The sun does not shine at night. The wind does not blow all the time. Batteries suck. Anyone that makes that statement has never sat down and done the math. Solar is not base load, Wind can be base load if you have natural gas backing plants but Nuclear is great base load.
The greater the heat differential the greater the efficiency. To use low temperature aka low pressure would require massive turbines. BTW temperature and pressure in a gas are very related. So much so that you can almost treat them as the same thing.
This statement just reeks of "noob".
./ since 2001.
While trolling was greater, there was a larger diversity of troll posts, from "BSD is Dying" to the GNAA, from Last Measure to "Batman Touched My Junk". Now it's basically down to the two trolls I mentioned in my post above (there are also some mentally ill people who repeatedly post, but I prefer to consider them separately). I suppose that changes in Slashcode made it harder to crapflood, but I'd really like to see a return to the ingenuity of trolls of yore.
It's a shame that this "Republican poster" gets so many replies when it is clear even to casual followers of Slashdot that he is a troll who posts the same thing ("Republicans hate X", "Republicans took away Y") in various thread on a daily basis.
For me, a real sign of the death of Slashdot is the predictability of the trolls. The Republican troll and the Space Nutter troll (who may be one and the same, though I've never counted), offer only this invariable single-issue shtick instead of making things wacky and unpredictable like classic trolls of yore.
As I said, "the greens will never stand for it". Well if you look at the amount of mining for Nuclear verses coal over the life of a power plant....
Yadda yadda. You can fight nuclear or climate change and win. You can not fight both.
Ever seen a mining site for Aluminum?, Copper,? Ever see how much fuel a glass factory uses?
Everything has waste including Wind and Solar.
It's not the human *touch* that people crave in a complicated interaction with a system. It's human *versatility*.
Thus more personnel does no good, if those personnel are rigidly controlled, lack information to advise or authority to act. The fact that they're also expected to be jolly and upbeat as they follow their rigid and unyielding rules only turns the interaction with them into a travesty of a social interaction.
What would work better is a well-designed check-in system that handles routine situations nearly all the time, along with a few personnel who have the training and authority to solve any passenger problems that come up.
I'm pretty sure birth control exists.
Actually if you look at even GOV statistics they do not list Hydro as a renewable. I also find this dumb. I also think that Nuclear should be listed as "clean" but the greens would never stand for it.
Conservatives certainly emphasize the importance of a stable family and decry the attempt to replace parents with govt programs, but I've never heard any conservative object ideologically about moving one's family to take a better job.
Come to Eastern Europe where movement of people away to Western Europe for better jobs is often decried by the right.
I can only go with the experience of my friends, who've gone both routes successfully.
It's true that traditional publishers expect mid-list authors to shoulder most of the promotion efforts these days. I never said they didn't. Fiction authors are now expected to maintain a platform, which used to be a non-fiction thing. Certainly traditional publishers have become more predatory and less supportive than they were twenty years ago. I don't have an inside track on why that is, but I suspect there are several causes. One is that POD allows publishers to make an reliable though modest profit from their mid-list authors, which ironically makes them more risk averse. But publishers still provide production and editing services on a MS that'd cost you maybe ten thousand dollars if you were contracting those services out. They also get your book in bricks-and-mortar bookstores, which is a bridge too far for most indy authors, even the successful ones.
A lot of the bad feeling that publishers get from indy authors comes from two sources. First, a long history with rejection. Second the lack of respect indy authors get relative to traditionally published authors. We can see it in this discussion elsewhere, where one poster puts "authors" in quotes when referring to indy authors. And it's easy to see why because most indy authors just aren't good enough to get traditionally published. *Some* indy authors put out a product that's every bit as good as the mid-list authors from the big publishing houses, but most just dump their terrible manuscripts on Amazon with a clip-art cover and no copy editing, much less developmental editing.
The statistic that most indy authors make their investment back plus 40% didn't impress me, because (a) that counts the author's labor as free and (b) most indy authors don't invest much cash in their projects. The percentage of indy authors that clear, say, five thousand dollars in profit are very small.
It's not that indy publishing doesn't have its points, and my traditionally published friends are certainly thinking about dipping their toe in the water. But it's not as cheap as it looks if you want a comparable product, and you give up certain things. I was in Manhattan recently and went to the 5th Avenue branch of the NYPL. My traditionally published friends' books were either on the shelves our out circulating. The NYPL had *none* of my indy author friends' books, even though at least one of them has made the New York Times best seller list.
There are plenty of jobs out there ("We are experiencing a heavier call volume than usual, please be prepared to wait up to 40 minutes to speak to someone."
Have you not considered that phone support is a loss center, not a profit center? It may be that the company would lose more money on hiring more call center workers than they would get from people happy about the shorter waiting time. Human beings, even when paid fairly low salaries, are not cheap.
There are plenty of examples of unreasonably risk-adverse companies, but I don't think this is one.