I think the big problem is that in the USA, you will need to build flying Humvees to get this idea accepted. Anything smaller will be seen as an insult to American integrity, and not safe on the roads (because everybody else believes you need a 4x4 offroad capable 8 litre vehicle to buy a pint of milk from the local shops).
Apart from the fact that the two concepts (car, plane) just don't work together that well really. A bit of a laugh for folk with more money than sense to try to develop, but until we get some sort of Bladerunner anti-grav lifting and propulsion devices, just not practicable. Next up, the submarine that turns into a plane!
It's a big thing for people in the USA to fund companies that have no product and/or does not make money, the companies are called 'start-ups'.
A big thing in Silicon Valley, where people fund a couple of geeks with a half baked piece of software and a crazy idea (or a couple of marketing wizards who promise a good idea and have a flakey demo). Also big in the space industry, NASA has invested billions into companies that are promising a working earth to space person-rated spacecraft, and in most cases have only got a prototype at best, and certainly no plan for making money (apart from taking it from NASA).
Anybody know how much it costs to decommission such a reactor (or similar)? I'd heard it's a pretty costly business. A few hippies I know have his theory that the total life cycle cost of commissioning, running, and decomissioning a reactor is more than the value of the electricity produced in its lifetime. But I'd love to get some figures before arguing further with them. Any thoughts? How long / how much does it cost to decommission a reactor of this type (or similar)?
We volunteer on school programs, help on literacy schemes, get involved in also sorts of grassroots community programs that help support local communities become stronger and help each other. We'd love you to get involved.
"Yes, the answer is to marginalize such youth. There is no hope for them, and they are not worth our time to try to save. " Writing off people is a dangerous and expensive game to play. Not spending an extra $10K, $20K on educating kids from marginalised/ messed up families now now means somebody who ten years down the line might well decide the only way to get on in society because they aren't literate and have no qualifications is to turn to crime, mug you/ steal your car/shoot somebody you know/ or similar, mess up several people's lives, then have to be kept in prison for 30 years on your tax payers money at probably a lot more than $10K a year.
"They kids don't have to view them at home, they simple CAN if they want a refresher. They can do the same at the school itself after hours, or the public library." In my country: - not all kids have access to a computer and broadband at home - school libraries are mostly not open after school closes at 4pm, lack of funding - public libraries are not always within reach of school children
Those that can afford, get better. Lower income kids would fall behind.
Looks like from your figures it's going to cost more at point of purchase ten times as much to produce electricity as a coal fired alternative. But you can read the figures differently. A couple of thoughts here: - first of all, early tech always costs more than mature technologies. Coal fired power generation of electricity is maybe 100 years old? so maybe we need to wait for a few years to see how the costs level up compared to this new tech - second, total lifespan costs need to be considered. You've noted the cost of the purchase of the wave generator but not indicated the cost over the lifespan: the table you points to includes this detail further down and suggests coal fired is actually $0.15 / kw compared to $0.16/kw for wave power when this is taken into account (and including carbon costs). So even at this early stage it's not "a magnitude higher" - trust me, the seas off the north of Scotland have waves 'pretty regularly';-)
I think you hit the nail on the head. Either they charge you more and in some for decent service, or take less profit and spend some of it on decent service.
But I guess that's the free market in action - the fat plutocrats might argue that you chose to spend your money with them, nobody was forcing you to spend it on them. You could have looked around for a company that has its service staff in your home country and employs local labour...
You pay your money and you get what you pay for. You want service from a company that pays its support staff $900 a year, then don't expect the same quality service as a company that pays its staff $20,000 a year (or more).
Or, as The Register reports, Japan has found gigatonnes of mud in the deep ocean....
There are rare elements in your back garden. Japan has found some under the sea. But the concentration they've found still means having to dig thousands of tonnes of mud up from the deep ocean and run it through millions of gallons of acid and other toxic chemicals to separate the rare earths from the common minerals. Could be costly. China's angle is that they have them on land and in places they can dig them out with JCBs rather than specialised deep sea equipment. Good luck on Japan but it sounds like it won't be cheap...
American citizens have a long and well publicised record of being shocked and upset by seeing the human body, while being more relaxed about exposing their children to acts of simulated violence. Guns ok, bare bodies not ok.
When Janet Jackson showed a nipple in a show on prime time tv at the superbowl, the USA took to the streets and threatened to riot for this shameful behaviour that would damage their kids for life. Over in Europe, people laughed: you can see posters of half naked people on billboards selling perfume and the like on the way to the shops, no big deal. Sometimes models are completely naked in posters. Europeans are more worried about exposing their children to violence.
Different places, different cultures. Violence is ok in the USA, sex is ok in Europe. You take your choice and live where you feel comfortable I suppose...
Saying that everybody in Northern Ireland is a loyalist to the British monarchy suggests you don't know your history, or you're a troll.
I suggest you read a few articles on wikipedia at the very least: start with The Troubles. You'd be a foolish man indeed to walk into a bar in Northern Ireland and loudly declare that Bobby Sands was a loyalist to the British Monarchy.
Well, your military blew up the bridges in the first place. How about you cut out the middle process of blowing up other people's bridges, then you don't have to consider the cost of rebuilding them? Depends on your priorities I suppose. Blowing up other countries infrastructures and not rebuilding them is one solution, but this may lead to a lot of disaffected, disadvantaged people who might see the solution as coming over to the USA and blowing up US people in revenge. Bombing people back into the stone age leaves a lot of stone age people who might take stone age solutions get out of their poverty...
Currently your military spending is ten times larger than the second biggest military power in the world. If you scaled it down a little bit then that would pay for the satellites.
The USA and allies invaded a neighbouring country recently (Iraq). They are just warning the USA etc off thinking of invading them, just wanting to remind potential invaders that they've got the ability to drop a bomb (maybe nuclear) anywhere else on the planet if they need to.
What would the USA do if a country it didn't like had successfully invaded Mexico or Canada and was sitting just off its borders?
If the unemployment rate for US engineers is 4.5%, and Obama says the US needs more engineers, does this mean 4.5% of US engineers are not employable? 4.5% of 1.9 million is 85,500... that's over 8 years of his desired number of graduates...
Ok, I suppose the alternative suggestion is that most of them are the wrong type of engineer and they need retraining... but still made me smile...
"So back then it wasn't a big deal, but now it is?"
Times change, attitudes change. In the last century some time ago it would be perfectly acceptable in some countries to suggest that women shouldn't vote and public facilities could have signs saying "Whites Only".
I work with a guy who is part time because his wife died of cancer and he is raising two kids under ten. Rather than claiming benefits, he works part time, but makes sure he can get them ready for school, get them to school, and be at the school gates to pick them up at the end of their day. Gets them home, feeds them, gives them a loving home and does his hardest to make sure they have all they need.
He's one of our best workers and we let him do flexible hours to make sure he's there for his kids, there is no disgrace in him working part time, making sure his kids are well looked after and that they see their remaining parent rather than being shipped off to a commercial creche at the very time they need as much care and love as they can get. We do our best to be flexible for him and he's a fine asset to our company, comes up with all sorts of new ideas and initiatives. I don't see that part-time = no initiative.
Can't see where you're coming from Mr. aristotle-dude. I'd say you'd make a pretty short sighted boss and would overlook some of your most valuable assets... maybe though you're still a school kid yourself and haven't worked in the real world?
Slashdot Mirror
=2395USD, for British readers ;-)
I think the big problem is that in the USA, you will need to build flying Humvees to get this idea accepted. Anything smaller will be seen as an insult to American integrity, and not safe on the roads (because everybody else believes you need a 4x4 offroad capable 8 litre vehicle to buy a pint of milk from the local shops).
Apart from the fact that the two concepts (car, plane) just don't work together that well really. A bit of a laugh for folk with more money than sense to try to develop, but until we get some sort of Bladerunner anti-grav lifting and propulsion devices, just not practicable. Next up, the submarine that turns into a plane!
It's a big thing for people in the USA to fund companies that have no product and/or does not make money, the companies are called 'start-ups'.
A big thing in Silicon Valley, where people fund a couple of geeks with a half baked piece of software and a crazy idea (or a couple of marketing wizards who promise a good idea and have a flakey demo). Also big in the space industry, NASA has invested billions into companies that are promising a working earth to space person-rated spacecraft, and in most cases have only got a prototype at best, and certainly no plan for making money (apart from taking it from NASA).
Anybody know how much it costs to decommission such a reactor (or similar)? I'd heard it's a pretty costly business. A few hippies I know have his theory that the total life cycle cost of commissioning, running, and decomissioning a reactor is more than the value of the electricity produced in its lifetime. But I'd love to get some figures before arguing further with them. Any thoughts? How long / how much does it cost to decommission a reactor of this type (or similar)?
We volunteer on school programs, help on literacy schemes, get involved in also sorts of grassroots community programs that help support local communities become stronger and help each other. We'd love you to get involved.
"Yes, the answer is to marginalize such youth. There is no hope for them, and they are not worth our time to try to save. "
Writing off people is a dangerous and expensive game to play. Not spending an extra $10K, $20K on educating kids from marginalised/ messed up families now now means somebody who ten years down the line might well decide the only way to get on in society because they aren't literate and have no qualifications is to turn to crime, mug you/ steal your car/shoot somebody you know/ or similar, mess up several people's lives, then have to be kept in prison for 30 years on your tax payers money at probably a lot more than $10K a year.
You get to decide....
"They kids don't have to view them at home, they simple CAN if they want a refresher. They can do the same at the school itself after hours, or the public library."
In my country:
- not all kids have access to a computer and broadband at home
- school libraries are mostly not open after school closes at 4pm, lack of funding
- public libraries are not always within reach of school children
Those that can afford, get better. Lower income kids would fall behind.
Looks like from your figures it's going to cost more at point of purchase ten times as much to produce electricity as a coal fired alternative. But you can read the figures differently. A couple of thoughts here: ;-)
- first of all, early tech always costs more than mature technologies. Coal fired power generation of electricity is maybe 100 years old? so maybe we need to wait for a few years to see how the costs level up compared to this new tech
- second, total lifespan costs need to be considered. You've noted the cost of the purchase of the wave generator but not indicated the cost over the lifespan: the table you points to includes this detail further down and suggests coal fired is actually $0.15 / kw compared to $0.16/kw for wave power when this is taken into account (and including carbon costs). So even at this early stage it's not "a magnitude higher"
- trust me, the seas off the north of Scotland have waves 'pretty regularly'
"They are learning English at a much faster rate than any Americans can learn Chinese"
That's an interesting comment. Do you mean Chinese folk are more clever than Americans, or more highly motivated, or something else?
I think you hit the nail on the head. Either they charge you more and in some for decent service, or take less profit and spend some of it on decent service.
But I guess that's the free market in action - the fat plutocrats might argue that you chose to spend your money with them, nobody was forcing you to spend it on them. You could have looked around for a company that has its service staff in your home country and employs local labour...
You pay your money and you get what you pay for. You want service from a company that pays its support staff $900 a year, then don't expect the same quality service as a company that pays its staff $20,000 a year (or more).
Sure, if you can also find Americans that will work 50 hour weeks for $11/week, which is the wage quoted in the article....
Quite clearly if it was in a Hollywood movie then it must be true :-)
Or, as The Register reports, Japan has found gigatonnes of mud in the deep ocean....
There are rare elements in your back garden. Japan has found some under the sea. But the concentration they've found still means having to dig thousands of tonnes of mud up from the deep ocean and run it through millions of gallons of acid and other toxic chemicals to separate the rare earths from the common minerals. Could be costly. China's angle is that they have them on land and in places they can dig them out with JCBs rather than specialised deep sea equipment. Good luck on Japan but it sounds like it won't be cheap...
Unpaid internships illegal? Maybe in the USA. Not necessarily in other countries and the article is about Ireland.
American citizens have a long and well publicised record of being shocked and upset by seeing the human body, while being more relaxed about exposing their children to acts of simulated violence. Guns ok, bare bodies not ok.
When Janet Jackson showed a nipple in a show on prime time tv at the superbowl, the USA took to the streets and threatened to riot for this shameful behaviour that would damage their kids for life. Over in Europe, people laughed: you can see posters of half naked people on billboards selling perfume and the like on the way to the shops, no big deal. Sometimes models are completely naked in posters. Europeans are more worried about exposing their children to violence.
Different places, different cultures. Violence is ok in the USA, sex is ok in Europe. You take your choice and live where you feel comfortable I suppose...
Saying that everybody in Northern Ireland is a loyalist to the British monarchy suggests you don't know your history, or you're a troll.
I suggest you read a few articles on wikipedia at the very least: start with The Troubles. You'd be a foolish man indeed to walk into a bar in Northern Ireland and loudly declare that Bobby Sands was a loyalist to the British Monarchy.
Well, your military blew up the bridges in the first place. How about you cut out the middle process of blowing up other people's bridges, then you don't have to consider the cost of rebuilding them? Depends on your priorities I suppose. Blowing up other countries infrastructures and not rebuilding them is one solution, but this may lead to a lot of disaffected, disadvantaged people who might see the solution as coming over to the USA and blowing up US people in revenge. Bombing people back into the stone age leaves a lot of stone age people who might take stone age solutions get out of their poverty...
Currently your military spending is ten times larger than the second biggest military power in the world. If you scaled it down a little bit then that would pay for the satellites.
The USA and allies invaded a neighbouring country recently (Iraq). They are just warning the USA etc off thinking of invading them, just wanting to remind potential invaders that they've got the ability to drop a bomb (maybe nuclear) anywhere else on the planet if they need to.
What would the USA do if a country it didn't like had successfully invaded Mexico or Canada and was sitting just off its borders?
If the unemployment rate for US engineers is 4.5%, and Obama says the US needs more engineers, does this mean 4.5% of US engineers are not employable? 4.5% of 1.9 million is 85,500... that's over 8 years of his desired number of graduates...
Ok, I suppose the alternative suggestion is that most of them are the wrong type of engineer and they need retraining... but still made me smile...
"So back then it wasn't a big deal, but now it is?"
Times change, attitudes change. In the last century some time ago it would be perfectly acceptable in some countries to suggest that women shouldn't vote and public facilities could have signs saying "Whites Only".
indeed. claiming fighting zombie invasions as your reason for wanting one might get you into the "batshit insane" category pretty quickly though....
I'd say 16th out of 80 universities that submitted their CS to the last RAE makes the OU reasonably credible in the field of computing expertise.
What metrics do you use for measuring universities?
I work with a guy who is part time because his wife died of cancer and he is raising two kids under ten. Rather than claiming benefits, he works part time, but makes sure he can get them ready for school, get them to school, and be at the school gates to pick them up at the end of their day. Gets them home, feeds them, gives them a loving home and does his hardest to make sure they have all they need.
He's one of our best workers and we let him do flexible hours to make sure he's there for his kids, there is no disgrace in him working part time, making sure his kids are well looked after and that they see their remaining parent rather than being shipped off to a commercial creche at the very time they need as much care and love as they can get. We do our best to be flexible for him and he's a fine asset to our company, comes up with all sorts of new ideas and initiatives. I don't see that part-time = no initiative.
Can't see where you're coming from Mr. aristotle-dude. I'd say you'd make a pretty short sighted boss and would overlook some of your most valuable assets... maybe though you're still a school kid yourself and haven't worked in the real world?
Just wondering if you have kids.....