Holy abuse potential, Batman!!

I guess we'll just have to forget about the telephone as an on-balance helpful form of communication..

It's disgustingly inefficient. How much cryptocurrency do they make per tonne of extra CO2 they cause?

Browse with Javascript DISABLED.

Use a hot-key to enable it on sites where you absolutely need it.

Keep forcing site designers to present web pages reasonably without JS enabled.

Mike

Actually, I stand corrected, it was Deckard's *commander* that used the term "skin jobs", and Deckard was clearly disgusted by the term. That's an important distinction, since Deckard may have been a replicant himself, among many other reasons.

I've never read the book. From the book title I assumed the androids were mechanical robots with rubbery skins. In the film, Deckard refers to them as "skin jobs", and this reinforced my original assumption.

Hence, running a blade meaning to (obviously metaphorically) slice off their skins, and thus reveal their true nature.

Interestingly, in "The Terminator II", Arnold slices open his organic skin with a large knife, to prove that he's a robot underneath.

I figure that the idea was so compelling that Scott kept the jargon, even though the replicants in the film were genetically-engineered organisms, and not robots.

Instant delivery of SNACK's to marijuana users.

Solar? Battery "storage"? Can we do the math on this one?

The cancelled reactors would have produced an average of 47.5 GWh per day @ 90% cap factor.

If the 700 MW of added solar uses modest DC overbuild, it will achieve something like a 25% cap factor, as a seasonal average.
That's 4.2 GWh per day, replacing just 9% of the foregone nuclear gen.

Most grid battery "storage" systems run for less than a couple of hours @ rated power (50 MW in this case) per day; many only have 10 minutes of rated runtime, just enough to allow paralleled quick-dispatch gas turbines (burning natural gas) time to spin-up.
So that's less than 0.1 GWh per day. The reactors would do nearly 500x times that.

Duke is planning to replace up to 90% of the nuclear with NATURAL GAS, mostly burned in high-efficiency combined-cycle turbines plus some in quick-dispatch simple-cycle turbines. The rest of the story is window-dressing.

I hope the "environmentalists" don't mind the GHG impact of this decision.

Desktop vs Server ?

MOBILE.. CLOUD..

Now where does Linux need to conquer??

Around 90% of GM food crop yield goes into animal feed.
Less than 10% goes into the processed foods that will be impacted by the very naive Vermont law.

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out whether meat, milk or eggs in Vermont, which came from GMO-fed source animals, need to be labelled. You shouldn't have to think too hard to realize the answer.

The leading global GMO-supported food chain is RoundUp-Ready Soy going into "broiler" (chicken meat) production. It has not quite 100% share of soy going into chicken production. That will not change.

The food industry has not been "brought to it's knees" by Vermont.
And GMO "labellers" are just GMO opponents, and are very very ignorant people.

Wind is not a positively dispatchable power source. A wind turbine is not a functional substitute for a nuclear, hydroelectric, gas or coal station, all of which can produce power *when asked to do so*.

Grid-clearance auctions and other market pricing mechanisms VALUE positively dispatchable power at several times that of wind. Forget COST for a minute and think about VALUE to grid operations. Here in Ontario wind is paid a CAD$135 feed-in-tariff when the average production power VALUE is more like CAD$25. (Yes we are a slightly extreme case..)

Statistics like LCOE are just accounting games, that do not include grid-operational factors.

Photovoltaic ("solar") power may have a role to play, but the laws of our universe completely preclude the possibility of wind power ever being a useful, practical, economic contributor to large national grids; EVER. It's not even a remote possibility. On a little island somewhere, maybe.

The article is written by no-nothings in the enthral of environmentalists (i.e. no-nothings).
The blind leading the blind.
--
Mike

> but a Muslim Theocracy (for example Iran)

Because the Dalai Lama would never want his own nuclear arsenal??

Was that so hard??

Not all "theocrats" are created equally..

Ummm. The DEBIAN JESSIE install that I just did yesterday (small mail server) included no [x]inetd.

I didn't ask for it and Debian didn't include it by default.
Just getting used to 'systemd' too..
Mike

I wonder if any of Quebec's "legislators" (applying the term very loosely) know what a VPN is?
Quebec's gamblers soon will.
How to enforce? How to enforce?...

What a marvellous idea: following in China's footsteps.
Here comes the Great Firewall of Quebec.
Statist thugs, that's all they are.

We already have HUMANS that can outsmart humans.
Is this a problem? Crying out for regulation?
How will machines be different?

Never worked as an academic physicist, never even completed a degree apparently.
Never worked in the power industry.
Never manufactured EE Equipment.

Nevertheless knows how to power the world?

Did the AC submitter read the abstracts? Did they understand them?
* The papers on chronic (low-dose rate) exposures focussed on the DNA repair and other healthy mechanisms in the exposed organisms.
* Some of the butterfly exposures were done as high-dose rate simulations in the lab, not env exposures.
* The monkey blood-count study was mentioned in the Eurekalert article, but NOT in any of the *journal* (of heredity) papers that I could see; it has been widely criticized on several bases (improbably-low causative dose and insufficient statistical power).
* Look at the refutations at the bottom of this sensational Guardian article:
http://t.co/LuPJHv2Js9
“Unfortunately yet another paper with insufficient power to distinguish real effects and relevance to human health”
"correlations between the caesium and low blood counts in the Fukushima study were not statistically strong."
"monkeys are about the same as those found in sheep in some parts of the **UK** following the Chernobyl accident, i.e. extremely low .."
"in terms of damage to the animals themselves. I think it much more likely that the apparently low blood cell counts are caused by something other than radiation"