The reaction would halt immediately. The key to controlled fusion is containment. One has to keep the plasma squished together enough to sustain the reaction. If you lose containment the plasma cools off and the reaction stops. There is no way they can explode.
The Universe is expanding in general. That doesn't rule out local violations. The Milky Way and Andromeda are huge, yes, but they are specs on the scale of the Universe.
I don't think anyone's worried about the Earth being damaged permanently. It's got a billion or so good years left before the Sun heats up enough to Venus-ify it. Given 10 or 20 million years, evolution will have even taken care of the current mass-extinction we are responsible for.
The key point is totally selfish: will our actions ultimately result in our own extinction?
Rising sea levels, chaotic weather, and mass-extinction will be very destructive to human concerns, especially crops. The absolute proof some seek could be the starving billions rioting in the streets.
As long as electric cars are disadvantaged by having to lug around a ton of expensive and heavy batteries they're going to have trouble competing. Fuel cells may be the answer here (particularly zinc-air fuel cells).
There may be emissions, depending on how the electricity is generated. They just don't come out of the car's tailpipe. If you have a windmill at your house to charge up you car then maybe it's zero emissions.
>Unfortunately, it ended later - it almost looked >like a test audience had demanded a somewhat >happy looking ending. Bah.
I have no way of knowing, of course, but I bet the ending was not tacked on, that it was part of Kubrick's vision for the film. Remember the ending of 2001?
I tend to dislike obligatory sappy, happy endings myself. My initial reaction to the ending of A.I. was negative. However, the more I've thought about it the more I changed my mind. Sure it goes over the top in a few places but it still managed to affect me. It's a bittersweet ending, at best. A bit of sweet and a lot of bitter.
>>>
Unfortunately, it ended later - it almost looked like a test audience had demanded a somewhat happy looking ending. Bah.
I have no way of knowing, of course, but I bet the ending was not tacked on, that it was part of Kubrick's vision for the film. Remember the ending of 2001?
I tend to dislike obligatory sappy, happy endings myself. My initial reaction to the ending of A.I. was negative. However, the more I've thought about it the more I changed my mind. Sure it goes over the top in a few places but it still managed to affect me. It's a bittersweet ending, at best. A bit of sweet and a lot of bitter.
RAIDs can potentially help with throughput but they hurt latency. Now instead of the latency of one drive, you have the worst-case latency of N drives because the controller has to get data from each of the drives in the RAID before it can be combined into one stream for the host. Using slower RPM drives in the RAID compounds the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
The reaction would halt immediately. The key to controlled fusion is containment. One has to keep the plasma squished together enough to sustain the reaction. If you lose containment the plasma cools off and the reaction stops. There is no way they can explode.
The Universe is expanding in general. That doesn't rule out local violations. The Milky Way and Andromeda are huge, yes, but they are specs on the scale of the Universe.
I don't think anyone's worried about the Earth being damaged permanently. It's got a billion or so good years left before the Sun heats up enough to Venus-ify it. Given 10 or 20 million years, evolution will have even taken care of the current mass-extinction we are responsible for.
The key point is totally selfish: will our actions ultimately result in our own extinction?
Rising sea levels, chaotic weather, and mass-extinction will be very destructive to human concerns, especially crops. The absolute proof some seek could be the starving billions rioting in the streets.
Batteries.
As long as electric cars are disadvantaged by having to lug around a ton of expensive and heavy batteries they're going to have trouble competing. Fuel cells may be the answer here (particularly zinc-air fuel cells).
There may be emissions, depending on how the electricity is generated. They just don't come out of the car's tailpipe. If you have a windmill at your house to charge up you car then maybe it's zero emissions.
>Unfortunately, it ended later - it almost looked >like a test audience had demanded a somewhat >happy looking ending. Bah.
I have no way of knowing, of course, but I bet the ending was not tacked on, that it was part of Kubrick's vision for the film. Remember the ending of 2001?
I tend to dislike obligatory sappy, happy endings myself. My initial reaction to the ending of A.I. was negative. However, the more I've thought about it the more I changed my mind. Sure it goes over the top in a few places but it still managed to affect me. It's a bittersweet ending, at best. A bit of sweet and a lot of bitter.
>>> Unfortunately, it ended later - it almost looked like a test audience had demanded a somewhat happy looking ending. Bah. I have no way of knowing, of course, but I bet the ending was not tacked on, that it was part of Kubrick's vision for the film. Remember the ending of 2001? I tend to dislike obligatory sappy, happy endings myself. My initial reaction to the ending of A.I. was negative. However, the more I've thought about it the more I changed my mind. Sure it goes over the top in a few places but it still managed to affect me. It's a bittersweet ending, at best. A bit of sweet and a lot of bitter.
RAIDs can potentially help with throughput but they hurt latency. Now instead of the latency of one drive, you have the worst-case latency of N drives because the controller has to get data from each of the drives in the RAID before it can be combined into one stream for the host. Using slower RPM drives in the RAID compounds the problem.