Comment Re: Numerology (Score 3, Insightful) 183
Fun fact: Everything you know is predicated on some set of assumptions.
Fun fact: Everything you know is predicated on some set of assumptions.
Im a little baffled, which of the policies he has put in place have surprised you?
So if you ate it it might give you cancer. That IS scary, can you imagine having a substance in your house that could be harmful if you ingested it?
I think theres a slight difference between "multi-layer" and polymer.
Actually theyre almost antonyms.
If I had the understanding of an electrical engineer, I wouldnt have posed post as a query (albeit without a question mark).
WHY cant you just dump it into the ground?
That "metric" is provided by every national agency that studies / regulates energy. I linked you directly to a
Im also not interested in what the "industry" says, Im interested in the facts as compiled by reputable agencies. The facts show that solar is a great supplement, and that nuclear is the most cost effective and scalable energy source if you want "carbon neutral". If you dont, it falls back to coal and natural gas.
The problem basically is that laymen believe you can simply set up two "57% capacity factor" plants and then you have up to 114% power available.
I dont know of anyone who thinks that. Capacity factor simply means you may have a 1GW nuclear plant-- that is, at peak it can generate 1GW (what its rated at)-- but over the course of the year it may generate an average of 700MW/h for every hour of the year. This would represent a 0.70 capacity factor.
If you have 2 0.57 capacity factor plants, you will get 114% of the capacity of one plant, or 0.57 of the two combined.
No idea why a
Ive been having these discussions for years, and linking to the same wikipedia articles for years which use that term. Some quick googling indicates that its been tracked since at least the 90s for at least coal power. Theres a good article on it here.
Hmm, an underdesigned dam in China initially constructed in the 1950's
Why doesnt this argument fly when people apply it to Chernobyl?
Fact is, generating energy kills people. Around 1000 coal miners die a year. Less than 500 die a year from nuclear if you annualize all expected future deaths from Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI. If you DONT annualize it, less than 100 die a year.
The only rational conclusion one could form from looking at the facts and listening to the arguments used against nuclear is that there is a phenomenal amount of FUD.
'Capacity' factor is a word that is only used in the climate denier scene and recently by marketing droids.
I know you have a massive anti-nuclear streak, but lets be real here. Solar couldnt cope with the storm either, gets awful generation during winter especially at latitutes where these types of storms are common due to insolation, and cant provide base load.
Nuclear on the other hand has caused-- past, present, and anticipated future-- FAR fewer deaths than hydro or coal. Heres a question for you: Do you protest as vigorously when a new hydro plant opens? Because a single dam event around 20 years ago killed ~triple the number of people expected to die from Chernobyl, and well over double the number of people who have died or are expected to die from nuclear since its inception till now.
A plant has no capacity factor.
From the Energy Information Administration:
Capacity factor is a measure of how often an electric generator runs for a specific period of time. It indicates how much electricity a generator actually produces relative to the maximum it could produce at continuous full power operation during the same period.
For example, if a one megawatt generator produced 5,000 megawatthours the entire year, its capacity factor would be 0.57 or 57%
In fact they provide capacity factor information for various technologies if you so desire.
Im really not sure where you get your information but it seems terribly off.
I would think if you had nowhere else to send it, you could dump it into ground. Surely theres sufficient capacity there.
The plant will be back online well before that though. Theres no "problem" here.
In other words, the battleship is better once you've established dominance of sea and air, but you wont establish dominance without the carriers and once you have dominance you've already won, regardless of the battleships.
The SR-71 was shot at too many times to count. Never once shot out of the sky. RADAR? Sure, they may have known she was there, and wasn't nothing to be done about it, as nothing could catch it.
Technically an AA missile could catch it as those go mach 7+
Everything is useless in a nuclear war. Everything can be expected to be destroyed, including the submarines.
Thats not really true, unless everyone fired "all of the missles" and did a perfect blanket pattern. At that point you might manage to destroy part of europe.
Nukes do a lot of damage but people have a tendency to vastly overstate their destructive power. There arent enough nukes in the world to "destroy" all of the contiguous US-- the cities and military bases, perhaps, if we contributed our own stockpile to our own destruction.
Like cloud computing and synergy, big data is thrown around as if it is some magic pixie dust that can solve anything. Will Big Data solve poverty int he world? New models allow us to better target malnutrition! Will Big Data solve crime? New models allow us to figure out socioeconomic causes of crime!
I am skeptical that "big data" means that subs are now as easily detectable as a a missile frigate, or as easily targetable. Most likely there are methods of detecting them but not from 100 or 200 miles away.
The author doesnt even seem to give any references for experts making this claim, nor am I able to find any actual credentials for him. Who is Brian Clark, and why does he think hes a qualified defense analyst?
WPA uses rc4 encryption - which can be cracked by collecting enough packets encypted with the same key
Unless Im mistaken, RC4 is not in itself vulnerable or broken; it was used very widely in 2011 when AES was under siege by the BEAST attack (Google.com actually used it). The worst that could be said for it (as I understand) is that its a little too simple and fast for people to have full confidence in it, not to mention its age.
Based on my limited understanding of it, your statement about rotation is sort of kind of correct, but misleading in that it implies that the issue is with RC4 itself and not the specific way that it was implemented.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman
