A great way to sabotage HBO now and streaming though.
A great way to sabotage HBO now and streaming though.
> Yeah, imagine a huge swath of land with no purpose
> other than being covered with solar cells that have to
> be kept clean and maintained. A chunk of land
> nobody can be allowed to enter, no trees or animals
> can be allowed to inhabit.. just imagine it all.
Not do be anti-nuclear or a solar fanboy... I'm actually a fan of both. But we do have quite a lot of uninhabited desert that would do perfectly fine for solar farms. Plus there are rooftops, which are otherwise essentially unused.
They say they don't want Ps Pro only games but ultimately if the Pro takes off they don't have a choice.
I'm sure a dev could have their game "run" on a PS4 Vanilla. In 480P. With wireframe graphics. At 15fps.
It won't go quite that far simply because there isn't that kind of difference between the two machines but running on a Ps4 and "Running in a way that you'd actually want to play the damn thing" are two very different concepts.
Why even bother screwing up the desert when we have millions of perfectly-good unused rooftops to fill up with panels first?
We have this idea in free society that people are entitled to their own opinions and the government should not force people to believe one thing or another. And it’s not like we lack precedents where totalitarian governments actively suppress ideas that might disrupt their regime. So we do need to keep in mind that indvidual people should be free to be wrong and be assholes. That kid in the gorilla costume at Tennessee State was an asshole, but should he be brought up on criminial charges? We need to ensure that “assholes” are not summarily suppressed. Richard Dawkins acts like an asshole but he’s still right about evolution.
Now, when it comes to these nurses, the situation is entirely different. They are entitled to their *personal* opinion. But this is a matter of professional activity. In their capacities as nurses (even on their own time), they represent their employers. As a CS professor, I could be dismissed for a wide range of inappropriate behaviors in my “personal life,” including hooking up with an undergrad and making offensive and racist statements on social media. I can maintain my right to express an opinion, and my employer can exercise their right to not be associated with someone who does not represent their core values. (Although, I will say that I’ve heard that BYU won’t grant tenure to anyone who they see as not sufficiently “Mormon,” and I think that’s reprehensible, so there is some room for debate on this, which is why we have courts.)
There’s also not much room on this subject for “personal opinion.” Science doesn’t have answers for everything, but all attempts to show a solid link between vaccines and autism have failed, and those attempts have been numerous. This isn’t based on a single publication with no replication studies. This topic has been beaten to death. It be shown that their statements are factually wrong. They are also not researchers in this area. If they were, then they would be in a position to conduct further studies to see if they could prove a link. Instead, they are just talking out their arses.
Even more important, they are putting people in danger. And that’s what this is all about. The benefits of vaccines are not in dispute, and the risks are minimal and nebulous. When your scientific illiteracy puts people in danger, you need to be stopped.
See above re: submarines, etc.
No spacecraft today are powered by nuclear reactors. There were some extremely inefficient reactors used on spacecraft in the past, mainly by the Soviet Union.
US or Russian naval officers would disagree with you.
See what I wrote above. You can make a reactor of any size. But you lose efficiency - both neutron efficiency and cost efficiency - the more you scale down. Nuclear sub reactors' scaledowns are aided by the use of highly enriched uranium as fuel, something you don't want to do with civilian nuclear plants. And note that even nuclear subs' reactors aren't "small". A Los Angeles class, for example, uses a 165MW reactor. And nuclear power plants, unlike subs, generally need to have multiple reactors so that they can be taken down for maintenance / fueling.
The GP is correct. Solar farms are a pretty dense energy source - comparable (when the reservoir is included) to all but the highest head dams, and an order of magnitude or two more than a typical dam. And some designs can get even more dense, such as linear fresnel reflectors (which cover a higher percentage of the ground because of less issues with self-shading as the sun moves). Plus, solar can be paired with wind. Wind is a low energy density source with respect to total acreage, but very high with respect to actual surface area required on the ground.
Beyond this, a few notes. Much solar doesn't have to take up any new land at all, as one notes from rooftop solar (ideally industrual/commercial), parking shelters/covered walkways, etc. And places where solar plants are made are most typically desert areas. And there's a curious reversal in the desert when it comes to life: while shading terrain hinders life in moist areas, it encourages life in desert areas. In the desert, places that provide shade (ironwood trees, saguaro cacti, large rocks, etc) tend to turn into oases of life - not simply by providing relief from the blazing sun, but slowing down the rate of water loss from the soil. Now, this doesn't usually happen with solar plants because at this stage, most are kept cleared. But that does not have to be the case.
Would it have been possible for the Congressionally-approved design to have specified "steel meeting the ASME SA316 standard as it existed on X date" to head off the problem at the beginning? Also, did the ASME committee really care about the structural weakness or did some anti-nuclear member(s) of the committee realize it would screw over the reactor construction and do it on purpose?
No it's not legitimate if he merely mentioned either. Merely mentioning a trademark doesn't mean you're in violation of trademark law, otherwise you wouldn't be able to talk about most commercial products. The precise restrictions on trademarked word use are best described by a lawyer, but remember the intent of trademark law is to prevent people from passing an item off as something associated with the trademark owner, not to restrict people's ability to talk about products they've seen or owned.
For more information, visit Bing and google "trademarks".
One of nuclear's biggest problems is, it doesn't work very well small.
US or Russian naval officers would disagree with you. Or do you think the reactor on a submarine counts as "big?"
Medical professionals have a professional duty to state medical facts. If they refuse, they can and should be placed in a different career path.
An accountant or lawyer promoting a Sovereign Citizen view of the relationship between client and state would be struck off. A Bridge Engineer who rejects Newtonian (or better) mechanics would be struck off.
This isn't like banning a doctor from discussing gun safety because you lobbyists are worried it might lead to a decrease in household gun ownership. This is about nurses being required not to mislead people about medicine, abusing their positions as respected medical professionals to sow misinformation. It's not a freedom of speech issue, it's a professionalism issue, and critically it's a life and death issue.
My VW runs on 100% biodiesel and is therefore closer to carbon-neutral than even the average electric vehicle. Keeping an old car in service also avoids the gigantic environmental cost of manufacturing a new one (which is even worse for modern EVs because lithium mining is a particularly nasty business).
So who's the assknob now? Pretty sure it's you, not me!
Funny thing is after I lived with the flip phone for a year or so, about a year ago I bought the cheapest smartphone I could ($30, at Walmart!) and was stunned at how much better it was than the GN. OK, the screen was worse, as was the amount of storage -- though the fact it took SD cards mitigated that in part, but it really was faster, smoother, and the UI had less bugs. It resold me on Android.
I honestly don't think price has much to do with device "niceness" in the Android world. Sure, in the early days, you had a few "cheap" phones with sub-WVGA screens that were barely usable, and right until a couple of years ago even the slightly better ones seemed cobbled together, but right now I'm actually seeing low end hardware that's caught up with Android's needs, while critical features continue to get removed from phones as they get more expensive.
And some of those removed features do, actually, make the phone less frustrating. That cheap $30 Walmart special had dedicated navigation buttons for example - its replacement doesn't, meaning I have to swipe from the corners to get buttons that'll close a full screen app or just send that full screen app a "back" signal. How is that an improvement? It isn't. The buttons are removed because it interferes with the lines of the device and would make it fractionally bigger, aesthetic considerations that undermine usability and makes the device more annoying to use.
Correa despises being on the dollar
The end of labor is to gain leisure.