Not at all, there is a big difference. When you harness a natural energy source you are altering something out planet has evovled with and evolved around. That simply isn't the case for nuclear. You are talking about a localized environmental effect, altering natural energy sources at scale could have large scale cascading effects.
In all the cases where we've done this and given it enough time we've discovered disastrous effects.
That isn't how it works. It will all be converted to heat in the end, even the nuclear energy. None of these things take heat away, it is about the fact you are taking the heat away from the portion of the Earth it previously warmed in a more direct manner in a very sudden and dramatic way.
Or we could just... build nuclear. Wind kills birds and disrupts air currents in the same manner that harvesting tidal energy or damming falls does. These technologies significant impact existing natural energy flows with consequences that in some cases we likely don't even know about yet. The same is probably true of suddenly sucking up all that light energy which should be reflecting around and warming things over a huge portion of the Earth's surface.
Nuclear on the other hand isn't harnessing and disrupting any energy flow the natural landscape has spent the last few billion years evolving around. Maybe instead of sucking up and getting over the reductions in convenience a reduced energy lifestyle brings we need to suck up and get over "not in my backyard" syndrome.
You do realize this article is in fact an analysis of these materials and their accessible quantities and the determination that THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF THEM for the demand required through 2050. Rare is a subjective term this is quantative analysis of what is actually there not guesswork based on the word "rare" which you are battling. Abundant within the Earth's crust isn't particularly meaningful, we can't get to all the earths crust by a long shot and not all of what we can get to is easily accessible or cheaply accessible and even if we can get to it easily and cheaply we can still only pull it out so fast.
For everyone who opposes a public option. I encourage you to realize this. The democrats now control the house and the ACA isn't going to fixed anytime soon. This half measure has a devastating economic impact that is WAY more expensive than a full public option would be.
Supporting a genuine universal public healthcare system today would actually be a cost saving measure and it is also the only thing that would steal all political capital from support of the ACA. At this point the best move is to shift focus from avoiding subsidized healthcare in the US to making sure it is actually functional healthcare which embraces all the areas of cost reduction a government gorilla backed public option can which are many. Oh and trim the healthcare/pharmaceutical piece out of your portfolio, shift to bonds during the transition since the market will take a short term hit and buy back in on the dip to reap the profits on the recovery. The reduction in costs and long term market gains of cannibalizing the health sector will more than offset the tax costs.
"And when you say "a long time", who cares? If you're positing an 86,000 year journey, what's another few hundred or even few thousand before leaving?"
Sure but an exercise like this becomes silly if you detach entirely from what is feasible on our current theoretical roadmap. We are a long way from just being able to project our consciousness through the gaps in the weave of time and space to any place and time we want with the sniff a smelling salt tin which would eliminate the need any of this stuff. But you know, we are positing an 86,000 year journey, who knows what we'll have developed before that target that eliminates the need to make the journey at all?
There are factors here you aren't considering. Compared to the major cities in Asia, US cities are a major downgrade with "third world" infrastructure and amenities.
At present the US is still where you need to do business. Why expend all the money it would take to upgrade infrastructure enough to provide first class living in the dilapidated US. That is trillions of dollars. You can simply fly in on a quick jump from your home in ASIA when needed for a mere $100k.
The four digit pin is fine, and as someone else pointed out legally protected. Biometrics do have a serious issue, for one you just lowered the bar for biometric security to a smartphone that the carrier, feds, and Apple have backdoors into. Since those groups, and potentially their lowest common denominator of trust employee has your biometrics and can spoof them at will what are you going to use for the bank vault where you keep your diamonds?
All these mass hacks dumping credentials? Soon enough they'll be including mass dumps of biometric patterns for the users too. When your password turns up on https://haveibeenpwned.com/ you just change it anywhere you've used it and hopefully aren't using the same one in more than one place anyway. Are you going to change your Iris?
That said, if you are going to use some kind of biometric like face recognition (since your face is definitely the least secure biometric) it shouldn't be the sole form of security. The face recognition should not replace pin entry, if enabled that should be what unlocks the pin entry page. It's called two factor authentication. Now you beat the guy who watched you enter your pin, you beat the guy who 3d prints your head or even uses a picture. You also get the legal protections from being forced to enter a pin code.
A company obsessed with a completely closed platform and total ownership of that platform is never the lesser of two evils.
That said, if you are already using a smartphone connected to a carrier it's a little late to pretend the security of your data and privacy are important to you. You already sold them for convenience. At that point the questions are how many Johns; do you speak greek; what are your rates; and about just a little metadata?
"that decides they want to just wander the system and possibly beyond by strapping motors to their rock, collecting smaller objects as they go for raw materials and fuel."
Perhaps but we are long way from being able to establish a fully self sufficient colony that could produce things like replacement motors, integrated circuits, etc from raw materials with only a small population and less than 100 meters of space. If anything, we are moving further and further AWAY from this target.
Thanks for the clarification but it seems odd to invoke the practicality of the leak rate of a vessel which does not exist and won't be possible to construct on any forseeably practical timescale.
Right, the democrats would have done the right thing, honest, if not for those damn republicans. The republicans would have done the right thing, honest, if not for those damn democrats. Round and round it goes to keep you spinning and believing the sociopaths actually mean whichever flavor of spun message they've chosen to sell sheeple.
"At least the Ds fucking support net neutrality." "Your repubtard kind would have sold us out long ago for a buck."
"We have never had net neutrality, we had a set of measures which CLAIMED to be net neutrality and permitted anything but. Providers could prioritize traffic, shape it, and black ports, in some cases without disclosure, with disclosure buried in legalese somewhere they could do anything they wanted."
The D's want to be seen as supporting net neutrality, that is not the same thing as supporting net neutrality. And what they called net neutrality and pushed through is a specific example of them selling us out for a buck. The republicans sell you out with different rhetoric and the only real difference is the spin.
Also, I'm an Independent.
"Yet you come here talking about Hillary. At least Hillary had America's best interest at heart."
ROFLMAO. You actually believe that horseshit? You think rigging the primaries against the only notable politician with a multi-decade track record of actual integrity was about "America's best interest"
"If you had a deductible, you had a cost. It was not free."
No, the deductible is part of the cost of healthcare that insurance isn't paying. The insurance company doesn't charge you the deductible, the healthcare provider does. The insurance can have a $10 million dollar deductible and be free, it wouldn't be particularly useful for reducing the cost of your healthcare but it would still be free. Again, this seems like another case of confusing insurance with healthcare. Now if you'd argued that it wasn't free because it was part of my compensation you'd have had a point. Not one that tangibly changed my message but a point.
"And if the change was as drastic as you claim, it was not the ACA...that was simply a convenient way for your employer to eliminate a lot of their costs and pass them on to you, while having the ACA to "blame" their actions on."
That employer no longer provides free insurance. They partially subsidize last I knew. But I've worked for five employers since then. The changes to insurance have been progressive from that scenario to the current one and that shift hasn't really been significantly impacted by which employer I was on. My current employer has a set of coverage requirements and options and lets insurance companies submit plans and rates. You then choose your preferred provider based on the coverage you want. The cost for the same coverage goes up consistently year over year.
The insurance companies are raising rates because the provider costs are going up. The provider costs are raising because they have to treat more people and more and more of those people can't pay their bills. Hospital care is getting dramatically more expensive for the same reason but thanks to the ER and the massive influx of poor immigrants abusing the ER as a free health care clinic they have even more dramatic costs rising. The split billing by doctors and hospitals is part of the attempt to offset that, the hospital doesn't pay the doctor anymore so they won't be out the cost of the doctor on this abuse, of course they don't actually reduce their charges accordingly because both the doctor and the hospital have to get every dime they can out of anyone who actually does pay.
If by indefinite you mean indeterminate, perhaps, if by indefinite you mean forever then no. Not even the core of the Earth will accomplish that.
In the real world, we do not have such chambers and compartments lying around in any practical form and aren't likely to anytime within our lifetimes. Just the energy to reach the desired pressure make this a useless discovery. Of course, until it is replicated outside China I'd look on the "discovery" with a heavy grain of salt in any case.
Healthcare isn't coverage, healthcare is the actual treatment.
"Your employer kindly shielded you from seeing much of that mess, and that's definitely a nice perk - for you, who happened to have such a good deal. For the rest of us, employer health insurance has come to look more and more like Obamacare at its worst. Or, put another way, Obamacare was a somewhat successful attempt to provide typical nickel and dime-ing employer-style health insurance for those whose employers wouldn't provide it."
Are you kidding, I've been on the crappy insurance provided by the retail industry and burger joints. It was better coverage than I have now and MUCH MUCH less expensive. All those people who are "covered" now and couldn't afford insurance before? Those people don't pay the bill, which is why doctors and hospitals began jacking up rates and playing billing games. Of course, they're just as greedy as everyone else so there is no guarantee that dropping the plan that caused the mess will put humpty dumpty back together again.
"Medicare is no panacea either, but since I've been on it, I haven't received a medical bill. Of course, I've had to pay through the nose for a combination of government premiums (no bargain, since I'm still working and make too much to pay the 'standard' rate) and a gap insurance policy to eliminate all the nonsense it would take to deal with the bits and pieces that aren't covered. Oh, and there's that pricey prescription drug plan that has paid out exactly 0 dollars this year."
Pay through the nose is relative. You are talking about things which cost a lot on the fixed income that comes with social security but is dirt cheap compared to what the rest of us without medicare pay.
86,000 years would be useless but that isn't what we are discussing. There are potential candidates being found that we could reach in 100-200 years. What you have to remember about these very far locations is that they are very very far and we DO have technology that can theoretically accelerate to the kind of speed we'd need turtle style given enough time and space.
Even 86,000 years might not be useless in the long run but we'd have enough trouble successfully building a self contained environment that will hold up for 200 years, plus store the people and cargo required to colonize let alone doing a good enough job of it to build something to last 86,000.
Yes but for the purpose of spreading the human race to another planet and helping ensure our survival it could be worth sending a population on a trip to get to one if we have confidence they could live there.
"Our study makes a leap forward on the road to the room-temperature superconductivity," say the team. (The caveat is that the sample has to be under huge pressure: 170 gigapascals, or about half the pressure at the center of the Earth.)"
ROFL, oh yeah.
"The pressure might be high, but it doesn't require constantly putting energy into it."
Right because things... besides the core of the earth, maintain that kind of pressure without losses which require energy to offset.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all, there is a big difference. When you harness a natural energy source you are altering something out planet has evovled with and evolved around. That simply isn't the case for nuclear. You are talking about a localized environmental effect, altering natural energy sources at scale could have large scale cascading effects.
In all the cases where we've done this and given it enough time we've discovered disastrous effects.
In RTGs?
That isn't how it works. It will all be converted to heat in the end, even the nuclear energy. None of these things take heat away, it is about the fact you are taking the heat away from the portion of the Earth it previously warmed in a more direct manner in a very sudden and dramatic way.
Or we could just... build nuclear. Wind kills birds and disrupts air currents in the same manner that harvesting tidal energy or damming falls does. These technologies significant impact existing natural energy flows with consequences that in some cases we likely don't even know about yet. The same is probably true of suddenly sucking up all that light energy which should be reflecting around and warming things over a huge portion of the Earth's surface.
Nuclear on the other hand isn't harnessing and disrupting any energy flow the natural landscape has spent the last few billion years evolving around. Maybe instead of sucking up and getting over the reductions in convenience a reduced energy lifestyle brings we need to suck up and get over "not in my backyard" syndrome.
You do realize this article is in fact an analysis of these materials and their accessible quantities and the determination that THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH OF THEM for the demand required through 2050. Rare is a subjective term this is quantative analysis of what is actually there not guesswork based on the word "rare" which you are battling. Abundant within the Earth's crust isn't particularly meaningful, we can't get to all the earths crust by a long shot and not all of what we can get to is easily accessible or cheaply accessible and even if we can get to it easily and cheaply we can still only pull it out so fast.
For everyone who opposes a public option. I encourage you to realize this. The democrats now control the house and the ACA isn't going to fixed anytime soon. This half measure has a devastating economic impact that is WAY more expensive than a full public option would be.
Supporting a genuine universal public healthcare system today would actually be a cost saving measure and it is also the only thing that would steal all political capital from support of the ACA. At this point the best move is to shift focus from avoiding subsidized healthcare in the US to making sure it is actually functional healthcare which embraces all the areas of cost reduction a government gorilla backed public option can which are many. Oh and trim the healthcare/pharmaceutical piece out of your portfolio, shift to bonds during the transition since the market will take a short term hit and buy back in on the dip to reap the profits on the recovery. The reduction in costs and long term market gains of cannibalizing the health sector will more than offset the tax costs.
Maybe they WILL live in the Matrix while their bodies are in some kind of stasis during the 86,000 year journey.
What is the downmod for? Someone doesn't like to hear the truth?
"And when you say "a long time", who cares? If you're positing an 86,000 year journey, what's another few hundred or even few thousand before leaving?"
Sure but an exercise like this becomes silly if you detach entirely from what is feasible on our current theoretical roadmap. We are a long way from just being able to project our consciousness through the gaps in the weave of time and space to any place and time we want with the sniff a smelling salt tin which would eliminate the need any of this stuff. But you know, we are positing an 86,000 year journey, who knows what we'll have developed before that target that eliminates the need to make the journey at all?
There are factors here you aren't considering. Compared to the major cities in Asia, US cities are a major downgrade with "third world" infrastructure and amenities.
At present the US is still where you need to do business. Why expend all the money it would take to upgrade infrastructure enough to provide first class living in the dilapidated US. That is trillions of dollars. You can simply fly in on a quick jump from your home in ASIA when needed for a mere $100k.
The four digit pin is fine, and as someone else pointed out legally protected. Biometrics do have a serious issue, for one you just lowered the bar for biometric security to a smartphone that the carrier, feds, and Apple have backdoors into. Since those groups, and potentially their lowest common denominator of trust employee has your biometrics and can spoof them at will what are you going to use for the bank vault where you keep your diamonds?
All these mass hacks dumping credentials? Soon enough they'll be including mass dumps of biometric patterns for the users too. When your password turns up on https://haveibeenpwned.com/ you just change it anywhere you've used it and hopefully aren't using the same one in more than one place anyway. Are you going to change your Iris?
That said, if you are going to use some kind of biometric like face recognition (since your face is definitely the least secure biometric) it shouldn't be the sole form of security. The face recognition should not replace pin entry, if enabled that should be what unlocks the pin entry page. It's called two factor authentication. Now you beat the guy who watched you enter your pin, you beat the guy who 3d prints your head or even uses a picture. You also get the legal protections from being forced to enter a pin code.
A company obsessed with a completely closed platform and total ownership of that platform is never the lesser of two evils.
That said, if you are already using a smartphone connected to a carrier it's a little late to pretend the security of your data and privacy are important to you. You already sold them for convenience. At that point the questions are how many Johns; do you speak greek; what are your rates; and about just a little metadata?
"that decides they want to just wander the system and possibly beyond by strapping motors to their rock, collecting smaller objects as they go for raw materials and fuel."
Perhaps but we are long way from being able to establish a fully self sufficient colony that could produce things like replacement motors, integrated circuits, etc from raw materials with only a small population and less than 100 meters of space. If anything, we are moving further and further AWAY from this target.
Thanks for the clarification but it seems odd to invoke the practicality of the leak rate of a vessel which does not exist and won't be possible to construct on any forseeably practical timescale.
Right, the democrats would have done the right thing, honest, if not for those damn republicans. The republicans would have done the right thing, honest, if not for those damn democrats. Round and round it goes to keep you spinning and believing the sociopaths actually mean whichever flavor of spun message they've chosen to sell sheeple.
"At least the Ds fucking support net neutrality." "Your repubtard kind would have sold us out long ago for a buck."
"We have never had net neutrality, we had a set of measures which CLAIMED to be net neutrality and permitted anything but. Providers could prioritize traffic, shape it, and black ports, in some cases without disclosure, with disclosure buried in legalese somewhere they could do anything they wanted."
The D's want to be seen as supporting net neutrality, that is not the same thing as supporting net neutrality. And what they called net neutrality and pushed through is a specific example of them selling us out for a buck. The republicans sell you out with different rhetoric and the only real difference is the spin.
Also, I'm an Independent.
"Yet you come here talking about Hillary. At least Hillary had America's best interest at heart."
ROFLMAO. You actually believe that horseshit? You think rigging the primaries against the only notable politician with a multi-decade track record of actual integrity was about "America's best interest"
"If you had a deductible, you had a cost. It was not free."
No, the deductible is part of the cost of healthcare that insurance isn't paying. The insurance company doesn't charge you the deductible, the healthcare provider does. The insurance can have a $10 million dollar deductible and be free, it wouldn't be particularly useful for reducing the cost of your healthcare but it would still be free. Again, this seems like another case of confusing insurance with healthcare. Now if you'd argued that it wasn't free because it was part of my compensation you'd have had a point. Not one that tangibly changed my message but a point.
"And if the change was as drastic as you claim, it was not the ACA...that was simply a convenient way for your employer to eliminate a lot of their costs and pass them on to you, while having the ACA to "blame" their actions on."
That employer no longer provides free insurance. They partially subsidize last I knew. But I've worked for five employers since then. The changes to insurance have been progressive from that scenario to the current one and that shift hasn't really been significantly impacted by which employer I was on. My current employer has a set of coverage requirements and options and lets insurance companies submit plans and rates. You then choose your preferred provider based on the coverage you want. The cost for the same coverage goes up consistently year over year.
The insurance companies are raising rates because the provider costs are going up. The provider costs are raising because they have to treat more people and more and more of those people can't pay their bills. Hospital care is getting dramatically more expensive for the same reason but thanks to the ER and the massive influx of poor immigrants abusing the ER as a free health care clinic they have even more dramatic costs rising. The split billing by doctors and hospitals is part of the attempt to offset that, the hospital doesn't pay the doctor anymore so they won't be out the cost of the doctor on this abuse, of course they don't actually reduce their charges accordingly because both the doctor and the hospital have to get every dime they can out of anyone who actually does pay.
If by indefinite you mean indeterminate, perhaps, if by indefinite you mean forever then no. Not even the core of the Earth will accomplish that.
In the real world, we do not have such chambers and compartments lying around in any practical form and aren't likely to anytime within our lifetimes. Just the energy to reach the desired pressure make this a useless discovery. Of course, until it is replicated outside China I'd look on the "discovery" with a heavy grain of salt in any case.
Europe is an entire continent, the US and China are countries.
Healthcare isn't coverage, healthcare is the actual treatment.
"Your employer kindly shielded you from seeing much of that mess, and that's definitely a nice perk - for you, who happened to have such a good deal. For the rest of us, employer health insurance has come to look more and more like Obamacare at its worst. Or, put another way, Obamacare was a somewhat successful attempt to provide typical nickel and dime-ing employer-style health insurance for those whose employers wouldn't provide it."
Are you kidding, I've been on the crappy insurance provided by the retail industry and burger joints. It was better coverage than I have now and MUCH MUCH less expensive. All those people who are "covered" now and couldn't afford insurance before? Those people don't pay the bill, which is why doctors and hospitals began jacking up rates and playing billing games. Of course, they're just as greedy as everyone else so there is no guarantee that dropping the plan that caused the mess will put humpty dumpty back together again.
"Medicare is no panacea either, but since I've been on it, I haven't received a medical bill. Of course, I've had to pay through the nose for a combination of government premiums (no bargain, since I'm still working and make too much to pay the 'standard' rate) and a gap insurance policy to eliminate all the nonsense it would take to deal with the bits and pieces that aren't covered. Oh, and there's that pricey prescription drug plan that has paid out exactly 0 dollars this year."
Pay through the nose is relative. You are talking about things which cost a lot on the fixed income that comes with social security but is dirt cheap compared to what the rest of us without medicare pay.
86,000 years would be useless but that isn't what we are discussing. There are potential candidates being found that we could reach in 100-200 years. What you have to remember about these very far locations is that they are very very far and we DO have technology that can theoretically accelerate to the kind of speed we'd need turtle style given enough time and space.
Even 86,000 years might not be useless in the long run but we'd have enough trouble successfully building a self contained environment that will hold up for 200 years, plus store the people and cargo required to colonize let alone doing a good enough job of it to build something to last 86,000.
Exactly
Yes but for the purpose of spreading the human race to another planet and helping ensure our survival it could be worth sending a population on a trip to get to one if we have confidence they could live there.
This on the other hand is useless.
It's easy, you just need 1.21 jiggawatts!
"Our study makes a leap forward on the road to the room-temperature superconductivity," say the team. (The caveat is that the sample has to be under huge pressure: 170 gigapascals, or about half the pressure at the center of the Earth.)"
ROFL, oh yeah.
"The pressure might be high, but it doesn't require constantly putting energy into it."
Right because things... besides the core of the earth, maintain that kind of pressure without losses which require energy to offset.