Because they are different STORIES written by different AUTHORS. Anyone who reads any more than that into them is either a little crazy, a humanities major, or both.
and we have a pretty much endless supply of radioactive rocks
And it has taken those rocks billions of years to build up the current stockpiles of Helium, which we will deplete in 100 years or so. In fact, there were more of those rocks in the beginning. Now there's a lot of lead and iron and other products of decay. So the maximum rate of production of Helium is long over.
Sure, Helium will be produced effectively forever. But again, it's a rate thing. While isotopes can be decaying all over the planet all the time that doesn't mean you'll be able to harvest it - it has taken a very large number of years for it to pool and accumulate into deposits that are large enough to be profitable.
Learn 2 math? Your fusion reactors are off by several orders of magnitude compared to consumption. So to answer your question: Fusion reactors produce a tiny, tiny amount of helium - certainly not enough to even cover the cost of collecting it, let alone hoping to commercialize it. So yeah, we will eventually run out.
The inability of human beings to think in a term longer than a few months has always amazed me. This doesn't solve the problem, it merely postpones it. Helium escapes unless recaptured. If the rate of generation of helium from alpha decay is less than the rate of consumption, we will run out of helium one day - it's only a question of when.
It's also amazing that we could have a shortage of a material when there are giant balls full of the stuff in the sky. But hey, that's how the cosmos works.
Dude, it's useless to argue with morons. Let him have his little fantasy that all atheists are mass murderers. He's probably the kind of person who thinks that because all firs are conifers and all conifers are trees, therefore all trees must be firs.
No, you signed a bit of paper saying he could keep the tires up to date, not that he could change round tires that work for square tires that don't work but that marketing says are "better". More environmentally friendly since you can't drive your car anymore. You save on gas, too. But no.
Not really. EULAs have never really been tested in court. If this is a first test, it's not looking good for Microsoft. They can make you click through terms stating that Microsoft can send someone to your house to shoot you in the face if you don't upgrade, that doesn't make it legally binding. Look at what the courts DO, not what Microsoft SAYS.
The purges were motivated by the FACT that the clergy were using their pulpits to preach against him. So he decided to kill most of the clergy and put a stop to it. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with securing his power.
The thing is the EULA you accepted for Windows 8/7/95 etc does not apply to Windows 10. If they shove Windows 10 down your throat it really doesn't matter what the Windows 10 EULA is when you click decline and it fucks up your computer when "uninstalling".
You do realize I cited the article from Die Welt too, right? Except since it was in German, most people would have trouble with the translation. But I guess you're one of those people who thinks that news becomes tainted if it hasn't passed through Mr. Murdoch's hands.
The skids have been greasing for a long time. However unlike what Jean Claude Jucker and his massive ego proposes, I don't believe for one minute that it's the "EU" that has prevented another European catastrophe. Minor other points like perhaps NATO, nuclear weapons and the promise of mutually assured destruction have had much, MUCH more influence and will continue to do so.
In fact one could argue that the EU which was already well underway in the 1990's did nothing to prevent say, the Balkan crisis... again NATO fixed that problem. And NATO will continue to fix problems. Because NATO is stronger than any single European nation. It is the proverbial club to beat the rest back into line, when it's not pretending that the Russians are coming.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they are different STORIES written by different AUTHORS. Anyone who reads any more than that into them is either a little crazy, a humanities major, or both.
and we have a pretty much endless supply of radioactive rocks
And it has taken those rocks billions of years to build up the current stockpiles of Helium, which we will deplete in 100 years or so. In fact, there were more of those rocks in the beginning. Now there's a lot of lead and iron and other products of decay. So the maximum rate of production of Helium is long over.
Sure, Helium will be produced effectively forever. But again, it's a rate thing. While isotopes can be decaying all over the planet all the time that doesn't mean you'll be able to harvest it - it has taken a very large number of years for it to pool and accumulate into deposits that are large enough to be profitable.
Learn 2 math? Your fusion reactors are off by several orders of magnitude compared to consumption. So to answer your question: Fusion reactors produce a tiny, tiny amount of helium - certainly not enough to even cover the cost of collecting it, let alone hoping to commercialize it. So yeah, we will eventually run out.
Companies valued at multiples of billions of dollars are finally trying to come up with some sort of actual business model?
The shortages are expected to come to an end
The inability of human beings to think in a term longer than a few months has always amazed me. This doesn't solve the problem, it merely postpones it. Helium escapes unless recaptured. If the rate of generation of helium from alpha decay is less than the rate of consumption, we will run out of helium one day - it's only a question of when.
It's also amazing that we could have a shortage of a material when there are giant balls full of the stuff in the sky. But hey, that's how the cosmos works.
The dead don't preach. Logic fail.
Dude, it's useless to argue with morons. Let him have his little fantasy that all atheists are mass murderers. He's probably the kind of person who thinks that because all firs are conifers and all conifers are trees, therefore all trees must be firs.
Well, they all have triggers, stocks and barrels. Obviously they're a direct rip.
He's saving his pardon for Hillary.
No, you signed a bit of paper saying he could keep the tires up to date, not that he could change round tires that work for square tires that don't work but that marketing says are "better". More environmentally friendly since you can't drive your car anymore. You save on gas, too. But no.
Not really. EULAs have never really been tested in court. If this is a first test, it's not looking good for Microsoft. They can make you click through terms stating that Microsoft can send someone to your house to shoot you in the face if you don't upgrade, that doesn't make it legally binding. Look at what the courts DO, not what Microsoft SAYS.
They're not bricking hardware.
Yet.
Only when they reach a certain size. It's easy to bury a few hundred million dollars under "Misc expenses" when you're a multi-billion dollar company.
The purges were motivated by the FACT that the clergy were using their pulpits to preach against him. So he decided to kill most of the clergy and put a stop to it. It had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with securing his power.
You cannot agree to have your computer fucked up in an automatic update in an EULA. It seems like the judge agreed.
The thing is the EULA you accepted for Windows 8/7/95 etc does not apply to Windows 10. If they shove Windows 10 down your throat it really doesn't matter what the Windows 10 EULA is when you click decline and it fucks up your computer when "uninstalling".
You're confusing atheism with politics.
Can I have the car that doesn't crash at all, instead? Guess I'll have to buy foreign again.
I wonder what could be responsible for this phenomenon.
It really doesn't matter. Too much religion of any flavor is a bad thing. I leave it to you to define "too much". My definition is "any".
You do realize I cited the article from Die Welt too, right? Except since it was in German, most people would have trouble with the translation. But I guess you're one of those people who thinks that news becomes tainted if it hasn't passed through Mr. Murdoch's hands.
Yes we could call it the "James Wolfe Reservation".
I think it has pretty much come to the point where Canada will split off from Quebec. Enough is enough, Frenchies. Au Revoir!
The skids have been greasing for a long time. However unlike what Jean Claude Jucker and his massive ego proposes, I don't believe for one minute that it's the "EU" that has prevented another European catastrophe. Minor other points like perhaps NATO, nuclear weapons and the promise of mutually assured destruction have had much, MUCH more influence and will continue to do so.
In fact one could argue that the EU which was already well underway in the 1990's did nothing to prevent say, the Balkan crisis... again NATO fixed that problem. And NATO will continue to fix problems. Because NATO is stronger than any single European nation. It is the proverbial club to beat the rest back into line, when it's not pretending that the Russians are coming.
Except maybe in Paraguay...