Of course "economically viable" uranium is only going to last a relatively short time (and, let's face it, 80 years allows for *a lot* of improvements, so even your FUD scenario is better than the alternatives). Supply and Demand dictate that people are not going to focus on the harder to mine uranium while there is plentiful easier to mine uranium.
That is an idiotic statement (which, given your general tone, doesn't surprise me).
By not contributing to global warming, "cooling resources" become more plentiful. You are still trapped in your circular logic.
Let's take this opportunity to look at some numbers. Apparently, worldwide energy consumption is between 10TW and 20TW, depending on whose number you use. Radiation from the sun dumps around 120 000TW into the planet. Assuming all energy consumed ends up as heat and ignoring the fact that some of the incoming energy will be stored (photosynthesis) or used for the 10-20W mentioned above (wind, solar), we're still talking about a factor of 6 000. It not a drop in the figurative bucket, but it's not much more.
Let's assume even that small additional source of heat needs to be compensated for. Well, that's easily accomplished by trapping carbon dioxide, reducing the greenhouse effect and allowing for more heat to radiate out into space. A forestation campaign would help a lot in this regard, but converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons is also a valid solution - the catch is that it requires the development of better processes. The advantage is that it also allows for traditional fuels to be synthesized in a carbon-neutral way, making this an easy transition for the big sector that needs them, aviation. Ultimately, a mix of solutions would have to be adopted, according to the desired concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Even if CO2 trapping turns out not to be viable, the massive decrease in CO2 output would go a long way towards keeping global warming at manageable levels.
Of course, this all hinges on nuclear power being adopted on a much more massive scale, which presents a number of engineering challenges which will have to be overcome. I'd say that's better than sitting around saying "But it won't work! Let's not do anything instead!", because *that* is the realistic alternative.
If (big if there) direct warming of the Earth is an issue with Nuclear, just build a few more and use the power to trap carbon dioxide. I hear long chains of carbon with hydrogen are quite easy to store underground. Bam, less greenhouse effect, more cooling and the waste heat problem is solved. If it even exists.
As a bonus, apparently, these long chains also work well as a fuel, so it would be a carbon-neutral solution for applications where batteries or similar technologies won't work (like aircraft).
Global Warming is threatening our ability to cool stuff using water [Citation needed], by the way. We can't stop Global Warming using nuclear power because we won't be able to cool stuff using water.
It's not about the drivers, it's the company itself.
Remember when they tried to bullshit their way out when someone complained that their drivers were pretty hostile towards disabled customers?
That's just one example of their attitude problem. They think laws don't apply to them and that it's okay to pretend they're anything other than a taxi company and that they do not have to play by the rules.
I have no love for not-so-good-ol' taxis. I'd welcome some proper competition, but these sleazebags are not it. A company competing with them without any shenanigans would certainly get my business.
Fuck off. Seriously, how on earth can you possibly consider this a bad decision?
Let's examine your "magic" (everyone knows Apple only does magic) "25€" adapter: - It does not cost 25€ to produce - The BoM is minimal: Plastic shell, PCB-mount lightning plug, PCB-mount microUSB receptacle, itty-bitty PCB and authentication chip. We're talking sub-1€ BoM. - The BoM is entirely Apple's doing: If they didn't force all cables to have the stupid chip, they could reduce the BoM even further. - It could be argued that the authentication chip requirement is an antitrust violation.
At this point, the charger standard should really allow for USB Type C or microUSB.
Regardless, I hope, for their sake, that they actually make manufacturers bundle any required adapters with the phones. Despite all the fancy talk, Apple still only sells lightning to microUSB adapters instead of bundling them with the phones, effectively rendering the standard mostly useless, since everyone was standardizing on microUSB anyway. This solution would also be helpful for the microUSB to USB type C transition.
Congratulations on your narrow views! You are incapable of understanding what "developer support" was meant as, which is frankly an amazing display of incompetence with the English language or a feeble attempt to discredit those who point out that you obviously have an axe to grind.
But let's talk about the "ugly" claim. It's as subjective as it gets and irrelevant, every platform will have people who dislike the aesthetic design. Lack of configurability is a dubious claim, since iOS is rather similar. And crappy live tiles? As opposed to non-crappy static icons?
Every platform has weaknesses, but spreading FUD helps nobody and only makes one look foolish.
A few of them pop up on threads like this one to tell us how wonderful it is, even though it's a piece of shit.
And then there's the other end of the spectrum: Morons like Grishnakh who seem unable to acknowledge the platform's strengths, insisting on calling it "a piece of shit".
Here, let's examine one positive and one negative aspect of every major platform: iOS + Carefully tailored for the hardware it's running on - Some essential features are overlooked in favor of features of more dubious value
Android + Lots of options to choose from (both hardware and software) - Asinine update model
Windows (whatever it is they're calling the phone version these days) + Continuum - Lack of developer support
Also: Do not try to play with a keyboard on a device that exposes touch + accelerometer/gyroscope. Sideways movement is broken since the game will continuously update the input with the zero input from the inertial sensors.
Having seen the first episode, I have serious reservations regarding the writing. The whole thing was a bit too rapid fire - they desperately tried to shoehorn in as many characters and plot devices, leading to a somewhat confusing plot. I can understand some confusion as a metaphor for the federation's condition, but I fear that is just an overanalysis of writing that is... let's say it could use some improvements. Given the smorgasbord of planned returning characters (Just about half of DS9's cast, by my estimate), I'm not holding my breath for any big improvements. Also, two/three episodes in and they're already bringing people back from the dead in some way (Alternate reality, time travel, Bajoran prophets/wormhole aliens (ugh...), lost sibling, transporter clone... Take your pick. I'm betting on the prophets.).
I also submit that any character whose name is spelled with double Xs is automatically a Mary Sue. Silly inner monologues don't help. In fact, I just realized that the captain's logs were a convenient way of doing an inner monologue-esque segment without adding too much disbelief that needs to be suspended.
tl;dr - Don't expect the world, but it's still better than Season 2 of TNG.
Slashdot Mirror
There you go moving the goalposts.
Of course "economically viable" uranium is only going to last a relatively short time (and, let's face it, 80 years allows for *a lot* of improvements, so even your FUD scenario is better than the alternatives). Supply and Demand dictate that people are not going to focus on the harder to mine uranium while there is plentiful easier to mine uranium.
That is an idiotic statement (which, given your general tone, doesn't surprise me).
By not contributing to global warming, "cooling resources" become more plentiful. You are still trapped in your circular logic.
Let's take this opportunity to look at some numbers. Apparently, worldwide energy consumption is between 10TW and 20TW, depending on whose number you use. Radiation from the sun dumps around 120 000TW into the planet. Assuming all energy consumed ends up as heat and ignoring the fact that some of the incoming energy will be stored (photosynthesis) or used for the 10-20W mentioned above (wind, solar), we're still talking about a factor of 6 000. It not a drop in the figurative bucket, but it's not much more.
Let's assume even that small additional source of heat needs to be compensated for. Well, that's easily accomplished by trapping carbon dioxide, reducing the greenhouse effect and allowing for more heat to radiate out into space. A forestation campaign would help a lot in this regard, but converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons is also a valid solution - the catch is that it requires the development of better processes. The advantage is that it also allows for traditional fuels to be synthesized in a carbon-neutral way, making this an easy transition for the big sector that needs them, aviation.
Ultimately, a mix of solutions would have to be adopted, according to the desired concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Even if CO2 trapping turns out not to be viable, the massive decrease in CO2 output would go a long way towards keeping global warming at manageable levels.
Of course, this all hinges on nuclear power being adopted on a much more massive scale, which presents a number of engineering challenges which will have to be overcome. I'd say that's better than sitting around saying "But it won't work! Let's not do anything instead!", because *that* is the realistic alternative.
If (big if there) direct warming of the Earth is an issue with Nuclear, just build a few more and use the power to trap carbon dioxide. I hear long chains of carbon with hydrogen are quite easy to store underground. Bam, less greenhouse effect, more cooling and the waste heat problem is solved. If it even exists.
As a bonus, apparently, these long chains also work well as a fuel, so it would be a carbon-neutral solution for applications where batteries or similar technologies won't work (like aircraft).
No breeder reactors required. So please stop spreading FUD.
That bullshit argument again?
IIRC, it was thoroughly debunked by some simple investigation.
Wow, that is some incredible circular logic.
Global Warming is threatening our ability to cool stuff using water [Citation needed], by the way.
We can't stop Global Warming using nuclear power because we won't be able to cool stuff using water.
Do everyone a favor and stop spreading FUD.
A nuke might be a simpler accomplishment.
It's not about the drivers, it's the company itself.
Remember when they tried to bullshit their way out when someone complained that their drivers were pretty hostile towards disabled customers?
That's just one example of their attitude problem. They think laws don't apply to them and that it's okay to pretend they're anything other than a taxi company and that they do not have to play by the rules.
I have no love for not-so-good-ol' taxis. I'd welcome some proper competition, but these sleazebags are not it. A company competing with them without any shenanigans would certainly get my business.
In many ways, that sounds just like Uber.
Fuck off. Seriously, how on earth can you possibly consider this a bad decision?
Let's examine your "magic" (everyone knows Apple only does magic) "25€" adapter:
- It does not cost 25€ to produce
- The BoM is minimal: Plastic shell, PCB-mount lightning plug, PCB-mount microUSB receptacle, itty-bitty PCB and authentication chip. We're talking sub-1€ BoM.
- The BoM is entirely Apple's doing: If they didn't force all cables to have the stupid chip, they could reduce the BoM even further.
- It could be argued that the authentication chip requirement is an antitrust violation.
At this point, the charger standard should really allow for USB Type C or microUSB.
Regardless, I hope, for their sake, that they actually make manufacturers bundle any required adapters with the phones. Despite all the fancy talk, Apple still only sells lightning to microUSB adapters instead of bundling them with the phones, effectively rendering the standard mostly useless, since everyone was standardizing on microUSB anyway.
This solution would also be helpful for the microUSB to USB type C transition.
Congratulations on your narrow views! You are incapable of understanding what "developer support" was meant as, which is frankly an amazing display of incompetence with the English language or a feeble attempt to discredit those who point out that you obviously have an axe to grind.
But let's talk about the "ugly" claim. It's as subjective as it gets and irrelevant, every platform will have people who dislike the aesthetic design. Lack of configurability is a dubious claim, since iOS is rather similar. And crappy live tiles? As opposed to non-crappy static icons?
Every platform has weaknesses, but spreading FUD helps nobody and only makes one look foolish.
A few of them pop up on threads like this one to tell us how wonderful it is, even though it's a piece of shit.
And then there's the other end of the spectrum: Morons like Grishnakh who seem unable to acknowledge the platform's strengths, insisting on calling it "a piece of shit".
Here, let's examine one positive and one negative aspect of every major platform:
iOS
+ Carefully tailored for the hardware it's running on
- Some essential features are overlooked in favor of features of more dubious value
Android
+ Lots of options to choose from (both hardware and software)
- Asinine update model
Windows (whatever it is they're calling the phone version these days)
+ Continuum
- Lack of developer support
Do you seriously think this is still funny (not that it ever was)?
How about some intelligent humor for a change?
Windows automagically shows paired Bluetooth Windows phones as available connections. The feature was introduced in 8.1.
If they really want it, they can do it *now*.
Not a trace of Google on them. That's a very big feature.
In the absence of mod points, please view this as an endorsement of a fine, intelligent comment.
That does not mean their effect is easily distinguishable.
Red and Blue are different enough to any device created to distinguish them, but their effects are quite similar.
No real doctor would say "wi-fi allergy" in a non-derisive tone.
The correct term for that is "quack".
800MHz-2000MHz is not very different from 2400MHz.
No, he's saying they did not respond to actual EM emissions - beyond those of the LED.
At this point, they've ignored all scientific evidence. Testing them won't change their minds. Nothing will.
Who needs cow emojis if you have cowsay?
Also: Do not try to play with a keyboard on a device that exposes touch + accelerometer/gyroscope. Sideways movement is broken since the game will continuously update the input with the zero input from the inertial sensors.
Having seen the first episode, I have serious reservations regarding the writing.
The whole thing was a bit too rapid fire - they desperately tried to shoehorn in as many characters and plot devices, leading to a somewhat confusing plot. I can understand some confusion as a metaphor for the federation's condition, but I fear that is just an overanalysis of writing that is... let's say it could use some improvements.
Given the smorgasbord of planned returning characters (Just about half of DS9's cast, by my estimate), I'm not holding my breath for any big improvements. Also, two/three episodes in and they're already bringing people back from the dead in some way (Alternate reality, time travel, Bajoran prophets/wormhole aliens (ugh...), lost sibling, transporter clone... Take your pick. I'm betting on the prophets.).
I also submit that any character whose name is spelled with double Xs is automatically a Mary Sue. Silly inner monologues don't help. In fact, I just realized that the captain's logs were a convenient way of doing an inner monologue-esque segment without adding too much disbelief that needs to be suspended.
tl;dr - Don't expect the world, but it's still better than Season 2 of TNG.