It is probably _much_ cheaper. The estimated cost of a 100 MW, 100 MWh battery is AU$25M, which is a pittance compared with the cost of building a new power station!
Further to this, Japan is known for its tight regulatory systems. If this can happen there, then how long until it is repeated in other nuclear plants in countries with weaker regulation? To me, this that nuclear is economically infeasable -- I don't know much Fukushima has cost, but if it's $100B like you say, how many years' investment in renewables does this represent? Perhaps it suggests that we're not putting our money and effort in an optimal place?
The proof is in the pudding -- did this catastrophe happen before or after the system was deregulated and the second engineer was removed? It's nice to talk about the "real world" -- perhaps we should base real-world discussions on, I don't know, the real world?
I'm not so sure about this. From "The Information", by Gleik: Her exposition took the form of notes lettered A through G, extending to nearly three times the length of Menabrea’s essay. They offered a vision of the future more general and more prescient than any expressed by Babbage himself. How general? The engine did not just calculate; it performed operations, she said, defining an operation as “any process which alters the mutual relation of two or more things,” and declaring: “This is the most general definition, and would include all subjects in the universe.” The science of operations, as she conceived it, "is a science of itself, and has its own abstract truth and value; just as logic has its own peculiar truth and value, independently of the subjects to which we may apply its reasonings and processes. One main reason why the separate nature of the science of operations has been little felt, and in general little dwelt on, is the shifting meaning of many of the symbols used."
Symbols and meaning: she was emphatically not speaking of mathematics alone. The engine “might act upon other things besides number.” Babbage had inscribed numerals on those thousands of dials, but their working could represent symbols more abstractly. The engine might process any meaningful relationships. It might manipulate language. It might create music. “Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent.”
It had been an engine of numbers; now it became an engine of information. A.A.L. perceived that more distinctly and more imaginatively than Babbage himself. She explained his prospective, notional, virtual creation as though it already existed: "The Analytical Engine does not occupy common ground with mere 'calculating machines'. It holds a position wholly its own. A new, a vast, and a powerful language is developed in which to wield its truths so that these may become of more speedy and accurate practical application for the purposes of mankind than the means hitherto in our possession have rendered possible. Thus not only the mental and the material, but the theoretical and the practical in the mathematical world, are brought into more intimate and effective connexion with each other."
I essentially agree with what you're saying, but would just like to observe that it highlights the limits of "the market" to solve all problems. From a laissez-faire perspective, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing and costco have no right to restrict sale to them.
I find it fascinating that this hacking has prompted a discussion about truth, objectivity and facts.
Perhaps we (the public) should apply these new-found reasoning skills to the science of climate change, and ignore some of the ad hominems (and other absurdities) that have been directed against climate scientists by organisations such as Heartland.
I'm sure that Monsanto must have identified Organic food as a strategic threat to their business and are doing all they can to stymie its expansion. Between their attempts to weaken organic standards to include GM foods, and farmers losing their organic certification because of GM contamination (http://permaculture.org.au/2011/02/01/australias-first-legal-attack-on-monsanto-for-gm-contamination-of-organically-certified-crops/), and now suing organic farmers that can have no interest in encouraging patented GM crops on their land, it appears that Monsanto are being quite effective.
Personally, I view this as the 21st century version of the Scottish enclosures, where what was once common property (or at least accessible) was forever fenced off and the traditional occupants evicted.
Or maybe because humans are inventive animals. Things that do not work to our satisfaction we want to improve. That is why we have the phenomenon of progress.
This does not apply to everyone though, and if you are content to use what exists then you are perfectly within your rights to do so. I suspect/hope that would be a minority position on a site like slashdot which espouses tools, inventiveness and technology (although its promotion of simple consumption has increased greatly over the last few years, probably reflecting societal trends).
...which is why the pro-nuclear lobby has been transparent in calling for upgrades to these reactors for years, citing the improved safety record of newer models.
I'm not going to descend into anti-nuclear hysteria, but
"Even chernobyl only killed around 50 people." That is very naive/simplistic. What were the long-term effects of exposing 100M (or whatever it was) people to increased radiation dose? According to Wikipedia: "A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)
With regards to your final question: "given that the given arguments against nuclear power are bogus. The dang...." There are so many "givens" there, that your question basically says: "given that nuclear is the safest and best power source, why would anyone oppose it?"
Why can we not have a balanced discussion about nuclear power and concede that it has its disadvantages?
Many of the data published by Wikileaks have since also been published by various newspapers and other news organisations. I don't see anyone calling for _their_ heads! Double-standards?
I'm not a Republican, but I don't think Palin is as stupid as she's portrayed. I think it's part of a shrewd campaign to make Democrats and their supporters look snobbish and elitist when they come out laughing at the stupid things she says. Palin is trying to make herself look ordinary and human so that people will identify with her (actually, I think GWB did the same thing, do an extent). Seems to be working for her...
You're joking right? Are you really saying that climate scientists are "greenie scam artists"? If not, then please elaborate - who exactly are these "greenie scam artists" to whom you refer?
"We need to lose about 3 billion people" -- is that really your suggestion? How do you suggest we "humanely" achieve this over the kind of time-scales necessary (say, 20 years)?
I totally agree with you. Renewable energy sources are great, but they can't compete with better efficiency (which is essentially energy for free) and simple consumption reduction. If we used energy more wisely, we could probably reduce consumption by 40% without many (if any) significant lifestyle changes.
I think you are wrong. I believe there is no god. But that is merely on the basis of lack of evidence for a god's existence, and I concede that I could be wrong. I also believe that even if a god did exist, it still would be unlikely to resemble the Judeo-Christian god. This makes me an atheist.
I could be convinced in the existence of a god if there was evidence.
I agree that some of Jesus' teachings are excellent. The problem is that churches are a human institution and are hence vulnerable to corruption - which is exactly what has happened over the centuries. Unfortunately, people are quick to form tribes, and difference religions are an excellent way to facilitate this. Partly, I think this is because many people have only a vague understanding of the religion in which they profess to believe.
Churches also exploit their status as 'good' and 'holy'.
While lots of religious charities do good work, there are also lots of secular charities that do equally good work. I agree that it is possible to have terrorists and atrocities without religion, but I think you get more of them with religion. Let's look at the worst conflicts in the last 30 years: Northern Ireland (catholics vs protestants), Iraq (christians vs shia muslims vs sunni muslims), Afghanistan (christians vs muslims), Somalia (muslims vs everyone else). In fact, I challenge you to name a significant terrorist attack in the last 30 years that has not involved some form of religious conflict!. I guess the Korean war (though it's older) is an example of a war that was driven by secular ideology, but I still think that religious conflict is the most common.
conventionality is to convention as morality is to moral.
Also, wrt your sig. Wanting to believe you're special doesn't make you special - the universe doesn't work that way. If you're just matter, but believe you're god's creation, it doesn't matter - you still don't matter!
the reason is that some religious people are trying to undermine logic and science in the vain hope that this will bolster both their arguments and their followers. For simplicity, let's say there are two positions here. One relies on evidence and experiment to draw conclusions about the world. The other, in the absence of evidence, relies on faith to believe in an invisible being while simultaneously trying to undermine the ideas of reason, logic and experimentation _in_general_. Who deserves our support?
While I agree that religion doesn't make people evil, I do think that the conviction that one has the support of a deity, that one's friends are _good_ and one's enemies _evil_ is a very good way to get people to do terrible things. This is (in my opinion, incontrovertibly) one of the consequences of religious belief in some people, and the reason why I think the world would be better off without religion. In summary, religion encourages one more "them and us" style of thinking.
One of my favourite quotes is by Charlotte Bronte: "conventionality is not morality".
Slashdot Mirror
It is probably _much_ cheaper. The estimated cost of a 100 MW, 100 MWh battery is AU$25M, which is a pittance compared with the cost of building a new power station!
The root of a word is not necessarily its current meaning.
I "understand" your comment, but I am not standing beneath it looking up at its workings!
Further to this, Japan is known for its tight regulatory systems. If this can happen there, then how long until it is repeated in other nuclear plants in countries with weaker regulation? To me, this that nuclear is economically infeasable -- I don't know much Fukushima has cost, but if it's $100B like you say, how many years' investment in renewables does this represent? Perhaps it suggests that we're not putting our money and effort in an optimal place?
The proof is in the pudding -- did this catastrophe happen before or after the system was deregulated and the second engineer was removed? It's nice to talk about the "real world" -- perhaps we should base real-world discussions on, I don't know, the real world?
lol. I once heard it said that science was inevitably described as either "obvious" or "stupid/wrong" -- still true ;-)
I'm not so sure about this.
From "The Information", by Gleik:
Her exposition took the form of notes lettered A through G, extending to nearly three times the length of Menabrea’s essay. They offered a vision of the future more general and more prescient than any expressed by Babbage himself. How general? The engine did not just calculate; it performed operations, she said, defining an operation as “any process which alters the mutual relation of two or more things,” and declaring: “This is the most general definition, and would include all subjects in the universe.” The science of operations, as she conceived it,
"is a science of itself, and has its own abstract truth and value; just as logic has its own peculiar truth and value, independently of the subjects to which we may apply its reasonings and processes. One main reason why the separate nature of the science of operations has been little felt, and in general little dwelt on, is the shifting meaning of many of the symbols used."
Symbols and meaning: she was emphatically not speaking of mathematics alone. The engine “might act upon other things besides number.” Babbage had inscribed numerals on those thousands of dials, but their working could represent symbols more abstractly. The engine might process any meaningful relationships. It might manipulate language. It might create music. “Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent.”
It had been an engine of numbers; now it became an engine of information. A.A.L. perceived that more distinctly and more imaginatively than Babbage himself. She explained his prospective, notional, virtual creation as though it already existed:
"The Analytical Engine does not occupy common ground with mere 'calculating machines'. It holds a position wholly its own. A new, a vast, and a powerful language is developed in which to wield its truths so that these may become of more speedy and accurate practical application for the purposes of mankind than the means hitherto in our possession have rendered possible. Thus not only the mental and the material, but the theoretical and the practical in the mathematical world, are brought into more intimate and effective connexion with each other."
I essentially agree with what you're saying, but would just like to observe that it highlights the limits of "the market" to solve all problems. From a laissez-faire perspective, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing and costco have no right to restrict sale to them.
"the next Brad Manning may find him/herself swinging from the gallows." ... and compared with what has happened to Manning, it might be a kindness.
I find it fascinating that this hacking has prompted a discussion about truth, objectivity and facts.
Perhaps we (the public) should apply these new-found reasoning skills to the science of climate change, and ignore some of the ad hominems (and other absurdities) that have been directed against climate scientists by organisations such as Heartland.
I'm sure that Monsanto must have identified Organic food as a strategic threat to their business and are doing all they can to stymie its expansion. Between their attempts to weaken organic standards to include GM foods, and farmers losing their organic certification because of GM contamination (http://permaculture.org.au/2011/02/01/australias-first-legal-attack-on-monsanto-for-gm-contamination-of-organically-certified-crops/), and now suing organic farmers that can have no interest in encouraging patented GM crops on their land, it appears that Monsanto are being quite effective.
Personally, I view this as the 21st century version of the Scottish enclosures, where what was once common property (or at least accessible) was forever fenced off and the traditional occupants evicted.
Or maybe because humans are inventive animals. Things that do not work to our satisfaction we want to improve. That is why we have the phenomenon of progress.
This does not apply to everyone though, and if you are content to use what exists then you are perfectly within your rights to do so. I suspect/hope that would be a minority position on a site like slashdot which espouses tools, inventiveness and technology (although its promotion of simple consumption has increased greatly over the last few years, probably reflecting societal trends).
Maybe so, but why buy it, when 30 year-old NAD gear sounds fantastic and can be bought for pocket change?
Who said anything about "smarter"? There is not an established concrete relationship between brain size and intelligence in humans.
In fact, FTFA:
"The Oxford University team said bigger brains did not make people smarter."
...which is why the pro-nuclear lobby has been transparent in calling for upgrades to these reactors for years, citing the improved safety record of newer models.
Oh, wait...
I'm not going to descend into anti-nuclear hysteria, but
"Even chernobyl only killed around 50 people."
That is very naive/simplistic. What were the long-term effects of exposing 100M (or whatever it was) people to increased radiation dose?
According to Wikipedia:
"A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)
With regards to your final question: "given that the given arguments against nuclear power are bogus. The dang...."
There are so many "givens" there, that your question basically says:
"given that nuclear is the safest and best power source, why would anyone oppose it?"
Why can we not have a balanced discussion about nuclear power and concede that it has its disadvantages?
Google talk uses XMPP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Messaging_and_Presence_Protocol
Google video chat uses Jingle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)
Both are open, AFAIK.
"Who deserves more credit?"
Why does everything have to be a competition? Can't we accept that both groups have done a great job?
Many of the data published by Wikileaks have since also been published by various newspapers and other news organisations. I don't see anyone calling for _their_ heads! Double-standards?
Exactly. How long until Apple bans $MAGAZINE for $UNACCEPTABLE_POLITICAL_LEANING?
I'm not a Republican, but I don't think Palin is as stupid as she's portrayed. I think it's part of a shrewd campaign to make Democrats and their supporters look snobbish and elitist when they come out laughing at the stupid things she says. Palin is trying to make herself look ordinary and human so that people will identify with her (actually, I think GWB did the same thing, do an extent). Seems to be working for her...
You're joking right? Are you really saying that climate scientists are "greenie scam artists"? If not, then please elaborate - who exactly are these "greenie scam artists" to whom you refer?
"We need to lose about 3 billion people" -- is that really your suggestion? How do you suggest we "humanely" achieve this over the kind of time-scales necessary (say, 20 years)?
I totally agree with you. Renewable energy sources are great, but they can't compete with better efficiency (which is essentially energy for free) and simple consumption reduction. If we used energy more wisely, we could probably reduce consumption by 40% without many (if any) significant lifestyle changes.
I think you are wrong. I believe there is no god. But that is merely on the basis of lack of evidence for a god's existence, and I concede that I could be wrong. I also believe that even if a god did exist, it still would be unlikely to resemble the Judeo-Christian god. This makes me an atheist.
I could be convinced in the existence of a god if there was evidence.
I agree that some of Jesus' teachings are excellent. The problem is that churches are a human institution and are hence vulnerable to corruption - which is exactly what has happened over the centuries. Unfortunately, people are quick to form tribes, and difference religions are an excellent way to facilitate this. Partly, I think this is because many people have only a vague understanding of the religion in which they profess to believe. Churches also exploit their status as 'good' and 'holy'. While lots of religious charities do good work, there are also lots of secular charities that do equally good work. I agree that it is possible to have terrorists and atrocities without religion, but I think you get more of them with religion. Let's look at the worst conflicts in the last 30 years: Northern Ireland (catholics vs protestants), Iraq (christians vs shia muslims vs sunni muslims), Afghanistan (christians vs muslims), Somalia (muslims vs everyone else). In fact, I challenge you to name a significant terrorist attack in the last 30 years that has not involved some form of religious conflict!. I guess the Korean war (though it's older) is an example of a war that was driven by secular ideology, but I still think that religious conflict is the most common. conventionality is to convention as morality is to moral. Also, wrt your sig. Wanting to believe you're special doesn't make you special - the universe doesn't work that way. If you're just matter, but believe you're god's creation, it doesn't matter - you still don't matter!
the reason is that some religious people are trying to undermine logic and science in the vain hope that this will bolster both their arguments and their followers. For simplicity, let's say there are two positions here. One relies on evidence and experiment to draw conclusions about the world. The other, in the absence of evidence, relies on faith to believe in an invisible being while simultaneously trying to undermine the ideas of reason, logic and experimentation _in_general_. Who deserves our support? While I agree that religion doesn't make people evil, I do think that the conviction that one has the support of a deity, that one's friends are _good_ and one's enemies _evil_ is a very good way to get people to do terrible things. This is (in my opinion, incontrovertibly) one of the consequences of religious belief in some people, and the reason why I think the world would be better off without religion. In summary, religion encourages one more "them and us" style of thinking. One of my favourite quotes is by Charlotte Bronte: "conventionality is not morality".