Do you still think Google is trying to stop the NSA from spying on you, when they are gathering the exact same information, and unlike the NSA, don't have any rules restricting their use.
When will we stop saying who can and cannot spy on us and steal our personal information, and start saying that the answer is nobody. Whether you're the NSA, or you're Google, you are evil. The end.
Did Google recently buy a brick factory because...
They're a big business, like Apple. Like coca cola. Once you establish a brand in people's mind, you can do whatever you want as long as you keep being trendy and hip. Congress has called several committees to investigate Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others, and amazingly it was mostly "We love your stuff! Kindof a lot! But, er, you know, uhh.. there's these, uhh... questions... well... more maybe just er, if you want, you know... aww forget it. we love you. take our money.
I mean people actually bought that crap about Google fighting the NSA. And now they're doing evil left and right, maximizing profits... and everyone's like "Oh noes! How could you do this to us?" But next week... they'll be like... oh google, how could I ever have hated you?
You know what's interesting about a good story? It means different things to different people. Millions have looked at the Mona Lisa and every one of them came up with a different reason why she's smiling. Who's to say their interpretation is any less valid than another's?
But whatever. Everyone else's meaning they find in life and art matters less than your own interpretation of it. Because, like the author, you too are an asshole.
You can't spend your life hating the ignorant, and if you let your own anger over a person's beliefs cloud their works and other words, then you're no better than the very bigots you disdain.
No, I just happen to not like bigots. That's not ignorance, that's having standards. And being angry over an injustice isn't "clouding their works", it's refusing to participate in that injustice. In this society we give the artist money in exchange for their work. If the artist chooses to make it available for free, then it can be said it is divorced from the person. But if they ask money, and say they're going to put that money to use oppressing others, then denying them your money isn't an act of ignorance, but an appeal to one's better nature.
Sorry, but he's an asshole and a bigot. He gets zero money, and I will not speak kindly of his work; Not until it's in the public domain, which in this country, will not be during my lifetime.
"Ender's Game" is very much about the hard choices that governments have to make in a time of existential crisis and how they frequently push off the responsibility for those choices on those executing them.
Well it was, until we found out that the author of this scifi piece was a raging asshole. Now Ender's Game is about a homophobe who wrote a book about war against an alien species... and he's come face-first into a culture war that's been brewing for a long time. Some people have even suggested that the 'aliens' are just stand-in proxies for homosexuals and are subsequently exterminated. A similar parallel was drawn between the cylons in Battlestar Galactica being a reflection on terrorism in contemporary society.
I guess the only thing we can really say about all of it is that scifi can show us at our best... and at our worst. As to which it is, and the author's motives... that's a whole new can of worms.
Look, the protocol could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. It could have free orgasms built into it. It might even have the cure for cancer.
But it can't overcome latency, or shannon's law regarding just how much data you can shove over a given network link. You can cheat by using lossful compression, you can employ predictive algorithms, but at the end of the day it'll only be as good as the network lets it. That's why there haven't been any big advancements in this area: There's none to make. Remote desktop will be varying degrees of shitty for the forseeable future, because our network links are shit. ISPs purposefully sabotage remote desktop and VPN because it's a threat to their business model. You can't "protocol" that away. Believe me, people have tried.
At best, we'll be able to trade one variety of crap for another, but remote desktop will never come close to the experience of actually using the computer at the same location. Human beings start to notice lag between their own actions and computer responses in as little as 50ms. The network links typically take longer than that to send the data. Especially over wifi.
You know, I'm sure everything you said is right, nevermind the lack of citations or supporting logic for why this would actually be the case, instead of wishful thinking. Let's say it's all true.
The whole point being made here is that bacteria evolve very quickly, and trade genes with each other as a part of that. Bacteria doesn't reproduce sexually like we do; In fact, they happily cannibalize each other for genetic material. It doesn't do this intelligently, but it does do it very, very quickly. So the bacteria in your mythical "animals only" sphere of influence can and are cannibalized by the "humans aren't animals" category of bacteria. They cheat, see... they don't follow your nice little boxes you've built here.
Bottom line is your distinction is arbitrary and does not exist in nature. And antibiotic resistance isn't a 1:1 parity either... if it's even partially effective against, say, penicillin, it probably is effective against others as well. And as more of these genetic markers come together, not only does the bacteria become stronger against antibiotics as a whole, but because more and more of the bacteria has those markers now, there's a greater chance of transcription, mutation, etc., that will create an even greater resistance.
The fact is the biological clock is ticking. Even in the most optimistic case where everything you say is true and then some, it only delays the inevitable. What your post amounts to is basically apologism for the overuse of antibiotics to drive profits in unrelated fields, when they should have been kept strictly for use as humans, and not animals or livestock. The very day the first antibiotic was created, the so-called "miracle drug" of the 20th century, we knew this would happen.
We just didn't give a fuck. We ignored science because it meant prosperity today... but a terrible price later. And if anything defines western civilization today, its short-term gratification at the expense of long-term growth and prosperity.
We humans enjoy not having knives inside of us. Robots don't know this (Three Laws be damned).
No, but we do enjoy programming them to put knives in humans we don't like. That's actually been a reason for much of the development of robotics: Programming them to kill for us. Scifi authors of the 50s and 60s imagined robots helping us in our daily lives -- cooking, cleaning, and today even driving us around. But whereas many have viewed the development of robotics as beneficial for mankind, the truth is much of the investment in robotics has been because of its military applications. It's just a happy accident that we've been able to declassify and repurpose much of this for private use. The google car for example, is based on technology first developed for DARPA as a way of creating vehicle that could deliver cargo to soldiers in the field.
The people smuggling trade brings a lot of money into Indonesia; buying boats, bribing police and officials. Cutting it off is going to annoy quite a lot of people.
So the NSA has been sitting on intelligence reports that people are being sold into slavery... and of course dutifully passed this on to the appropriate government agencies who... proceeded to do nothing. And yet the story here is "teh nsa iz evilz!"
"Indonesia is threatening to cease cooperation with Australia on human smuggling as a result of further Snowden leaks
... Soo, Indonesia was previously helping Australia with their human smuggling operation? In either event, what does having your corrupt officials mismanaging things have to do with ceasing humanitarian endeavors? This is like saying "After we got busted doing evil things, we're going to just go all in on that whole evil thing, while insisting that you spying on us doing our evil things is wrong and you should stop."
I dutifully flagged this as a dupe in the firehose before it made it to the front page. Lot of good it did!
Dice doesn't have dedicated slashdot editors anymore. They are editors of a dozen or so sites. Really now, what kind of quality do you expect now that they've sold out and now monetize the web synergies to create a new market paradigm of customer-focused informational advertisements?
I love that you're so dependably wrong about everything.
I'm willing to come out and speak my mind, and more often than not, others agree. Whereas you... all you can do is snipe at someone who's earned their reputation for being insightful and strives to look beyond superficial appearances. Right, wrong, at least I'm putting my name on what I say. You... on the other hand, are so lacking in confidence about your own opinion you won't tell us who you are. Because the truth is, you're a coward. An anonymous coward. And I'm not. I'm the girl on slashdot everybody knows, and whether you agree with me or not, most likely you respect me.
Because I earned it. Now crawl back down your troll hole.
On the other hand, the statistics about SAP rollouts would tend to indicate a very high degree of risk inherent in attempting to use that system.
The "other" hand? You're going to take something that's inherently complex and risky even when done professionally by a company with hundreds of developers... and then roll your own? And that's less of a risk in your world?
Risk vs. reward. What have you gained from not wearing seatbelts other than perhaps a few less wrinkles on your clothes
I have learned that most people are utter shit at estimating risk. Especially people who think they're smart and are good at it, but don't actually do the math. We spend trillions to prevent terrorism, but next to nothing to prevent drunk driving. It's because people think that risks they have control over are far less than those they don't, so drunk driving is "Well, I'll be driving, and I'm a good driver, so the risk must be low", and terrorism is "I'll be strapped into the plane and not in control... so it must be much, much worse."
The same kind of thinking applies to rolling your own software, instead of buying it. People are not objective about risk. They flat out suck at it. As for me... what I've learned is to wear my goddamned seat belt, because I read the statistics and know that there's about a 1 in 5 risk of getting into a car accident every year, and the seat belt means a 90% reduction in probable injury -- Without it, I'm just hamburger through the window.
Which is like most companies when they decide to cook their own complex software... they usually wind up paying more, but because they never analyze their own decisions, they, like you, think it's actually less.
You don't get ahead in SPEKTOR by saying "no" to Hank Scorpio. You get fed to the sharks.
You're referencing a character who first appeared on the Simpsons in the 90s... before SAP software as a class even existed. I believe this reference is so damn obscure that only some hipster would recognize it without googling for it. And as for SPEKTOR... Google has nothing. So who knows...
Atleast with homebrew you have a change to ever reach spec and you don't have to spend the same budget again every next year.
In other news, some people believe patching and bug hunting is free and that software never needs modification once installed. There will never be a support cost of any kind.
Many, if not most, IT initiatives with homebrew tech fails. It's nice when it pays off, but almost always it is over budget and under spec. If the CEO got lucky, good for him, but his CIO shouldn't be sitting in the big chair if he didn't at least warn him it could all go horribly wrong.
And how are they not going to do the same for natural gas, or any other form of energy? The one you describe is a regulatory problem, not a technical one.
It may surprise you to learn, but many advancements in technology are due to "regulatory" problems. And it isn't a regulatory problem; energy service providers have a natural monopoly. Before you comment about how that's a regulatory problem, please google what a natural monopoly is. The fact is, you don't want a half-dozen power grids all in the same area competing; AC power doesn't take well to getting out of phase across the grid. And by not taking well, I mean, shit explodes. Violently. You can have many power plants, but really only one grid. It is non-trivial to connect two grids together... it requires a lot of high-power equipment to correct for phase variance, proper isolation, etc. In fact, there are only about 6 major power grids in the United States, and about 10 on the continent. That speaks volumes to the price of having multiple grids.
A major oversight of this article is the fact that fuel cells are major heat generators, not something you want in a data center. They would need to be installed in a separated structure, therefore idea that "Rack-level fuel cells would do away with data-centre-wide electricity distribution for servers" is hard to imagine.
Microsoft imagined tablets back in the 90s. Nobody cared. Apple imagined them a couple years ago and people wet themselves like an excited dog. You have to admit that at least part of your skepticism is based on the messenger, not just the message.
The only thing that makes fuel cells more attractive in this scenario is that the cost is controlled; It is not tied to your geographic location. I'm sure you've read several dozen articles by now about how various data centers were built in various parts of the country due to low electricity costs, only to find that once they had built it, the utilities and local municipalities decided to jack the rates up. This famously happened to the NSA data center.
If we had a high density energy storage solution, like fuel cells, then the local monopolistic energy companies wouldn't be able to dictate terms to anyone anymore. In effect, it would break their natural monopoly.
All that said... let's be honest... it's still on the drawing board. Just like the flying car.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I really don't understand how someone could be so certain of facts that they are so incorrect about:
Possibly because they read the correct wikipedia article; the one where it says what the literacy rate is, instead of the amount of money thrown at a failed system.
I would point out that for someone claiming another is ignorant, I cited several articles for people to go an educate themselves on the matter. All you did was vomit up a multi-paragraph fuck you and tried to make it look academic, hoping nobody would realize you're really just a pompous asshole.
Or on the concrete around the plug melting. And how hard is it to design a plug that can still disintegrate even when heavily corroded?Wikipedia discusses the other safety features you never heard of.
Nice ad hominim there. And wikipedia? Really? My point is you are badly underinformed; Thorium plants are not being used because they aren't practical, aren't really any safer, and are still on the drawing board. Yes, some students from MIT figured out some theoretical safety features. Good for them. Real engineers look at this and consider how many points of failure the design has. This one has just one: If that plug fails to pop after the primary coolant craps out... game over man! Real engineers would look at that and say... you need more failure points. Not internet engineers. Real ones.
Molten salt-based solar thermal power can fail in the very same way.
That's awesome! Wanna know what happens when the solar plant fails like this? They call it a nice day out. They won't call it that when your thorium pipe dream plant melts the outer casing and shits molten salt and core everywhere.
Nonsense. There's no serious technological obstruction to them now.
Yeah, you might wanna check into that... from the article I posted "China is reported to be investing $350 million over five years to develop molten-salt reactors of its own. It plans to build a two-megawatt test reactor by 2020." A test reactor. The first one ever. 7 years from now. "no obstruction" means apparently a very different thing in your magical unicorns and fairies world: No obstruction in the real world means "It's been done before and proven to work."
The real obstacle is coming up with a design that is economical to construct and operate.
You keep telling yourself that while the rest of us who read up on the subject don't consider the argument "Well I'm sure if we throw enough money at it, it'll solve itself" to be valid.
Pure bullshit. Those regulations are there to stop the local energy company from cutting corners and blowing up something. Something that they do on a regular basis in non nuclear energy.
How is it pure bullshit that nuclear energy is proven, has the lowest polution, and best carbon footprint of anything we have, and could be cheaper? Nothing you said is a refutation of that. In fact, the only thing you have said about nuclear energy directly is that the energy company should be regulated due to risk of blowing things up. Well, fucking duh. But that's not a refutation.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you still think Google is trying to stop the NSA from spying on you, when they are gathering the exact same information, and unlike the NSA, don't have any rules restricting their use.
When will we stop saying who can and cannot spy on us and steal our personal information, and start saying that the answer is nobody. Whether you're the NSA, or you're Google, you are evil. The end.
Did Google recently buy a brick factory because...
They're a big business, like Apple. Like coca cola. Once you establish a brand in people's mind, you can do whatever you want as long as you keep being trendy and hip. Congress has called several committees to investigate Google, Apple, Microsoft, and others, and amazingly it was mostly "We love your stuff! Kindof a lot! But, er, you know, uhh.. there's these, uhh... questions... well... more maybe just er, if you want, you know... aww forget it. we love you. take our money.
I mean people actually bought that crap about Google fighting the NSA. And now they're doing evil left and right, maximizing profits... and everyone's like "Oh noes! How could you do this to us?" But next week... they'll be like... oh google, how could I ever have hated you?
You know what's interesting about a good story? It means different things to different people. Millions have looked at the Mona Lisa and every one of them came up with a different reason why she's smiling. Who's to say their interpretation is any less valid than another's?
But whatever. Everyone else's meaning they find in life and art matters less than your own interpretation of it. Because, like the author, you too are an asshole.
You can't spend your life hating the ignorant, and if you let your own anger over a person's beliefs cloud their works and other words, then you're no better than the very bigots you disdain.
No, I just happen to not like bigots. That's not ignorance, that's having standards. And being angry over an injustice isn't "clouding their works", it's refusing to participate in that injustice. In this society we give the artist money in exchange for their work. If the artist chooses to make it available for free, then it can be said it is divorced from the person. But if they ask money, and say they're going to put that money to use oppressing others, then denying them your money isn't an act of ignorance, but an appeal to one's better nature.
Sorry, but he's an asshole and a bigot. He gets zero money, and I will not speak kindly of his work; Not until it's in the public domain, which in this country, will not be during my lifetime.
"Ender's Game" is very much about the hard choices that governments have to make in a time of existential crisis and how they frequently push off the responsibility for those choices on those executing them.
Well it was, until we found out that the author of this scifi piece was a raging asshole. Now Ender's Game is about a homophobe who wrote a book about war against an alien species... and he's come face-first into a culture war that's been brewing for a long time. Some people have even suggested that the 'aliens' are just stand-in proxies for homosexuals and are subsequently exterminated. A similar parallel was drawn between the cylons in Battlestar Galactica being a reflection on terrorism in contemporary society.
I guess the only thing we can really say about all of it is that scifi can show us at our best... and at our worst. As to which it is, and the author's motives... that's a whole new can of worms.
However the test used in the patent systems worldwide tends to be along the lines: "to one skilled in the art".
It's the same in America. The difference is, the art isn't engineering, it's lawyering.
Look, the protocol could be the greatest thing since sliced bread. It could have free orgasms built into it. It might even have the cure for cancer.
But it can't overcome latency, or shannon's law regarding just how much data you can shove over a given network link. You can cheat by using lossful compression, you can employ predictive algorithms, but at the end of the day it'll only be as good as the network lets it. That's why there haven't been any big advancements in this area: There's none to make. Remote desktop will be varying degrees of shitty for the forseeable future, because our network links are shit. ISPs purposefully sabotage remote desktop and VPN because it's a threat to their business model. You can't "protocol" that away. Believe me, people have tried.
At best, we'll be able to trade one variety of crap for another, but remote desktop will never come close to the experience of actually using the computer at the same location. Human beings start to notice lag between their own actions and computer responses in as little as 50ms. The network links typically take longer than that to send the data. Especially over wifi.
You know, I'm sure everything you said is right, nevermind the lack of citations or supporting logic for why this would actually be the case, instead of wishful thinking. Let's say it's all true.
The whole point being made here is that bacteria evolve very quickly, and trade genes with each other as a part of that. Bacteria doesn't reproduce sexually like we do; In fact, they happily cannibalize each other for genetic material. It doesn't do this intelligently, but it does do it very, very quickly. So the bacteria in your mythical "animals only" sphere of influence can and are cannibalized by the "humans aren't animals" category of bacteria. They cheat, see... they don't follow your nice little boxes you've built here.
Bottom line is your distinction is arbitrary and does not exist in nature. And antibiotic resistance isn't a 1:1 parity either... if it's even partially effective against, say, penicillin, it probably is effective against others as well. And as more of these genetic markers come together, not only does the bacteria become stronger against antibiotics as a whole, but because more and more of the bacteria has those markers now, there's a greater chance of transcription, mutation, etc., that will create an even greater resistance.
The fact is the biological clock is ticking. Even in the most optimistic case where everything you say is true and then some, it only delays the inevitable. What your post amounts to is basically apologism for the overuse of antibiotics to drive profits in unrelated fields, when they should have been kept strictly for use as humans, and not animals or livestock. The very day the first antibiotic was created, the so-called "miracle drug" of the 20th century, we knew this would happen.
We just didn't give a fuck. We ignored science because it meant prosperity today... but a terrible price later. And if anything defines western civilization today, its short-term gratification at the expense of long-term growth and prosperity.
We humans enjoy not having knives inside of us. Robots don't know this (Three Laws be damned).
No, but we do enjoy programming them to put knives in humans we don't like. That's actually been a reason for much of the development of robotics: Programming them to kill for us. Scifi authors of the 50s and 60s imagined robots helping us in our daily lives -- cooking, cleaning, and today even driving us around. But whereas many have viewed the development of robotics as beneficial for mankind, the truth is much of the investment in robotics has been because of its military applications. It's just a happy accident that we've been able to declassify and repurpose much of this for private use. The google car for example, is based on technology first developed for DARPA as a way of creating vehicle that could deliver cargo to soldiers in the field.
The people smuggling trade brings a lot of money into Indonesia; buying boats, bribing police and officials. Cutting it off is going to annoy quite a lot of people.
So the NSA has been sitting on intelligence reports that people are being sold into slavery... and of course dutifully passed this on to the appropriate government agencies who... proceeded to do nothing. And yet the story here is "teh nsa iz evilz!"
"Indonesia is threatening to cease cooperation with Australia on human smuggling as a result of further Snowden leaks
... Soo, Indonesia was previously helping Australia with their human smuggling operation? In either event, what does having your corrupt officials mismanaging things have to do with ceasing humanitarian endeavors? This is like saying "After we got busted doing evil things, we're going to just go all in on that whole evil thing, while insisting that you spying on us doing our evil things is wrong and you should stop."
I dutifully flagged this as a dupe in the firehose before it made it to the front page. Lot of good it did!
Dice doesn't have dedicated slashdot editors anymore. They are editors of a dozen or so sites. Really now, what kind of quality do you expect now that they've sold out and now monetize the web synergies to create a new market paradigm of customer-focused informational advertisements?
I love that you're so dependably wrong about everything.
I'm willing to come out and speak my mind, and more often than not, others agree. Whereas you... all you can do is snipe at someone who's earned their reputation for being insightful and strives to look beyond superficial appearances. Right, wrong, at least I'm putting my name on what I say. You... on the other hand, are so lacking in confidence about your own opinion you won't tell us who you are. Because the truth is, you're a coward. An anonymous coward. And I'm not. I'm the girl on slashdot everybody knows, and whether you agree with me or not, most likely you respect me.
Because I earned it. Now crawl back down your troll hole.
On the other hand, the statistics about SAP rollouts would tend to indicate a very high degree of risk inherent in attempting to use that system.
The "other" hand? You're going to take something that's inherently complex and risky even when done professionally by a company with hundreds of developers... and then roll your own? And that's less of a risk in your world?
Risk vs. reward. What have you gained from not wearing seatbelts other than perhaps a few less wrinkles on your clothes
I have learned that most people are utter shit at estimating risk. Especially people who think they're smart and are good at it, but don't actually do the math. We spend trillions to prevent terrorism, but next to nothing to prevent drunk driving. It's because people think that risks they have control over are far less than those they don't, so drunk driving is "Well, I'll be driving, and I'm a good driver, so the risk must be low", and terrorism is "I'll be strapped into the plane and not in control... so it must be much, much worse."
The same kind of thinking applies to rolling your own software, instead of buying it. People are not objective about risk. They flat out suck at it. As for me... what I've learned is to wear my goddamned seat belt, because I read the statistics and know that there's about a 1 in 5 risk of getting into a car accident every year, and the seat belt means a 90% reduction in probable injury -- Without it, I'm just hamburger through the window.
Which is like most companies when they decide to cook their own complex software... they usually wind up paying more, but because they never analyze their own decisions, they, like you, think it's actually less.
You don't get ahead in SPEKTOR by saying "no" to Hank Scorpio. You get fed to the sharks.
You're referencing a character who first appeared on the Simpsons in the 90s... before SAP software as a class even existed. I believe this reference is so damn obscure that only some hipster would recognize it without googling for it. And as for SPEKTOR... Google has nothing. So who knows...
Atleast with homebrew you have a change to ever reach spec and you don't have to spend the same budget again every next year.
In other news, some people believe patching and bug hunting is free and that software never needs modification once installed. There will never be a support cost of any kind.
I disagree. [...] Done right, it works very, very well.
Yes, the same can be said for any risk-taking behavior. "I haven't worn my seat belt for years and nothing bad has ever happened to me."
Many, if not most, IT initiatives with homebrew tech fails. It's nice when it pays off, but almost always it is over budget and under spec. If the CEO got lucky, good for him, but his CIO shouldn't be sitting in the big chair if he didn't at least warn him it could all go horribly wrong.
And how are they not going to do the same for natural gas, or any other form of energy? The one you describe is a regulatory problem, not a technical one.
It may surprise you to learn, but many advancements in technology are due to "regulatory" problems. And it isn't a regulatory problem; energy service providers have a natural monopoly. Before you comment about how that's a regulatory problem, please google what a natural monopoly is. The fact is, you don't want a half-dozen power grids all in the same area competing; AC power doesn't take well to getting out of phase across the grid. And by not taking well, I mean, shit explodes. Violently. You can have many power plants, but really only one grid. It is non-trivial to connect two grids together... it requires a lot of high-power equipment to correct for phase variance, proper isolation, etc. In fact, there are only about 6 major power grids in the United States, and about 10 on the continent. That speaks volumes to the price of having multiple grids.
A major oversight of this article is the fact that fuel cells are major heat generators, not something you want in a data center. They would need to be installed in a separated structure, therefore idea that "Rack-level fuel cells would do away with data-centre-wide electricity distribution for servers" is hard to imagine.
Microsoft imagined tablets back in the 90s. Nobody cared. Apple imagined them a couple years ago and people wet themselves like an excited dog. You have to admit that at least part of your skepticism is based on the messenger, not just the message.
The only thing that makes fuel cells more attractive in this scenario is that the cost is controlled; It is not tied to your geographic location. I'm sure you've read several dozen articles by now about how various data centers were built in various parts of the country due to low electricity costs, only to find that once they had built it, the utilities and local municipalities decided to jack the rates up. This famously happened to the NSA data center.
If we had a high density energy storage solution, like fuel cells, then the local monopolistic energy companies wouldn't be able to dictate terms to anyone anymore. In effect, it would break their natural monopoly.
All that said... let's be honest... it's still on the drawing board. Just like the flying car.
Yes. Yes. Yes. I really don't understand how someone could be so certain of facts that they are so incorrect about:
Possibly because they read the correct wikipedia article; the one where it says what the literacy rate is, instead of the amount of money thrown at a failed system.
[wall of text]
I would point out that for someone claiming another is ignorant, I cited several articles for people to go an educate themselves on the matter. All you did was vomit up a multi-paragraph fuck you and tried to make it look academic, hoping nobody would realize you're really just a pompous asshole.
Or on the concrete around the plug melting. And how hard is it to design a plug that can still disintegrate even when heavily corroded?Wikipedia discusses the other safety features you never heard of.
Nice ad hominim there. And wikipedia? Really? My point is you are badly underinformed; Thorium plants are not being used because they aren't practical, aren't really any safer, and are still on the drawing board. Yes, some students from MIT figured out some theoretical safety features. Good for them. Real engineers look at this and consider how many points of failure the design has. This one has just one: If that plug fails to pop after the primary coolant craps out... game over man! Real engineers would look at that and say... you need more failure points. Not internet engineers. Real ones.
Molten salt-based solar thermal power can fail in the very same way.
That's awesome! Wanna know what happens when the solar plant fails like this? They call it a nice day out. They won't call it that when your thorium pipe dream plant melts the outer casing and shits molten salt and core everywhere.
Nonsense. There's no serious technological obstruction to them now.
Yeah, you might wanna check into that... from the article I posted "China is reported to be investing $350 million over five years to develop molten-salt reactors of its own. It plans to build a two-megawatt test reactor by 2020." A test reactor. The first one ever. 7 years from now. "no obstruction" means apparently a very different thing in your magical unicorns and fairies world: No obstruction in the real world means "It's been done before and proven to work."
The real obstacle is coming up with a design that is economical to construct and operate.
You keep telling yourself that while the rest of us who read up on the subject don't consider the argument "Well I'm sure if we throw enough money at it, it'll solve itself" to be valid.
Pure bullshit. Those regulations are there to stop the local energy company from cutting corners and blowing up something. Something that they do on a regular basis in non nuclear energy.
How is it pure bullshit that nuclear energy is proven, has the lowest polution, and best carbon footprint of anything we have, and could be cheaper? Nothing you said is a refutation of that. In fact, the only thing you have said about nuclear energy directly is that the energy company should be regulated due to risk of blowing things up. Well, fucking duh. But that's not a refutation.