In a world that right now is so totally devoid of anything like hope, I don't think anyone needs someone dragging us down with more negativity, capice?
Not only will we get practice in living on another planet, and a chance to build some lunar-based space industry, but having a working colony of humans off-world is good against the possibility of some major catastrophe on Earth.
Thank You for the refreshingly rational input on the subject.
I'd like to point out that I'm a Reformed Anti-Nuke; back in the 80's I voted to shut down Rancho Seco. Obviously I've done an about-face on that.
I'm not a Republican/Conservative, and I'm not anti-renewables; but I honestly don't see it as a long-term all-in-one solution either.
Nuclear can be safe and can be clean, even the 'waste products'. Science and innovative engineering will lead the way.
Meanwhile we continue to work on practical fusion power, and who knows what else theoretical physicists will come up with? A hundred years from now, when we're all long dead, our descendents might be using something even more exotic than fusion for all we know.
Just on guts I'd think that each and every crew member having personal space (literally a space all their own, they can close off and keep everyone else out of) is more important than anything else. Adults need personal space and personal time to stay mentally and emotionally healthy.
"They have a chance from building third and fourth generation nuclear"
This. It's the way forward. But the Nuclear Boogeyman seems so deeply embedded in peoples' subconscious that most can't seem to get around it. The newer designs are less complicated, less expensive, and safer. But getting people over that threshold where they're even willing to listen to you about it seems almost impossible.
*confused look*
Are you really such a sad individual that you have to talk to complete strangers on the internet that way in order to, what, feel relevant?
Whatever. You're a troublemaker, that's why I did that. If you've actually deluded yourself into believing that you or anyone else on the public internet has any emotional impact on me or anyone else, then I feel bad for you, please get some professional help or something, I dunno.
None of this changes anything. Expecting you're going to 'educate' the primary drive to reproduce out of people is just.. wrong. Your 'facts' are questionable.
Also changes nothing. I will continue to advocate for better, safer, less expensive to build and operate, nuclear power plants, as the way forward for the human race, if we expect to stave off human-caused global warming, and manage to keep our species alive for the long term. You and whoever else can believe whatever you want, I really don't care.
Can you make your point any more difficult to understand? Hard to tell whether you're supporting what I'm saying or not.
What nobody seems to be willing to recognize is that the current designs of nuclear reactors are expensive to build operate and maintain, but that it doesn't have to be that way. There are simpler, safer designs I've heard and read about that would make it less expensive to build operate and maintain. There's also thorium which is safer than uranium. Then there's eventually fusion. Throwing nuclear power on the scrap-heap is just plain dumb.
"All we need to reduce population is education. When you educate people, you rapidly head towards zero or even negative pop growth."
Stopped reading right there. Your basic premise is so completely and utterly out of touch with reality and human nature that I almost can't believe someone would say that.
"..or our planet would be pieces of dust long ago"
LOL, you actually consider the Earth to be some solid mass of all the same material or something? Hilarious.
Have to admit, though, you write pretty close to an adult, for a 4th grader.
"show your math"
Why? Any 'math' either side of the issue presents is based on theories and statistics that may or may not represent the future.
The real problem is sociological more than it is anything else:
o Unless there is a mass die-back of our species, there will always be more humans, not fewer
o People are never going to use less energy, they're only ever going to use more energy
All the solar panels and wind generators you can build, sooner or later, won't cover it all.
Meanwhile you're covering up arable land with solar panels, instead of growing food for the ever-burgeoning ranks of humans.
Then there's the NIMBYs. Bad enough fighting them to build nuclear power plants for the comparatively small acreage they need, let alone the massive amount required for solar installations. They'll also find some complaint about the inevitable energy storage facilities needed to make 'renewables' practical.
Yell and scream and insult me all you want, this is my position on the subject, and I see no reason to change it.
If the Universe is constantly expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light, then won't any information we get on it's origins from this be out-of-date by the time we get it?
I maintain that 'renewables' won't be enough. We need nuclear.
I've heard all the arguments and complaints and they don't move me. We need nuclear, and that's that.
By 'utility' I mean exactly what you said, more or less: easy-to-use for generic things like web browsing, email, watching movies/listening to music, maybe editing/viewing photos, and so on. Ubuntu and other distros accomplish that fairly well, I think. But at the same time you can take Ubuntu (or whatever distro) and get right down to the nuts-and-bolts level of it, edit sourcecode, create new code, completely change the way the machine works, the tools are all right there already, nothing is hidden from you, you're not denied access to anything, unlike Windows.
The Internet in many ways is already turning into a shithole even without it being like in China; if the Internet as a whole went the way China would have it, then I'd yank it out of the wall and forget about it, it wouldn't be worth having anymore.
AC, the way you write makes it unclear whether you're for or against what they're doing here.
If the 'Linux community' wants greater adoption of Linux (of any flavor) on any platform, then it has to be accessible to the average, non-techie computer user; your grandmother should be able to use it with equal utility to a superuser who is hacking the kernel sourcecode. It must, somehow, be all things to all people as much as possible. Otherwise the Microsoft hegemony becomes an indellible fact, and that's not good for anyone.
Linux in any form is extremely powerful simply because it's open, in contract to how totally closed Windows is.
..oh and something I forgot: Even if all the tech companies went along with it? They'd likely either raise their prices, freeze and/or cut wages, or all the above, to offset it, and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it; you'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul, so-to-speak. Really, it doesn't sound like a good idea.
A couple problems with this:
1. Alaska population is less than 1 million people. California is almost 40 million.
2. You don't think all the big tech companies in California wouldn't push back on this as hard as they can?
Also, even if they went along with it: this 'dividend' wouldn't amount to much per person.
Also it's just going to inflame Republicans and other Conservative types, who will brand it as 'socialism' -- and they're not wrong, it is socialism.
I'm not sure what Newsome is thinking here, other than wanting to keep in the news.
Slashdot Mirror
In a world that right now is so totally devoid of anything like hope, I don't think anyone needs someone dragging us down with more negativity, capice?
Gotta crawl before you can walk, walk before you can run, run before you can fly.
You don't get the joke.
Not only will we get practice in living on another planet, and a chance to build some lunar-based space industry, but having a working colony of humans off-world is good against the possibility of some major catastrophe on Earth.
We all know what eventually happens if you store nuclear waste on the moon.
Thank You for the refreshingly rational input on the subject.
I'd like to point out that I'm a Reformed Anti-Nuke; back in the 80's I voted to shut down Rancho Seco. Obviously I've done an about-face on that.
I'm not a Republican/Conservative, and I'm not anti-renewables; but I honestly don't see it as a long-term all-in-one solution either.
Nuclear can be safe and can be clean, even the 'waste products'. Science and innovative engineering will lead the way.
Meanwhile we continue to work on practical fusion power, and who knows what else theoretical physicists will come up with? A hundred years from now, when we're all long dead, our descendents might be using something even more exotic than fusion for all we know.
Same difference. By the time we get the data it's outdated.
Just on guts I'd think that each and every crew member having personal space (literally a space all their own, they can close off and keep everyone else out of) is more important than anything else. Adults need personal space and personal time to stay mentally and emotionally healthy.
"They have a chance from building third and fourth generation nuclear"
This. It's the way forward. But the Nuclear Boogeyman seems so deeply embedded in peoples' subconscious that most can't seem to get around it. The newer designs are less complicated, less expensive, and safer. But getting people over that threshold where they're even willing to listen to you about it seems almost impossible.
*confused look*
Are you really such a sad individual that you have to talk to complete strangers on the internet that way in order to, what, feel relevant?
Whatever. You're a troublemaker, that's why I did that. If you've actually deluded yourself into believing that you or anyone else on the public internet has any emotional impact on me or anyone else, then I feel bad for you, please get some professional help or something, I dunno.
None of this changes anything. Expecting you're going to 'educate' the primary drive to reproduce out of people is just.. wrong. Your 'facts' are questionable.
Also changes nothing. I will continue to advocate for better, safer, less expensive to build and operate, nuclear power plants, as the way forward for the human race, if we expect to stave off human-caused global warming, and manage to keep our species alive for the long term. You and whoever else can believe whatever you want, I really don't care.
Can you make your point any more difficult to understand? Hard to tell whether you're supporting what I'm saying or not.
What nobody seems to be willing to recognize is that the current designs of nuclear reactors are expensive to build operate and maintain, but that it doesn't have to be that way. There are simpler, safer designs I've heard and read about that would make it less expensive to build operate and maintain. There's also thorium which is safer than uranium. Then there's eventually fusion. Throwing nuclear power on the scrap-heap is just plain dumb.
"All we need to reduce population is education. When you educate people, you rapidly head towards zero or even negative pop growth."
Stopped reading right there. Your basic premise is so completely and utterly out of touch with reality and human nature that I almost can't believe someone would say that.
"..or our planet would be pieces of dust long ago"
LOL, you actually consider the Earth to be some solid mass of all the same material or something? Hilarious.
Have to admit, though, you write pretty close to an adult, for a 4th grader.
"show your math"
Why? Any 'math' either side of the issue presents is based on theories and statistics that may or may not represent the future.
The real problem is sociological more than it is anything else:
o Unless there is a mass die-back of our species, there will always be more humans, not fewer
o People are never going to use less energy, they're only ever going to use more energy
All the solar panels and wind generators you can build, sooner or later, won't cover it all.
Meanwhile you're covering up arable land with solar panels, instead of growing food for the ever-burgeoning ranks of humans.
Then there's the NIMBYs. Bad enough fighting them to build nuclear power plants for the comparatively small acreage they need, let alone the massive amount required for solar installations. They'll also find some complaint about the inevitable energy storage facilities needed to make 'renewables' practical.
Yell and scream and insult me all you want, this is my position on the subject, and I see no reason to change it.
If the Universe is constantly expanding at a rate greater than the speed of light, then won't any information we get on it's origins from this be out-of-date by the time we get it?
I maintain that 'renewables' won't be enough. We need nuclear.
I've heard all the arguments and complaints and they don't move me. We need nuclear, and that's that.
Specially-crafted sound file, at exactly the resonant frequency and maximum amplitude, that shatters your display-speaker.
Go back to your containment website (4chan) and stay there.
By 'utility' I mean exactly what you said, more or less: easy-to-use for generic things like web browsing, email, watching movies/listening to music, maybe editing/viewing photos, and so on. Ubuntu and other distros accomplish that fairly well, I think. But at the same time you can take Ubuntu (or whatever distro) and get right down to the nuts-and-bolts level of it, edit sourcecode, create new code, completely change the way the machine works, the tools are all right there already, nothing is hidden from you, you're not denied access to anything, unlike Windows.
The Internet in many ways is already turning into a shithole even without it being like in China; if the Internet as a whole went the way China would have it, then I'd yank it out of the wall and forget about it, it wouldn't be worth having anymore.
AC, the way you write makes it unclear whether you're for or against what they're doing here.
If the 'Linux community' wants greater adoption of Linux (of any flavor) on any platform, then it has to be accessible to the average, non-techie computer user; your grandmother should be able to use it with equal utility to a superuser who is hacking the kernel sourcecode. It must, somehow, be all things to all people as much as possible. Otherwise the Microsoft hegemony becomes an indellible fact, and that's not good for anyone.
Linux in any form is extremely powerful simply because it's open, in contract to how totally closed Windows is.
Why do you think I'm posting this from a computer running Ubuntu and use a $50 or less dumbphone?
..oh and something I forgot: Even if all the tech companies went along with it? They'd likely either raise their prices, freeze and/or cut wages, or all the above, to offset it, and there wouldn't be anything anyone could do about it; you'd be robbing Peter to pay Paul, so-to-speak. Really, it doesn't sound like a good idea.
A couple problems with this:
1. Alaska population is less than 1 million people. California is almost 40 million.
2. You don't think all the big tech companies in California wouldn't push back on this as hard as they can?
Also, even if they went along with it: this 'dividend' wouldn't amount to much per person.
Also it's just going to inflame Republicans and other Conservative types, who will brand it as 'socialism' -- and they're not wrong, it is socialism.
I'm not sure what Newsome is thinking here, other than wanting to keep in the news.
Can't get more data unless you 'recruit' more cattle, er, I mean customers for your phones.