Slashdot Mirror

Nissan is talking out of the side of their ass btw because while they say that, they're putting out a hybrid Altima within 2 years (using Toyota tech). Go figure! And by 2005, there will be 10 types of hybrids available on the market; even Subaru.

Also, I doubt the small profit margin because Toyota has been doing this for 7 YEARS. That isn't a loss-leader type of longevity.

And let's spin the numbers, although Toyota hybrids + other hybrids represent 5% of total sales, 100% of Toyota's maximum ~100K hybrid production is being sold before it hits the production line with months-long waiting list. Sales are growing at double-rate.

Project that out for yourself and compare to the shrinking and stagnant SUV sales.

If Toyota could make enough hybrids, it would be the LARGEST and fastest growing percentage of total vehicles sold.

You might want to ask someone from Afganistan. The representative might be stable, but there are still daily incidents. Outside of Kandahar, the country is not peaceful at all. The German Foreign Service keeps issuing travel warnings for Afganistan because the security is still very poor. Israel is not a good comparison, because they're basically committing a Holocaust there. I'm really worried about the refugee camps there - they remind me of the concentration camps of the German Nazi Party in Germany in the 3rd Reich.

Number two is a misrepresentation of the facts. Please explain to me how Bush will stop Islamic fascists from killing and destroying. It's what they do. The only way to make them stop trying is to kill them all. The left won't allow that. We do need help getting the Iraqi government's security forces, which is why Bush just had a conference with European leaders. Been watching the news lately?

Yes, I've been watching the news lately. People from countries without military presence in Iraq run the risk of getting killed in a bomb blast there, but so do the Iraqi people themselves, while people from countries with a military presence risk getting abducted. Israel keeps getting hit by suicide bombers because they keep "mistreating" the Palestinean people. The difference between the suicide bombers and Israeli settlers just grabbing whatever they want is the latter not making the news. (Did you hear about the protests of Israeli settlers/farmers not wanting to leave their farms to comply with the treaty Israel signed?)
See here and here

Number three -- who cares? No one ever looked up to the USA except those who agreed with what we do. And Germany has NOT been a close ally. West Germany was, but now we have a large contingent of the reunified communists still dragging Germany back into the mire of socialism.

That's mostly crap. Germany supported *justified* action all the way, up to and including a change in our constitution to allow out military to operate internationally in more than just self defense to enable the campaign in Afganistan. AFAIK, Germany is today one of the most involved countries in the reconstruction of Afganistan.

The "reunified communists" did themselves shake off the yoke of communism, at risk to their lives - do you really think they want it back? Germany didn't support the invasion in Iraq because it was not sanctioned by the UN and there still is controversy if there really ever were WMDs there.

Yes, I am from Germany, but I think your post is slightly ridiculous...

Regards, Ulli

Not to interrupt with facts, but I read in the Guardian that the tribes apparently went upland well prior to the tsunami, during a time of year they would have normally been on the coasts.

Alas, I can't find a handy link for that story, but there are stories about the Sentinelese, Shompen, and the more western-integrated Nicobari - that last who didn't fare so well.

I do see a travel journal (not the most reliable of sources, I fear) that indicates the Sentinelese went upland immediately after the earthquake. No ESP involved, but some amount of sensitivity and prudence.

No, being a good scientist makes you against Bush

Everyone is going further and further up the chain in terms of the effect on the environment or health etc of Nuclear, Wind, Solar etc etc. So I thought I would throw in another missing number from the number of deaths in the industry dept.

Three points I would like to make (keeping in mind that I am generally pro nuclear over coal):

How many people are aware of the number of deaths each year just in Coal Mines alone.
Quoted from China D-News:

"The figure for China is around 7,000 (Official figures indicate more than 7,000 workers die each year in China's coal mines, mainly from poor control of gas density, flooding and lack of safety awareness. However, Hong Kong-based human rights group China Labor Bulletin puts the number of industry deaths at around 20,000."

Secondly, I suspect that a lot of the hysteria and paranoia around nuclear fired power stations is because people relate fission power stations with Nuclear weapons. How many average Joes could tell you the difference between the two? I was shocked recently when I asked quite a few family and friends as to what sort of explosion occured in Chernobyl. Almost without exception they all replied matter-of-factly that it was a nuclear explosion (not hydrogen). Mind you who cares how the rasdioactive material ends up in the atmosphere, its the fact that its there that counts. However there is no blinding flash of radiation, or nuclear winds...etc etc that people associate with Nuclear weapons.

Thirdly, there seems to be a bit of a misconception that Nuclear is both cheaper and cleaner. I wont weigh into the cleaner debate, I have already chosen my horse on that one, but as for cheaper... I live in Australia which has some of the worlds largest uranium deposits however Coal is still a (shit load) cheaper than uranium here. Add that to the comparison between plant build costs and dont expect nuclear to give you a power bill reduction any time soon. - The Nuclear Tourist lists the costs as slightly dearer for Nuclear than coal fired, however this would differ from country to country.

I know I only said three points...but some final things for consideration. In my mind (and I will state here once again that I am generally pro-nuclear) the real safet issues around Nuclear generation are those of politics not engineering or technology (those have for the most part been solved already). The real issue comes about when once responsible governments are replaced by irresponsible governments or economics change etc etc. Suddnely you have the issues of :

reduced capital expenditure on equipment leading to aged plants

reduced focus on safety and controls as costs are cut

the possibility of enriched uranium being sold on black markets to help fund poorly managed economies

the possibility of uranium reactors and their resultant technology being used to research enrichment and possible weapons grade material

inability or unwillingess to deal with waste due to political or financial factors.

Like most things the biggest problem with technology is the people who use or abuse it.

I think there is far too much extremism in this debate (always has been). Until you can define problems both on your side of the fence and your enemies, you will never be able to actually work towards trying to solve them.

The American people voted for a president that presided over an economy that produced a record current account deficit, a record trade deficit, a record budget deficit and a national debt of such proportions that the IMF says they threaten the world economy.

Who ever said all that Americans ever care about is money?

Hmmm... Let's see, man tells his son to blow himself up. Is that protecting him?

GNAA rulz france!! With the introduction of pinktv the GNAA european council has successfully achieved its goal of introducing quasi-lesbian american tv shows from the 1970's into french society. A 30 year program GNAA operatives recruited in the slums of detroit, raised on wonder woman and later trained in the infiltration of french bungholes in the slums of Cameroon, has finally born "fruit".

So it is amoral and shortsighted to invest in developing local technology so that local industry thrive and help catch a pie of the multi-billion dollar satellite launch market by proving their capabilities, so they get foreign business, creating thousands of jobs in the process, and bringing in billions of foreign capital to grow their economy?

So it is amoral and shortsighted to invest in communications systems to help boost education levels in poor rural areas?

A space program isn't a pissing contest - all countries depend on space technology in one way or another. For a country with more than a sixth of the worlds population it would be lunacy to depend on other countries for things like military surveillance, communications, weather monitoring, etc. It would also be lunacy to let other nations cement their technical superiority and hold onto their grip on a market that is growing extremely rapidly, and will be a vital revenue source in a few decades.