoples bad mood if they haven't had their cup of coffee and that *clearly* effects their judgement. Do you smoke tobacco, same reason, third party smoke is harmful and makes my clothes smell. Why should a smoker get to have ten 6 minutes smoke breaks a day while I keep working?
Of course the big one is alcohol, not only impairment but the violence that goes along with it. These people may not be drunk at work, but they are perfect assholes when they are sober.
The boundaries defined by tolerance and a good nature are they key to whether you help them or show them the door.
What I want to do is not spend my time dealing with giggling assholes that fuck up everything they touch.
Consuming recreational drugs at work isn't appropriate however the issue with drug tests is that they (as the article pointed out) extend beyond immediacy and several days previous. People should not be impared at work, especially if there is a safety issue at hand.
However drug testing that extends beyond what happens at work is an ethical issue, because it is not ethical to test someone for illegal substances if they are not impared at that time as it can lead to criminal charges. This is tantamount to an illegal search of one's person without a warrant and people should be free to do what they will in their own homes if they aren't harming others. This is a clear breach of many countries constitutional rights and it is right to walk away from employers who do this.
If employers want drug testing then they should be arguing for the legalization of the drugs they want to test for.
The pothead arguments bore me. I've heard all of them before and I hold this opinion.
I see this more as an issue of personal freedom than an issue of drugs. It should not matter what people do at home as long as they bring their game to work. After all they aren't imposing their will on you for your foibles.
People who have a "drug problem" usually have a lot of other
Seriously, and lame jokes aside about 'nerds and sex' it can't be healthy not to have a social life, and if you can only have a social life in the office because you have to eat, sleep, shower and work in the office then where is somone supposed to have a fuck? And if you do want to make a lame joke about 'nerds and sex', then where are they self masturbating?
I hate these fucking machines that put the labor costs on me. Besides what do I know about the hygene of some stranger who accidentally touched a food stuff I'm going to consume, blech. hmmmm, I like the smell of my ass crack sweat..oh look a bit of lint...I wonder why it is always blue...hey lets get ice cream gross wrong yuk, no fucking way.
If I have to make an *ice cream*, then I want to be paid for making it.
The Special Courts came into being in 1933, soon after the passage of the Reichstag Fire Decree which all but eliminated civil liberties.
It would be interesting to compare the intent of the wording of this with modern "Anti-Terorism" Acts that achieve this very same thing. For example:
Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications.
All of these things have been achieved in US/UK/Australian anti teror acts in varying degrees to manuver around constitutionality. I haven't read the Canadian or New Zealand articles (nor am I a Fench, German, Spanish, Italian speaker) however I am certain there are similarities in a move from covert to overt attack on all citizens rights. I'm not sure if the Reichstag Act would allow for the jailing of witnesses of arrests, body cavity searches of teenagers as young as 14 (IIRC the age) and strict liability for offences however our Anti teror laws certainly do. India, the worlds largest democracy, has wound back these laws and we should have the humility to follow their lead. What we have today is the Reich's wet dream.
In the context of the Burr-Feinstein bill to out law the function of encryption (as opposed to it's implementation and use) I think US citizens have to be careful that the meta-data retention clauses in Section 4 of their proposed bill isn't the real purpose. Australia had a similar bill pass 18 months ago and when I read the American version it was so familiar in intent.
Essentially there was a huge argument about the government accessing the contents of it's citizens communications, which is strikingly similar to the argument America is having now. Then a meta data bill was passed uncontested that allowed the government to map the associations of all citizens. When I read the Burr-Feinstein bill it's actually *worse* that the Australian bill in terms of the powers it allows.
I'm concerned for you guys that the this is the true intent of this debate, that the politician are playing the game of distraction so that what they really want in Section 4 sails through uncontested. Whilst it's right for you to protect your access to encryption your right to free association is also important and deserves just as much protection. Be careful Americans, don't let them fool you.
That's shitty. Did you keep your stuff? You can't just leave me hanging like that. Details, man! Details!
At this stage the police investigation is still ongoing so details may be inappropriate, however I just got news that they have found and charged one of my attackers. I will pass details to you via email as soon as I can.
The term "Renewable" itself is a lie. One day even the sun will stop shining. (And before, it will become really hot on earth, and the sun will swallow this planet).
Yes, in 500, 000, 000 years renewables will indeed no longer be viable. By that stage we will probably be smart enough to use an asteroid orbiting the earth every couple of hundred years to very slowly move earth's orbit away from the ever expanding sun.
For now we probably need thinking and planning in the 2-10 year timeframe.
We have been using MythTV for over a decade. The automatic commercial detection is pretty good, but we usually take a minute to set cutpoints (tweaking the detected commercials), and then transcode the recording to drop the commercials. Our son *never* sees commercials. I'm sure that has saved us tons of begging for toys and whatnot.
My friend does this too, it makes for great kids that don't nag, which is exactly what the billions of dollars of psychology invested in commercials is designed to create. From what I've seen (they're about 10 now) you are on the right track to producing some well balanced human beings that won't require therapy later on in life.
Speaking of which, per our previous conversations, I got mugged by three guys a couple of days ago. I sustained minor injuries and a concussion (and one hell of a headache still). I'm not saying I'm super tough or anything, I'm saying I didn't get killed and they ran away with injuries for their trouble.
You think that would be the way it works. It doesn't. Watching the CEOs face as they realized they rolled the wrong dice as you walk out the door?... definitely worth the few weeks severance that might have been offered after training the replacements.
I agree, I've been there. But we're not unique, we're skilled in a difficult profession. This practise is to pit us against one another so that they can have both and reduce us to beggars. They can only change the state of play, whereas I think we can change the rules if we don't let them pit us against one another.
Slashdot Mirror
> For some reason there's a huge number of people who absolutely hate on people who are fat.
No, there's a huge number of people who hate on people who are fat that say it's perfectly healthy to be fat.
I've also seen people hating on fit people as if there is something wrong with it. Criticizing them because they are in shape. It's hard work but enjoyable work to be in shape. If people think it's hard work or too expensive to be in shape wait until they see how much the medical bills will cost them later in life. Humans adapted to walking about 35km a day to get food and we are still the fastest animal to *accelerate* to our top speed so there is little doubt that we all have to do some exercise.
Personally I've found that having martial arts in my life, like Muay Thai, Jui Jitsu and others has made being fit more fun because it was a consequence of trying to achieve a new grading, stripe or belt - I wasn't trying to get fit, I just did. The added benefit was not only did the fitness make me a better coder by clearing my mind and making for better sleep, learning things like meditation helped me tame some of the anti-social aspects of my character.
Nothing wrong with big people that are carrying fat, some of those big guys have got a lot of power. Despite the fantasy, many Spartan warriors carried extra fat because it added some protection against weapons penetrating vital organs. Also I've experienced getting a flu while I had very low body fat and it is a very unpleasant experience, very painful. The issue is when big people don't exercise *and* they're fat, it's a recipe for diabetes.
However in almost every instance of a fat guy coming to our gym (BJJ) and fighting is that if they stick with it they turn into big powerful guys and loose most, but never all of their fat.
they considered that innocent person's life to be disposable, even as they'd like to preserve their own.
Indeed, so how can we consider the lives of those who are wrongly accused, and you cannot deny it doesn't happen, disposable? I am certainly not implying that the guilty not be punished, I am saying those who are not deserve to have their lives valued as well, otherwise you are not only allowing the guilty to go free but add another victim of their crime.
The death penalty is obsolete because justice can never be perfect.
Listen friend, the corporations follow the law and pay as little tax as possible, just like thee and me. When you're ready to give up personal deductions, or the home mortgage deduction, then come back to me about cutting corporate deductions. Until then...
The difference is their capital is mobile and they can move their legal tax paying entities to lower threshold countries thus avoiding paying their fair share of tax. It maybe legal, however it isn't ethical, nor can an ordinary citizen behave this way.
And I won't blame Apple or anybody else for doing the same.
Playing one countries tax system against another is a race to the bottom that is best not participated in. The penalty for this behaviour should be to revoke that companies charter in that country, impose import penalties on their products until they comply so they are forced to contribute to the markets they operate in.
My money is my own. I earned it, not you or the government. When the government institutes true zero based budgeting with no earmarks, set asides, or automatic spending, get back to me with your guilt trip, till then...
So you are arguing for those companies to behave unethically and not make their fair contribution to the communities they draw income from. You are arguing for them not to pay their share when everyone else does. You haven't made a credible argument.
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
Having worked in and around the military for nearly 40 yrs., I don't see that as an advantage over private sector.
Specifically, I was referring to the management philosophies of this man who oversaw building navy nuclear reactors and propulsion systems.
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
One would think that there are plenty of former military who wouldn't mind doing the same work on a civilian pay scale.
Absolutely, however they would be working in a profit centric system as opposed to a military system with systemic certifications for safety.
To get an idea of what's already in the general area of Yucca Mountain, completely uncontained, go to Google Earth and search for "Sedan Crater." Scan south from there. Count the nuclear bomb craters.
non sequitur
I've yet to hear any explanation, or even wacky hypothesis, as to how glassified waste at Yucca Mountain could be more hazardous than what's already there.
Why do you nukkers *always* jump straight to the ad hom. If you are still there I'll explain, but please don't be a fanboi.
If only they were as educated ... because those reactors are designed to withstand ship-to-ship missile impacts, and are so heavily encased
The NS Savannah, the U.S' only nulcear powered merchant ship was designed specifically *without* the military shock protections that you assume would be in a civilian ship. If they were the cost to install and run the vessel would be significantly high due to them requiring even more specialized crews required to run the reactor, let alone the rest of the vessel.
Having said that the NS Savannah is a beautiful looking ship.
I believe, and should not, I think, I don't know the exact numbers nor can I site any sources, but my gut feeling is
The NS Savannah required a special vessel just to handle its waste cooling water, that is it required a second vessel, a second crew that was oil powered to service it. Were you to make those vessels nuclear powered as well you would have the beginnings of a nuclear waste water issue that makes complaining about smoke from oil powered ships look benign in comparison.
The Savannah also required a special ground and maintenance crew to service her as well, so given that this was a prototype extrapolating those servicing costs onto the shipping industry makes it rapidly spiral out of control.
Just one of these vessels would make a juicy target for any trorist organization seeking to use it to crash into any major port in any city. It may not cause a nuclear accident, however it would cripple any port anywhere for decades while the mess was cleaned up.
Military nuclear makes sense because of an Admiral named Rickover who established nuclear safety systems in the military and had a clear disdain for stupid people and ideas and would not allow them around nuclear facilities. In a civilian program there would be no such protections.
With the average age of a land based reactor being anywhere between 40-60 years how would you propose disposing of a nuclear powered ship at the end of its 25 year service life? Apart from its historical significance, the Savannah is still in one piece 50 years after it's service life whilst waiting for the reactor to cool.
I get it why it looks like a good idea on the surface however the NS Savannah paved the way for the world to understand why a civilian nuclear ship program isn't such a good idea when used in operation.
This is a first world problem, and it has a first world solution. There's a reason commercial mega-ships are so much worse than even larger military mega-ships: nuclear power.
It could also have something to do with the highly trained and disciplined *military* crews that run them.
There's no reason at all a ship of this size shouldn't have a reactor for its fuel.
I think we only have to look the Costa Concordia and the way for profit land based reactors are run to realize why it isn't a good idea have a for profit nuclear powered cruise ships running around the ocean.
No, you learn some science.
I was speaking specifically of fast burner
You'll need to learn some politics too. Specifically the Integral Fast Reactor was a burner reactor prototyped in the US that showed promise with a burn up rate of 19%. It promised to replace coal and oil but Clinton shut it down and W.Bush funded its demolition in Sec 628 of the 2005 US Energy policy act. Oil and coal companies don't want something around that will replace their product, you see. To rub salt into the wound, the same act fund pilot programs to replicate some of IFR's hydrogen production functionality in Sec. 634 - as far as we know the funds haven't been accessed.
Of course the issue with the burner technology you suggest, apart from using sodium as a coolant, is that these reactors will be insanely radioactive at the end of their service lifespan. The only proper way to deploy them would be to build them inside a mountain where the reactor could be disposed of in-situ to cool and they simply would not be economically viable unless you could make one with a service life that exceeds 100 years. You won't get that without a significant advancement in materials technology.
I hoped burners would work too as it looked like promising technology for nuclear disarmament, however I'm afraid we are still a long way off.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of NIMBYs and anti-nuke environmental activists, we are storing spent waste in absolutely the most dangerous possible way.
You nukkers should stop blaming NIMBYs all the time because they have no political power in the placement of nuclear facilities. Yucca is not being used because it is about as effective at storing radio-isotopes as a sponge is to carry water. Hopefully some geologists here will chime in with some more details but getting the geology right for storing nuclear materials is very difficult in granite (the DOE's prefered choice) due to the way the rock fractures, let alone the pumice Yucca mountain is made of.
Yucca was selected because one of the representatives from Nevada didn't show up for the vote that placed it - nothing to do with science, it was placed inappropriately *because* of NIMBYism. There are probably more approriate sites in the US to choose from if science is applied to selecting one instead of politics. Once you do place it you are going to be building a lot of railways to move the spent fuel and NIMBYs and environmentalists have no control over investment funding for that.
You nukkers should start to look at how the oil and coal industry affects the nuclear industry with their lobbying power instead of blaming environmentalists and NIMBYs who have very little influence. It's all there (and more) in the laws that govern the way the taxpayer and government interact with funding of all of the energy industries. A core component of the US 'New Deal' the PUCHA is repealed in the 2005 energy act (see Subtitle F—Repeal of PUHCA in the same act) so that oil and coal interests can access taxpayer funding via accessing provisions in Sec 638 of the same act. They were *exactly* the conditions that created the US depression in the first place only this time oil and coal are using the nuclear industry to access the taxpayer's rates instead of other utilities.
"NIMBY" is a tired accusation that ignores how coal and oil interests are the main face of lobbying power that determines how these laws are shaped to distribute funding.
Revoke their charter if they are not prepared to contribute to the societies that grant them a license to exist. After all they are users of infrastructure and they expect the community to absorb all manner of negative externalities. It's only right that they contribute their share of tax if the rest of us do.
I think you make too many assumptions about my position. Just because I call people out on the fact doesn't mean I'm against nuclear power. I support the responsible use of nuclear power and development of infrastructure to achieve that goal.
Once upon a time I thought nuclear power would be the way to secure the worlds energy supply. The more I learned the more I saw this was not achievable with only nuclear power. The more questions I asked and the more fact I uncovered the more times I got called "anti-nuke" by people like you who could never provide the facts to support their suppositions.
I support the development of reactor technology however it is a difficult proposition considering the mess the industry has left and people who argue the way you do are more of a liability to achieving safe nuclear power. This is the reality that nukkers like you don't accept because you argue it is always NIMBYs or anyone else's responsibility for the problems the nuclear industry creates. It is this type of dogmatic scepticism that prevents the nuclear industry from advancing, accepting responsibility for it's mistakes and improving itself. It's always someone else's problem.
If you were sincere you would argue for improvement to the nuclear industry to ensure it's longevity, however you simply don't demonstrate that there is any need for it and anyone pointing out the *facts* must be anti-nuclear.
So why haven't they been solved? The very fact that you say they are *all* manageable shows that you display the very lack of objectivity that you accuse me of. We can't even begin to have a discussion about how the issues might be solved without identifying what they are. There was plenty of opportunity for managable issues like seawall upgrades and back up generator relocation at Fukushima and they didn't occur.
It's also this attitude according to the report into the Fukushima accident that led to the management conditions that caused the accident in the first place. Fukushima proved that the Nuclear industry wasn't capable of learning the lessons from Chernobyl. From the Official report into the Fukushima accident:
[NISA] firmly committed themselves to the idea that nuclear power plants were safe, they were reluctant to actively create new regulations and The regulators also had a negative attitude toward the importation of new advances in knowledge and technology from overseas. If NISA had passed on to TEPCO measures that were included in the B.5.b subsection of the U.S. security order that followed the 9/11 terrorist action, and if TEPCO had put the measures in place, the accident may have been preventable.
Well your certainly not demonstrating an understanding of how the Fukushima accident occurred. Instead demonstrated an argument based on social proof instead of actual proof. It's understandable because you are transmuting an idealistic view of reality onto reality. Look at my sig, I'm talking about *your* ism.
Well I can't speak to other discussions you have had. My assertions have been backed with citations and references that you refuse to accept calling them FUD. The only time you actually presented any fact to back up an argument with me it turned out to support what I was saying. This is a classic dogmatic sceptical
Why do you think that not getting to live out your life for decades after you've
Because living in a box for the rest of your days with nothing but your regrets and no freedom is not a life, it's being alive. What if the death peanalty is an escape for people who commit those types of serious crimes. Have you considered that they want to die and that their way of acheiving notoriety is by commiting grusome crimes?
Have you considered that a punishment far worse than death is to let them rot in a cell for the rest of their days with only their sick thoughts to keep them company and no way for them to act out their impulses, even suicide? Or beaten up everyday for the rest of their live because the *other* prisoners despise them.
Is it justice that the family of that girl gets to wake up every morning and look at her empty chair at the table before they head off to work to spend a bit of each day working so that some of their income can buy for her killer the breakfast she'll never again have?
Nothing is justice to someone in that scenario. Justice is that the criminal will never do it again, that regret will tear them apart from the inside out, unless they are a sociopath who is simply removed from society to live their days out in frustration, forgotten and discarded. What if the father decided to save the breakfast money to pay someone to beat the shit out of the asshole once a month for the rest of their life. You ignore the possibilities that the death penalty denies.
You're presuming that the justice system and policing is perfect, it isn't. Imagine the burden you have placed on that same family when the justice system returns to them and says "uuhhh, we executed the wrong person, but we're sure we will execute the right person *this time*. - do you want to watch - again. How about the criminal who set someone up for a crime so they get executed in a by-proxy state sanctioned murder? Two crimes for the price of one.
How does brutalizing the familiy of the murdered girl bring their girl back? Have you asked the families what *they* consider justice to be? What about those who want to forgive the killers so *they* can move on?
Spending decades providing food, medical care, education, housing, and entertainment for the person who, say, killed your mom with a knife in the gut in order to steal $5 from her purse - that's your idea of justice?
No, just shelter, food and medical because it is saying that the society is stronger than the individual commiting the crime and risen above the calls for vengance. You judge a society by the way it treats it's most despised.
Have you considered that some criminals view the death penalty as a *justification* for commiting serious crime? By reasoning "if the society is prepared to kill, then it is ok to kill and if it is ok for society to kill with brutality, then it is ok to kill with brutality."
The death penalty is a flawed institution, because it forgets that innocent people actually get imprisioned and that justice and policing isn't perfect. Sure I'm going to get a lot of critcizm for pointing these veiws out however if the death penalty was such a perfect detterent, why are so many people waiting to be executed for those crimes? All it shows is that society is failing in so many other ways whilst unable to rise above the need for vengence. That society lacks the strength of character of it's convictions.
Which brings us to the innocent person awaiting execution, they are the true victim of this revenge mentality. If just one innocent party is executed why aren't all those that call for the death penalty guilty of murder subject to the same penalty of death. Where is the innocent persons chance for redemption after they have been executed?
I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing.
These people are fine. Regarless of how wreckless or destructive to company profits or moral, they are law abiding citizens and therefore can be trusted to have good judgement.
Spoken like a true narcissist justifying a lack of morality.
Always tolerance but never any responsibility.
Tolerance *is* a responsibility.
Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything.
Just out of curiosity, if someone is suffering depression but is a high functioning individual are you saying you won't work with them because they are on prescribed medications? Are you aware that there are many people who have to take these medications do so to prevent them from commiting suicide?
Are you also aware that it is that attitude that keeps many people in a depressed state because they cannot speak openly about what is affecting them forcing them into a cycle of dishonesty that exacerbates their condition?
My terms extend to coworkers and employers. I won't tolerate it if having sound judgement matters. And in anything important... sound judgement matters.
I could extend the same reasoning to people who have very little or no emotional intelligence as it is often their lack of impulse control that causes endless conflict. They don't need to consume drugs to do millions of dollars worth of damage in lost productivity to other employees. They appear to have sound judgement, but in reality they undermine everyone around them with emotional manipulation so that they look good.
Perceptions of judgement can be manipulated and I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing. I would take working with someone who smoked weed over someone suffering from narrcissism or worse, occupational psychopathy, yet I am forced to work with these people who are obviously psychologically impaired.
The best people to work with are the ones able to overcome differences and display empathy towards others because they make *everyone* more productive.
You cannot force me to employ you. You cannot force me to work with you. You cannot force me to work for you.
Do you drink coffee? I don't see why I should tolerate peoples bad mood if they haven't had their cup of coffee and that *clearly* effects their judgement. Do you smoke tobacco, same reason, third party smoke is harmful and makes my clothes smell. Why should a smoker get to have ten 6 minutes smoke breaks a day while I keep working?
Of course the big one is alcohol, not only impairment but the violence that goes along with it. These people may not be drunk at work, but they are perfect assholes when they are sober.
The boundaries defined by tolerance and a good nature are they key to whether you help them or show them the door.
What I want to do is not spend my time dealing with giggling assholes that fuck up everything they touch.
Consuming recreational drugs at work isn't appropriate however the issue with drug tests is that they (as the article pointed out) extend beyond immediacy and several days previous. People should not be impared at work, especially if there is a safety issue at hand.
However drug testing that extends beyond what happens at work is an ethical issue, because it is not ethical to test someone for illegal substances if they are not impared at that time as it can lead to criminal charges. This is tantamount to an illegal search of one's person without a warrant and people should be free to do what they will in their own homes if they aren't harming others. This is a clear breach of many countries constitutional rights and it is right to walk away from employers who do this.
If employers want drug testing then they should be arguing for the legalization of the drugs they want to test for.
The pothead arguments bore me. I've heard all of them before and I hold this opinion.
I see this more as an issue of personal freedom than an issue of drugs. It should not matter what people do at home as long as they bring their game to work. After all they aren't imposing their will on you for your foibles.
People who have a "drug problem" usually have a lot of other
Seriously, and lame jokes aside about 'nerds and sex' it can't be healthy not to have a social life, and if you can only have a social life in the office because you have to eat, sleep, shower and work in the office then where is somone supposed to have a fuck? And if you do want to make a lame joke about 'nerds and sex', then where are they self masturbating?
It's happening people.
I hate these fucking machines that put the labor costs on me. Besides what do I know about the hygene of some stranger who accidentally touched a food stuff I'm going to consume, blech. hmmmm, I like the smell of my ass crack sweat..oh look a bit of lint...I wonder why it is always blue...hey lets get ice cream gross wrong yuk, no fucking way.
If I have to make an *ice cream*, then I want to be paid for making it.
The Special Courts came into being in 1933, soon after the passage of the Reichstag Fire Decree which all but eliminated civil liberties.
It would be interesting to compare the intent of the wording of this with modern "Anti-Terorism" Acts that achieve this very same thing. For example:
Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications.
All of these things have been achieved in US/UK/Australian anti teror acts in varying degrees to manuver around constitutionality. I haven't read the Canadian or New Zealand articles (nor am I a Fench, German, Spanish, Italian speaker) however I am certain there are similarities in a move from covert to overt attack on all citizens rights. I'm not sure if the Reichstag Act would allow for the jailing of witnesses of arrests, body cavity searches of teenagers as young as 14 (IIRC the age) and strict liability for offences however our Anti teror laws certainly do. India, the worlds largest democracy, has wound back these laws and we should have the humility to follow their lead. What we have today is the Reich's wet dream.
In the context of the Burr-Feinstein bill to out law the function of encryption (as opposed to it's implementation and use) I think US citizens have to be careful that the meta-data retention clauses in Section 4 of their proposed bill isn't the real purpose. Australia had a similar bill pass 18 months ago and when I read the American version it was so familiar in intent.
Essentially there was a huge argument about the government accessing the contents of it's citizens communications, which is strikingly similar to the argument America is having now. Then a meta data bill was passed uncontested that allowed the government to map the associations of all citizens. When I read the Burr-Feinstein bill it's actually *worse* that the Australian bill in terms of the powers it allows.
I'm concerned for you guys that the this is the true intent of this debate, that the politician are playing the game of distraction so that what they really want in Section 4 sails through uncontested. Whilst it's right for you to protect your access to encryption your right to free association is also important and deserves just as much protection. Be careful Americans, don't let them fool you.
Please, please don't fall into the same trap.
That's shitty. Did you keep your stuff? You can't just leave me hanging like that. Details, man! Details!
At this stage the police investigation is still ongoing so details may be inappropriate, however I just got news that they have found and charged one of my attackers. I will pass details to you via email as soon as I can.
The term "Renewable" itself is a lie. One day even the sun will stop shining. (And before, it will become really hot on earth, and the sun will swallow this planet).
Yes, in 500, 000, 000 years renewables will indeed no longer be viable. By that stage we will probably be smart enough to use an asteroid orbiting the earth every couple of hundred years to very slowly move earth's orbit away from the ever expanding sun.
For now we probably need thinking and planning in the 2-10 year timeframe.
Dead on right, and ahead of y/our time. Time for us to grow a pair.
We have been using MythTV for over a decade. The automatic commercial detection is pretty good, but we usually take a minute to set cutpoints (tweaking the detected commercials), and then transcode the recording to drop the commercials. Our son *never* sees commercials. I'm sure that has saved us tons of begging for toys and whatnot.
My friend does this too, it makes for great kids that don't nag, which is exactly what the billions of dollars of psychology invested in commercials is designed to create. From what I've seen (they're about 10 now) you are on the right track to producing some well balanced human beings that won't require therapy later on in life.
Solidarity.
As usual KGlll, your wisdom is concise.
a head doctor
Speaking of which, per our previous conversations, I got mugged by three guys a couple of days ago. I sustained minor injuries and a concussion (and one hell of a headache still). I'm not saying I'm super tough or anything, I'm saying I didn't get killed and they ran away with injuries for their trouble.
> Slave or master, choose now ...
False dichotomy! I choose "cable select."
ba dum *tishhhhhhh* - hilarious.
You think that would be the way it works. It doesn't. Watching the CEOs face as they realized they rolled the wrong dice as you walk out the door?... definitely worth the few weeks severance that might have been offered after training the replacements.
I agree, I've been there. But we're not unique, we're skilled in a difficult profession. This practise is to pit us against one another so that they can have both and reduce us to beggars. They can only change the state of play, whereas I think we can change the rules if we don't let them pit us against one another.