Totally fucking insane are the private companies that choose to build 6 inherently unstable nuclear reactors on top of a fault line and above an aquafer.
Then for financial reasons they ignore some 7 or more warnings and recommendations about a protective wall just in case a tsunami would hit the coast, so the owners of the company will have more financial gain.
And then when things happen they lose control of the situation, the government has to step in, socialising the costs, and that same insanely dangerous company
1. still exists?
2. dares to press for a restart of the 48 other reactors across Japan?????
You tell me who is fucking insane here.
Chernobyl wasn't 'as bad as it's possible to get it'. If the workers there would have said "Fuck you! Risking my life? I'm going home, now." then it would have been much worse.
Fukushima could have been a lot worse in terms of radioactive pollution landing everywhere around the globe. How much Becquerel could Fukushima have released if all stored fuel rods would have exploded? This story makes me a bit worried, not you?
Oh, and this one also.
And also this one about the fuel pools is worrying me.
But no, it surely must all be FUD...
Yes, you are right, it could have been worse...
For me that's still a reason not to opt for nuclear if there's another safer and cheaper and more socially and environmentally responsible solution.
Tesla is coming quite near a workable solution for the storage problem. So let's add a few dollars (/kWh) for dependable storage, then we have near 100% uptime, still at lower costs, and no fuel expense, and without nuclear waste.
The problem of transporting the electrical energy from the Sahara to England during the winter there is of a complexity which is still a fraction of our current practice's problematic transport of oil all over the world.
And then there is the nuclear waste, the costs of which will be born by the populace because the private corporations that own the nuclear power plant will be (made) bankrupt by the time those costs arise, far, far into the future... By then we will see that, again, profit has been privatised and the losses have been socialised.
Good point, so at $2/W the solar option would cost around $ 40 billion. No fuel required. Guaranteedly no near-extinction events. I'd say let's go for solar.
I take it that you mean just Watt, not Watthour.
$10/W installed is a bit expensive indeed, considering that the installed cost of solar energy is now hovering around the $1/W.
After 2 near-extinction events (Chernobyl, Fukushima) one would have thought that people got wiser. But no, Nuclear is still 'preferred', even if it costs ten times the solar energy, which doesn't even require any fuel.
Those politicians that decided to build that reactor must be really stupid! Or maybe just corrupt...
Shooting darts at people is not what you want an autonomous robot to do.
And how about salt water spray?
Tear gas: --> gas mask?
Sound: --> PU foam in the orifices of the robot? Or plain ear plugs?
Or just topple the whole thing.
I mean, there's so much one could do...
The current austerity measures will lead to impoverisation of the West, leading to a big rise in population growth because, as is custom in underdeveloped countries, people will have to rely again on their offspring for their sustenance once they get too old to work (as if their will be any jobs by then).
UBI removes this necessity and will keep the population growth in check.
... and that is to mention that UBI will prevent overpopulation.
With the current austerity and impoverization agendas going on, people will have to rely again on their children to provide them with sustenance when they grow old.
In the underdeveloped world this is custom. Poor people 'get' up to 10 children to make sure their pension is safe, and with the growing wealth of the western countries the population growth has reduced considerably, in some countries even reached a negative value.
Giving (and ensuring--and that is the difficult part with politics) a UBI to people up until their death will take away their necessity for a large offspring and will prevent the population growth from recurring in a more or less natural manner, contrary to the elite's (highly profitable: look at the costs of health care) agenda of gmo, vaccines, pesticides and what not.
With a UBI people won't feel the need, as they do in under developed countries, to breed as many children as they can in order to ensure that some of them will support them when they grow old.
A general observation is that the wealthier the people, the lower the population growth, even reaching negative numbers.
It still would have to be proven, but if this works the same way when people can be assured that they will receive a UBI during their whole life that will at least be able to sustain them on a minimally required level until their demise, then it will be a huge advantage of the UBI which I'm afraid Varoufakis forgot to mention or consider.
With the current trend to austerity, eradication of the middle class and impoverisation of the 99.9% by 'the elite' (who by the way don't work so hard themselves either), their is a serious risk of reversal of this 'natural' depopulation trend (as opposed to vaccines, gmo, pesticides etc. being proposed by 'the elite').
I totally agree with all your points.
It will be the law abiding civilians that will be under full government surveillance, and the criminals will just add a layer of strong encryption with their own key sets.
More than 90% (this was a guesstimate) of gun crimes are carried out with unregistered guns. Same story.
...because we want to advertise our system to criminals...
I don't think this is Apple's intention.
It's not the criminals that sent a message that they don't want government to snoop in all their communications at will, but ordinary users like... me, and others.
Apple doesn't want to loose its market share because of the common knowledge that their devices are open to any government that likes to have a look (of course they are, but they like to pretend they're not) and so they are opposing government intrusion at this level. On a higher level of course they will fully cooperate, don't worry.
If, as the article states, the Russian pilots came down in Syrian territory, then why should we believe they were flying above Turkeye?
Further this incident gives Putin the possibility to start downing the French, German, Britain planes within Syria.
The only thing I anticipate 'The Allied Forces' to do is bomb the hell out of Assad's infrastructure and military facilities.
Just like what happened in Syria. 'The Allied' got permission to establish a no-fly zone and took the opportunity to destroy pretty much the whole irrigation system that Ghaddafi had installed.
The downing of the plane is a nice precedent making it easier to down NATO planes once they fly over Syria and bomb or supply the 'wrong' side.
One important reason of the destabilization of the area near and including Syria, is to get Putin's influence out of Syria and put Biden's in.
Qatar wants to sell its gas to Europe through a pipeline through Syria, but Assad wants Putin to supply his gas to Europe. So Saudi-Arabia buys a lot of Toyota's while USA (McCain) supplies weapons for some fanatics that were trained and supported by the USA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
Of course you can't simply dismiss these people without expecting some major problems, so they are now directed at Assad after a brief period in Lybia.
Saudi-Arabia already saw that the USA was fracking too much and made that a losing proposition by lowering the oil prices through oversupply.
Further, as Brzezinsky writes in his book, the US, in order to maintain its hegemony as a superpower, has to do anything it can to prevent other powers become too strong and successful. Creating chaos is one way of obtaining that goal so no, I don't think the USA would reduce its presence there if there were no oil.
Slashdot Mirror
...give this Stanislav Petrov a medal!
Totally fucking insane are the private companies that choose to build 6 inherently unstable nuclear reactors on top of a fault line and above an aquafer.
Then for financial reasons they ignore some 7 or more warnings and recommendations about a protective wall just in case a tsunami would hit the coast, so the owners of the company will have more financial gain.
And then when things happen they lose control of the situation, the government has to step in, socialising the costs, and that same insanely dangerous company
1. still exists?
2. dares to press for a restart of the 48 other reactors across Japan?????
You tell me who is fucking insane here.
Chernobyl wasn't 'as bad as it's possible to get it'. If the workers there would have said "Fuck you! Risking my life? I'm going home, now." then it would have been much worse.
Fukushima could have been a lot worse in terms of radioactive pollution landing everywhere around the globe. How much Becquerel could Fukushima have released if all stored fuel rods would have exploded?
This story makes me a bit worried, not you?
Oh, and this one also.
And also this one about the fuel pools is worrying me.
But no, it surely must all be FUD...
By the time they have convinced me to press my finger to the fingerprint sensor of my phone, they will find a nicely encrypted storage.
Generally there is more than enough space on the tops of the roof to supply the whole domestic household energy need with solar.
nobody wants to see you reply to yourself 4 times...
If there was a decent 'Edit' button on Slashdot he wouldn't have had to reply to himself.
You foul mouthed anonymous coward.
How were those near "extinction" level?
Yes, you are right, it could have been worse...
For me that's still a reason not to opt for nuclear if there's another safer and cheaper and more socially and environmentally responsible solution.
Tesla is coming quite near a workable solution for the storage problem. So let's add a few dollars (/kWh) for dependable storage, then we have near 100% uptime, still at lower costs, and no fuel expense, and without nuclear waste.
The problem of transporting the electrical energy from the Sahara to England during the winter there is of a complexity which is still a fraction of our current practice's problematic transport of oil all over the world.
And then there is the nuclear waste, the costs of which will be born by the populace because the private corporations that own the nuclear power plant will be (made) bankrupt by the time those costs arise, far, far into the future... By then we will see that, again, profit has been privatised and the losses have been socialised.
Good point, so at $2/W the solar option would cost around $ 40 billion. No fuel required. Guaranteedly no near-extinction events. I'd say let's go for solar.
More than $10 per Wh installed?
I take it that you mean just Watt, not Watthour.
$10/W installed is a bit expensive indeed, considering that the installed cost of solar energy is now hovering around the $1/W.
After 2 near-extinction events (Chernobyl, Fukushima) one would have thought that people got wiser. But no, Nuclear is still 'preferred', even if it costs ten times the solar energy, which doesn't even require any fuel.
Those politicians that decided to build that reactor must be really stupid! Or maybe just corrupt...
Shooting darts at people is not what you want an autonomous robot to do.
And how about salt water spray?
Tear gas: --> gas mask?
Sound: --> PU foam in the orifices of the robot? Or plain ear plugs?
Or just topple the whole thing.
I mean, there's so much one could do...
is the answer to all 'electrically charged' riot gear.
Back around 1999 to 2001 when people were all excited about user generated content being able to bypass the gatekeepers, I predicted..
Have you got a link to that? ;)
Has it occurred to you that Rolling Stones may be on of the very few real investigative journals that are left?
The current austerity measures will lead to impoverisation of the West, leading to a big rise in population growth because, as is custom in underdeveloped countries, people will have to rely again on their offspring for their sustenance once they get too old to work (as if their will be any jobs by then).
UBI removes this necessity and will keep the population growth in check.
... and that is to mention that UBI will prevent overpopulation.
With the current austerity and impoverization agendas going on, people will have to rely again on their children to provide them with sustenance when they grow old.
In the underdeveloped world this is custom. Poor people 'get' up to 10 children to make sure their pension is safe, and with the growing wealth of the western countries the population growth has reduced considerably, in some countries even reached a negative value.
Giving (and ensuring--and that is the difficult part with politics) a UBI to people up until their death will take away their necessity for a large offspring and will prevent the population growth from recurring in a more or less natural manner, contrary to the elite's (highly profitable: look at the costs of health care) agenda of gmo, vaccines, pesticides and what not.
With a UBI people won't feel the need, as they do in under developed countries, to breed as many children as they can in order to ensure that some of them will support them when they grow old.
A general observation is that the wealthier the people, the lower the population growth, even reaching negative numbers.
It still would have to be proven, but if this works the same way when people can be assured that they will receive a UBI during their whole life that will at least be able to sustain them on a minimally required level until their demise, then it will be a huge advantage of the UBI which I'm afraid Varoufakis forgot to mention or consider.
With the current trend to austerity, eradication of the middle class and impoverisation of the 99.9% by 'the elite' (who by the way don't work so hard themselves either), their is a serious risk of reversal of this 'natural' depopulation trend (as opposed to vaccines, gmo, pesticides etc. being proposed by 'the elite').
Eligium is another example :)
If you don't have the money, it won't save your life at all.
That 'promise' is a good reason to get very worried.
I totally agree with all your points.
It will be the law abiding civilians that will be under full government surveillance, and the criminals will just add a layer of strong encryption with their own key sets.
More than 90% (this was a guesstimate) of gun crimes are carried out with unregistered guns. Same story.
...because we want to advertise our system to criminals...
I don't think this is Apple's intention.
It's not the criminals that sent a message that they don't want government to snoop in all their communications at will, but ordinary users like... me, and others.
Apple doesn't want to loose its market share because of the common knowledge that their devices are open to any government that likes to have a look (of course they are, but they like to pretend they're not) and so they are opposing government intrusion at this level. On a higher level of course they will fully cooperate, don't worry.
If, as the article states, the Russian pilots came down in Syrian territory, then why should we believe they were flying above Turkeye?
Further this incident gives Putin the possibility to start downing the French, German, Britain planes within Syria.
The only thing I anticipate 'The Allied Forces' to do is bomb the hell out of Assad's infrastructure and military facilities.
Just like what happened in Syria. 'The Allied' got permission to establish a no-fly zone and took the opportunity to destroy pretty much the whole irrigation system that Ghaddafi had installed.
The downing of the plane is a nice precedent making it easier to down NATO planes once they fly over Syria and bomb or supply the 'wrong' side.
One important reason of the destabilization of the area near and including Syria, is to get Putin's influence out of Syria and put Biden's in.
Qatar wants to sell its gas to Europe through a pipeline through Syria, but Assad wants Putin to supply his gas to Europe. So Saudi-Arabia buys a lot of Toyota's while USA (McCain) supplies weapons for some fanatics that were trained and supported by the USA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.
Of course you can't simply dismiss these people without expecting some major problems, so they are now directed at Assad after a brief period in Lybia.
Saudi-Arabia already saw that the USA was fracking too much and made that a losing proposition by lowering the oil prices through oversupply.
Further, as Brzezinsky writes in his book, the US, in order to maintain its hegemony as a superpower, has to do anything it can to prevent other powers become too strong and successful. Creating chaos is one way of obtaining that goal so no, I don't think the USA would reduce its presence there if there were no oil.