On another, it nuked the camera, PIN, password, the password recovery questions. Wouldn't let me past the login screen.
But it served up advertisements on the login screen. Took a week with my IT guy to fix it. Still not quite right, keeps nagging me about Teams and Onedrive.
1. The results would be worse. 2. Where's the profit in that? 3. Politics is not about solving problems, it is about visibly fighting the problem so you can get re-elected to fight the problem..
Don't forget, the fines are money in the bank. And I thought the EU believed that profit is at base, immoral.
Nuc plants seldom end up costing what the first projection says. And anyone feeling warm and fuzzy about 1960's technology reactors is fooling themselves.
Your statement would actually hold weight and have meaning, if not for a modern society manufacturing planned obsolescence into every stock price your retirement fund relies on.
I dare you to find an American appliance from the 1960s that would outlast anything made in this fucking century.
I think you are misreading what I posted. I'm talking about only coming in on budget, not appliances and planned obsolescence. PO is an issue, but not this issue.
No European search engines to choose from?
There are a number of European search engines. The major problem is that people don't know that they exist.
Why doesn't the EU fine its citizens who use non-EU search engines? Indeed, why doesn't the EU create an EU government search engine, where the government has total control over every search? Maybe even make it a crime to use any other?
That would fix all their issues with the rest of the world's tech, and protect their citizens.
Well a new solar plant with batteries costs $1.2 billion for the same power generation. Given restoring an existing nuclear power plant costs slightly more at $1.9 billion, you are in a losing argument here.
Um yeah, no. The only way that 1.9 billion is etched in stone is if they just stop refurbishing at 1.9 billion, and switch it on in whatever state it is in.
Nuc plants seldom end up costing what the first projection says. And anyone feeling warm and fuzzy about 1960's technology reactors is fooling themselves.
I realize they're not just going to walk in and start throwing switches, but reopening this plant that's been shuttered all this time and doing it correctly has got to be seriously expensive, so what are the odds on whether it will be done correctly?
A 1960's technology plant that was decommissioned in 2020, a little earlier than planned since it was damaged by a derecho, and was considered too expensive to repair.
Plus how will this be operated? By a company that abandons projects after a short time? Will it be operated with the standard profit motive? Tech bros needing to make more profit each quarter. Bean counters working hard to squeeze out profit. Gonna be interesting, apparently a privately owned old reactor working with corporate oversight.
Whatever could go wrong?
In is a contest. It concerns economics and sovereignty. Europe has launched orbital rockets for ages but never from geographic Europe and that makes the launch-capability vulnerable as the US goes down the drains.
If this is an entry in a contest, give a dissertation on why it is above the arctic circle. Not much of a market for that.
Indeed. And that is why this is a big deal. The other part is the cost, which is pretty low, compared to what Europe had before.
Did anyone give consideration to the fact that the launch site is above the arctic circle? Since no one will believe me, here's an easily digestible site that explains.
https://www.scienceabc.com/eye....
High latitude launch sites have some serious disadvantages unless you are planning on circumpolar orbits, which means you are planning on launching spy satellites.
Those launch sites near the equator use the earth's rotation for a speed boost from the earth's rotation which has a significant boost in payload or weight. 1,674 kilometers per hour boost. at the equator, At sites like Andoya, almost nothing.
In addition, it is handy to have ocean in on an easterly path in the event of failure so the bits of rockets have a place to land.
So, for some reason, Germany put a launch site in a place that is mostly useable for spysats, and just so happens to be not that far from a land the US president wants to invade.
I am of course, making conjecture. I know that if Germany wants a Western European launch site there are places in the south of France that might seem more suitable for normal operations. That last isn't conjecture
This isn't a contest as far as I know. Well maybe it is for the checkbox people. With prizes for "firsts"
The commercialization of spaceflight IS a contest. Not sure what else to say, I thought people knew what was going on.
Whoosh.
Way to miss the point. My point, which is summarized concisely in the first paragraph in the story, to wit:
"No rocket had ever reached orbit from Western European soil — until today,"
Do we have data on how many rockets were launched on say Thursday mornings at 0710? By a team of Lithuanian "little people"?
It is painfully obvious they are check boxing when they go on to list more competition among the spaceworthy:
"The company said that while the US launched 198 rockets last year, Europe's tally was just eight"If it is as you say, a competition, then this company only has 197 more launches, think they'll make it?
Much more interesting at least to me, is the location of the launch. Above the Arctic Circle, good for circumpolar orbits - mostly the province of spy sats. But let's look a little deeper.
About 950 miles or 1529 Kilometers away from Greenland! Perhaps a little geopolitical shot across the bow to a rather unpopular president, who seems to have a weird rageboner to occupy Greenland?
What this is, is showing just how far rocketry has been reduced to practice, which is not a bad thing at all.
Modern Rocketry is nearly a century old, the operational process that the Germans brought to fruition in WW2 has been refined, but yeah, contemporary liquid fueled rocket engines are tweaks of the original. Tweaks of fuel types, gimbaling, pump capacity, and now we have to go to check boxing for "firsts".
Solid rocket boosters are also largely reduced to practice.
It's all good people, now a lot of groups can participate.
If someone writes "No rocket had ever reached orbit from Western European soil" then you cannot just miss out qualifying words like "Western" to make a headline. If I write a story saying "Greytree is the fastest 100m runner called Greytree" you cannot post a story with the headline "Greytree is the fastest 100m runner". This is Journalism 101, not rocket science.
Soo.... you aren't the fastest 100m runner? 8^)
Yes and gm got caught reporting data to LexisNexis without telling customers. One guy got a literal book when he asked for his lexisnexis report. It detailed everywhere he had driven in his onstar car. gm settled and supposedly stopped doing it.
Yeah, you need to remove the Tracking module, because they can track you even if you don't have a sub.
1. The US gets into a war with China. 2. China sends a kill signal to all Chinese vehicles in the US. 3. The US government says they'll rapidly build millions of new vehicles in the US to replace them. 4. Ooops, we don't have the factories and anyway we forgot how.
Even if the Chinese didn't kill the cars, parts would rapidly become unobtainable.
Review your WW2 History. The US managed to gear up to fight a 2 front global war.
So China’s long game is to sell the world cheap cars and then engage a kill switch at some point?
How does that benefit anyone?
True dat. And just as a data point, if a person has a GM Vehicle, they have ONStar. And you don't need a subscription for them to hit the kill switch and cause the car to only idle. So you pull off the road, and let popo come to visit.
American cars have sucked since about the 1970s.
When I was a kid, it was "American cars have sucked since the 1920's"
Oddly enough, those good cars befrore rusted in a few years, and I remember celebrating when my 1965 Buick Skylark hit 100K miles. And then I sold it to a junkyard. Tires lasted 15,000 miles, Water pumps maybe 20,000 miles. Brake pads mayby 15,000 miles.
Today, I put around 300,000 mile on a vehicle, First time body issues hardly ever start before 200,000 miles.Ceramic brake pads seem to last forever. The engines are essentially what we used to call "blueprinted" which would have resulted in gasps
I get some of it - nostalgia for the older cars. Wife had a 69 Mustang and I had a 73 Mach 1. Awesome rides. But compared to anything now? We sold them before the 100,000 mile mark because they were done.
"Be there. Aloha." -- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
