Peterkro
Mar 12, 02:15 PM
TEPCo press release:
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031229-e.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031229-e.html
more...
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
more...
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 07:34 PM
As cool as that poster might be, I doubt that he has the political or monetary muscle that the Catholic Church does.
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
more...
Latest Modern Curly Hairstyles
more...
wedding hairstyles
more...
curly hairstyles
Long Curly Hairstyle Picture
more...
Long+naturally+curly+hair+
more...
naturally curly hairstyles.
Haircuts For Naturally Curly
more...
Next curly hairstyles picturegt;
more...
Natural hair Curly Hairstyle
more...
naturally-curly-hair-styles.
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
more...
leomac08
Mar 11, 07:25 PM
I pray that this will not turn into another Chernobyl situation.
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
how far is Sendai from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
so much radiation!!!:eek:
more...
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
more...
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Mal
Mar 11, 08:59 PM
I have some family members visiting Japan and a number of friends living there. They've been posting pictures and video on Facebook all the time, from the Chiba area mostly. While they're all ok, this situation with the nuclear reactors definitely have me worried. They're a few hours away from those reactors, though not far from the Ichihara oil refinery fire. Really hoping this doesn't just get worse.
jW
jW
more...
Demoman
Jul 12, 09:11 AM
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine and will be REALLY fine until CS 3 is released next spring/summer. Until then, I wouldn't be able to fully utilize the new Mac Pro. I installed my CS 2 on my MacBook and what a dog compared to my G5 at home and my G5 at work. Granted my buddy who is stuck on a 867 QuickSilver at work says that it runs about the same, but that doesn't cut it when I've been using a G5 for 2 years at work and 6 months at home.
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine too. I have a quad right beside it, but I only fire that up for rendering/compressing or when I want to work the video and sound/animation concurrently. I will buy another PM as I am doing more motion graphics and would like to throw another 4 processors at it. If the new high-end Intel looks good, I will get one. But, I might also look to pick-up a super deal on a PPC Quad. Love those machines!
I hope that the "little apps" out there hurry up and get converted over quicker than has been happening. Flash Player has bugged me. They keep using "Betas" and "trials". Flip4Mac hasn't released their update yet for Universal so viewing WMV's is near impossible on the MacIntels. Little things like that make a world of difference.
My DualCore 2.0 PM G5 is just fine too. I have a quad right beside it, but I only fire that up for rendering/compressing or when I want to work the video and sound/animation concurrently. I will buy another PM as I am doing more motion graphics and would like to throw another 4 processors at it. If the new high-end Intel looks good, I will get one. But, I might also look to pick-up a super deal on a PPC Quad. Love those machines!
more...
thejadedmonkey
Sep 20, 09:25 AM
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
skunk
Mar 26, 06:57 PM
No, I'm not saying that. Skunk said Ciaociao's Latin sentence was meaningless.It was not a Latin sentence, so it was certainly meaningless in Latin. If you look up "sign", as a noun meaning signification, and instead choose the first person singular of the Latin verb meaning "sign a letter", you are not off to a very promising start. Cicero would be rolling in his grave.
more...
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
more...
einmusiker
Mar 18, 09:46 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Thanks for the insight Debbie downer
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Thanks for the insight Debbie downer
more...
Peterkro
Mar 13, 11:14 AM
well flooding the inner containment vessel with seawater + added boric acid is by all means an absolute last resort option in any playbook
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
more...
for naturally curly hair
Naturally+curly+hairstyles
more...
Naturally Curly Haircuts
more...
Taylor Swift#39;s naturally curly
more...
No related posts. Short Curly
has naturally curly hair,
more...
more...
more...
more...
(hardly a DIY solution: many reactors have the option and external connectors to do just that)
more...
emotion
Sep 24, 03:52 AM
If Apple does force the thing to need a computer, I think they need to come out with an 'iTunes server' box that can fufill the same role, and it has to be cheap.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
Mac Mini? I suspect that's exactly what Apple wants to drive sales of.
I know, they need to be cheaper.
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:56 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
more...
linknprk
Mar 18, 02:52 AM
So if you're sticking at 4.1.0 and they aren't monitoring, then they should be monitoring 3.x even less, no?
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
All the more reason for me to stick with 3.1.3 on my 3G.
BL.
um... did you guys misread the article?
The article is proposing that they might be able to suspect unsupported tethering for people NOT using 4.3 because hotspot wasn't made available until 4.3
So if you stick with 4.1 or 3.1.3 or anything earlier than 4.3 (while using data in a way that looks like tethering)... you will stand out.
Thats how I interpreted the article.
more...
yg17
Mar 18, 03:02 PM
DRM= digital rights management= copy protection
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
I'm also quite surprised that Apple DRMs the songs as they are downloaded. All it takes is a hack into the servers housing the music and there goes the neighborhood.
The music has to be stored un-DRMed which is a huge risk for the iTMS or Napster or any other online store. The difference is when it gets the DRM added to it. If it gets the DRM at the server before its sent out for download, then this will solve the problem. But either way, the music has to be stored without any DRM somewhere and hacking into the servers would indeed be trouble
more...
ET007
Mar 18, 02:48 PM
Just because a company makes you sign their TOS, it does not make the TOS a Holy Grail law. TOS are only written in the best interest of a company and they are very often faulty.
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
Unfortunately in some countries, people forget to use common sense and reasoning and take everything the way it is BECAUSE it was written in the TOS, as so many people keep quoting in this forum.There is no such thing as a perfect TOS and even if you sign it, it does not mean you cannot challenge it.
Just because the TOS says so and you sign it, it does not make it right or the law. If it did, a lot of legal professionals would be unemployed and a lot of average Joes/Janes would be in jail.
AT&T is in the business to make money. They will take whatever they can get and however they can get it. AT&T is just as unethical as ......(you get to fill in the blanks ;)). It is up to the consumer to challenge AT&T's faulty TOS instead of just being passive, quoting and accepting it. It is amazing and worrisome how accepting some people are in this forum. I guess they do not teach critical thinking anymore in schools and/or colleges.
The sad part is that big companies are in bed with the politicians (republicans and democrats in the US) so the government will never step in to protect the interest of consumers.:mad:
carmenodie
Mar 18, 08:14 AM
I went to att's site and 4 gigs of downloads cost 45 dollars. Kiss my @@@!!!
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
What's next? Charging per effing electron?
more...
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 11:08 AM
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
You've just made good points, Huntn. I'm sure that many, maybe even most, people have much the same knee-jerk reaction you have. I pointed out som distinctions, though, because nowadays, when many think unclearly, the ignore those distinctions. Each time I hear someone say "I feel" when he should say "I believe" or "I think," the phrase "I feel" reminds me of subjectivism.
Someone here, Lord Blackadder, I think, told me that I didn't understand the "pluralistic society" idea. I do understand it, and I know that many people disagree with me on many topics. I'm willing to learn from others. I even suspect that my false beliefs outnumber my true ones. But if disagreement among people proves anything, it proves that some people hold some false beliefs. If I believe that there's a God and you believe that there's no God, one of us is wrong. Today too many talk as though the freedom to believe what one wants to believe is more important than the truth.
Sure, it's often better to say "I don't know" rather than "I don't believe" because most people probably haven't learned the distinctions I've described. On the other hand, although knowing that a belief is true implies believing that it's true, believing that it's true doesn't imply knowing that it's true. If believing always implied knowing, everyone would be all-knowing.
Say I've deluded myself into believing that my honorary Brian is still living when he is, in fact, already dead. No one is helping me by saying that "Brian is still alive" is true for Bill but not for Brian's family." If I were deluded, the longer my delusion lasted, the more painful my disillusionment would be. I want to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant.
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:36 PM
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
more...
bluap84
Mar 11, 02:20 AM
i woke up to this...its shocking isnt it. That water is just ripping past anything it likes and leaving it destoryed. The tsunami looks like its going to be massive, and cause trouble for neigbouring countries / cities.
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
this is from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"The Pacific tsunami warning centre in Hawaii said a tsunami warning was in effect for Japan, Russia, Marcus Island and the Northern Marianas. A tsunami watch has been issued for Guam, Taiwan, the Philippines, Indonesia and Hawaii."
as for the earthquake being 8.9 it really shows how big that really is! Another fact from the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake-miyagi-tsunami-warning)
"In 1933, a magnitude 8.1 quake in the area killed more than 3,000 people."
more...
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:05 AM
The books were selected nearly unanimously with the exception of a select few books of the bible.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Also, if they were divinely inspired (meaning God went through the trouble of having them written), why would they not be divinely compiled together? It wouldn't make sense for God to have his scripture written, then put in a compilation with a bunch of non-scripture, then mistranslated to boot. Therefore, you either believe that there is a God and that the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to be, or you believe neither
A slight correction: you either believe in the Biblical God and that the Bible is divinely inspired or you believe neither.
You can believe there is a God without believing the Judeo/Christian folklore.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 11:50 PM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
I sure as hell would not want wind turbines on the roof of houses. The noise from them would drive me insane.
I am a fan of putting solar cells on the roof of houses and then the excess power is sold back to the grid. That helps reduce it by a fair amount. Not that it would work in a large part of the country due to not being cost effective. You need to be farther south for it to really be worth it and have fair amount of sun shine.
biggest thing is we need more efficiency out of what we have. HVAC is some of the biggest power draining system and improve those and it greatly improves the over all system.
I sure as hell would not want wind turbines on the roof of houses. The noise from them would drive me insane.
I am a fan of putting solar cells on the roof of houses and then the excess power is sold back to the grid. That helps reduce it by a fair amount. Not that it would work in a large part of the country due to not being cost effective. You need to be farther south for it to really be worth it and have fair amount of sun shine.
biggest thing is we need more efficiency out of what we have. HVAC is some of the biggest power draining system and improve those and it greatly improves the over all system.
more...
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий