This call to put some pressure on commercial radio (by not listening), good enough for Chuck D (among other notables), makes sense to me as well.
[/media]
Turn Off The Radio
[/media]
Thu, 20 Feb 2003
[/media]
911 is a joke
[/rant]
Sun, 16 Feb 2003
Public Enemy had it right, no doubt.
Some jerk in a giant pickup tried to run me off the road yesterday. I got the plate number, and five minutes later was on the line with the 911 operator. She told me that all she could do was give me the number of the city attorney's, who I was to call in the morning and file a complaint against the driver with.
I did just that, and what do you know - according to the attorney's office, the 911 operator had it all wrong. The attorney's office can't do anything without a case number! Not only did this mean additional time in voice jail, but they added that the more time that has elapsed between the incident and the filing of the police report, the less likely anything is to come of it.
So I left a message at the number given to me by the attorney's office, and later in the day heard from someone in the police department. She ran the license plate number I had written down, but it didn't come back with anything. She told me that there was nothing that could be done without a matching plate number.
I didn't want to give up, so I wrote a note to Driver and Vehicle Services describing the problem. They responded quickly that the police dept. should be able to run an inquiry on partial plates via the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. Why the police representative didn't know this is unclear; I've left them another message and have yet to hear back.
It's a funny thing, just the other day I had read something about the police department's decision to remove 'To Protect and Serve' from the design of their squad cars a number of years ago. Now, I think I can see why: some jerk comes close to killing me while I'm minding my own business, and all the 911 operator wants to do is get me off the line.
[/rant]
Nuclear Power Deception
...is the title of the above-mentioned book, by Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska, published by Apex Press in 1999. The book, as can be guessed from the title, critically examines the claims that have been made about nuclear power's advantages.
The main claims the energy industry has made about nuclear power are that 1) it has the potential of providing extremely cheap power ("too cheap to meter" was an early phrase used by nuke boosters), and 2) that the public need not worry about the safety of nuclear power plants in its communities (especially more recent claims that new reactor designs are "inherently safe"). Little research is required to show that both of these claims by the industry aren't even believed within the industry.
A brief review of power economics shows that, even if the day-to-day operation of a nuclear plant was very inexpensive, the transmission and distribution of the power alone would prevent the costs of power to homes and industry from being much lower than those associated with coal plants. As it is, the extremely low concentration of suitable uranium in nature, the cost and danger of enriching the fuel to a point that it can be used in power plants, the extreme expense of designing and building the power plants, the ongoing costs of operating and securing the power plants, and the expense of dealing with the wastes produced all conspire to make nuclear power uneconomic. The only time this appeared differently was early in the industry's history, when there were large government subsidies for military and political reasons.
Makhijani and Salesak argue that industry claims of "inherently safe" reactors are similarly baseless. Currently operating reactor designs are very unlikely to fail in ways that create explosions, but (as evidenced by history) are somewhat vulnerable to meltdowns . New, untested designs promise to greatly reduce the likelyhood of meltdowns, but may fail in ways that are more likely to lead to explosions - surely not a net safety improvement. Since the new designs cited by industry as "inherently safe" have yet to be built, it's impossible to know what other safety problems could arise. Meltdowns weren't predicted to be a problem with the currently operating reactors, which were in their time advertised much as the current "inherently safe" designs are. Also of great concern is the nuclear weapon proliferation potential of nuclear waste, which would not be adequately addressed by any of the proposed new reactor designs.
If even the newest and best reactor designs would continue to be of questionable safety and economy, how will the human race ever be able to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to provide the power levels we depend on? Though this is not the main focus of the book, Makhijani and Saleska close by sketching out a medium-term strategy of phasing out coal and nuclear power plants in favor of newer natural gas plants and widespread efficiency measures. In the long term, they suggest that developments in renewable energy sources and further efficiency measures should allow the world's growing population to produce needed energy without fatally polluting the atmosphere or exposing us to the environmentail and military dangers of widespread nuclear power.
[/book_review]
Sat, 08 Feb 2003
...is the title of the above-mentioned book, by Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska, published by Apex Press in 1999. The book, as can be guessed from the title, critically examines the claims that have been made about nuclear power's advantages.
The main claims the energy industry has made about nuclear power are that 1) it has the potential of providing extremely cheap power ("too cheap to meter" was an early phrase used by nuke boosters), and 2) that the public need not worry about the safety of nuclear power plants in its communities (especially more recent claims that new reactor designs are "inherently safe"). Little research is required to show that both of these claims by the industry aren't even believed within the industry.
A brief review of power economics shows that, even if the day-to-day operation of a nuclear plant was very inexpensive, the transmission and distribution of the power alone would prevent the costs of power to homes and industry from being much lower than those associated with coal plants. As it is, the extremely low concentration of suitable uranium in nature, the cost and danger of enriching the fuel to a point that it can be used in power plants, the extreme expense of designing and building the power plants, the ongoing costs of operating and securing the power plants, and the expense of dealing with the wastes produced all conspire to make nuclear power uneconomic. The only time this appeared differently was early in the industry's history, when there were large government subsidies for military and political reasons.
Makhijani and Salesak argue that industry claims of "inherently safe" reactors are similarly baseless. Currently operating reactor designs are very unlikely to fail in ways that create explosions, but (as evidenced by history) are somewhat vulnerable to meltdowns . New, untested designs promise to greatly reduce the likelyhood of meltdowns, but may fail in ways that are more likely to lead to explosions - surely not a net safety improvement. Since the new designs cited by industry as "inherently safe" have yet to be built, it's impossible to know what other safety problems could arise. Meltdowns weren't predicted to be a problem with the currently operating reactors, which were in their time advertised much as the current "inherently safe" designs are. Also of great concern is the nuclear weapon proliferation potential of nuclear waste, which would not be adequately addressed by any of the proposed new reactor designs.
If even the newest and best reactor designs would continue to be of questionable safety and economy, how will the human race ever be able to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions while continuing to provide the power levels we depend on? Though this is not the main focus of the book, Makhijani and Saleska close by sketching out a medium-term strategy of phasing out coal and nuclear power plants in favor of newer natural gas plants and widespread efficiency measures. In the long term, they suggest that developments in renewable energy sources and further efficiency measures should allow the world's growing population to produce needed energy without fatally polluting the atmosphere or exposing us to the environmentail and military dangers of widespread nuclear power.
[/book_review]
Hour 17
[/rant]
Sun, 02 Feb 2003
If memory serves - and it might not - this is now the longest consecutive stretch of work I've ever done. Maybe my math is off; anyhow, I started around 8:40 AM CST on 2/7/03 & I'm not done yet.
Status: a few hours ago, I walked around a corner and smack into a 6' filing cabinet. No harm done but it's indicative of my coordination levels. I now have new appreciation for how crazy it is to let medical interns work the 80-hour weeks they're now limited to, much less the old "work them until the collapse" days.
[/rant]
Proceeding at 100% caffination
[/rant]
One 60ish hour week on the Death March down, another now underway. Concentration, coordination, and attention to detail are dropping. Stupid-coding-error count rising.
Next time this kind of project starts coming down the pike, I really need to stop and think about it and offer some more constructive advice. We're doing a little better this time by keeping a list of tasks and desired due dates, but we really need duration estimates for each task, and some plan for corrective action when dates are missed.
It's hard to get others on board the project management bandwagon when they have never participated in a project that was under control, by which I mean doing the things just mentioned. Especially when the project's deadline is fixed and very high profile. But really, that's all the more reason to have the development process well documented and understood, as early as possible.
Less than halfway through development by the time that testing is supposed to be underway is no way to produce quality work.
[/rant]
slag code: