So says Peter Diamandis in his new book.
Well, support for that notion exists from the past , if this photo is any indication. Woof.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
PJTV Exclusive: How NBC Editors Made the Zimmerman 911 Call Sound Racist
pjmedia
quote:
Comment:
I haven't studied this much, so I won't offer much of an opinion on the technical details. Let's assume that this is 100% correct. That means that NBC is lying to cover up what this makes them look like they are doing, which is to inflame racial passions. Why would NBC do this?
Let's also say that this increases the probability that Zimmerman is charged. Now, if Zimmerman is charged, does this help Democrats? I'm trying to get at the motivation for doing this. Evidently, if this was done deliberately, those responsible must believe that it gives them a political advantage. But is this so? What if it backfires? What if it is perceived as an unjust persecution of Zimmerman? What will be the political response to that, should it occur?
Update:
It isn't unheard of for the media to make up stuff. One thing that comes to mind was the fake video of the exploding gas tanks in simulated crashes:
A short perusal of the wikipedia article linked above shows that Matt Lauer is a contributing anchor to Dateline NBC, which was involved in the lawsuit mentioned above.
Update:
Let me try to answer the motivation question I posed above. It could be nothing more complicated than money. This kind of story can produce ratings and ratings means money.
Politics? Maybe, but the risk of a negative political response doesn't seem to have stayed their hand. The exploding gas tanks story was aired after the election in 1992. The common theme could be money.
quote:
Is it possible for such an internal edit that substantially alters the nature of Zimmerman’s call with the 911 dispatcher to happen by chance? As an audio and video editor for going on 20 years, in my opinion it is highly implausible and close to impossible for that edit to have occurred by chance. Watch this video and you’ll see why
Comment:
I haven't studied this much, so I won't offer much of an opinion on the technical details. Let's assume that this is 100% correct. That means that NBC is lying to cover up what this makes them look like they are doing, which is to inflame racial passions. Why would NBC do this?
Let's also say that this increases the probability that Zimmerman is charged. Now, if Zimmerman is charged, does this help Democrats? I'm trying to get at the motivation for doing this. Evidently, if this was done deliberately, those responsible must believe that it gives them a political advantage. But is this so? What if it backfires? What if it is perceived as an unjust persecution of Zimmerman? What will be the political response to that, should it occur?
Update:
It isn't unheard of for the media to make up stuff. One thing that comes to mind was the fake video of the exploding gas tanks in simulated crashes:
On Monday, February 8, 1993, GM conducted a highly publicized point-by-point rebuttal in the Product Exhibit Hall of the General Motors Building in Detroit that lasted nearly two hours after announcing the lawsuit. The lawsuit was settled the same week by NBC, and Jane Pauley read a 3 minute 30 second on-air apology to viewers.
A short perusal of the wikipedia article linked above shows that Matt Lauer is a contributing anchor to Dateline NBC, which was involved in the lawsuit mentioned above.
Update:
Let me try to answer the motivation question I posed above. It could be nothing more complicated than money. This kind of story can produce ratings and ratings means money.
Politics? Maybe, but the risk of a negative political response doesn't seem to have stayed their hand. The exploding gas tanks story was aired after the election in 1992. The common theme could be money.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Michigan Tech Breakthrough Could Slash R&D Time for Next Generation of Hydrogen Fuel Cells
Michigan Tech News h/t Next Big Future
Well! These reactors existed 40 years ago, so that is already here. It only needs to be seen and appreciated for the opportunity that it provides.
The main article discusses how R&D time is being slashed in the search for an affordable fuel cell. Hopefully, it won't take 40 years after something is found before somebody realizes the answer has been right under the noses the whole time.
April 3, 2012—Also, from the comments section of Next Big Future says his hope is that walk away safe nuclear reactors will replace combustion based power production.
It took Thomas Edison two years and over 3,000 experiments to develop a marketable light bulb. It has taken 10 times that long and who-knows-how-many experiments to develop a system that is far more complicated: the inner workings of a reliable, marketable hydrogen fuel cell.
Well! These reactors existed 40 years ago, so that is already here. It only needs to be seen and appreciated for the opportunity that it provides.
The main article discusses how R&D time is being slashed in the search for an affordable fuel cell. Hopefully, it won't take 40 years after something is found before somebody realizes the answer has been right under the noses the whole time.
Unapproved Thoughts: Glenn Reynolds and Walter Russell Mead
Unapproved Thoughts: Glenn Reynolds and Walter Russell Mead: In Tuesday afternoon, I had the good fortune to attend a forum about blogging at the Baker Center down on the UT campus. Glenn Reynolds of ...
I like this quote:
I like this quote:
Glenn related Ted Sturgeon's Law. When asked why he wrote science fiction since 90% of science fiction is crap, Sturgeon replied, "90% of everything is crap!"
The Story Behind US Gas Price Pain
mining.com h/t Instapundit
- With production up and demand down, the basics of supply and demand indicate that oil prices should be falling. Americans should be paying less at the pump.
- What gives?
- Two main forces are driving fuel prices upward in the United States: high global oil prices and the state of the US oil transportation and refining industry.
- The system’s disconnectedness means that refiners in different regions are forced to pay whatever the price may be for the crude oil they can access – and those prices differ significantly.
- As for high oil prices in general, the biggest question there is Iran.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Nuclear waste, what it is, and what to do about it
This is a complex subject, due to the complexity of nuclear physics itself. To explain this or to listen to it being explained may tax the patience of Job. Consequently, a lot of misinformation could be introduced which is difficult, if not impossible to correct. The result is that people are going to be averse to this subject and will tend to avoid it, thus making the task ever harder.
Given the stakes involved, it would be better if people would not take counsel of their fears, and let themselves be educated on the subject. As President Franklin Roosevelt famously said in his first inaugural, "the only thing to fear is fear itself". This is especially true in this subject, as the tendency to be afraid of radioactivity is very easy to acquire. Those who would seek to inspire fear in others would find a useful ally in the subject of radioactivity. We all want to be safe, but excessive fear of harm can be worse than the harm itself.
Well, what about it then? What is nuclear waste? One thing about it is that it is mostly the same stuff than went into it. For nuclear reactors based upon the uranium fuel cycle, this means that most of it is the same uranium that went into it. Less than 5% of the uranium is consumed by the fission reactions before the fuel rod must be retired. Therefore, 95% of the stuff is the same old stuff. It is the 5% that is left over that we are so worried about.
Since the Carter Administration here in the US, reprocessing of spent fuel has been stopped. It has rested in that state since then. This had the effect of playing into the hands of anti nuclear activists, who want to shut down nuclear power altogether. It didn't have the effect Carter had hoped for. In the meantime, new nations are joining the nuclear club and the threat of proliferation is as strong as ever. What should come next?
That's where the Molten Salt reactors come in. These greatly reduce the proliferation risk and the waste problem. The Thorium fuel cycle in a molten salt reactor can not only produce the energy we desperately need in the coming years, but it also fulfills the dream of closing the nuclear fuel cycle promised by conventional uranium light water reactor and breeder reactor designs.
It does this by being a breeder reactor, and by not using a pressurized design. It is a slow breeder, as opposed to the fast breeder, which was to breed new fuel from plutonium. The plutonium was to be reprocessed from the fuel rods of conventional reactors. By breeding the plutonium, and reprocessing, the waste problem was to minimized, yet that didn't happen. However, the molten salt reactor will reprocess and breed its own fuel, while operating in a walk away safe manner. Not only is it walk away safe, it will burn nearly all of its fuel and leave relatively small amounts of waste which will have short half lives.
What's not to like? The Molten Salt reactor using the Thorium fuel cycle will take care of its own waste processing by not producing much at all. That waste that does remain will have short half lives and will no longer pose a threat after a short interval.
But, it is radioactive anyhow. Thorium does has a half life of 14 billion years. It was here before the Earth was, and will be around long after the Earth is gone. With such a long half life, isn't that bad? Isn't it long lived nuclear waste itself?
By the way, what is more dangerous- a short half life radioactive substance, or one with a long half life? Think of it like a match that burns. The half life is how much time does it take to decay by 1/2 of its original mass. With Thorium, it will take over 14 billion years to decay to 1/2 the mass that it has now. There are some substances with half lives that are, let's say, much shorter. If the substance has a half life of 1 second, the match will burn 99.9% of itself within 10 seconds. That's two times two ten times, which is 1024. Thus, one in 1 thousand is equivalent to 99.9%, you see. The comparable rate for Thorium would be 140 billion years. A slow burning match indeed. It can be seen that Thorium is not very dangerous at all compared to the match that burns up in 10 seconds.
It appears that the way to solve the problem is to go into a different direction than the one being followed now. The conventional water cooled reactors are not good enough and should be replaced with LFTRs ( Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors). LFTRs were invented and advocated by the inventor of the light water reactor. But he was ignored and policy drifted down the wrong path until this very day. It is not a new design. It has been proven, but forgotten. It should not ignored much longer. As a matter of fact, it won't be ignored much longer. It appears that the Chinese will pick up where it left off. They will use the American designs themselves as a starter. They plan to have their own reactors up and running within a decade.
It is going to happen one way or another, so it is time to get started before this technology is taken over by the Chinese. It would be a shame to let this one get away from us like so many other things.
Update:
A presentation by Kirk Sorensen on the subject.
Update:
Here's what's inside a spent fuel from a light water reactor
Given the stakes involved, it would be better if people would not take counsel of their fears, and let themselves be educated on the subject. As President Franklin Roosevelt famously said in his first inaugural, "the only thing to fear is fear itself". This is especially true in this subject, as the tendency to be afraid of radioactivity is very easy to acquire. Those who would seek to inspire fear in others would find a useful ally in the subject of radioactivity. We all want to be safe, but excessive fear of harm can be worse than the harm itself.
Well, what about it then? What is nuclear waste? One thing about it is that it is mostly the same stuff than went into it. For nuclear reactors based upon the uranium fuel cycle, this means that most of it is the same uranium that went into it. Less than 5% of the uranium is consumed by the fission reactions before the fuel rod must be retired. Therefore, 95% of the stuff is the same old stuff. It is the 5% that is left over that we are so worried about.
Since the Carter Administration here in the US, reprocessing of spent fuel has been stopped. It has rested in that state since then. This had the effect of playing into the hands of anti nuclear activists, who want to shut down nuclear power altogether. It didn't have the effect Carter had hoped for. In the meantime, new nations are joining the nuclear club and the threat of proliferation is as strong as ever. What should come next?
That's where the Molten Salt reactors come in. These greatly reduce the proliferation risk and the waste problem. The Thorium fuel cycle in a molten salt reactor can not only produce the energy we desperately need in the coming years, but it also fulfills the dream of closing the nuclear fuel cycle promised by conventional uranium light water reactor and breeder reactor designs.
It does this by being a breeder reactor, and by not using a pressurized design. It is a slow breeder, as opposed to the fast breeder, which was to breed new fuel from plutonium. The plutonium was to be reprocessed from the fuel rods of conventional reactors. By breeding the plutonium, and reprocessing, the waste problem was to minimized, yet that didn't happen. However, the molten salt reactor will reprocess and breed its own fuel, while operating in a walk away safe manner. Not only is it walk away safe, it will burn nearly all of its fuel and leave relatively small amounts of waste which will have short half lives.
What's not to like? The Molten Salt reactor using the Thorium fuel cycle will take care of its own waste processing by not producing much at all. That waste that does remain will have short half lives and will no longer pose a threat after a short interval.
But, it is radioactive anyhow. Thorium does has a half life of 14 billion years. It was here before the Earth was, and will be around long after the Earth is gone. With such a long half life, isn't that bad? Isn't it long lived nuclear waste itself?
By the way, what is more dangerous- a short half life radioactive substance, or one with a long half life? Think of it like a match that burns. The half life is how much time does it take to decay by 1/2 of its original mass. With Thorium, it will take over 14 billion years to decay to 1/2 the mass that it has now. There are some substances with half lives that are, let's say, much shorter. If the substance has a half life of 1 second, the match will burn 99.9% of itself within 10 seconds. That's two times two ten times, which is 1024. Thus, one in 1 thousand is equivalent to 99.9%, you see. The comparable rate for Thorium would be 140 billion years. A slow burning match indeed. It can be seen that Thorium is not very dangerous at all compared to the match that burns up in 10 seconds.
It appears that the way to solve the problem is to go into a different direction than the one being followed now. The conventional water cooled reactors are not good enough and should be replaced with LFTRs ( Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors). LFTRs were invented and advocated by the inventor of the light water reactor. But he was ignored and policy drifted down the wrong path until this very day. It is not a new design. It has been proven, but forgotten. It should not ignored much longer. As a matter of fact, it won't be ignored much longer. It appears that the Chinese will pick up where it left off. They will use the American designs themselves as a starter. They plan to have their own reactors up and running within a decade.
It is going to happen one way or another, so it is time to get started before this technology is taken over by the Chinese. It would be a shame to let this one get away from us like so many other things.
Update:
A presentation by Kirk Sorensen on the subject.
Update:
Here's what's inside a spent fuel from a light water reactor
 |
| http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html#DevelopPUREX |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)