There is a certain amount of what is called "background radiation" around you twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, there would still be even if no human had ever drawn a single breath.
Well, the problem with a lot of renewable (not all, mind you) energy sources is baseload. What is baseload, you ask? Well, the article on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseload) defines it as:
A base load power plant is one that provides a steady flow of power regardless of total power demand by the grid. These plants run at all times through the year except in the case of repairs or scheduled maintenance.
You need baseload plants to provide a lot of power, and secondary plants that come online for peak demand periods. The problem is that wind and solar CAN NOT provide baseload production, as they rely on changing environmental conditions (e.g.: no wind means no power!). Now, as far as using the renewable energy production as secondary energy sources, I'm all for it. You just have to consider that it's only part of the solution, not the entire thing.
Hydroelectric plants are fantastic baseload type facilities, but you can't build them everywhere. They require specific environmental conditions (read: a river that can be dammed), and at least tacit conscent from the eco-nazis (which isn't likely this day in age). Another fantastic example of a baseload plant you provided is geothermal, but again, these require specific environmental conditions (a source of underground heat, etc). To transition off of coal and oil, we need to build a lot of power plants to compensate for the loss of baseload production facilities.
I must contest Rafael Trujillo being a puppet of the U.S. He's actually a puppet of the UN, which has been in a stabilization mission in the Dom.Reb. for quite some time now.
Well, I don't think they will ban flour, as we don't see people wheeling around grain silos next to federal buildings in the midwest. Of course, the first time we transport that silo, it's all over. You'll need a serious background check to build a 10 story hollow tube on your farm.
Well, while you are technically correct in your statement, you have to look at the author and the intended audience here. When you assume a global audience, then yes, the first statement means the second statement, and states that the world has no freedom of action in space, because the Americans are limiting it for their own benefit. When you assume an American audience, more specifically, an American military audience, "ensure only we have freedom of action in space", you get the same concept used for the Air Force, which attempts to attain complete airspace control of a region. Having total control over space does ensure that we are free to do whatever we want militarily in space, which does equate to "ensure only we have freedom of action in space."
Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq used to have the fourth largest army in the world.
Yes, this is in fact true. The problem here is that, no, size doesn't matter in this case. As we proved, the difference between the largest army in the world ("U.S." or "us", whichever you prefer) and the next largest opponent is huge.
Iraq's army fell on its back faster than a prom date, but that's not where the problem lies. As we've come to find out, the difficulty in invasions in this day in age is not the invasion and conquering itself, but the occupation and rebuilding. I have no doubt that North Korea's army is undisciplined and poorly trained, and in a conventional fight, will falter, just like Iraq's did.
Whilst I have no doubt that, much like the Iraqis did, the North Koreans would be overjoyed to be rid of their oppressive dictator, about a month after we've conquered, attempted to start rebuilding, and totally screwed it up, they'd start to get pissed. We then have another guerilla war^H^H^Hinsurgency on our hands, which is far more difficult (if even possible) to control. So, in this case, size doesn't matter.
My favorite was the centrifugal force necessary to induce labor in a pregnant lady... imagine the clinical trials! Now, strap yourself here, and here, and we'll put up the net to catch the baby when it shoots out!
Okay, forgive me for not being a physicist here, but, unless you have a sealed "tank" (read: lungs), wouldn't the compression forces direct the fluid in the direction of the least resistance (e.g.: squirting at a high rate out of the mouth and nose?)
As a resident living within view of Pikes Peak, I'd like to veto this in favor of Mt. Democrat, as it is a far uglier mountain (pictured here), and, since Democrats would presumably be the ones blocking funding for this sort of project, giving them the namesake mountain would encourage them to approve the measure. Then we get the "Democrat Launching Facility" =)
By the way, you worked your way through college with no help from anybody, right?
Actually, I did, as a matter of fact. State schools are the only way that I could afford to go, and I made it through in 5 years. I wouldn't have it any other way, it certainly taught me the value of a good work ethic (which a lot of college students who have everything provided for them don't get).
Welfare mothers have children because they're the only joy they can look forward to in their lives, the only thing they can call their own.
Bullshit. having 10 kids versus 11 kids is not extra joy. 10 is plenty of joy. seriously.
I'd actually disagree with you on this one (though I'm not in favor of what you describe). There is a happy medium here, not too much socialism, not too much capitalism, but just enough of each. For example, take a look at welfare, specifically in the case of a healthy, working aged adult (I'll get to the sickly, disabled, and elderly later). Why should I, as a healthy, contributing member of society, have to pay for this person to sit on their ass, when they are perfectly healthy, and capabale of getting a job, and at least contributing something to society? I realize that not everyone is going to have high paying jobs here, but, my point still stands. Even if you take a low wage job, it's better than nothing.
The United States and her citizens were able to do just fine without welfare until the Great Depression, a time in which the program was necessary to pull the economy out of a major slump. After that point, I would argue that welfare is no longer needed.
One of the benefits of civilization, however, is to help out those that cannot help themselves. Case in point, the infirm, and those not able to work (see, I told you I'd get here). These individuals cannot contribute to society, and I would not advocate putting them out in the street to fend for themselves.
Basically, why should I pay for that welfare mother to have another child so she can increase her welfare check? Seems like she's taking advantage of me, which really pisses me off. Find another way to get money, and put the d1ck down.
My point is that, no, you don't have to agree with him. He can say whatever he wants, and you're perfectly free to call him a biased idiot spewing random crap if you'd like. Just don't ever stop him from saying (not that you were trying to stop him, but still)
Okay, I'm feeling a bit snarky today... A moral entitlement is defined by your morals. Key word there is "your". Not mine. In your opinion, he has no right to pass judgement on this kid. In his moral viewpoint, he most certainly does (or he's very conflicted). Humans would be completely unable to communicate without passing some sort of judgment on what we're talking about. It's human nature to pass judgement. It stems from our backround as cavemen (that bear looks dangerous, that meat looks rotten, that cavewoman looks submissive, etc). Passing judgement is what we do as humans, and trying to stop it dehumanizes the entire experience.
Exactly! I took 5 years to get my CS undergrad, and yes, while I could have busted ass to get it done in 3.5 or 4, I stuck it out for 5. That second senior year is really rough on the liver by the way. I would have stuck it out for longer (and probably still be there) if I had someone else to pay for it!
Actually, he has every right to pass judgement on whomever he pleases. Freedom of speech* means that he can speak his mind whenever he feels like it, and if you get offended, buy a fucking helmet.
*Freedom of Speech void where prohibited by law. May not be available in all areas.
I just noticed your handle... I'm not sure we're ever going to settle this issue between us, actually:)
There's two sides to your argument. Killing projects far too early can be a financial burden, yes, as wasted man hours and budget are spent on the project when it will never see the light of day. However, the opposite side of the coin is that, when a project is doomed to failure, killing it early may actually be a cost savings, rather than continuing to lather lipstick on an already ugly pig.
Actually, not showing a profit has nothing to do with red tape or bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has to do with all of teh crap that you need to go through to get a particular task accomplished, such as an approval process for a particular action item having too many steps. Such as a software design process that, from beginning to end, has over 800 steps! And that doesn't even address implementation!
who wants to lead a country that houses dirty war and drug money and is known only for neutrality (not of the net) and watches and knives.
Isn't that Switzerland, not Sweden? As in the SWISS army knife, SWISS watch, SWISS bank accounts, etc? Sweden is, however, mostly neutral militarily speaking. And the Swedish bikini team will totally beat the Swiss bikini team, because the Swiss don't have an ocean.
Gosh!
Slashdot Mirror
Hippies call this your "aura"
You need baseload plants to provide a lot of power, and secondary plants that come online for peak demand periods. The problem is that wind and solar CAN NOT provide baseload production, as they rely on changing environmental conditions (e.g.: no wind means no power!). Now, as far as using the renewable energy production as secondary energy sources, I'm all for it. You just have to consider that it's only part of the solution, not the entire thing.
Hydroelectric plants are fantastic baseload type facilities, but you can't build them everywhere. They require specific environmental conditions (read: a river that can be dammed), and at least tacit conscent from the eco-nazis (which isn't likely this day in age). Another fantastic example of a baseload plant you provided is geothermal, but again, these require specific environmental conditions (a source of underground heat, etc). To transition off of coal and oil, we need to build a lot of power plants to compensate for the loss of baseload production facilities.
I must contest Rafael Trujillo being a puppet of the U.S. He's actually a puppet of the UN, which has been in a stabilization mission in the Dom.Reb. for quite some time now.
Well, I don't think they will ban flour, as we don't see people wheeling around grain silos next to federal buildings in the midwest. Of course, the first time we transport that silo, it's all over. You'll need a serious background check to build a 10 story hollow tube on your farm.
Well, while you are technically correct in your statement, you have to look at the author and the intended audience here. When you assume a global audience, then yes, the first statement means the second statement, and states that the world has no freedom of action in space, because the Americans are limiting it for their own benefit. When you assume an American audience, more specifically, an American military audience, "ensure only we have freedom of action in space", you get the same concept used for the Air Force, which attempts to attain complete airspace control of a region. Having total control over space does ensure that we are free to do whatever we want militarily in space, which does equate to "ensure only we have freedom of action in space."
Iraq's army fell on its back faster than a prom date, but that's not where the problem lies. As we've come to find out, the difficulty in invasions in this day in age is not the invasion and conquering itself, but the occupation and rebuilding. I have no doubt that North Korea's army is undisciplined and poorly trained, and in a conventional fight, will falter, just like Iraq's did.
Whilst I have no doubt that, much like the Iraqis did, the North Koreans would be overjoyed to be rid of their oppressive dictator, about a month after we've conquered, attempted to start rebuilding, and totally screwed it up, they'd start to get pissed. We then have another guerilla war^H^H^Hinsurgency on our hands, which is far more difficult (if even possible) to control. So, in this case, size doesn't matter.
My favorite was the centrifugal force necessary to induce labor in a pregnant lady... imagine the clinical trials! Now, strap yourself here, and here, and we'll put up the net to catch the baby when it shoots out!
I plead the fifth amendment.
Okay, forgive me for not being a physicist here, but, unless you have a sealed "tank" (read: lungs), wouldn't the compression forces direct the fluid in the direction of the least resistance (e.g.: squirting at a high rate out of the mouth and nose?)
As a resident living within view of Pikes Peak, I'd like to veto this in favor of Mt. Democrat, as it is a far uglier mountain (pictured here), and, since Democrats would presumably be the ones blocking funding for this sort of project, giving them the namesake mountain would encourage them to approve the measure. Then we get the "Democrat Launching Facility" =)
I'd actually disagree with you on this one (though I'm not in favor of what you describe). There is a happy medium here, not too much socialism, not too much capitalism, but just enough of each. For example, take a look at welfare, specifically in the case of a healthy, working aged adult (I'll get to the sickly, disabled, and elderly later). Why should I, as a healthy, contributing member of society, have to pay for this person to sit on their ass, when they are perfectly healthy, and capabale of getting a job, and at least contributing something to society? I realize that not everyone is going to have high paying jobs here, but, my point still stands. Even if you take a low wage job, it's better than nothing.
The United States and her citizens were able to do just fine without welfare until the Great Depression, a time in which the program was necessary to pull the economy out of a major slump. After that point, I would argue that welfare is no longer needed.
One of the benefits of civilization, however, is to help out those that cannot help themselves. Case in point, the infirm, and those not able to work (see, I told you I'd get here). These individuals cannot contribute to society, and I would not advocate putting them out in the street to fend for themselves.
Basically, why should I pay for that welfare mother to have another child so she can increase her welfare check? Seems like she's taking advantage of me, which really pisses me off. Find another way to get money, and put the d1ck down.
I think you mean Hugo Chavez....
Umm.... Amtrak? *COUGH*, *COUGH*
I'll be here all week! Thank you!
So that's the fucking audio files I can never seem to turn off fast enough when I visit MySpace profiles, eh?
My point is that, no, you don't have to agree with him. He can say whatever he wants, and you're perfectly free to call him a biased idiot spewing random crap if you'd like. Just don't ever stop him from saying (not that you were trying to stop him, but still)
Okay, I'm feeling a bit snarky today... A moral entitlement is defined by your morals. Key word there is "your". Not mine. In your opinion, he has no right to pass judgement on this kid. In his moral viewpoint, he most certainly does (or he's very conflicted). Humans would be completely unable to communicate without passing some sort of judgment on what we're talking about. It's human nature to pass judgement. It stems from our backround as cavemen (that bear looks dangerous, that meat looks rotten, that cavewoman looks submissive, etc). Passing judgement is what we do as humans, and trying to stop it dehumanizes the entire experience.
How is being lonely, anyway?
Exactly! I took 5 years to get my CS undergrad, and yes, while I could have busted ass to get it done in 3.5 or 4, I stuck it out for 5. That second senior year is really rough on the liver by the way. I would have stuck it out for longer (and probably still be there) if I had someone else to pay for it!
Actually, he has every right to pass judgement on whomever he pleases. Freedom of speech* means that he can speak his mind whenever he feels like it, and if you get offended, buy a fucking helmet.
*Freedom of Speech void where prohibited by law. May not be available in all areas.
I just noticed your handle... I'm not sure we're ever going to settle this issue between us, actually :)
There's two sides to your argument. Killing projects far too early can be a financial burden, yes, as wasted man hours and budget are spent on the project when it will never see the light of day. However, the opposite side of the coin is that, when a project is doomed to failure, killing it early may actually be a cost savings, rather than continuing to lather lipstick on an already ugly pig.
I'm willing to agree to disagree here.
Actually, not showing a profit has nothing to do with red tape or bureaucracy. Bureaucracy has to do with all of teh crap that you need to go through to get a particular task accomplished, such as an approval process for a particular action item having too many steps. Such as a software design process that, from beginning to end, has over 800 steps! And that doesn't even address implementation!
Wait... ABBA is cool? Didn't congress try to ban them for too many bad '70s references?
Gosh!