has no alternative for the moment that's a load of bull. if the same amount of subsidies spent in nuclear is spent on solar and wind , there would be no economic contest from any other source, and that's only taking into account the raw offload-as-much-as-you-can-to-the-public economic cost: no safety costs, waste-storage costs and insurance costs.
What are the Bloods and Crypts fighting over in bombed out LA? because their leaders want to get prestige, and chicks?(=resources!) These leaders are their respective upper class.
Why are indigenous peoples all over the world fighting waging war on one another, from ten member tribes to whole religious sects? see above. See, We could easily get back in caves or climb back up trees... we're not more civilized than that.
the man is keeping me down" mentality is an invention of lazy bottom feeders I think it's more an invention of realistic(cynic?) people. And I'm just pointing out here that war doesn't solve a dispute. and did you notice there is fighting here, with words? This is because people still can get it in their minds that they can sometimes be wrong - and that's got everything to do with our primal nature
That kind of war doesn't exist anymore. Let's take a modern war: Israel vs. Palestine. Israel has WMD's and tanks. Palestine has AK47's and rocks. No-one is winning, EVERYBODY is losing. The ONLY way to end it : talking where both sides have to give something up.
international diplomacy what are these wars about? Money?resources?a border dispute?religion? Money from the upper class/resources from the upper class/borders are invented by the upper class/religion also. just to be able to send the masses into death.
and indeed: weaponry *NEVER* ends it, it's always the diplomacy afterwards that ends the war. (translation of this diplomacy: the side that has lost the most of their lower-class people has to give more money/lands/resources to the other side's upper class--> see my sig)
The only real way to win a war millitarily then, is to totally annihillate the enemy. And that is no longer an option when you can't tell for sure who is your enemy and who isn't. And the fact that you kill a million people creates new enemies.
I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)
1/4 mile times like that are pretty good for an electric vehicle though. I don't think performance is the problem with electric vehicles (show me a train that can hit 575kph(360mph) that is petrol-powered...) It's storage that's the problem, and on such short distances...
Thinking that you can just categorize people into two neat buckets is just silly. Have you heard Bush's speeches? He does that all the time. You're either good or bad, you're either patriotic or you're a traitor. You're either a kapitalist or a terrorist.
Which is better (if at all) would depend on the situation. I can suggest : a clearer black-white situation favors conservative thinking and vice-versa ?
from that article: "If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives." What nearly always is forgotten, and is a necessary addendum is the fact that YOUR liberty ENDS where mine begins. If that part is not applied as well, we end up in the rule of the strongest.
but a point that is equally far from every other point in the universe I guess that means that at a center point in non-time/non-space, time and space just started... which means that at that moment, ALL space was a single point, which means that that point is now smeared all over the universe ? something along those lines ? Any1 a physicist here ?
Slashdot Mirror
what do you want an extra arm and leg for ?
See, We could easily get back in caves or climb back up trees
And I'm just pointing out here that war doesn't solve a dispute.
and did you notice there is fighting here, with words? This is because people still can get it in their minds that they can sometimes be wrong - and that's got everything to do with our primal nature
That kind of war doesn't exist anymore. Let's take a modern war: Israel vs. Palestine. Israel has WMD's and tanks. Palestine has AK47's and rocks. No-one is winning, EVERYBODY is losing. The ONLY way to end it : talking where both sides have to give something up.
and indeed: weaponry *NEVER* ends it, it's always the diplomacy afterwards that ends the war. (translation of this diplomacy: the side that has lost the most of their lower-class people has to give more money/lands/resources to the other side's upper class--> see my sig)
so you're 75? 80?
i agree, it's peace you wanna win, not war.
that means 2^5 ... that's 32 times more computing power on a single chip ... that's about 16 times the computing power I need.
tell me, which war was won by weapons ?
The only real way to win a war millitarily then, is to totally annihillate the enemy. And that is no longer an option when you can't tell for sure who is your enemy and who isn't. And the fact that you kill a million people creates new enemies.
I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war ... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning ... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)
time for computer-steered cars ? If they can get #accidents/million_passenger_Km down ...
It's storage that's the problem, and on such short distances
well, i just observed the Uber-republican... he clearly sees the world only in black and white, where there are a million shades of a million colors.
from that article: "If you want people to flourish, let them run their own lives."
What nearly always is forgotten, and is a necessary addendum is the fact that YOUR liberty ENDS where mine begins. If that part is not applied as well, we end up in the rule of the strongest.
Are you vegetarian ?
obligatory:
let's spend it all on coffees.
It'll let the cleaning staff work remotely as well :)
looks like this Top500 list would do nicely for a definition of a supercomputer.
It's a great idea for remote small communities. It makes the world - again - much smaller.