With 85% population gone because of harsh climate, who will maintain them?
This is one reason I cannot support reliance on wind and solar power. PV cells require a very high tech infrastructure. Wind power might be something that can be reduced to pretty low tech stuff but at the cost of efficiency. With wind being so unreliable and dilute it's real easy for a small loss in efficiency to make the technology nearly worthless.
I recall someone pointing out how giving poor communities solar power to "save" them from their poverty was backwards. It didn't "save" them because with solar power this community would now be reliant on an outside source of energy for a very long time. If shown how to dig up locally sourced coal, build boilers, and so forth these communities can become self reliant fairly quickly. It might still mean years or decades to true independence but this is much better than a scale of centuries like solar power would require.
I wish I could remember who pointed this out so I could give him proper credit, he called this "spanner and hammer technology". The idea is that by giving poor community things like diesel tractors, coal fired boilers, and such centuries old technology they can learn to maintain this stuff on their own. Within a short amount of time they'll be building new stuff and making improvements. This kind of technology doesn't even require electricity to build an industry, just like we've used gas lighting before in the Western nations they can use it too in these developing nations until they build out how to draw copper into wires and build their own motors and generators.
When it comes down to it nuclear power is actually a better choice that wind and solar. Nuclear power can be spanner and hammer technology and still be safe. Some of the monitoring equipment might have to be shipped in for an added level of personal safety for the workers but the society at large would still benefit even if many individuals died in radiation accidents. Much like how coal mining is deadly for many but the energy produced saves many more from freezing or starving to death.
This goes for the threats of CAGW or some other mass extinction event. The number of places that can create PV panels are relatively few. The places that can build a nuclear reactor are actually quite large, we just don't use them for that for political reasons. The technology to mine and refine uranium and thorium is not all that different than mining most any other element.
If you want to see a way to prevent humanity from being knocked back to the stone age and staying there for thousands of years then we need people trained in nuclear power, and a wide spread infrastructure in nuclear technology.
Nuclear power doesn't have to produce electricity to be useful. Once we can get it to boil water then we can do things like we did a century ago and use that steam to pump water, produce "town gas" (synthetic gaseous fuels) for heating and lights, and drive factories. It's that kind of spanner and hammer technology that allowed humanity to thrive in the past. We lost much of our ability to do that again by digging up all the easy to get fossil fuels. The difference with nuclear power is that we're never going to run out of uranium and thorium like we could with coal. We were given a gift with nuclear power, it would be a shame to lose that technology out of irrational fear.
That's what it should remind you of. Greedy land developers (and the banks giving them loans) have been driving the development of flood-prone areas, and buying off politicians so as to not get in the way with (shudder) regulation. Capitalism ensures that these kind of "mistakes" will happen, all the time, in every industry it touches.
Wait, rich people buying up politicians is "capitalism"? Capitalism is when the government stays out of business and allows a business to succeed or fail on it's own. Capitalism would actually prevent what you describe. What you describe is not capitalism but cronyism, kleptocracy, socialism, or communism, depending on the details.
If companies propping up government bothers you then stop the government from propping up companies.
Any kind of subsidy has this problem, like those solar panel subsidies that ended in a bunch of rich guys walking away with their golden parachutes and the government is left with a pile of caustic trash to clean up. Or wind energy companies putting up a bunch of windmills that produce expensive energy when no one is there to buy it and they walk away, leaving the expensive job of cleaning up the rusting towers and concrete anchors for the government to deal with.
You are correct that government backed flood insurance is a problem. The government getting into being an insurer of last resort for floods meant that insurance companies simply got out of that business, leaving everyone to rely on government insurance. If left to the market to decide pricing the cost of the insurance would mean the banks could not afford to offer loans in flood prone areas.
But people don't like the idea of getting rid of government backed flood insurance, because that would mean they could not afford their beach front property any more. It would also mean a lot of poor people could be left with nothing if their shack got flooded. So, here we have it, a law meant to keep the poor from becoming homeless used to make the rich get richer. That seems to be a trend in a lot of laws.
You say you are free because you are armed but do you have the courage to stand up to oil and coal interests?
Why should I stand up to them? I like those guys. They sell me natural gas so I can heat my home this winter cheaply and safely. I opted for a gas water heater since it will work even if the power is out. A combination of gravity fed municipal water, natural gas, and some battery powered lanterns and I can get a warm shower even when the electricity is out. I'll just have to sleep in front of the natural gas fire place for the night. As the snow falls the city and utilities will send out bunch of men in diesel trucks to clear the snow and repair the downed lines. So, I'm good.
They don't respect the power of the elements that are in reactors and therefore they make excuses for the stupid things the nuclear industry does. Is that who you are?
I have respect for nuclear power, just like I have respect for natural gas. We put fire in the containment vessel made of brick and steel called a fireplace, it keeps us safe. Fissile material is likewise "burned" in a kind of vessel also made of brick and steel to keep us safe. In both cases if people do something stupid then people get burned. We have people to manage this and they do a very good job. The people outside the USA may need more training than us but they don't have the experience we do. There's no excuses necessary, we do the best we can. When the best is not enough then we fix it. People can and always will die with nuclear power. We know this. What we also know is that even though people are put at risk it's worth it because we get so much energy. Choosing anything but nuclear power means more people die.
Do you think you can figure this stuff out and treat the nuclear industry as a serious concern or will you just continue with the shallow trite bullshit that every other nuke fanboi comes out with?
I do treat it seriously, but I also treat it honestly. People getting all worked up about the capability for a failed nuclear reactor being able to leave large areas of land a radioactive desert are liars with an agenda, and/or ignorant fools. We've seen what a catastrophic failure can do. It sucks for a while, years in fact. People die. Money is lost. Yet after it all humanity is still better off. Once we rid ourselves of these old and safe reactors (and I did call them safe) we can build new even safer reactors. We need new reactors to retire the old. If we are going to keep up with demand for energy, growth in the population, growth in wealth, we need two new nuclear reactors every month in the USA. That also means two new nuclear reactors every week somewhere in the world. It's going to take this much capacity to destroy the caches of spent fuel from old reactors, create the fuel for the next generation of reactors, produce energy, and create the medical isotopes needed to diagnose and treat illness.
You are correct that if treated improperly radiation can injure and kill, but treated with care it can save and cure.
Honestly, it seems to me you are all upset but I'm not sure about what. You go all over the place that it's hard to nail down just what your arguments are. Calm down and educate yourself. Go search the internet for videos and articles from (in no particular order) Mr. Kirk Sorensen, Dr. David LeBlanc, Dr. Leslie Dewan, Mr, Gordon McDowell, Dr. Stephen Boyd, Mr. James C. Kennedy, Mr. John Kutsch, and I know I missed someone. These people work for places like (again, no order) Terrestrial Energy, Flibe Energy, TransAtomic, The Thorium Alliance, and several prominent universities around the world. They've largely solved the problems you give, but the devil is in the details. These people need the freedom to develop their technologies but it seems that people like you hold them up. The know where most of the gremlins lie, and for the ones they don't they have precautions to deal with them too.
Yes, that does happen. This is a training issue for police, not cause to disarm the public. Are you saying that the reason the government should or does ban guns is because the police are too lazy, ignorant, or mentally handicapped to determine who is a threat and who is a friendly?
I remember hearing of a friendly fire incident in New York City. The police saw two armed men running down an alley, one chasing the other. The shot the pursuer believing him to be the threat. When they got to him and began to give first aid they found the man was wearing a police academy t-shirt under his buttoned shirt, then they realized the man they shot was a plainclothes detective and they let a felony suspect get away.
So, how do you propose we address this? Should we ban plainclothes police? I say we train police to think before they shoot.
Also, do the clothes make the man? Is it inconceivable that someone in uniform might be a threat? I'm not saying that the person in the uniform is always an officer, someone could be wearing a false uniform. The police, and the public, should consider that as well.
Did you even read the article you linked to? It ended with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, building more nuclear reactors.
Yes, it really sucks that people made a mess with radioactive stuff, but scooping it up and dropping it in a hole doesn't make it go away. To get rid of it requires nuclear reactors. While we're running those reactors to destroy this waste we can get power from it too.
Nope, Apple tried to get computer makers to ship their OS on their computers and they were not interested. Microsoft made it difficult for them to make a single model of computer that could run more than one OS. This left Apple with dealing with minor players and getting poor results.
You may have forgotten that Apple is the norm, not Microsoft. Before Microsoft it was rare to see someone make an operating system that ran on someone else's hardware. It works for them only because of a very close eye on the computer makers, and enough competition to keep them all in line.
Apple gained a lot of mind share by making computers capable of running Windows and Linux with minimal effort. It wasn't that long ago that people would buy Apple because they made high end and durable computers that could run Windows. When discussing laptop options my brother in law, not the technical type but a regular computer user, recommended an Apple for me. He dual boots or something to run the Windows stuff he uses for work. He used to carry two Windows laptops but now just the one MacBook.
In other words, Apple did release macOS for generic PC hardware, but only Apple was willing to go through the effort of bundling it on a PC.
I don't know what's going on with Apple but I suspect that they are going through a learning period right now. They read websites like this and are considering options. I expect a boom or bust year coming for Apple. Either they learn to swim here or sink lower.
In the beginning were companies like OutBound and Dynamac, making "clones" by buying up used Macs and putting them into laptop or "luggable" cases. There were some other attempts an unofficial clones which didn't last long. Emulators were not hard to find for someone with enough hardware and didn't mind using a moderately crippled MacOS experience. Then came PRep, and shortly after CHRP, which bombed. They were "standards" by which a manufacturer could build and run a number of operating systems, including MacOS, Windows NT, OS/2, and Solaris. It turned out that the standard was so poorly defined and/or implemented that unless you bought the computer from the same people that made the OS you had little chance of running a different OS. Although I did hear of people successfully running Windows NT successfully on an Apple from that time with moderate difficulty.
At about this same time Apple was working with a handful of companies that were interested in making Mac clones. They didn't adhere to the PReP/CHP spec, or at least I heard nothing to indicate they did, they just used Apple designs as a starting point or reverse engineered their own. Also at this time we saw Be Inc. trying to sell their OS, the BeOS, to run on Apple and Windows compatible hardware. Power Computing was a big player, trying to make computers that would run MacOS and/or BeOS and still be attractive to people that owned Windows computers. This led them to make some odd hardware choices like having a MacOS computer with ADB and PS/2 ports for mouse and keyboard, and the standard Apple video port was replaced with a VGA port.
This was an interesting time, all kinds of operating systems for people to choose from. There were two "camps" the Intel camp and the Apple/IBM/Motorola camp, or x86 and PowerPC. This went well for a while but ended up worse than the PReP/CHRP efforts. As each participant in the "camps" tried to differentiate their hardware this created OS incompatibilities. As the OS makers tried to address this the support issues multiplied. BeOS folded and was able to sell off some IP to pay collectors. Power Computing tried to put up a fight in the courts and public opinion, and lost. They were bought up by Apple, only to avoid further court cases it would seem. The handful of other MacClone makers hung around for a bit by making accessories and upgrades for Apple computers. Motorola got out of the PC business. IBM took the POWER IP on it's own path again for their workstations. All this mess did seem to give Apple a boost in market share but it left them with a CPU that, without IBM's help, would be unable to compete with x86 soon.
After that came NeXT, Steve Jobs, and a shift to the unix based MacOSX running on x86. Which led to some odd moments such as Jobs would be on stage and try to show a conference hall auditorium full of developers the new stuff that Macs could do, but was met with silence instead of applause. We all saw BeOS do that same stuff years ago on a Mac but Apple didn't buy them up, so people in the crowd were somewhere between bitter and unimpressed.
This all happened in the span of about a decade. A lot of ups and downs for Apple in there. A lot of lessons learned too. Many of those lessons cost Apple a lot of money, created a lot of bitter customers and developers, and as I pointed out at the start this nearly ended the company many times.
You do realize that Apple tried that before, don't you? Saying it did not go well would be an understatement.
I'm old enough to remember a time when there was a market not for Apple clones, which did not go well, but for a kind of refurbishment market. These companies would buy up used Macintoshes, take them apart, and use the pieces to build a "new" computer for sale. This was most popular in making laptops when Apple wasn't making any. When Apple started making PowerBooks they competed with these other laptop makers for a while. It forced Apple to make a portable computer that didn't suck.
There were all kinds of conversions for a while, where one could buy a "new" Macintosh where the only original part was the motherboard. I saw Apple laptops converted to touch screen tablets. Old Apple tower computers would get a new life with a new case, power supply, CPU, etc. and be sold for high end workstations. This went well beyond buying up old computers, putting in RAM and a hard drive to sell to bargain shoppers. Much of this was high end semi-custom stuff.
Perhaps this could happen again. People complain about how Apple doesn't make the computer they want. Maybe someone will see a market for this again and do something like buy up old MacBooks and build up a new case, one with a 17 inch screen, USB-A ports, SD card slot, HDMI port, and whatever else the offering from Apple lacks. Maybe take a Mac Pro and take out the insides, put it in a rack mount capable tower case. A case with multiple high-end GPUs, PCIe slots, etc., etc, and then sell it as a box for work and gaming.
Apple tried outsourcing their computer manufacturing before and it almost sunk the company. They won't try that again until everyone that remembers how it went are all dead.
Yes, yes it is. Florida law prohibits the carry of a firearm anywhere in the airport for self defense. People can and do travel with firearms on flights in and out of Fort Lauderdale but the firearm must be unloaded, in a secure container, etc.
It's outside security and literally anyone from the street could come in with a gun, in addition to someone who had a gun in checked baggage. I don't know if this shooter had actually declared his gun or just put it into his checked luggage (I thought they scanned all checked luggage these days).
Reports stated he traveled with his firearm in a manner consistent with the rules on bringing a firearm on a plane. It was unloaded, in a locked container, in checked luggage, and so forth. What he did though was illegally remove the firearm from the container, load it, and fire upon the people in the airport.
The reason he was so successful in his mass murder is the rest of the people OBEYED THE LAW! In this case the "gun free zone" in the airport existed only on paper. Blood stained and bullet holed paper.
I thought the laws existed to keep us safe, no? Well, we have another failure of the "gun free zone" and people paid for government incompetence with their lives.
I generally agree with your comments on the mental health issues. We can do both you know, address mental health and remove stupid anti self defense laws. Instead of spending this money on disarming the public we should spend it on health care. It would save lives and possibly save money too.
We are at the beginning of nuclear power's impact on the human species so perhaps we need new ways to look at nuclear power in order to understand how it is affecting us, we've just started acknowledging carbon as an externality imposed on our generation, so why not radioactive effluents on future generations?
We don't consider the radioactive waste an issue for future generations for many reasons. First, the size of the problem is actually very small. The energy used in a single American's life could come from a lump of uranium or thorium the size of a beer can. That's not just electricity but also heating, transportation, all energy. If allowed to be recycled then the size of the problem is even smaller. If the fuel is burned in a way that the valuable isotopes can be extracted before they decay away then this uranium and thorium becomes a source of medical and industrial isotopes that makes our lives even better.
Second, is that this spent fuel, if managed properly, is only a radiation hazard for a few decades, or centuries at most. We know how to build structure that last 300 years. This is assuming we don't consume all of those isotopes for other uses and it's all thrown away. The way fission works is that what is left over is short lived or long lived. The short half life stuff is usually quite valuable for medicine and such, and we don't get much of that. The long lived stuff is not very radioactive at all. It must be handled with care, like using gloves, goggles, hard hats, and don't eat it. Much of the long lived stuff is fuel, recycle it back in the reactor.
If the problem of "effluents" bothers you then consider the environmental impact of wind and solar. Where do you think the stuff comes from to make these solar panels? It is mined. Part of this mining is for the steel and concrete to hold up the panels. A common element used in PV cells is arsenic, do you want arsenic mined, purified, and then used to shingle your roof? Sure, the arsenic is vitrified in the PV cell but it doesn't always stay there.
To replace coal with wind and solar worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. To put that in perspective current world production is 1.5 billion tons. Do you want to leave all that for your grandchildren to deal with?
In contrast to that nuclear power needs only 1/10th of the steel and concrete of wind and solar for the same capacity. The "effluent" of nuclear power is a much smaller problem than if we tried to do that with wind and solar.
What people fail to understand about wind and solar power is just how much resources it takes. If mining uranium is "bad" then consider all the mining for equally "bad" stuff is needed for wind and solar. We're going to have to deal with that too.
I've seen solar power advocates talk about how cheap PV cells are getting every day but that is a very small cost in making solar power work. Much of the expense is in the wires. Solar and wind need to be collected where it is plentiful, and this tends to be away from population centers. I mentioned the mass of concrete and steel needed, something has to hold up the windmills and solar collectors. There is the cost in land, many wind farms have failed because they couldn't afford the rent and taxes for the land. Moving them out to cheaper land means longer wires, which adds to the expense elsewhere.
All of this cost for solar and wind equates to lives, "effluent" for future generations, and for what? To make you "feel" better? I'm a fan of wind and sun, but I'm also a fan of arithmetic. The future of society requires a large investment in nuclear power. We can collect wind and sun power too, just in places where it is safe, cheap, and generally sensible, which are very few.
Whenever I read a story like this it makes me consider getting one of those bulletproof clipboards to put in my bag, or get one of those bags with a Kevlar liner.
It also makes me think of how we've disarmed good people in "gun free" zones so that they cannot defend themselves against someone that violated that law on not bringing in guns. I'm glad that people are waking up to this and arming school staff, allowing armed citizens into more places, removing impediments to firearm ownership. It saddens me though that we need to see shootings like this make the news for the change to happen.
With Republicans in control of the government we can expect shootings like this not to be more prevalent but to make the news more often. We don't hear about shootings in Chicago, partly because it's not news any more and partly because the people there keep voting Democrat. If we had an honest news media then we'd have seen a much larger margin in the US elections. I attribute many of the Republican wins to alternative media, which has gained so much more readership since the last election.
In my mind the story is less about the MacBook and more about the near miraculous survival of the victim. Had it been a book, magazines, or anything else it likely would have still made the news. It just would not likely have made it to Slashdot, that is unless it was some other piece of technology like a cell phone or something.
On another side note, this guy just voluntarily gave the FBI his laptop. Now they can rifle through his files and see if he's likely to have committed any crimes.
The article said it was a laptop issued by his school. Not likely to be anything incriminating on it, assuming the storage survived, which is perhaps likely given how small the drives are today.
What I was thinking about is that he just gave the FBI something he did not own. It's not likely the school is going to bother a shooting survivor over a few hundred bucks lost on a laptop, given that is now quite obviously destroyed and potentially evidence in a crime. A less public incident like this could be construed as an elaborate theft. Going to school and saying, "a terrorist shot my homework" might sound exceedingly unbelievable without some sort of evidence to back it up.
People might not see paper as the end-all documentation that it used to be but it can be very helpful. This is especially true for something difficult to fake, like many lines of code that were written but "lost", as opposed to something easier to fake, like a date or name on a file.
If policy allows then store electronic files in a way that cannot be easily accessed by even this "rock star". A SVN store where files are checked in could be manipulated by someone with the right access. A USB drive that you copy your files to, and kept in a locked drawer at your desk, is not so easily manipulated. Check your files in twice, once to the company store and again to your own SVN store on your USB drive.
If possible put things in e-mail. If the "gaslighter" tells you something by phone or face to face that you believe will be contradicted later then put it in an e-mail to him and/or another coworker that is on the project, just do an "I'm following up on our earlier conversation" e-mail. If the "rock star" is going so far as to manipulate the e-mail servers then save the e-mails to a disk somewhere and/or print them out.
Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.
I agree. Nothing is more dangerous than nuclear power... except everything else. No, that's not even true, with no nuclear power we'd die from thirst, starvation, or freezing.
Nuclear power historically has the lowest number of deaths to energy produced, and that is including the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the deaths from mining the uranium. Solar power and wind are more dangerous than nuclear power by at least an order of magnitude, but we don't hear about the occasional slip-n-fall death in an industry that produces less than 5% of our electricity. What we do hear about is a Homer Simpson type that tripped over a bucket filled with water that is barely detectable as radioactive and call that a "nuclear accident".
I would argue that by not building more nuclear power plants we are putting many lives in needless danger by continuing to burn fossil fuels and operate existing nuclear power plants well beyond their intended lifespans. In the USA we rely on nuclear power for 20% of our electricity and we have not built any new nuclear power plants for 40 years. This year we will likely see the first new nuclear reactor in decades, at an existing nuclear power plant.
I read somewhere that we can expect many of the nuclear reactors to be in operation 80 years after they first went critical. That's an accident waiting to happen. Why didn't we build more nuclear power plants so we could shut these down? Oh, that's right, Democrats.
I'm old enough to remember when it was common for people to think that any government that had this much information on this many people was considered a tyranny. I'm not sure what changed but I don't like it.
And if it's not enough? Hey, the oceans are only 0.17ppm lithium, but the crust is not only far more massive than the oceans, but is also 20ppm lithium - 2 orders of magnitude more concentrated. And that's 20 ppm *average*. Much, much higher in certain environments than others. But we mine things in order from cheapest to most expensive, so utterly overwhelming majority of lithium will remain untapped forever.
Again...
Consider the economic and environmental impact of extracting these minerals. Then consider the building of the structures, concrete pads and steel roofs, to keep them from sinking in the mud and shorting out in the rain.
Assuming the minerals are there for us to extract we'd be digging up a lot of dirt to get it. That means tearing up a lot of crops, forests, and mountains. We'd be paving over land with concrete to put in solar panels and batteries. This is land and resources better used to grow food.
That may be true but I gave no dichotomy, much less a false one. I merely pointed out two examples of the benefits of a military, protecting the economy, and defending against foreign aggressors. There are others, like defending against domestic aggressors, and a force able to react to national disasters.
Whereas, if things go really, catastrophically wrong with a nuclear power plant, how many people could it conceivably kill?
Given past events as examples? Probably dozens. Given that such reactors produce gigawatts for decades it still wins out over solar power, because the occasional slip-n-fall death compared to the minimal energy output means more people die per energy produced, just not all at once.
Bad car analogy time.... I drive a Ford that seats 7 people, but mostly just carries me. If anything goes wrong and there is an accident then that Ford and it's occupants face potential death and injury. If I flew in a Boeing 737 with 150 of my closest friends and something went wrong then those 151 passengers face potential death and injury. Therefore the Ford is safer than the Boeing. Right?
Of course that is wrong because the probability of anything going wrong in my Ford is many times higher than something going wrong on that Boeing. We don't hear about the many traffic fatalities because another person dying on the road is not news, just like a slip-n-fall death at a solar power collector is not news. A Boeing bursting into flames at the end of a runway is news, just like a nuclear reactor blowing its top, because that does not happen very often.
Nuclear power is safer despite your claims. Look it up, FFS.
Greenhouses don't work like that. Sure, some of the effect is due to radiative transfer and so on like you describe but the primary effect is by restricting convection. A greenhouse is warm because the warm air cannot rise away and allow cooler air to replace it. It's warm primarily because it is an enclosed space. A greenhouse would be just as warm, perhaps warmer, if it was made of sheet metal instead of glass, but plants need light just as much as heat so glass it is.
There is no similar "greenhouse effect" on Earth since CO2 does not restrict this airflow. Warm air still rises from the surface of the Earth and releases the heat into space.
People "proving" this greenhouse effect with enclosed spaces containing differing concentrations of CO2 have been shown to be poorly done, outright falsified, or the effects were much smaller than models suggest. The primary heat trapping gas in the Earth atmosphere is actually water. This is an effect much too complex to show with a laboratory experiment.
Look it up. I gave you a link. In short the batteries needed will require billions of tons of materials but known reserves are in the millions of tons. That is for lead acid batteries, lithium numbers are similar. Getting lithium from brine is insufficient for the supply required. Consider the economic and environmental impact of extracting these minerals. Then consider the building of the structures, concrete pads and steel roofs, to keep them from sinking in the mud and shorting out in the rain.
that someone else isnt benefiting from those middle-eastern wars.
Of course they are. That electric car is made using plastics from that oil, lubricated using that oil, and painted using that oil. The trucks used to bring in the parts to build that car were fueled with that oil, as were the trucks and trains that bring the finished product to the show room. Their food was fertilized and cultivated with that oil, then later harvested, refrigerated, cooked, canned, and brought to market with that oil.
Do I need to continue with the benefits of oil for electric car drivers?
Forget the oil for a minute. If that person driving the electric car is female, Christian, or homosexual, then that person is benefiting from keeping the fight over there than allowing it to come here.
Well... since we're talking about a U.S.-only services, they're technically only forgetting about roughly 108 million Android users.
So, it's Android users, in the USA, wanting to watch movies on DVD, that Netflix provides, can pay for it, cannot or will not use another service, and are unhappy with the web based management.
I don't know the number of people that describes but I expect the number to be quite small compared to the many other happy paying customers.
Slashdot Mirror
With 85% population gone because of harsh climate, who will maintain them?
This is one reason I cannot support reliance on wind and solar power. PV cells require a very high tech infrastructure. Wind power might be something that can be reduced to pretty low tech stuff but at the cost of efficiency. With wind being so unreliable and dilute it's real easy for a small loss in efficiency to make the technology nearly worthless.
I recall someone pointing out how giving poor communities solar power to "save" them from their poverty was backwards. It didn't "save" them because with solar power this community would now be reliant on an outside source of energy for a very long time. If shown how to dig up locally sourced coal, build boilers, and so forth these communities can become self reliant fairly quickly. It might still mean years or decades to true independence but this is much better than a scale of centuries like solar power would require.
I wish I could remember who pointed this out so I could give him proper credit, he called this "spanner and hammer technology". The idea is that by giving poor community things like diesel tractors, coal fired boilers, and such centuries old technology they can learn to maintain this stuff on their own. Within a short amount of time they'll be building new stuff and making improvements. This kind of technology doesn't even require electricity to build an industry, just like we've used gas lighting before in the Western nations they can use it too in these developing nations until they build out how to draw copper into wires and build their own motors and generators.
When it comes down to it nuclear power is actually a better choice that wind and solar. Nuclear power can be spanner and hammer technology and still be safe. Some of the monitoring equipment might have to be shipped in for an added level of personal safety for the workers but the society at large would still benefit even if many individuals died in radiation accidents. Much like how coal mining is deadly for many but the energy produced saves many more from freezing or starving to death.
This goes for the threats of CAGW or some other mass extinction event. The number of places that can create PV panels are relatively few. The places that can build a nuclear reactor are actually quite large, we just don't use them for that for political reasons. The technology to mine and refine uranium and thorium is not all that different than mining most any other element.
If you want to see a way to prevent humanity from being knocked back to the stone age and staying there for thousands of years then we need people trained in nuclear power, and a wide spread infrastructure in nuclear technology.
Nuclear power doesn't have to produce electricity to be useful. Once we can get it to boil water then we can do things like we did a century ago and use that steam to pump water, produce "town gas" (synthetic gaseous fuels) for heating and lights, and drive factories. It's that kind of spanner and hammer technology that allowed humanity to thrive in the past. We lost much of our ability to do that again by digging up all the easy to get fossil fuels. The difference with nuclear power is that we're never going to run out of uranium and thorium like we could with coal. We were given a gift with nuclear power, it would be a shame to lose that technology out of irrational fear.
That's what it should remind you of. Greedy land developers (and the banks giving them loans) have been driving the development of flood-prone areas, and buying off politicians so as to not get in the way with (shudder) regulation. Capitalism ensures that these kind of "mistakes" will happen, all the time, in every industry it touches.
Wait, rich people buying up politicians is "capitalism"? Capitalism is when the government stays out of business and allows a business to succeed or fail on it's own. Capitalism would actually prevent what you describe. What you describe is not capitalism but cronyism, kleptocracy, socialism, or communism, depending on the details.
If companies propping up government bothers you then stop the government from propping up companies.
Any kind of subsidy has this problem, like those solar panel subsidies that ended in a bunch of rich guys walking away with their golden parachutes and the government is left with a pile of caustic trash to clean up. Or wind energy companies putting up a bunch of windmills that produce expensive energy when no one is there to buy it and they walk away, leaving the expensive job of cleaning up the rusting towers and concrete anchors for the government to deal with.
You are correct that government backed flood insurance is a problem. The government getting into being an insurer of last resort for floods meant that insurance companies simply got out of that business, leaving everyone to rely on government insurance. If left to the market to decide pricing the cost of the insurance would mean the banks could not afford to offer loans in flood prone areas.
But people don't like the idea of getting rid of government backed flood insurance, because that would mean they could not afford their beach front property any more. It would also mean a lot of poor people could be left with nothing if their shack got flooded. So, here we have it, a law meant to keep the poor from becoming homeless used to make the rich get richer. That seems to be a trend in a lot of laws.
You say you are free because you are armed but do you have the courage to stand up to oil and coal interests?
Why should I stand up to them? I like those guys. They sell me natural gas so I can heat my home this winter cheaply and safely. I opted for a gas water heater since it will work even if the power is out. A combination of gravity fed municipal water, natural gas, and some battery powered lanterns and I can get a warm shower even when the electricity is out. I'll just have to sleep in front of the natural gas fire place for the night. As the snow falls the city and utilities will send out bunch of men in diesel trucks to clear the snow and repair the downed lines. So, I'm good.
They don't respect the power of the elements that are in reactors and therefore they make excuses for the stupid things the nuclear industry does. Is that who you are?
I have respect for nuclear power, just like I have respect for natural gas. We put fire in the containment vessel made of brick and steel called a fireplace, it keeps us safe. Fissile material is likewise "burned" in a kind of vessel also made of brick and steel to keep us safe. In both cases if people do something stupid then people get burned. We have people to manage this and they do a very good job. The people outside the USA may need more training than us but they don't have the experience we do. There's no excuses necessary, we do the best we can. When the best is not enough then we fix it. People can and always will die with nuclear power. We know this. What we also know is that even though people are put at risk it's worth it because we get so much energy. Choosing anything but nuclear power means more people die.
Do you think you can figure this stuff out and treat the nuclear industry as a serious concern or will you just continue with the shallow trite bullshit that every other nuke fanboi comes out with?
I do treat it seriously, but I also treat it honestly. People getting all worked up about the capability for a failed nuclear reactor being able to leave large areas of land a radioactive desert are liars with an agenda, and/or ignorant fools. We've seen what a catastrophic failure can do. It sucks for a while, years in fact. People die. Money is lost. Yet after it all humanity is still better off. Once we rid ourselves of these old and safe reactors (and I did call them safe) we can build new even safer reactors. We need new reactors to retire the old. If we are going to keep up with demand for energy, growth in the population, growth in wealth, we need two new nuclear reactors every month in the USA. That also means two new nuclear reactors every week somewhere in the world. It's going to take this much capacity to destroy the caches of spent fuel from old reactors, create the fuel for the next generation of reactors, produce energy, and create the medical isotopes needed to diagnose and treat illness.
You are correct that if treated improperly radiation can injure and kill, but treated with care it can save and cure.
Honestly, it seems to me you are all upset but I'm not sure about what. You go all over the place that it's hard to nail down just what your arguments are. Calm down and educate yourself. Go search the internet for videos and articles from (in no particular order) Mr. Kirk Sorensen, Dr. David LeBlanc, Dr. Leslie Dewan, Mr, Gordon McDowell, Dr. Stephen Boyd, Mr. James C. Kennedy, Mr. John Kutsch, and I know I missed someone. These people work for places like (again, no order) Terrestrial Energy, Flibe Energy, TransAtomic, The Thorium Alliance, and several prominent universities around the world. They've largely solved the problems you give, but the devil is in the details. These people need the freedom to develop their technologies but it seems that people like you hold them up. The know where most of the gremlins lie, and for the ones they don't they have precautions to deal with them too.
Yes, that does happen. This is a training issue for police, not cause to disarm the public. Are you saying that the reason the government should or does ban guns is because the police are too lazy, ignorant, or mentally handicapped to determine who is a threat and who is a friendly?
I remember hearing of a friendly fire incident in New York City. The police saw two armed men running down an alley, one chasing the other. The shot the pursuer believing him to be the threat. When they got to him and began to give first aid they found the man was wearing a police academy t-shirt under his buttoned shirt, then they realized the man they shot was a plainclothes detective and they let a felony suspect get away.
So, how do you propose we address this? Should we ban plainclothes police? I say we train police to think before they shoot.
Also, do the clothes make the man? Is it inconceivable that someone in uniform might be a threat? I'm not saying that the person in the uniform is always an officer, someone could be wearing a false uniform. The police, and the public, should consider that as well.
Did you even read the article you linked to? It ended with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, building more nuclear reactors.
Yes, it really sucks that people made a mess with radioactive stuff, but scooping it up and dropping it in a hole doesn't make it go away. To get rid of it requires nuclear reactors. While we're running those reactors to destroy this waste we can get power from it too.
Nope, Apple tried to get computer makers to ship their OS on their computers and they were not interested. Microsoft made it difficult for them to make a single model of computer that could run more than one OS. This left Apple with dealing with minor players and getting poor results.
You may have forgotten that Apple is the norm, not Microsoft. Before Microsoft it was rare to see someone make an operating system that ran on someone else's hardware. It works for them only because of a very close eye on the computer makers, and enough competition to keep them all in line.
Apple gained a lot of mind share by making computers capable of running Windows and Linux with minimal effort. It wasn't that long ago that people would buy Apple because they made high end and durable computers that could run Windows. When discussing laptop options my brother in law, not the technical type but a regular computer user, recommended an Apple for me. He dual boots or something to run the Windows stuff he uses for work. He used to carry two Windows laptops but now just the one MacBook.
In other words, Apple did release macOS for generic PC hardware, but only Apple was willing to go through the effort of bundling it on a PC.
I don't know what's going on with Apple but I suspect that they are going through a learning period right now. They read websites like this and are considering options. I expect a boom or bust year coming for Apple. Either they learn to swim here or sink lower.
Apple tried that, it nearly ended the company.
In the beginning were companies like OutBound and Dynamac, making "clones" by buying up used Macs and putting them into laptop or "luggable" cases. There were some other attempts an unofficial clones which didn't last long. Emulators were not hard to find for someone with enough hardware and didn't mind using a moderately crippled MacOS experience. Then came PRep, and shortly after CHRP, which bombed. They were "standards" by which a manufacturer could build and run a number of operating systems, including MacOS, Windows NT, OS/2, and Solaris. It turned out that the standard was so poorly defined and/or implemented that unless you bought the computer from the same people that made the OS you had little chance of running a different OS. Although I did hear of people successfully running Windows NT successfully on an Apple from that time with moderate difficulty.
At about this same time Apple was working with a handful of companies that were interested in making Mac clones. They didn't adhere to the PReP/CHP spec, or at least I heard nothing to indicate they did, they just used Apple designs as a starting point or reverse engineered their own. Also at this time we saw Be Inc. trying to sell their OS, the BeOS, to run on Apple and Windows compatible hardware. Power Computing was a big player, trying to make computers that would run MacOS and/or BeOS and still be attractive to people that owned Windows computers. This led them to make some odd hardware choices like having a MacOS computer with ADB and PS/2 ports for mouse and keyboard, and the standard Apple video port was replaced with a VGA port.
This was an interesting time, all kinds of operating systems for people to choose from. There were two "camps" the Intel camp and the Apple/IBM/Motorola camp, or x86 and PowerPC. This went well for a while but ended up worse than the PReP/CHRP efforts. As each participant in the "camps" tried to differentiate their hardware this created OS incompatibilities. As the OS makers tried to address this the support issues multiplied. BeOS folded and was able to sell off some IP to pay collectors. Power Computing tried to put up a fight in the courts and public opinion, and lost. They were bought up by Apple, only to avoid further court cases it would seem. The handful of other MacClone makers hung around for a bit by making accessories and upgrades for Apple computers. Motorola got out of the PC business. IBM took the POWER IP on it's own path again for their workstations. All this mess did seem to give Apple a boost in market share but it left them with a CPU that, without IBM's help, would be unable to compete with x86 soon.
After that came NeXT, Steve Jobs, and a shift to the unix based MacOSX running on x86. Which led to some odd moments such as Jobs would be on stage and try to show a conference hall auditorium full of developers the new stuff that Macs could do, but was met with silence instead of applause. We all saw BeOS do that same stuff years ago on a Mac but Apple didn't buy them up, so people in the crowd were somewhere between bitter and unimpressed.
This all happened in the span of about a decade. A lot of ups and downs for Apple in there. A lot of lessons learned too. Many of those lessons cost Apple a lot of money, created a lot of bitter customers and developers, and as I pointed out at the start this nearly ended the company many times.
You do realize that Apple tried that before, don't you? Saying it did not go well would be an understatement.
I'm old enough to remember a time when there was a market not for Apple clones, which did not go well, but for a kind of refurbishment market. These companies would buy up used Macintoshes, take them apart, and use the pieces to build a "new" computer for sale. This was most popular in making laptops when Apple wasn't making any. When Apple started making PowerBooks they competed with these other laptop makers for a while. It forced Apple to make a portable computer that didn't suck.
There were all kinds of conversions for a while, where one could buy a "new" Macintosh where the only original part was the motherboard. I saw Apple laptops converted to touch screen tablets. Old Apple tower computers would get a new life with a new case, power supply, CPU, etc. and be sold for high end workstations. This went well beyond buying up old computers, putting in RAM and a hard drive to sell to bargain shoppers. Much of this was high end semi-custom stuff.
Perhaps this could happen again. People complain about how Apple doesn't make the computer they want. Maybe someone will see a market for this again and do something like buy up old MacBooks and build up a new case, one with a 17 inch screen, USB-A ports, SD card slot, HDMI port, and whatever else the offering from Apple lacks. Maybe take a Mac Pro and take out the insides, put it in a rack mount capable tower case. A case with multiple high-end GPUs, PCIe slots, etc., etc, and then sell it as a box for work and gaming.
Apple tried outsourcing their computer manufacturing before and it almost sunk the company. They won't try that again until everyone that remembers how it went are all dead.
The baggage claim area is not a gun free zone.
Yes, yes it is. Florida law prohibits the carry of a firearm anywhere in the airport for self defense. People can and do travel with firearms on flights in and out of Fort Lauderdale but the firearm must be unloaded, in a secure container, etc.
It's outside security and literally anyone from the street could come in with a gun, in addition to someone who had a gun in checked baggage. I don't know if this shooter had actually declared his gun or just put it into his checked luggage (I thought they scanned all checked luggage these days).
Reports stated he traveled with his firearm in a manner consistent with the rules on bringing a firearm on a plane. It was unloaded, in a locked container, in checked luggage, and so forth. What he did though was illegally remove the firearm from the container, load it, and fire upon the people in the airport.
The reason he was so successful in his mass murder is the rest of the people OBEYED THE LAW! In this case the "gun free zone" in the airport existed only on paper. Blood stained and bullet holed paper.
I thought the laws existed to keep us safe, no? Well, we have another failure of the "gun free zone" and people paid for government incompetence with their lives.
I generally agree with your comments on the mental health issues. We can do both you know, address mental health and remove stupid anti self defense laws. Instead of spending this money on disarming the public we should spend it on health care. It would save lives and possibly save money too.
We are at the beginning of nuclear power's impact on the human species so perhaps we need new ways to look at nuclear power in order to understand how it is affecting us, we've just started acknowledging carbon as an externality imposed on our generation, so why not radioactive effluents on future generations?
We don't consider the radioactive waste an issue for future generations for many reasons. First, the size of the problem is actually very small. The energy used in a single American's life could come from a lump of uranium or thorium the size of a beer can. That's not just electricity but also heating, transportation, all energy. If allowed to be recycled then the size of the problem is even smaller. If the fuel is burned in a way that the valuable isotopes can be extracted before they decay away then this uranium and thorium becomes a source of medical and industrial isotopes that makes our lives even better.
Second, is that this spent fuel, if managed properly, is only a radiation hazard for a few decades, or centuries at most. We know how to build structure that last 300 years. This is assuming we don't consume all of those isotopes for other uses and it's all thrown away. The way fission works is that what is left over is short lived or long lived. The short half life stuff is usually quite valuable for medicine and such, and we don't get much of that. The long lived stuff is not very radioactive at all. It must be handled with care, like using gloves, goggles, hard hats, and don't eat it. Much of the long lived stuff is fuel, recycle it back in the reactor.
If the problem of "effluents" bothers you then consider the environmental impact of wind and solar. Where do you think the stuff comes from to make these solar panels? It is mined. Part of this mining is for the steel and concrete to hold up the panels. A common element used in PV cells is arsenic, do you want arsenic mined, purified, and then used to shingle your roof? Sure, the arsenic is vitrified in the PV cell but it doesn't always stay there.
To replace coal with wind and solar worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. To put that in perspective current world production is 1.5 billion tons. Do you want to leave all that for your grandchildren to deal with?
In contrast to that nuclear power needs only 1/10th of the steel and concrete of wind and solar for the same capacity. The "effluent" of nuclear power is a much smaller problem than if we tried to do that with wind and solar.
What people fail to understand about wind and solar power is just how much resources it takes. If mining uranium is "bad" then consider all the mining for equally "bad" stuff is needed for wind and solar. We're going to have to deal with that too.
I've seen solar power advocates talk about how cheap PV cells are getting every day but that is a very small cost in making solar power work. Much of the expense is in the wires. Solar and wind need to be collected where it is plentiful, and this tends to be away from population centers. I mentioned the mass of concrete and steel needed, something has to hold up the windmills and solar collectors. There is the cost in land, many wind farms have failed because they couldn't afford the rent and taxes for the land. Moving them out to cheaper land means longer wires, which adds to the expense elsewhere.
All of this cost for solar and wind equates to lives, "effluent" for future generations, and for what? To make you "feel" better? I'm a fan of wind and sun, but I'm also a fan of arithmetic. The future of society requires a large investment in nuclear power. We can collect wind and sun power too, just in places where it is safe, cheap, and generally sensible, which are very few.
Whenever I read a story like this it makes me consider getting one of those bulletproof clipboards to put in my bag, or get one of those bags with a Kevlar liner.
It also makes me think of how we've disarmed good people in "gun free" zones so that they cannot defend themselves against someone that violated that law on not bringing in guns. I'm glad that people are waking up to this and arming school staff, allowing armed citizens into more places, removing impediments to firearm ownership. It saddens me though that we need to see shootings like this make the news for the change to happen.
With Republicans in control of the government we can expect shootings like this not to be more prevalent but to make the news more often. We don't hear about shootings in Chicago, partly because it's not news any more and partly because the people there keep voting Democrat. If we had an honest news media then we'd have seen a much larger margin in the US elections. I attribute many of the Republican wins to alternative media, which has gained so much more readership since the last election.
In my mind the story is less about the MacBook and more about the near miraculous survival of the victim. Had it been a book, magazines, or anything else it likely would have still made the news. It just would not likely have made it to Slashdot, that is unless it was some other piece of technology like a cell phone or something.
Yep, that's why I carry a .45, 'cause I've seen 9mm bounce off windshields.
For those that don't get the reference:
http://www.imdb.com/character/...
On another side note, this guy just voluntarily gave the FBI his laptop. Now they can rifle through his files and see if he's likely to have committed any crimes.
The article said it was a laptop issued by his school. Not likely to be anything incriminating on it, assuming the storage survived, which is perhaps likely given how small the drives are today.
What I was thinking about is that he just gave the FBI something he did not own. It's not likely the school is going to bother a shooting survivor over a few hundred bucks lost on a laptop, given that is now quite obviously destroyed and potentially evidence in a crime. A less public incident like this could be construed as an elaborate theft. Going to school and saying, "a terrorist shot my homework" might sound exceedingly unbelievable without some sort of evidence to back it up.
Write every. single. thing. down.
This.
People might not see paper as the end-all documentation that it used to be but it can be very helpful. This is especially true for something difficult to fake, like many lines of code that were written but "lost", as opposed to something easier to fake, like a date or name on a file.
If policy allows then store electronic files in a way that cannot be easily accessed by even this "rock star". A SVN store where files are checked in could be manipulated by someone with the right access. A USB drive that you copy your files to, and kept in a locked drawer at your desk, is not so easily manipulated. Check your files in twice, once to the company store and again to your own SVN store on your USB drive.
If possible put things in e-mail. If the "gaslighter" tells you something by phone or face to face that you believe will be contradicted later then put it in an e-mail to him and/or another coworker that is on the project, just do an "I'm following up on our earlier conversation" e-mail. If the "rock star" is going so far as to manipulate the e-mail servers then save the e-mails to a disk somewhere and/or print them out.
Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.
I agree. Nothing is more dangerous than nuclear power... except everything else. No, that's not even true, with no nuclear power we'd die from thirst, starvation, or freezing.
Nuclear power historically has the lowest number of deaths to energy produced, and that is including the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the deaths from mining the uranium. Solar power and wind are more dangerous than nuclear power by at least an order of magnitude, but we don't hear about the occasional slip-n-fall death in an industry that produces less than 5% of our electricity. What we do hear about is a Homer Simpson type that tripped over a bucket filled with water that is barely detectable as radioactive and call that a "nuclear accident".
I would argue that by not building more nuclear power plants we are putting many lives in needless danger by continuing to burn fossil fuels and operate existing nuclear power plants well beyond their intended lifespans. In the USA we rely on nuclear power for 20% of our electricity and we have not built any new nuclear power plants for 40 years. This year we will likely see the first new nuclear reactor in decades, at an existing nuclear power plant.
I read somewhere that we can expect many of the nuclear reactors to be in operation 80 years after they first went critical. That's an accident waiting to happen. Why didn't we build more nuclear power plants so we could shut these down? Oh, that's right, Democrats.
I'm old enough to remember when it was common for people to think that any government that had this much information on this many people was considered a tyranny. I'm not sure what changed but I don't like it.
And if it's not enough? Hey, the oceans are only 0.17ppm lithium, but the crust is not only far more massive than the oceans, but is also 20ppm lithium - 2 orders of magnitude more concentrated. And that's 20 ppm *average*. Much, much higher in certain environments than others. But we mine things in order from cheapest to most expensive, so utterly overwhelming majority of lithium will remain untapped forever.
Again...
Consider the economic and environmental impact of extracting these minerals. Then consider the building of the structures, concrete pads and steel roofs, to keep them from sinking in the mud and shorting out in the rain.
Assuming the minerals are there for us to extract we'd be digging up a lot of dirt to get it. That means tearing up a lot of crops, forests, and mountains. We'd be paving over land with concrete to put in solar panels and batteries. This is land and resources better used to grow food.
False dichotomies are lies.
That may be true but I gave no dichotomy, much less a false one. I merely pointed out two examples of the benefits of a military, protecting the economy, and defending against foreign aggressors. There are others, like defending against domestic aggressors, and a force able to react to national disasters.
Whereas, if things go really, catastrophically wrong with a nuclear power plant, how many people could it conceivably kill?
Given past events as examples? Probably dozens. Given that such reactors produce gigawatts for decades it still wins out over solar power, because the occasional slip-n-fall death compared to the minimal energy output means more people die per energy produced, just not all at once.
Bad car analogy time....
I drive a Ford that seats 7 people, but mostly just carries me. If anything goes wrong and there is an accident then that Ford and it's occupants face potential death and injury. If I flew in a Boeing 737 with 150 of my closest friends and something went wrong then those 151 passengers face potential death and injury. Therefore the Ford is safer than the Boeing. Right?
Of course that is wrong because the probability of anything going wrong in my Ford is many times higher than something going wrong on that Boeing. We don't hear about the many traffic fatalities because another person dying on the road is not news, just like a slip-n-fall death at a solar power collector is not news. A Boeing bursting into flames at the end of a runway is news, just like a nuclear reactor blowing its top, because that does not happen very often.
Nuclear power is safer despite your claims. Look it up, FFS.
Greenhouses don't work like that. Sure, some of the effect is due to radiative transfer and so on like you describe but the primary effect is by restricting convection. A greenhouse is warm because the warm air cannot rise away and allow cooler air to replace it. It's warm primarily because it is an enclosed space. A greenhouse would be just as warm, perhaps warmer, if it was made of sheet metal instead of glass, but plants need light just as much as heat so glass it is.
There is no similar "greenhouse effect" on Earth since CO2 does not restrict this airflow. Warm air still rises from the surface of the Earth and releases the heat into space.
People "proving" this greenhouse effect with enclosed spaces containing differing concentrations of CO2 have been shown to be poorly done, outright falsified, or the effects were much smaller than models suggest. The primary heat trapping gas in the Earth atmosphere is actually water. This is an effect much too complex to show with a laboratory experiment.
Whatever the Party says it is.
There simply is not enough lead or lithium in the Earth's crust to build the battery you require.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
Look it up. I gave you a link. In short the batteries needed will require billions of tons of materials but known reserves are in the millions of tons. That is for lead acid batteries, lithium numbers are similar. Getting lithium from brine is insufficient for the supply required. Consider the economic and environmental impact of extracting these minerals. Then consider the building of the structures, concrete pads and steel roofs, to keep them from sinking in the mud and shorting out in the rain.
IT DOES NOT WORK!!
that someone else isnt benefiting from those middle-eastern wars.
Of course they are. That electric car is made using plastics from that oil, lubricated using that oil, and painted using that oil. The trucks used to bring in the parts to build that car were fueled with that oil, as were the trucks and trains that bring the finished product to the show room. Their food was fertilized and cultivated with that oil, then later harvested, refrigerated, cooked, canned, and brought to market with that oil.
Do I need to continue with the benefits of oil for electric car drivers?
Forget the oil for a minute. If that person driving the electric car is female, Christian, or homosexual, then that person is benefiting from keeping the fight over there than allowing it to come here.
Well ... since we're talking about a U.S.-only services, they're technically only forgetting about roughly 108 million Android users.
So, it's Android users, in the USA, wanting to watch movies on DVD, that Netflix provides, can pay for it, cannot or will not use another service, and are unhappy with the web based management.
I don't know the number of people that describes but I expect the number to be quite small compared to the many other happy paying customers.
I could be completely wrong too.