I think he's just trying to be diplomatic. Hollywood isn't THAT big. You never know who you'll be working for in two years, so it would be pretty stupid to badmouth the people, studio, or network that could be giving you a paycheck.
Okay, that explains it. I thought the lighting was a little too perfect and the water a little too clear.
I think there are a lot of unknowns about that solar and wind economy of scale. If I'm not mistaken, wind turbines are only good for about 5-8 years before needing replacement. Solar panels also lose efficiency over time. What is it about nuclear that makes it impossible to ever turn a profit? Is it just waste disposal, or are you looking at other costs? It seems like you're giving solar and wind the benefit of the doubt with regard to future advances that will some day make it feasible, while denying the same to nuclear. (My definition of feasible is safe+profitable to the operator+inexpensive to the consumer). I'm not against solar and wind. As far as I'm concerned, a healthy national power grid should have a mixture of power generating sources. But both are unreliable in the sense that if there's a heat wave and we need more power we can't make the wind blow faster or the sun shine at night. We need a reliable way to generate electricity on demand. That leaves coal, gas, or nuclear. I'm not against gas but I'm not keen on fraking, which is why gas is so cheap at the moment.
Each form of power has its drawbacks. Look at the pollution and safety record for petroleum, gas, or coal, or the mining of rare earth minerals in solar and wind systems. The thing is, the TMI accident was almost 33 years ago and it used a design that hasn't been used since. Nuclear actually has an very good record here in the US. A nuclear plant accident would be incredibly expensive, but so was the Exxon-Valdez and the Deep Water Horizon. If I were an insurer looking at a nuclear power company or a petroleum company, I'd consider nuclear the safer bet.
How is that different than any other large scale power source? The petroleum industry gets massive subsidies. Solar would require massive subsidies until economy of scale could be reached, and the most efficient batteries require rare earth minerals that are, well, rare. Coal is dirty. Natural gas is cheap at the moment because we're extracting it using fraking, which is turning out to have some nasty side effects as well. I'm not saying nuclear is better. I'm just saying that it's probably not any worse either.
Me too! I had no idea our lodge's car show fundraiser is being used to pay for a Super Bowl halftime show. We should get a pair of tickets to the game, at the very least!
Agreed. Within the span of a few minutes Skynet sent the T2 and the T1000 with the same mission to different time periods. Then the humans captured the facility and sent Kyle (the only person to that time period) and the reprogrammed T2 to the later period.
As far as I'm concerned, the 3rd and 4th movies didn't happen. However, the T2 sequel books (written before T3 came out) written by S.M. Stirling may as well be canon. They are that good.
My corollary is that sleep deprivation is a part of parenting "boot camp". In boot camp the recruit is worn down to utter exhaustion, making him or her more pliable and more readily retrained to think and act like a soldier. The same thing happens in the first few weeks/months of having a baby, with the hitherto independent adult being worn down and retrained as a parent.
You're my hero.
A real warrior would have asked what the button on the side was for.
Because the people who steal person info steal thousands of records at a time, then turns around and sells it to the people who actually abuse your info. IF that file turns up on someone's directory and gets indexed by Google, then there's a chance of being forewarned.
Equally likely is that a legitimate website has generated a backup file, log, report or whatnot and inadvertently put it in "in the clear" where it is indexed by Google OR rooted out by criminals familiar with software design flaws.
That was an SNL skit. She never actually said that.
Most likely, you're correct. However, Morning Edition (the show about the guy who gets the next day's edition of the newspaper) managed to survive longer than that. It can be done, but it takes a strong cast backed by even stronger writing.
Word to the wise. I was really interested in the Belkin mini surge protector/USB charger and added it to my Amazon wish list. Then I started reading some of the customer reviews. Apparently the USB ports don't put out enough juice to charge two USB devices (or at least iDevices) simultaneously. If you're buying it to declutter, then this may not be the device for you. After I read that I took it back off the wish list.
[snip] "yes, Indy was basically playing Jim Phelps/Ethan Hunt to a government-assembled squad (the other main problem)"
That was my problem with the entire book. It was not at all in the spirit of Indiana Jones stories and it really didn't fit his personality or style as established in the >half dozen books that came before it.
I made a point of reading every one up to the first one by Martin Caidin, which was so godawful that I never picked them up again. It was "Indiana Jones and the Sky Pirates". I wish Caidin had stuck with "6 Million Dollar Man" books.
No love for Pandora, huh? I guess I'm old school. Or just old.
No Dina Meyer, no sale!
There's two kinds of money in academia. "Hard Money" and "Soft Money". Hard money comes from a regular, budgeted source (such as state allocation to the university) that can be counted on year after year. If you spend most of your time teaching, you're more likely to be on hard money. Obviously you'd like your salary to come from a dependable source. Soft Money is money that comes with an expiration date. Usually we're talking about research grants. Some grants are for a couple years, other grants run 5 to 10 years. These grants can be for millions of dollars over the course of the research project, and people paid on soft money have the *potential* to pull in a higher salary than on hard money because it's recognized that people need enticement to take a what's essentially a short term gig with more uncertainty. With money drying up in academia, some researchers on hard money are getting shifted to soft money. That creates more competition for grants, which are drying up just as quickly. People on soft money spend a LOT of time worrying about what happens when their current grant runs out. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are or how close you are to a major breakthrough in your field. If you can't get a grant, you and everyone on your project can end up unemployed. People on soft money spend a LOT of time writing a LOT of grant proposals in hope of keeping employed.
In light of all of that, consider the pressure to present your research as the most valuable thing since water and the most infallible thing since Jesus. It doesn't matter what field we're talking about - medicine, climate research, social sciences. At the end of the day, researchers want to eat.
In light of all of that, consider the pressure to present your research as the most valuable thing since water and the most infallible thing since Jesus. It doesn't matter what field we're talking about - medicine, climate research, social sciences. At the end of the day, researchers want to eat.
I'm not sure if it's really representational of the show as a whole, but I do have to agree that the Wes/Fred farewell was a kick in stomach. It made me appreciate Amy Acker more as an actress after seeing her play such distinct characters so close together.
