You can't say, "This is safe because it would be safe if things were mostly done right."
No, but i can say that if you have multiple trained people i could rely on them to handle the situation in the correct way.. Then of course you should design the system in such a way that you will never run into very strange situations (K.I.S.S method).. It should be similar to Do X, if fail press button to shutdown. And the shutdown should be designed in a way so it's impossible to fail, or at least only cause local (internal) damage.
The Chernobyl incident where many of people not having a clue. They did not have enough training to actually know the system and then disregarding the procedures to handle things that followed.
What i was referring to in my post where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
You can build a 100% safe plant... And with safe i'm talking about the surroundings....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
Worst case with these would be that the plant would be unusable and would have to be rebuilt, but the surroundings would still be safe from contamination.
And other types of power-plants can be quite problematic too:
Coal - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill
Hydro-power - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hydroelectric_power_station_failures (Banqiao Dam in china did cause quite a bit of havoc)
Natural gas (pipelines) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents
Natural gas (power-plants) - Found a few accidents on google but no list of them all or any big one.
Wind-turbines - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8948363/1500-accidents-and-incidents-on-UK-wind-farms.html (about 1500 accidents in the UK)
No power is safe... Nuclear power has the lowest death-rate per generated amount of power......
Biggest problem with nuclear power is the public opinion about it that is causing issues and resulting in that no new, not even the safe ones, will get built so we continue using the old ones re-licencing them for 20 years more at a time.. I would like to see that we would scrap all the old ones that have 40 years in service and then build new safer and more efficient plats.
Main problem we have with nuclear power today is that when we developed the technology is was to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, not only to supply the population with cheap power.
If we where to actually do a redesign and start from scratch today we can come up with much better things, but things that have not been proven on the same commercial scale as the current ones.
Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
And never take Chernobyl as an example that nuclear power is unsafe... It was freaking huge incompetence that caused that accident... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident
Despite this postponement, preparations for the test not affecting the reactor's power were carried out, including the disabling of the emergency core cooling system or ECCS, a passive/active system of core cooling intended to provide water to the core in a loss-of-coolant accident. Given the other events that unfolded, the system would have been of limited use, but its disabling as a "routine" step of the test is an illustration of the inherent lack of attention to safety for this test.[29] In addition, had the reactor been shutdown for the day as planned, it is possible that more preparation would have been taken in advance of the test.
Heavy!
By introducing some rich people to it was probably not to make them run the place but be "guests" in a few of the facilities.
So (there are btw. two ACs responding to you here) if the interest exceeds inflation you are not losing money, so dollar savings value over your period can be said to be extremely stable. I don't see how this can be viewed as a huge problem, quite the opposite. Most economists agree btw. that a low steady inflation is good for economic growth, and that deflation can have a negative impact on economic development.
Agree, but it's not often you will get a 3% interest rate so inflation will still keep on eating it up the money.. Usual pure interest-rates are much lower, usually a bit lower than the current repo-rate. Btw, http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/inflation-rate gives quite a good view of the current inflation-rates for most countries.
From wikipedia:
Inflation's effects on an economy are various and can be simultaneously positive and negative. Negative effects of inflation include an increase in the opportunity cost of holding money, uncertainty over future inflation which may discourage investment and savings, and if inflation is rapid enough, shortages of goods as consumers begin hoarding out of concern that prices will increase in the future. Positive effects include ensuring that central banks can adjust real interest rates (to mitigate recessions),[5] and encouraging investment in non-monetary capital projects.
And here are a few of the positive and negative sides. But IMO the positive sides are not enough for the negative effects.
Instead of adjusting interest-rates you can adjust taxation to mitigate recessions. But just the idea that adjusting interest-rages to mitigate a recession is a bad idea for society as a whole since it points to a society that is infested with loans..
If people would start to save up money before buying random crap people would actually afford to buy even more random crap..
Buy something for $1000 at %5 percent and a 5 year plan will cause you to pay $150-200 in interest. (too lazy to calculate the exact amount).
If you instead saved up to this, maybe having the money invested in something while saving, you would then have $150-$200 more to buy stuff with (not counting any payout from the investment).
Ie.. Promoting lending money for consumption is not a good thing IMO.
Lending money for a house can be good, but today most people never plan to pay off the mortgage. This is also not a good idea since in the long-term there will be allot of money paid to the bank in interest instead of buying new things that would speed up the economy.
Also if you save up and have a house your children can inherit something of value that they can either use to buy a new place or just stay in as is...
This is why i promote a currency without inflation. Deflation could maybe even be a good thing too by making people save up before buying, and while saving maybe have the money invested.
Not saying that any of my ideas are good/bad/insane, just good to have a discussion.. Maybe i/you/other readers can get new idea's and perhaps actually learn new stuff!
.
Thanks for having at least one person here that gets it..
So is your argument that there's no public safety use for radio, or that there's no way that RF interference could get in the way of public safety use of radio? So if I, say, decided to run my "pirate" radio station on the same frequency that the local fire department uses (because I know those guys will want to hear my station!), there's no possible problem with that? I put "pirate" in quotes, because without the FCC, of course, there is no pirate radio stations, anyone anywhere can run a radio station on any frequency.
Since the fire-department know about these rules they will not use a single-frequency radio but will probably move to some other type of modulation/frequency-hopping etc.. Try blanking out a radio transmitting at 100Mhz using frequency-hopping (+/-50Mhz) while also doing detection of used frequencies within this span.
Imagine possible new radio-protocols that a SDR radio could support where it could be using multiple frequencies at the same time to allow clear transmissions in a very noisy enviroment..
The FCC sets exposure limits, among other things, and they type certify most devices to ensure that they are within legal limits for power and spectral purity among other things.
And this they could still do.. They can still have requirements on that your device does not go over the set limits for power and spectral purity.
Having most of the frequency-band free for anyone to use does not say no to limiting the allowed transmit power or requiring a minimal signal purity.
We probably need some type of regulations, but having auctions for selling frequencies might not be the best thing... Would it not be nice if all cellphone-companies where forced to share all the bands? Would it not even be even better if all cellphone companies where forced to share the base-stations?
And by forced i'm talking about forced by them selves since it would be cheaper for them.
One option is that the frequency-bands are divided up in slots of 10Mhz or similar.. Then let companies propose different standards for transmitting on the frequency and the 'best' standard will win.... And of course no licencing of patents should be required for any standard proposed and maybe standards removal from a frequency should be notified ~5 years in advance and a standard for a specific frequency would be assigned for periods of 5/10/20 years depending on collaboration between the companies. Ie, no major objections = 20 years, more than 10% wants changes to the standard = 5 years.
Of course some of the bands will probably be preassigned to specific services, like broadcast tv, emergency services etc.
Some possible benefits we might get since anyone is allowed to transmit on all non-emergency bands + a few broadcast frequencies.
- Telco's could be forced to cooperate to share base-stations and frequencies in a much more efficient way. ( a standard could say "To transmit in this frequency you must join association X and agree to their rules." Association X should be run as a non-profit organization. the of course)
- FM/AM Radio could be replaced by digital radio where you could have frequency sharing between the stations (ie no common transmit tower). or for being able to transmit longer distances a shared tower could be setup. (see the association clause above)
- Handheld radio's would start being developed the same way as WiFi.
Some sort of regulation will probably be needed, but having it where more or less all bands are open for anyone to use would make for some interesting development to allow sharing the bands in hopefully the most efficient way.
Just random ideas but
Yes, i thought it would be higher than 26%...
This just in: Anonymous Coward unable to use division to get the average inflation-rate.
I was using the 35.6% number to make a point since most people nowadays don't look into the future that much.. Many think that 2.73% is nothing but they do not count the total over the years.. people saying that 3% interest on deposited money is good.. well, that's just 0.27%/year in real interest if looking at the last 13 years.
"Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising."
This just in: Bitcoin fanatics
and this just in too: Anonymous Coward seem to be unable to read...
http://www.coinnews.net/tools/cpi-inflation-calculator/
According to that page between 2000 and 2013 the USD had an inflation of 35.6%
Also i wrote "Not sure if bitcoin is good enough, but it's ideas looks promising."..
But if you look at bitcoin.. The thing that happened there was that the bitcoin-price spiked, going from ~100USD to >200USD, but it took only about 2 weeks before it was back to about 100USD. Sure it's been going between 80 and 120USD during the last month, but this is due to current size of the currency. The larger it becomes the more stable against fluctuations it will become.
Ie the 2/3'rds of it's value was when the price spiked... If taking it the other way we could say it gained 2/3'rds of it's value in a few days too...
But if we are talking about gain in value... In about one year it's gone from 15-20 USD to about 100USD.. That would be quite some nice profit if someone would have invested a year ago...
But until this, or any other, crypto-currency has a larger economy it will not be as stable as the major currencies out there... It probably needs 10-20 times current economy size as it has today before it will be stable enough for most people to trust it.
Hmm.. did not the article say that they needed to treat the seeds before planting them??
The last person that quit or was fired will be held responsible for everything that goes wrong -- until the next person quits or is fired.
