Nuclear plants of the design mentioned in the article must legally have offsite power to continue operation. As soon as offsite power is lost, the plant is required to shutdown. An emergency shutdown is more paperwork than a planned shutdown such as this.
The reason for this is that in an accident scenario, you would like to rely on offsite power to run your emergency coolant pumps for this particular design.
Newer reactor designs don't have this issue, but this is a pretty economic decision considering an emergency shutdown if/when the offsite power does eventually trip. The grid seems pretty unreliable based on past experience, as the article even notes.
While you're right, I am guilty of attacking the submitter, he has a history of posting "facts" with no further comment or context.
Is this story relevant? Maybe. Is this story abnormal? No. What is the first thing that will happen when an uninformed person reads this story? They'll probably post something like the AC with the headline "Devil's advocate" a few posts below after having formed an unjustified negative opinion.
There's a difference between posting pure "facts" and "just posting something with minimal information" with the intent to foster a negative viewpoint that supports his personally chosen cause. Borderline malicious.
However, in this case, the customers don't lose power because the generation isn't there. Customers would lose power because the grid fails. Entergy has power from other sources or purchasing agreements to make up for this temporarily.
Similarly, it is unsafe (and illegal, technically) to run your nuclear powerplant with no access to the grid. If you have a coal plant that gets disconnected from the grid, you'd shut it down too with no way to generate revenue from burning additional fuel.
Devil's advocate to your misguided devil's advocate...The problem is the electrical grid not the source.
everything in the above post
Holy Hyperbole, Batman!
It's reassuring that the decision-makers in that process consider alternative ideas; basing the goal on 'human-like' sight would leave a lot of room for error (given limitations of even human perception and classification capabilities!)
Everytime I see this topic appear on Slashdot (Last time) I think:
You're putting a neural network (NN) through a classification process where it is fed this image as a "fixed input", where the input's constituent elements are constant, and you ask it to classify correctly the same way as a human would. The problem with this comparison is the human eye does not see a "constant" input stream; the eye captures a stream of images, each slightly skewed as your head moves and the images changes slightly. Based on this stream of slightly different images, the human identifies an object.
However, in this research, time and again a "team" shows a "fault" in a NN by taking a single, nonvarying image input to a NN and calling it a "deep flaw in the image processing network", and I just get a feeling that they're doing it wrong.
To your topic though: You better hope your car is not just taking one single still image and performing actions based on that. You better hope your car is taking a stream of images and making decisions, which would be a completely different class of problem than this.
listed = listen*
card = cart*
So if there were 30,000 biomedical graduate students in 1979, that represents 7.60% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+1979 )
..and if there were 56,800 biomedical graduate students in 2009, that represents 5.42% of the population (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+the+united+states+in+2009 )
So... c'mon man, where are the jobs?