It is the other way around. The most common antidepressants are serotonin reuptake inhibitors, so there is too much serotonin in the rest of the body, not too little. This is why a very common side effect of this kind of antidepressants is constant low level diarrhea.
They do numb all emotions somewhat, but the specific effect on the negative emotions is far greater. Even if they won't actually cure the depression, they still give a much-needed break from it and show the patients that yes, things can actually change for the better.
Now don't take me wrong, I myself am quite left wing even by German standards, but actually yes, at least the German left still seriously dislikes the Jews and hides it under "Israel criticism". Even back in the day our very own (I admit, saying "our" would not be correct since they were West German and I am not) left wing domestic terrorist organisation RAF was trained by and worked with Palestinian terrorists. The best example for that collaboration would be the LH Flight 181 hijacking by the PFLP, who demanded that the West German governments releases several imprisoned RAF members. There are many more historical examples, which is kind of strange because many prominent left wing personalities have been Jewish.
MacArthur was insane, even demanding to nuke China, which as sure as hell would have started a world war, and that one would have definitely been the last. Be happy North Korea exists, because it saved your life.
Servers are so loud because they use lots of tiny fans that have to spin very fast to move the required amount of air - large quiet fans simply wouldn't fit into a 1U case. If these servers are supposed to heat the building, they can be installed in a fully passive cooled case which would be essentially silent.
Like I said, even if they quadruple their nuclear capacity in the next twenty years, it will still be less than the wind capacity today. And I mean not all renewables altogether, just the wind power. Nuclear is used as a backup because they don't want to put all eggs into one basket, not as a major contributor. And since India is expanding their military nuclear program by building several SSBNs, they obviously need qualified people who can actually build nuclear reactors. A much smaller reactor for the training won't do, especially when you know how Indians work - they really need more people for the same task.
India has over 100GW of renewable capacity - that is about a third of the total capacity. Nuclear is barely a blip on the radar - less than 2% of the total capacity, and judging from the plans for the next decades, even by 2035 nuclear won't overtake wind power that is already installed today. They mostly invest in nuclear to keep their military program from running out of specialists.
EU has been overproducing food for quite a while. Many farmers get subsidies for not producing anything at all. It won't replace all crude, but it would easily be enough for marine propulsion if cars switch to electric. Matter of fact, it wouldn't even be biodiesel. Since marine engines use petrochemical waste as fuel and have to preheat it due to its viscosity, straight vegetable oil, even waste vegetable oil will be fine, no need for any transesterification. It would also burn much cleaner and it would also be safer in an accident since it is biodegradable and the smoke would smell of french fries. How much more win do you want?
It is now. What happens to the price of nuclear propulsion when the oil runs out? People want their fresh bananas and coffee, and if it means using nuclear power then it's going to happen.
It isn't. Even biodiesel and GTL is much cheaper than nuclear propulsion so if oil becomes too expensive, synthetic fuels and biofuels will be used. Nobody wants to pay for civilian nuclear marine propulsion except Russia, and they need it for the Arctic region.
Shipping by oil fired ships used to be real expensive at one time too.
They weren't. Just somewhat more complicated to build than steam turbine ships that used coal.
People figured out how to make it cheap. There's nothing that makes nuclear power inherently "horribly expensive". It's expensive now because there's probably only one or two such reactors built every year. If built one or two per month on an assembly line, like we do with jetliners, then they get cheaper. Not "cheap" because anything that size is expensive.
There is a lot of things that makes nuclear power inherently horribly expensive. First, everything has to be radiation-hardened because neutron flux damages pretty much every material. Second, the manufacturing tolerances have to be much lower. Average manufacturing quality won't do because subsequent repair is difficult to impossible. Third, for marine propulsion the fuel has to be highly enriched. People have been trying for over 60 years to make marine nuclear propulsion cheaper. Didn't work out and never will. We'll have fusion power sooner than that.
The US Navy uses highly enriched fuel in their reactors because they need to operate their reactors in ways that a civilian ship doesn't. Highly enriched fuel solves a lot of problems that a low enriched fuel doesn't have. One problem highly enriched fuel solves is the production of xenon if output power is increased quickly, which is easy to solve in a commercial shipping environment, just don't stomp on the accelerator. If some idiot does get a lead foot then they'll just have to sit still for a few hours for the xenon to decay away.
Nope, the main reason why all marine reactors - and not just the US navy - use highly enriched fuel is the power density. Even the four merchant ships with nuclear propulsion I have mentioned previously used highly enriched fuel and so do all the Russian nuclear ice breakers. There is simply no room on a ship for a reactor that uses 2-4% enriched fuel - they would be seriously huge.
It costs only three times as much to operate? Well then, all we need to see for civilian marine nuclear propulsion to be viable is oil prices to triple. The problem on costs isn't nearly as bad as I thought. We'll see civilian nuclear powered container ships in no time then.
You seriously think that fuel is the only operational expense on a ship? It isn't, that's why you won't see nuclear powered container ships ever. The operating cost on Sevmorput is triple of the operating cost of a conventional freighter with a similar capacity, which is about the lower end as container ships go. Large container ships are still about half as expensive to operate as a nuclear power ship, but can easily carry 20x more stuff.
Oh, and being unable to put a nuclear powered ship in a port is real easy to solve if it's carrying coffee and iPhones. That's a political problem, and those can be solved in a single election.
That ships already carried cargo - well, two of them did - and yet they weren't allowed to many ports. This cannot be solved in a single election because maritime law is involved, and that is international.
There are actually surprisingly many aircraft without winglets. For example neither of the two latest Russian airliners have winglets, even though USSR has been one of the early adopters. SAS still has a lot of their B737 flying with clean wings, B777 and B787 don't have winglets (they have raked wingtips instead). Clean wings have their benefits, so winglets are always a trade-off.
You again with your half knowledge. Nuclear marine propulsion is so horribly expensive only a few navies can afford to operate that. There has been only handful of merchant ship with a nuclear reactor, and only two of them actually ever carried cargo. You see, marine reactor fuel is highly enriched, which is very expensive, and the reactor life span is ridiculously short compared to a marine diesel. After decomissioning the whole reactor together with the coolant loop have to be cut out and buried somewhere - recycling is not possible. The daily operating expenses for the Sevmorput is around 90k USD. A conventional freighter with a similar capacity has only a third of these daily costs and is permitted to any port.
Well, you certainly have heard of polyester clothing. That is exactly the same plastic that is used for water bottles, this is what makes bottle reclycling so practical.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the other way around. The most common antidepressants are serotonin reuptake inhibitors, so there is too much serotonin in the rest of the body, not too little. This is why a very common side effect of this kind of antidepressants is constant low level diarrhea.
Perhaps you are an idiot.
They do numb all emotions somewhat, but the specific effect on the negative emotions is far greater. Even if they won't actually cure the depression, they still give a much-needed break from it and show the patients that yes, things can actually change for the better.
It is quite a relief indeed.
Now don't take me wrong, I myself am quite left wing even by German standards, but actually yes, at least the German left still seriously dislikes the Jews and hides it under "Israel criticism". Even back in the day our very own (I admit, saying "our" would not be correct since they were West German and I am not) left wing domestic terrorist organisation RAF was trained by and worked with Palestinian terrorists. The best example for that collaboration would be the LH Flight 181 hijacking by the PFLP, who demanded that the West German governments releases several imprisoned RAF members. There are many more historical examples, which is kind of strange because many prominent left wing personalities have been Jewish.
You do realise that the Soviet Union has ceased to exist 25 years ago?
It has been just a stupid quip even back in the day.
Nobody in their right mind would think that people like Horst Mahler have a brain.
MacArthur was insane, even demanding to nuke China, which as sure as hell would have started a world war, and that one would have definitely been the last.
Be happy North Korea exists, because it saved your life.
Servers are so loud because they use lots of tiny fans that have to spin very fast to move the required amount of air - large quiet fans simply wouldn't fit into a 1U case. If these servers are supposed to heat the building, they can be installed in a fully passive cooled case which would be essentially silent.
That is about as ridiculous as when Bavarians would demand the news written in their dialect instead of standard German.
Tesla 3 is fugly,
So if somebody shoots you and robs your corpse you would totally deserve it since you have failed your personal responsibility to be bulletproof.
Except there is no hell in judaism and it is a non-proselytizing religion and atheism is not a religion.
Like I said, even if they quadruple their nuclear capacity in the next twenty years, it will still be less than the wind capacity today. And I mean not all renewables altogether, just the wind power. Nuclear is used as a backup because they don't want to put all eggs into one basket, not as a major contributor.
And since India is expanding their military nuclear program by building several SSBNs, they obviously need qualified people who can actually build nuclear reactors. A much smaller reactor for the training won't do, especially when you know how Indians work - they really need more people for the same task.
India has over 100GW of renewable capacity - that is about a third of the total capacity. Nuclear is barely a blip on the radar - less than 2% of the total capacity, and judging from the plans for the next decades, even by 2035 nuclear won't overtake wind power that is already installed today. They mostly invest in nuclear to keep their military program from running out of specialists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
EU has been overproducing food for quite a while. Many farmers get subsidies for not producing anything at all. It won't replace all crude, but it would easily be enough for marine propulsion if cars switch to electric. Matter of fact, it wouldn't even be biodiesel. Since marine engines use petrochemical waste as fuel and have to preheat it due to its viscosity, straight vegetable oil, even waste vegetable oil will be fine, no need for any transesterification. It would also burn much cleaner and it would also be safer in an accident since it is biodegradable and the smoke would smell of french fries. How much more win do you want?
Even without subsidies it will be cheaper than nuclear.
It isn't. Even biodiesel and GTL is much cheaper than nuclear propulsion so if oil becomes too expensive, synthetic fuels and biofuels will be used. Nobody wants to pay for civilian nuclear marine propulsion except Russia, and they need it for the Arctic region.
They weren't. Just somewhat more complicated to build than steam turbine ships that used coal.
There is a lot of things that makes nuclear power inherently horribly expensive. First, everything has to be radiation-hardened because neutron flux damages pretty much every material. Second, the manufacturing tolerances have to be much lower. Average manufacturing quality won't do because subsequent repair is difficult to impossible. Third, for marine propulsion the fuel has to be highly enriched. People have been trying for over 60 years to make marine nuclear propulsion cheaper. Didn't work out and never will. We'll have fusion power sooner than that.
Nope, the main reason why all marine reactors - and not just the US navy - use highly enriched fuel is the power density. Even the four merchant ships with nuclear propulsion I have mentioned previously used highly enriched fuel and so do all the Russian nuclear ice breakers. There is simply no room on a ship for a reactor that uses 2-4% enriched fuel - they would be seriously huge.
You seriously think that fuel is the only operational expense on a ship? It isn't, that's why you won't see nuclear powered container ships ever. The operating cost on Sevmorput is triple of the operating cost of a conventional freighter with a similar capacity, which is about the lower end as container ships go. Large container ships are still about half as expensive to operate as a nuclear power ship, but can easily carry 20x more stuff.
That ships already carried cargo - well, two of them did - and yet they weren't allowed to many ports. This cannot be solved in a single election because maritime law is involved, and that is international.
There are actually surprisingly many aircraft without winglets. For example neither of the two latest Russian airliners have winglets, even though USSR has been one of the early adopters. SAS still has a lot of their B737 flying with clean wings, B777 and B787 don't have winglets (they have raked wingtips instead). Clean wings have their benefits, so winglets are always a trade-off.
You again with your half knowledge. Nuclear marine propulsion is so horribly expensive only a few navies can afford to operate that. There has been only handful of merchant ship with a nuclear reactor, and only two of them actually ever carried cargo. You see, marine reactor fuel is highly enriched, which is very expensive, and the reactor life span is ridiculously short compared to a marine diesel. After decomissioning the whole reactor together with the coolant loop have to be cut out and buried somewhere - recycling is not possible. The daily operating expenses for the Sevmorput is around 90k USD. A conventional freighter with a similar capacity has only a third of these daily costs and is permitted to any port.
Because old Firefox addons were the only reason left to use Firefox. It is simply not a very good browser anymore.
Well, you certainly have heard of polyester clothing. That is exactly the same plastic that is used for water bottles, this is what makes bottle reclycling so practical.
You do realise that nylon has been in use in clothing for 70 years or so? And that synthetic polyamide is only one of many synthetic fiber types?
He is to blame if he still profits from them.