6. You are forced to update VERY frequently. More than a month and you are CERTAIN to get issues while compiling.
Fucking bullshit dude. What the fuck are you talking about?
7. Actually getting a usable desktop (with udev, automounting etc.) working is a hell of a lot of work
Oh dear! Add the 'hal' and 'dbus' use flags and emerge a recent desktop. I have it working with NO manual configuration on almost 30 computers. What's wrong with you?
Seriously, if you want to use another distro, for whatever reason ( say, like you're not quite bright enough for a 'roll your own' distro ), then fine. But if you want to constructively add to a conversation, it helps to leave the bullshit in your head rather than have it ooze out your mouth or dial-up line.
Last time I used Vista at a friend's place, I was quite happy to get home again and fire up my Linux-only laptop and get back to Gnome / Compiz Fusion. I'm not sure what part of the OS is supposed to be 'dated'. My experience is the opposite. Each incarnation of Windows feels dated to me. My Linux ( Gentoo ) is constantly evolving. There are a plethora of examples of this. On the printing side, the last year has seen major improvements in CUPS, gutenprint and ghostscript. On the display side, the last year has seen major improvements in Mesa, AIGLX and EXA ( and of course Compiz / Enlightenment etc ). That's just a few examples off the top of my head, as and end user.
As a programmer, there have been significant improvements in GTK+, MySQL, and of course my own collection of Perl modules ( at http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis - I'm about to release another round early in the new year ).
I think the problem with the article is that it's written by a tossbag who can't get his head around any software, but is at least claiming to understand closed source software, because of his frustration about not being able to run a Linux desktop like his more intelligent friends. Whatever.
I'm not really surprised that Labor has pulled back from this. It's not exactly a popular move. And they did just get in thanks to a massive working-class movement that rose to overthrow their 'workchoices' industrial relations bullshit, so they know they can't smack people with this kind of thing at the moment.
But only a couple of minutes ago, I watched an ABC ( the public broadcaster in Australia ) news report on the push for widespread use of tasers in policing. It will be interesting to see if they cave into the pressure from the police and conservatives ( as the report hinted ). For me personally, it's difficult to say which is worse out of the RFID devices from Satan, and tasers. As an activist, I'm a little worried about being shot ( and killed, as has happened to 297 others already ). I've already witnessed some absolute atrocities committed against peaceful activists around me.
The current energy companies sell energy. So with our astronomical energy usage, they're doing pretty damned well.
Renewables aren't quite like that. In most cases, the only place for a corporation is in producing the energy production device ( eg solar cell, wind turbine, etc ). They don't get paid for the energy that's produced... just the equipment. Also, renewables scale down very well, so individuals can actually make ( capture ) their own energy.
Geothermal is different. In fact, I don't consider it to be renewable. I agree that there is a hell of a lot of it ( for now ). This could change rapidly. Geothermal energy is a combination of a couple of things. Firstly, you've got residual heat energy from when the Earth was young. That's not renewable. Secondly, you've got heat from slow nuclear decay. That's not renewable. Thirdly, you've got friction, which is based on the assumption that you've got a molten core.
I won't speculate on how much geothermal energy is stored in the Earth. I'd easily concede that we have thousands of years at our current rate of usage. This isn't exactly renewable, but it's a good long-term stop-gap.
There are dangers though. Earthquakes are the obvious one, and these bring tsunamis. These are immediate dangers. Longer term dangers are things like screwing with the dynamics of the Earth's core. The rotation of iron in our core gives us our magnetic field. There have been multiple warnings about a possible pole reversal happening soon. What this means is that the core is incredibly unstable ( rotation-wise ). We don't want to trigger a pole rotation. Even more apocalyptic is the possibility of shutting down our magnetic field completely. We'd instantly fry in cosmic radiation ( which, by the way, is one of the dangers of a pole reversal ).
Now I'm not saying we should shut down all geothermal plants. But there are dangers, and in particular, there are dangers with widespread adoption.
You are SO wrong it's not funny. We have enough uranium to cover our current worldwide energy needs for around 100 years. Throw out the envelope and get a calculator.
Solar, wind, and hydro don't have enough density to meet all our demands.
Sure they do. And 'our demand' is incredibly inflated at the moment. It must drop. Lastly, the only reason renewables haven't taken off is that the oil & nuclear industry get so much corporate welfare to continue producing their crap. Strip their subsidies off them and start subsidizing renewables and we'll be set.
I'm definitely pro-nuclear-power at the moment, but we still need to take the safety extremely seriously. Keep the pressure on that industry; we can't afford any accidents.
That will never, ever work. You see, the only pressure that corporations feel is economic pressure. We, as individuals, don't have any economic force to exert. In fact, we exert the EXACT OPPOSITE of the kind of pressure you're talking about, because individuals in a 'free market' will ALWAYS choose the cheapest solution, and this translates into the worst safety, not the best.
Have a think about the kind of pressure we've been able to exert on the oil industry. They're still pumping the shit out as much as they see fit. In fact, the US would actually like them to pump out oil faster, but OPEC has indicated that it's not going to increase production any time soon. How about carbon taxes in the US? Not happening, is it?
Now have a think about the Middle East. The reason we're in there is oil. Our foreign policy is dictated to us by the oil industry. That's how much pressure THEY apply to US.
It's quite naive to think that 'we' can pressure big business to 'do the right thing'. They never will. If you want to accountable economic activity, it has to be nationalised. Once the government owns it, we ( theoretically of course, but this is a different discussion ) control it via the democratic process. But if you let corporations, which EXCLUSIVELY understand profits, run the show, you're begging for the cheapest, worst safety imaginable to be implemented.
When I talk to people about nuclear power, I find that about 1 in 30 or so support nuclear power. I'm pretty sure all the people posting outright lies about safety, and moderating pro-renewable posts down, are paid by the nuclear lobby. Think about it. If you had billions of dollars of profit at stake, and that was in your way was public opinion, you'd pay a SHITLOAD of people to spend all day chasing down online discussions such as this one and fill it with pro-nuclear BS.
Yes. This is the problem that no-one has solved, or even attempted to solve. No-one can contain anything for millions of years. No-one. Even if they could, they could never prove that they could, because their life will be up well before the proof is completed.
But let's pretend that someone has proved that they can contain radioactive waste for a couple of million years. Who's going to guarantee it? You see, someone is going to profit INCREDIBLY from the power generation & waste disposal, and THEY are going to have to guarantee that it's safe. But wait! They're not going to be here in a couple of million years, so their guarantee is useless. They can promise whatever they want, profit, die, and then ALL future LIFE will have to pay the costs.
It's at this point that mature societies reject nuclear power.
You prove to me that something... anything... and then in particular a corporation that I can sue for damages... will be around in a million years, and I may change my mind.
We're now at the point where, no matter what solution we come up with, we HAVE to worry about the waste.
The ironic thing about this statement is that it only applies to non-renewable resources. Renewables don't produce pollution. Wind turbines don't produce pollution. Solar cells don't produce pollution. Biomass doesn't produce pollution ( carbon is cycled around the system, but the net output is zero ).
Ya know, we do have the technology to reprocess the "waste" and convert most of it into fuel that can be used again
Don't be stupid. We're not talking about a perpetual motion device here. You use it once. It's used. If you want to 'reinvigorate' it to the point that it's usable as fuel again, you have to put in more energy than you'd get out of it.
Why? Mankind learned how to harness chemical reactions (fire)
Ash produced from burning wood doesn't kill everything it comes into contact with, and last for millions of years.
World production at current prices has peaked I'm assuming you meant to say, there is plenty of it around but just not at current costs of extraction. The cost of the uranium is a small part of the total cost of nuclear power plants so even a substantial raise in the costs of extraction can be dealt with
You've actually just proved the exact opposite to what you wanted to prove. You see, on the upward swing of production ( 1st half of the bell curve ), prices drop as output production heads towards the peak. On the downward swing ( ie the 2nd half of the bell curve ), prices increase as output continues. So the old argument that goes along the lines "Oh but we just have to wait for prices to increase" is partly correct... ie higher prices will lead to further uranium production, but we will most certainly be in the downward swing, and prices will be increasing, slowly at first, and then sharply rising shortly after.
Uranium 235 is not the only fuel that can be used in nuclear power plants
Sure. But U235 is BY FAR the most plentiful source of nuclear power. It dwarfs everything else so massively that I'm surprised you mentioned it.
It's interesting that people are starting to discuss the problems with our current definition of life. I strongly recommend that people check out Autopoiesis and Cognition by Humberto R. Maturana, Francisco J. Varela. These 2 brilliant scientists put together a remarkable definition and then argue it in truly astonishing ways.
The gist of their definition is that life is any set of cyclically arranged processes that, through their enactment, create and sustain themselves - ie it has to be recursive, and a closed network, and create it self. They argue that our current 'bullet point' definition of life is flawed because there is no way of knowing when we have enough points, and that this 'listing of features' is merely a fudging that has served us until we actually come up with a proper definition. They talk at great length about organisation as opposed to physical characteristics. They even hypothesize that their definition covers things like social networks ( though they argue between themselves somewhat on this point ).
They are quoted at length by Fritjof Capra ( another true legend ) in Web of Life, and for good reason. Actually Capra's discussion of their ideas is the reason I decided to track down and by Autopoiesis and Cognition.
Anyway, this book is truly fascinating. It's written in a slightly difficult language, but it's WELL worth it. I certainly can't do their ideas justice ( particularly since I haven't read their work in a while ). Check it out for a very fresh take of the Organisation of the Living.
This proves my point exactly. You've basically got the entire environmental movement on one side, and some 'not in my backyard' idiot trying to manipulate the argument in their favour by pretending to cast an environmental line on their position. But it doesn't stick. I'll assert it again: the entire environmental movement is behind wind power. Anyone who's not is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The word from returned soldiers is that the government is ordering doctors to diagnose all war veterans with 'pre-existing mental disorders' when they try to claim post traumatic stress disorder.
Do you really think that in this climate there will be any conclusive evidence presented by the establishment? When, exactly, did the US take responsibility for Agent Orange, or the millions of land mines they deposited in Vietnam & Cambodia? I'll tell you when: FUCKING NEVER!
The fuel cycle for power production does not result in weapons grade material, they are entirely different processes. It is possible to create special plants that do produce material that can then be turned into weapons, but this requires deliberate intent to do so. It can't just happen by accident or as a result of normal power production.
That's what we've been told about OUR side of the enrichment cycle, yes. I don't buy it. Here in Australia we are working on a new enrichment process using lasers. I'll find you a link if you're interested, but don't have it handy. Anyway, the government claims that it will 'cover all bases' ( ie make weapons grade, fuel grade, medical grade and for research purposes ) uranium. But we're not supposed to have any weapons. And we don't have any power plants. And the CSIRO ( government research institute ) is screaming for money for a particle accelerator, which is the BEST at making medical grade uranium, and also has lots of other nice applications in research. So we're getting the laser-based enrichment, which just doesn't suit our current or claimed future uses.
But this example aside, do you REALLY believe anything your government says about it's nuclear weapons ( or lack thereof )? Surely the real truth is a 'national security secret'. Have you actually BEEN to these enrichment plants we're talking about, or do you just believe what we're told about how much fuel vs weapons we're making, and where it's being made?
We also need nuclear weapons for our own safety. Unless you think you can convince every other country to give up theirs too.
Well, firstly, we don't need nuclear weapons for our own safety. Despite the tabloid opinion, the rest of the world is not busting to invade your country and prevent you from worshiping your God ( though this might be a good goal at one point ). The US army is large enough to defend itself against any conventional attack, even if it can't secure a broken, desolate country like Iraq is now. And any unconventional attack can be anonymous. No amount of nuclear weapons can defend you from an unknown attacker. The only defensive use of nuclear weapons is on the part of smaller powers against conventional attack. For example, if Iran were to obtain some nuclear weapons ( which they haven't, but it would make a lot of sense for them to find some ), this would be a critical deterrent of a US invasion. While there are nuclear weapons in existence, this seems to be the only defensive use - as a deterrent.
Now on to your second point here... yes we should convince everyone to give up their nuclear weapons. This would be easy once you go the western powers to give theirs up. The US, UK, France, Russia and Israel would make an excellent beginning. Then China, India, Pakistan would be much more likely to agree. But honestly, I can't image the US ever agreeing to this, particularly with their military superiority waning.
'd love to live in a world where we didn't need them, but that's not an option currently, and if you tried to do it anyway as I suspect you would if it were up to you, you wouldn't be living in this world for very long at all.
Why? Reds under the bed?
We need the immense yields of safe, modern, nuclear power to carry the majority of the weight.
Says the nuclear industry.
Our country is increasing its energy consumption every year and it will only keep increasing.
You're wrong on that too. Increasing efficency and changing the way we live are not just important things to do, but will be required very soon. There will be no choice, as there is now. We are living beyond our means. If everyone in the world used as much energy as people in the industrialised world, we'd be out of ALL energy sources within a decade.
That's quite an idiotic argument. You're basically saying that you refuse to believe in the possibility of ANY conspiracy, on the grounds that conspiracies are... conspiracies.
And what, exactly, is so far fetched about the idea that the big energy companies have something to gain by preventing renewable energy from taking off. This is just common sense. Get yourself some.
Sure. And there is 'depleted' uranium ammunition too, which is the cause of 'Iraq War Syndrome' and a massively increased rate of birth defects by Iraq war veterans ( US and Iraqi civilians ).
Renewable energy simply is not, in the short-term, going to deliver enough bang for the buck
Sure it is. That's just the big energy companies whining to protect their monopoly.
Beyond that, no one wants wind farms in their back yard
Sure they do. See my other post ( top of page ) on this. Again, it's only idiots from the energy industry that push this bullshit. All environmentalists have LONG been arguing for wind power, particularly here in Australia ( see also my post on Walk Against Warming ).
Lemme guess, you or your parents were among those bunch of know-it-alls who were in fact completely ignorant of different kinds of nuclear reactors, but never let stupidity and a lack of knowledge get in the way of being self-important liars.
Well, you 'guessed' completely wrong. I don't think this part of your post was at all serious, so I'm not going to bother responding, other than to say that you're WAY off.
Slashdot Mirror
Fucking bullshit dude. What the fuck are you talking about?
Oh dear! Add the 'hal' and 'dbus' use flags and emerge a recent desktop. I have it working with NO manual configuration on almost 30 computers. What's wrong with you?
Seriously, if you want to use another distro, for whatever reason ( say, like you're not quite bright enough for a 'roll your own' distro ), then fine. But if you want to constructively add to a conversation, it helps to leave the bullshit in your head rather than have it ooze out your mouth or dial-up line.
Last time I used Vista at a friend's place, I was quite happy to get home again and fire up my Linux-only laptop and get back to Gnome / Compiz Fusion. I'm not sure what part of the OS is supposed to be 'dated'. My experience is the opposite. Each incarnation of Windows feels dated to me. My Linux ( Gentoo ) is constantly evolving. There are a plethora of examples of this. On the printing side, the last year has seen major improvements in CUPS, gutenprint and ghostscript. On the display side, the last year has seen major improvements in Mesa, AIGLX and EXA ( and of course Compiz / Enlightenment etc ). That's just a few examples off the top of my head, as and end user.
As a programmer, there have been significant improvements in GTK+, MySQL, and of course my own collection of Perl modules ( at http://entropy.homelinux.org/axis - I'm about to release another round early in the new year ).
I think the problem with the article is that it's written by a tossbag who can't get his head around any software, but is at least claiming to understand closed source software, because of his frustration about not being able to run a Linux desktop like his more intelligent friends. Whatever.
I'm not really surprised that Labor has pulled back from this. It's not exactly a popular move. And they did just get in thanks to a massive working-class movement that rose to overthrow their 'workchoices' industrial relations bullshit, so they know they can't smack people with this kind of thing at the moment.
But only a couple of minutes ago, I watched an ABC ( the public broadcaster in Australia ) news report on the push for widespread use of tasers in policing. It will be interesting to see if they cave into the pressure from the police and conservatives ( as the report hinted ). For me personally, it's difficult to say which is worse out of the RFID devices from Satan, and tasers. As an activist, I'm a little worried about being shot ( and killed, as has happened to 297 others already ). I've already witnessed some absolute atrocities committed against peaceful activists around me.
Batteries? What about hydrogen fuel cells?
Ah. A very good question.
... just the equipment. Also, renewables scale down very well, so individuals can actually make ( capture ) their own energy.
The current energy companies sell energy. So with our astronomical energy usage, they're doing pretty damned well.
Renewables aren't quite like that. In most cases, the only place for a corporation is in producing the energy production device ( eg solar cell, wind turbine, etc ). They don't get paid for the energy that's produced
Geothermal is different. In fact, I don't consider it to be renewable. I agree that there is a hell of a lot of it ( for now ). This could change rapidly. Geothermal energy is a combination of a couple of things. Firstly, you've got residual heat energy from when the Earth was young. That's not renewable. Secondly, you've got heat from slow nuclear decay. That's not renewable. Thirdly, you've got friction, which is based on the assumption that you've got a molten core.
I won't speculate on how much geothermal energy is stored in the Earth. I'd easily concede that we have thousands of years at our current rate of usage. This isn't exactly renewable, but it's a good long-term stop-gap.
There are dangers though. Earthquakes are the obvious one, and these bring tsunamis. These are immediate dangers. Longer term dangers are things like screwing with the dynamics of the Earth's core. The rotation of iron in our core gives us our magnetic field. There have been multiple warnings about a possible pole reversal happening soon. What this means is that the core is incredibly unstable ( rotation-wise ). We don't want to trigger a pole rotation. Even more apocalyptic is the possibility of shutting down our magnetic field completely. We'd instantly fry in cosmic radiation ( which, by the way, is one of the dangers of a pole reversal ).
Now I'm not saying we should shut down all geothermal plants. But there are dangers, and in particular, there are dangers with widespread adoption.
You are SO wrong it's not funny. We have enough uranium to cover our current worldwide energy needs for around 100 years. Throw out the envelope and get a calculator.
The cleanest battery is the hydrogen fuel cell.
Sure they do. And 'our demand' is incredibly inflated at the moment. It must drop. Lastly, the only reason renewables haven't taken off is that the oil & nuclear industry get so much corporate welfare to continue producing their crap. Strip their subsidies off them and start subsidizing renewables and we'll be set.
Of course. What is your point exactly?
That will never, ever work. You see, the only pressure that corporations feel is economic pressure. We, as individuals, don't have any economic force to exert. In fact, we exert the EXACT OPPOSITE of the kind of pressure you're talking about, because individuals in a 'free market' will ALWAYS choose the cheapest solution, and this translates into the worst safety, not the best.
Have a think about the kind of pressure we've been able to exert on the oil industry. They're still pumping the shit out as much as they see fit. In fact, the US would actually like them to pump out oil faster, but OPEC has indicated that it's not going to increase production any time soon. How about carbon taxes in the US? Not happening, is it?
Now have a think about the Middle East. The reason we're in there is oil. Our foreign policy is dictated to us by the oil industry. That's how much pressure THEY apply to US.
It's quite naive to think that 'we' can pressure big business to 'do the right thing'. They never will. If you want to accountable economic activity, it has to be nationalised. Once the government owns it, we ( theoretically of course, but this is a different discussion ) control it via the democratic process. But if you let corporations, which EXCLUSIVELY understand profits, run the show, you're begging for the cheapest, worst safety imaginable to be implemented.
When I talk to people about nuclear power, I find that about 1 in 30 or so support nuclear power. I'm pretty sure all the people posting outright lies about safety, and moderating pro-renewable posts down, are paid by the nuclear lobby. Think about it. If you had billions of dollars of profit at stake, and that was in your way was public opinion, you'd pay a SHITLOAD of people to spend all day chasing down online discussions such as this one and fill it with pro-nuclear BS.
Yes. This is the problem that no-one has solved, or even attempted to solve. No-one can contain anything for millions of years. No-one. Even if they could, they could never prove that they could, because their life will be up well before the proof is completed.
But let's pretend that someone has proved that they can contain radioactive waste for a couple of million years. Who's going to guarantee it? You see, someone is going to profit INCREDIBLY from the power generation & waste disposal, and THEY are going to have to guarantee that it's safe. But wait! They're not going to be here in a couple of million years, so their guarantee is useless. They can promise whatever they want, profit, die, and then ALL future LIFE will have to pay the costs.
It's at this point that mature societies reject nuclear power.
You prove to me that something
We're solving the problem of the Earth becoming inhabitable due to idiots polluting it with CO2, radioactive waste, etc.
What's to say we're not forcing people onto renewables? Can you not hold > 2 concepts in your head at once?
The ironic thing about this statement is that it only applies to non-renewable resources. Renewables don't produce pollution. Wind turbines don't produce pollution. Solar cells don't produce pollution. Biomass doesn't produce pollution ( carbon is cycled around the system, but the net output is zero ).
Don't be stupid. We're not talking about a perpetual motion device here. You use it once. It's used. If you want to 'reinvigorate' it to the point that it's usable as fuel again, you have to put in more energy than you'd get out of it.
Ash produced from burning wood doesn't kill everything it comes into contact with, and last for millions of years.
You've actually just proved the exact opposite to what you wanted to prove. You see, on the upward swing of production ( 1st half of the bell curve ), prices drop as output production heads towards the peak. On the downward swing ( ie the 2nd half of the bell curve ), prices increase as output continues. So the old argument that goes along the lines "Oh but we just have to wait for prices to increase" is partly correct
Sure. But U235 is BY FAR the most plentiful source of nuclear power. It dwarfs everything else so massively that I'm surprised you mentioned it.
It's interesting that people are starting to discuss the problems with our current definition of life. I strongly recommend that people check out Autopoiesis and Cognition by Humberto R. Maturana, Francisco J. Varela. These 2 brilliant scientists put together a remarkable definition and then argue it in truly astonishing ways.
The gist of their definition is that life is any set of cyclically arranged processes that, through their enactment, create and sustain themselves - ie it has to be recursive, and a closed network, and create it self. They argue that our current 'bullet point' definition of life is flawed because there is no way of knowing when we have enough points, and that this 'listing of features' is merely a fudging that has served us until we actually come up with a proper definition. They talk at great length about organisation as opposed to physical characteristics. They even hypothesize that their definition covers things like social networks ( though they argue between themselves somewhat on this point ).
They are quoted at length by Fritjof Capra ( another true legend ) in Web of Life, and for good reason. Actually Capra's discussion of their ideas is the reason I decided to track down and by Autopoiesis and Cognition.
Anyway, this book is truly fascinating. It's written in a slightly difficult language, but it's WELL worth it. I certainly can't do their ideas justice ( particularly since I haven't read their work in a while ). Check it out for a very fresh take of the Organisation of the Living.
This proves my point exactly. You've basically got the entire environmental movement on one side, and some 'not in my backyard' idiot trying to manipulate the argument in their favour by pretending to cast an environmental line on their position. But it doesn't stick. I'll assert it again: the entire environmental movement is behind wind power. Anyone who's not is clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Hmf. A Gulf War Syndrome denier. OK then.
Links please.
The word from returned soldiers is that the government is ordering doctors to diagnose all war veterans with 'pre-existing mental disorders' when they try to claim post traumatic stress disorder.
Do you really think that in this climate there will be any conclusive evidence presented by the establishment? When, exactly, did the US take responsibility for Agent Orange, or the millions of land mines they deposited in Vietnam & Cambodia? I'll tell you when: FUCKING NEVER!
The same goes for DU.
That's what we've been told about OUR side of the enrichment cycle, yes. I don't buy it. Here in Australia we are working on a new enrichment process using lasers. I'll find you a link if you're interested, but don't have it handy. Anyway, the government claims that it will 'cover all bases' ( ie make weapons grade, fuel grade, medical grade and for research purposes ) uranium. But we're not supposed to have any weapons. And we don't have any power plants. And the CSIRO ( government research institute ) is screaming for money for a particle accelerator, which is the BEST at making medical grade uranium, and also has lots of other nice applications in research. So we're getting the laser-based enrichment, which just doesn't suit our current or claimed future uses.
But this example aside, do you REALLY believe anything your government says about it's nuclear weapons ( or lack thereof )? Surely the real truth is a 'national security secret'. Have you actually BEEN to these enrichment plants we're talking about, or do you just believe what we're told about how much fuel vs weapons we're making, and where it's being made?
Well, firstly, we don't need nuclear weapons for our own safety. Despite the tabloid opinion, the rest of the world is not busting to invade your country and prevent you from worshiping your God ( though this might be a good goal at one point ). The US army is large enough to defend itself against any conventional attack, even if it can't secure a broken, desolate country like Iraq is now. And any unconventional attack can be anonymous. No amount of nuclear weapons can defend you from an unknown attacker. The only defensive use of nuclear weapons is on the part of smaller powers against conventional attack. For example, if Iran were to obtain some nuclear weapons ( which they haven't, but it would make a lot of sense for them to find some ), this would be a critical deterrent of a US invasion. While there are nuclear weapons in existence, this seems to be the only defensive use - as a deterrent.
Now on to your second point here
Why? Reds under the bed?
Says the nuclear industry.
You're wrong on that too. Increasing efficency and changing the way we live are not just important things to do, but will be required very soon. There will be no choice, as there is now. We are living beyond our means. If everyone in the world used as much energy as people in the industrialised world, we'd be out of ALL energy sources within a decade.
That's quite an idiotic argument. You're basically saying that you refuse to believe in the possibility of ANY conspiracy, on the grounds that conspiracies are ... conspiracies.
And what, exactly, is so far fetched about the idea that the big energy companies have something to gain by preventing renewable energy from taking off. This is just common sense. Get yourself some.
Sure. And there is 'depleted' uranium ammunition too, which is the cause of 'Iraq War Syndrome' and a massively increased rate of birth defects by Iraq war veterans ( US and Iraqi civilians ).
Sure it is. That's just the big energy companies whining to protect their monopoly.
Sure they do. See my other post ( top of page ) on this. Again, it's only idiots from the energy industry that push this bullshit. All environmentalists have LONG been arguing for wind power, particularly here in Australia ( see also my post on Walk Against Warming ).
Well, you 'guessed' completely wrong. I don't think this part of your post was at all serious, so I'm not going to bother responding, other than to say that you're WAY off.