So you mine uranium to make electricity to mine uranium? What the hell is the point of that? Talk about an exercise in futility. Question: how many nuclear power stations would be needed to power the facilities that provide nuclear fuel?
I was the first kid in my school to complete Super Mario Bros. 3. Damn, I was proud... I was also a nerd, so this achievement was kept quiet for fear of beatings...
Anyway, the thing that made me play and play and play was the same reason that mountain climbers give - because it's there. I wanted to beat my score, to be better, to beat the machine. It was a challenge.
I've not RTFA yet... but if you ask me modern games are great, but they're a totally different a paradigm. Normally you play a game to the end, watch the FMV and say "cool". Rarely do you play the entire game again, there's no replay value in most of them. I'd say that MMOs and games like guitar hero are the closest to those old 2D platformers - you play the same game over and over to be better, just for the shear hell of it and nothing more.
America doesn't need more fuel efficient cars, America needs less cars - period. What's the point of fuel efficient cars if you're just going to produce more cars? By 2020 there'll just be twice as many cars on the road and all those so called savings will be completely nullified. Mass transit in higher density cities is the only way to ween Americans off their oil addiction. Energy has been way too cheap for decades and town planning has more or less given up and let the blight of subdivisions and cul de sacs take over. That's what needs to be fixed - not the efficiency of cars.
Besides, this just smacks of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. By all accounts we're well over the Hubbert peak at this point anyway.
Back in the 1960s, the British used Woomer, Australia as the testing and launch ground for their own space program - including the successful launch of a satellite on the Black Arrow rocket. (The Brits then gave up).
I wonder how much of the infrastructure is left in Australia and how much could be easily be recycled. Probably not much, but it's worth remembering that Australia has seen space launches in the past, so it's perfectly feasible for Australia to do it again.
Whether or not there's a 1000 years worth of uranium in the ground is irrelevant - you have to get at the stuff first and you've completely ignored the fuel chain. Firstly, the nuclear industry uses vast amounts of fossil fuel energy for the mining, milling, enrichment and fabrication of nuclear fuel rods. Very green credentials there. Secondly, those fossil fuels which you've complete ignored are undeniably in decline. Factor peak oil into the cost equation and the cost of getting the nuclear fuel could very well make the price advantage of nuclear power vanish very fast.
Slashdot Mirror
So you mine uranium to make electricity to mine uranium? What the hell is the point of that? Talk about an exercise in futility. Question: how many nuclear power stations would be needed to power the facilities that provide nuclear fuel?
I was the first kid in my school to complete Super Mario Bros. 3. Damn, I was proud... I was also a nerd, so this achievement was kept quiet for fear of beatings... Anyway, the thing that made me play and play and play was the same reason that mountain climbers give - because it's there. I wanted to beat my score, to be better, to beat the machine. It was a challenge. I've not RTFA yet... but if you ask me modern games are great, but they're a totally different a paradigm. Normally you play a game to the end, watch the FMV and say "cool". Rarely do you play the entire game again, there's no replay value in most of them. I'd say that MMOs and games like guitar hero are the closest to those old 2D platformers - you play the same game over and over to be better, just for the shear hell of it and nothing more.
America doesn't need more fuel efficient cars, America needs less cars - period. What's the point of fuel efficient cars if you're just going to produce more cars? By 2020 there'll just be twice as many cars on the road and all those so called savings will be completely nullified. Mass transit in higher density cities is the only way to ween Americans off their oil addiction. Energy has been way too cheap for decades and town planning has more or less given up and let the blight of subdivisions and cul de sacs take over. That's what needs to be fixed - not the efficiency of cars. Besides, this just smacks of bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted. By all accounts we're well over the Hubbert peak at this point anyway.
Most of us are working most of the time on documents we intend to print portrait on 8x11 paper when we use Office software
Most of us are printing on A4 - it's only USA and Canada that are holding out on ISO 216.
Back in the 1960s, the British used Woomer, Australia as the testing and launch ground for their own space program - including the successful launch of a satellite on the Black Arrow rocket. (The Brits then gave up). I wonder how much of the infrastructure is left in Australia and how much could be easily be recycled. Probably not much, but it's worth remembering that Australia has seen space launches in the past, so it's perfectly feasible for Australia to do it again.
Whether or not there's a 1000 years worth of uranium in the ground is irrelevant - you have to get at the stuff first and you've completely ignored the fuel chain. Firstly, the nuclear industry uses vast amounts of fossil fuel energy for the mining, milling, enrichment and fabrication of nuclear fuel rods. Very green credentials there. Secondly, those fossil fuels which you've complete ignored are undeniably in decline. Factor peak oil into the cost equation and the cost of getting the nuclear fuel could very well make the price advantage of nuclear power vanish very fast.