I fully support the re-processing of spent fuel for MORE nuclear fuel. So long as it doesn't produce even more concentrated and hard to handle nuclear waste.
The question is if the re-processing uses more energy then the new fuel rods generate. Of course the energy and expense of disposing the level 1 fuel has to be taken into account.
I would agree that those who mine Uranium probably have a lobby that resists re-processing fuel. I'll also agree that the lefty-lefty environmentalists are fundamentally opposed to ANY form energy production (even solar (since it uses "toxic chemicals" to manufacture) and wind (since it can kill some birds)).
But please, please, please, include the cost of disposal or re-processing when touting the benefits of nuclear power.
Oh no, not the fucking Columbus analogy again. I'm sure you realize the fallacy of this. You simply choose to ignore it.
The Europeans came upon a land rich with just about everything. It was readily available and easy to harvest. They started turning profits VERY quickly.
So you want to make manufacture shit on the moon???? Globalization isn't enough. You want Solarization. No doubt you've found the magic manufacturing pill that will overcome $700/pound to get things into earth orbit and the likely $20k to $100k required to get things to Luna and Mars.
Fuck, it can take a couple hundreds of millions to tool up a factory. Thats with all the machine tools, metal processing and technicians being readily available. Multiply all that equipment by $20,000 per pound and see what you come up with.
The organization with all the EXPERIENCE (NASA) has sent off $300 mil probes that have simply blinked out on the way to Mars. Yeah, shit goes wrong. That was a small, limited purpose device. Your talking about transferring complete segments of economies out of Earth's gravity well and onto extra-terrestrial bodies. And THEN, shipping them back.
Back to the submariners. Economics will determine the size of crew quarters. Smaller is cheaper. Sure you can dig into the surface of the moon and create sub-terranian domes. Of course, you have to get a TBM up their first. Or will you simply manufacture it on site using your lunar fabrication plant, supplied by your lunar steel/titanium/aluminum mill, supplied by your lunar mining operation that has to process tons of rock to get pounds (or ounces) of usable material. Oh and don't forget the armies of robots to staff all these operations. Fuck, we can barely get a little fucking car to work right on Mars.
Oh, or is that preceeded by lunar concrete plants to build domes from native aggregate and 10mil per bag portland cement shipped from Earth.? Of course, water would be derived from mining a ton of rock for every cup.
Seriously, I don't think YOU need to colonize the Moon or Mars. Your mind obviously already dwells there. Perhaps I have no knowledge of engineering. But it's pretty fucking obvious that you have no appreciation for the level of technical challenges that such an operation would require and the trillions it would suck from our economy.
And WHAT would it return?????? Less pollution on Earth???? Is that AFTER processing a couple billion tons of rocket fuel and 5 forests worth of paper to put factories (and jobs) on an extre-terrestrial planet. Couldn't we just put our existing waste in better containers and save the effort????
Seriously, I think you need to go colonize Antarctica since your so dedicated to your ideals. Antarctica has thousands of times the resources as either of those barren rocks PLUS it has a breatheable atmosphere and abundant water which requires NO MINING!!!!!
The problem is that the "lock box" isn't locked. The money has been looted to pay into the general fund.
Beyond that, Social Security is solvent till 2042. The simple step of uncapping taxable income on social security taxes should push that out quite a bit.
BTW, you do realize that the top 10% control 90% of the assets in this nation, don't you. It's a lot easier to squeeze wealth out of the 90% than the other 10%, even if their are 9 times fewer than "everybody else".
"It's true that it'd take a lot of energy to do anything in space using rockets, but that's not really the idea is it? The idea is that this kind of R&D will produce technologies capable of doing space travel efficiently
Well no, I thought the idea was to accomplish something. We can do plenty of rocket research without involving a single human being piloting in "space monkey" mode.
We are perfectly capable of creating new technology WITHOUT the involvement of space flight.
Perhaps as we develop space travel it will lead to a greater understanding of nature and the universe in general. More over, hopefully it will inspire people to increase their own understanding of the universe.
We spend 3 times as much researching space as we do our own oceans. Paradoxically, our oceans are far more relevant to our health as a species. I have no problem with exploring the universe, but we can do that with telescopes and probes.
Most important of all, perhaps it will allow people to put all their insignificant problems in perspective, and allow people to work together toward a better human society rather than merely squabbling about petty differences.
Ask a Palestinian why he hates a Jew. I'll bet that the lack of manned space flight hardly enters into the equation. These problems may seem petty to you, but they're pretty fucking important to Palestinians and Israelis. Astronauts on the moon won't affect this or any other conflict one bit.
Sadly these are all just the pipe dreams of a foolish young idealist, but I can dream, can't I?"
Feel free to dream. Dreams cost nothing. Saturn V rockets cost billions. Cruising around in orbit is fine, just don't force everbody else half a trillion dollars for a Mars shot.
The idea that Social Security is in trouble is a myth. Social Security collects TWICE as much as it pays out right now.
The reason this is a problem is because the money is being funnelled back into the general budget (the great stealth tax that applies to the lower/middle class).
If you want to fix the federal budget, get rid of all the tax loopholes and force rich folk to pay their taxes (which they are NOT doing right now).
The Shuttle is a launch and recover space station. The shuttle is like driving an RV to the end of your driveway to get the mail.
Nasa's biggest mistake was allowing Skylab to fall from orbit. The "flying washing machines" were far cheaper.
Unfortunately, we're kind of stuck with the shuttle for a while. I definitely think we should scale back the number of missions it does. But it will ALWAYS be needed to do ISS construction and repair missions.
We could probably build a colossus of George Bush that stood twice the size of Lady Liberty. The question is... WHY would we want to do that???? What benefit would it give us.
Similarly, I have no question that we could create a Moon or Mars station. The point is WHY??? What benefit does it provide for society???
Yeah, I know what the benefit would be for YOU. It's cool. Yeah, I think it's kinda cool too. But I realize that it's a LOT of time effort and resources to put into something that does not HELP society.
We have rotting schools, dilapidated hospitals, and people without access to ANY form of healthcare. I would raze the entirety of NASA in return for universal health care and a teacher for every 15 students.
Treating all people in America with true compassion is a lot better than doing something "cool".
Beyond the Huzzah and "Climb every mountain" bullshit, you'll find the moon a barren rock. Any resource that can be found their can be found on Earth for 10,000x cheaper.
All the technologies that people bring up "from the moon" seem to all be directed at manned space exploration. "We need to go to the moon at great expense, because THEN we'll be able to go their CHEAPER".
Manned space exploration will feed, clothe, and shelter NO ONE. It will cure NO diseases.
The ONLY people who's input we should consider on extra-terran base/colonization are submariners. That's basically what your life would be like. You'd live in a submarine, expect it would be on the Moon.
Submariners aren't exactly "psyched" to go out on a 6 month cruise under the ocean without access to the outside. Ask a submariner if they'd do that for TWO YEARS straight and see what they'd tell you. Would it really matter if their submarine was going to Mars?????
Sure we could colonize Antarctica. Though it would be prohibitively expensive. Plus, no one would really want to live their permanently. They'd have a TERRIBLE life.
Even with the prohibitive costs associated with colonizing Antarctica, it would be 3 or for orders of magnitude CHEAPER than colonizing either Mars or the Moon.
Of course, Colonizers for Mars and the Moon would face FAR MORE hostile conditions in addition to being millions of miles farther away from re-supply and ESCAPE!!!!!
Antarctica has a breathable atmosphere. Antarctica has an abundant, readily available supply of water. Antarctica has native fauna (seals, penguins) that can be eaten. Antarctica has less WAY less deadly cosmic rays. The average temperature in Antarctica is actually HIGHER than either Mars OR the Moon. It also experiences less overall fluctuation in temperature.
So by all means, lets colonize Antarctica before we consider an Lunar or Martian effort. It will be cheaper and the fleeing families will be back to better climates much sooner.
Antarctica has the following things that neither mars nor the moon have: 1) Breathable atmosphere. 2) More hospitable climate (cosmic rays) 3) Readily available water just sitting on the surface. No mining required. 4) Seasonal game (penguins and seals). 5) Transportation and refuel costs are about 100,000 times less. 6) A functional airport. 7) Return trip (once people are excessively miserable on a barren (though less barren than the moon and mars) is only about $1000 or so.
The notion of a moon-station or mars mission is just money wasted. Space exploration should be left to life-long career professionals... ROBOTS.
BTW, if a big asteroid comes to destroy Earth, we can just dig some deep holes and store enough food to last a couple of decades. It would be far cheaper and more reliable than attempting to return barely self-sustaining mars colonists to earth.
They never take into account disposal fees. The energy industry is counting on Uncle Sam to build them a free disposal facility in Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear power would be about as free as the roads I drive on. Taxpayers (not rate-payers) flip the bill.
I'm not a tree hugger. But I do realize that Nuclear power still has a HUGE disposal problem. ALL the energy from EVERY plant in the US has yet to find a final resting place. Even the Yucca mountain proposal still has some possibility for contamination.
We need to find a way to bottle that re-process the fuel and imprison the stuff in solid inert mixtures. Either that, or find create disposal units that drill one way trips down past the earth's crust into hot/squishy rock layers.
Until then, nucular power is still risky until they deliver on the ultra-sonic fusion concepts.
Microsoft DOES sell X-Box AND Human Interface Devices. They're certainly not giving THOSE away. Though if Microsoft could get enough royalties of games, I could see them giving X-Box away.
In the future, my desktop will cost $20 and my Intellimouse will cost $200. Go figure;-)
Wow another great prediction from the anti-psychic Bill Gates.
Sorry Bill, but software is far more replicable than hardware. It's the SOFTWARE that is becoming more free as we go along.
As far as visual goes, I don't think that's correct. He's envisioning a workflow type application for controlling logic. Diagramming most code is far more difficult then simply writing it. 4GL is a pipe dream.
I DO believe that future programmers will be more like carpenters. High levels of modularity will make custom software construction as practical as cutting and nailing/gluing/screwing together the components down at Home Depot. Programs that ARE sold will be far more extensible (plugin enabled) with managed code.
The future of software is changing. As usual, Gates doesn't have a clue. He was right about ONE thing 30 years ago. He swindled the owners of Q-DOS and IBM. He's been riding that ever since.
It's my dream to see wind farms on the great lakes chugging out zero maintenance power for the midwest. The coasts would put theirs in the ocean (of course).
Of course, EVERY house would be equipped with grid inter-tie and solar panels that would help power the air conditioner during peak energy usage (when it's brightest and hottest).
In addition to losing your money at the Casino, you also lose the opportunity to invest it at a 4-10% return (depending on the security). Once you factor that in, the small potential for victory in a few games (blackjack and roulette) are completely lost.
Regarding Poker. You can't win vs the house over any period of time. You can only win vs fellow players. Reason???? The house takes a cut off every pot. So why bother using the Casino when you can use private poker games or poker tournaments?????
Finally, if you think that Casinos are such an "opportunity", I suggest you go become a professional gambler vs the Casinos. The odds are ALL rigged against you. Most pro gamblers lead a hand to mouth existence. It's really not a choice. The one's you quote are simply the survivors.
In other words, if a plague hits a village and there is a 20% survival rate, that doesn't mean the plague is "not so bad".
They should concentrate on laptop battery replacement plugins. These don't require anyone to buy into your "platform". It's especially relevant since people end up replacing laptop batteries every year or two anyways. Why not offer a long-life alternative.
Two other good near term applications (things with HUGE batteries) * Portable power tools * Radio controlled toys. * Small electric vehicles (golf carts, pickers) * Mobile printers * Mobile speakers * Headlamps (caving lamps, like Petzl makes)
Future Military applications * Radio Communicators (walkie-talkies) (the military would love this one) * Air conditioned "jackets"
etc...
We're still a few years off from a REAL PDA powered by fuel cell. When they do. I hope they don't try to make "methonal only" power systems to pad their bottom lines. Proper fuel-cell systems will be half battery, half fuel cell. People should still be able to get half their juice from the grid and failover to fuel-cell when that fails.
Casino games are about handing your money over to the Casino. They are taxes for people who are bad at math.
Anything that would interfere with the Casino's ability to suck all your money away is illegal. The Casinos employ VERY large men with guns to make it so.
The occasional rube who wins is 100% acceptable. They'll post the persons picture and make a big deal so the 254 out 255 people get a distorted view of their chances of winning. But anything that you do to enhance your chances at being number 255 is strictly off limits.
Seriously, I think that governments should tax casinos to the point where they can BARELY make a profit. It would be like church Bingo run by Donald Trump.
Big corporations tend to attract a different type of leadership than non-profits.
Folks going into large corporations (or startups) are in it for the money. This is what motivates them. You are far more likely to get rotten black hearts once the executive selection process is over with. In fact the more black-hearted someone is, the more vicious they are in destroying their competitions.
Non-profits, by contrast, tend to attract people who are more interested in the mission. Beyond keeping the organization afloat, they generally wouldn't sell them-selves out for extra money. They've already demonstrated their ethics by passing over bigger offers from corporations.
Political types are a mixed bag. Beginners make shit. But the those on top of the food chain have the potential to make major $$$ in high stakes campaign and lobbying (for major corporations).
But still, I'd trust the typical beauracrat more than I trust the typical corporate executive. The beauracrat WILL protect his own turf. The big difference is that he's typically not after EVERYONE ELSE's turf like the corporate executive.
Honestly, I think the leather are probably good for blocking radiation. But I'd be concerned that it would soak up moisture and dust that's radioactive.
I guess that they don't have access to disposable Tyvex suits in the Ukraine. I really didn't have heavy lead suits in mind. Just something light and disposable.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully support the re-processing of spent fuel for MORE nuclear fuel. So long as it doesn't produce even more concentrated and hard to handle nuclear waste.
The question is if the re-processing uses more energy then the new fuel rods generate. Of course the energy and expense of disposing the level 1 fuel has to be taken into account.
I would agree that those who mine Uranium probably have a lobby that resists re-processing fuel. I'll also agree that the lefty-lefty environmentalists are fundamentally opposed to ANY form energy production (even solar (since it uses "toxic chemicals" to manufacture) and wind (since it can kill some birds)).
But please, please, please, include the cost of disposal or re-processing when touting the benefits of nuclear power.
Oh no, not the fucking Columbus analogy again. I'm sure you realize the fallacy of this. You simply choose to ignore it.
The Europeans came upon a land rich with just about everything. It was readily available and easy to harvest. They started turning profits VERY quickly.
So you want to make manufacture shit on the moon???? Globalization isn't enough. You want Solarization. No doubt you've found the magic manufacturing pill that will overcome $700/pound to get things into earth orbit and the likely $20k to $100k required to get things to Luna and Mars.
Fuck, it can take a couple hundreds of millions to tool up a factory. Thats with all the machine tools, metal processing and technicians being readily available. Multiply all that equipment by $20,000 per pound and see what you come up with.
The organization with all the EXPERIENCE (NASA) has sent off $300 mil probes that have simply blinked out on the way to Mars. Yeah, shit goes wrong. That was a small, limited purpose device. Your talking about transferring complete segments of economies out of Earth's gravity well and onto extra-terrestrial bodies. And THEN, shipping them back.
Back to the submariners. Economics will determine the size of crew quarters. Smaller is cheaper. Sure you can dig into the surface of the moon and create sub-terranian domes. Of course, you have to get a TBM up their first. Or will you simply manufacture it on site using your lunar fabrication plant, supplied by your lunar steel/titanium/aluminum mill, supplied by your lunar mining operation that has to process tons of rock to get pounds (or ounces) of usable material. Oh and don't forget the armies of robots to staff all these operations. Fuck, we can barely get a little fucking car to work right on Mars.
Oh, or is that preceeded by lunar concrete plants to build domes from native aggregate and 10mil per bag portland cement shipped from Earth.? Of course, water would be derived from mining a ton of rock for every cup.
Seriously, I don't think YOU need to colonize the Moon or Mars. Your mind obviously already dwells there. Perhaps I have no knowledge of engineering. But it's pretty fucking obvious that you have no appreciation for the level of technical challenges that such an operation would require and the trillions it would suck from our economy.
And WHAT would it return?????? Less pollution on Earth???? Is that AFTER processing a couple billion tons of rocket fuel and 5 forests worth of paper to put factories (and jobs) on an extre-terrestrial planet. Couldn't we just put our existing waste in better containers and save the effort????
Seriously, I think you need to go colonize Antarctica since your so dedicated to your ideals. Antarctica has thousands of times the resources as either of those barren rocks PLUS it has a breatheable atmosphere and abundant water which requires NO MINING!!!!!
Ah yes, I do understand.
The problem is that the "lock box" isn't locked. The money has been looted to pay into the general fund.
Beyond that, Social Security is solvent till 2042. The simple step of uncapping taxable income on social security taxes should push that out quite a bit.
BTW, you do realize that the top 10% control 90% of the assets in this nation, don't you. It's a lot easier to squeeze wealth out of the 90% than the other 10%, even if their are 9 times fewer than "everybody else".
"It's true that it'd take a lot of energy to do anything in space using rockets, but that's not really the idea is it? The idea is that this kind of R&D will produce technologies capable of doing space travel efficiently
Well no, I thought the idea was to accomplish something. We can do plenty of rocket research without involving a single human being piloting in "space monkey" mode.
We are perfectly capable of creating new technology WITHOUT the involvement of space flight.
Perhaps as we develop space travel it will lead to a greater understanding of nature and the universe in general. More over, hopefully it will inspire people to increase their own understanding of the universe.
We spend 3 times as much researching space as we do our own oceans. Paradoxically, our oceans are far more relevant to our health as a species. I have no problem with exploring the universe, but we can do that with telescopes and probes.
Most important of all, perhaps it will allow people to put all their insignificant problems in perspective, and allow people to work together toward a better human society rather than merely squabbling about petty differences.
Ask a Palestinian why he hates a Jew. I'll bet that the lack of manned space flight hardly enters into the equation. These problems may seem petty to you, but they're pretty fucking important to Palestinians and Israelis. Astronauts on the moon won't affect this or any other conflict one bit.
Sadly these are all just the pipe dreams of a foolish young idealist, but I can dream, can't I?"
Feel free to dream. Dreams cost nothing. Saturn V rockets cost billions. Cruising around in orbit is fine, just don't force everbody else half a trillion dollars for a Mars shot.
The idea that Social Security is in trouble is a myth. Social Security collects TWICE as much as it pays out right now.
The reason this is a problem is because the money is being funnelled back into the general budget (the great stealth tax that applies to the lower/middle class).
If you want to fix the federal budget, get rid of all the tax loopholes and force rich folk to pay their taxes (which they are NOT doing right now).
The Shuttle is a launch and recover space station. The shuttle is like driving an RV to the end of your driveway to get the mail.
Nasa's biggest mistake was allowing Skylab to fall from orbit. The "flying washing machines" were far cheaper.
Unfortunately, we're kind of stuck with the shuttle for a while. I definitely think we should scale back the number of missions it does. But it will ALWAYS be needed to do ISS construction and repair missions.
We could probably build a colossus of George Bush that stood twice the size of Lady Liberty. The question is
Similarly, I have no question that we could create a Moon or Mars station. The point is WHY??? What benefit does it provide for society???
Yeah, I know what the benefit would be for YOU. It's cool. Yeah, I think it's kinda cool too. But I realize that it's a LOT of time effort and resources to put into something that does not HELP society.
We have rotting schools, dilapidated hospitals, and people without access to ANY form of healthcare. I would raze the entirety of NASA in return for universal health care and a teacher for every 15 students.
Treating all people in America with true compassion is a lot better than doing something "cool".
A POINT!!!!!!
Beyond the Huzzah and "Climb every mountain" bullshit, you'll find the moon a barren rock. Any resource that can be found their can be found on Earth for 10,000x cheaper.
All the technologies that people bring up "from the moon" seem to all be directed at manned space exploration. "We need to go to the moon at great expense, because THEN we'll be able to go their CHEAPER".
Manned space exploration will feed, clothe, and shelter NO ONE. It will cure NO diseases.
The ONLY people who's input we should consider on extra-terran base/colonization are submariners. That's basically what your life would be like. You'd live in a submarine, expect it would be on the Moon.
Submariners aren't exactly "psyched" to go out on a 6 month cruise under the ocean without access to the outside. Ask a submariner if they'd do that for TWO YEARS straight and see what they'd tell you. Would it really matter if their submarine was going to Mars?????
I for one am glad to see the Chinese wasting money on manned space exploration. It will divert their focus from things that are TRULY important.
If they want to blow half their GDP on a moon-base, I encourage them. That way, I don't have to worry about them building nuclear submarines.
BTW, Europeans are too smart to waste money with manned moon missions.
Sure we could colonize Antarctica. Though it would be prohibitively expensive. Plus, no one would really want to live their permanently. They'd have a TERRIBLE life.
Even with the prohibitive costs associated with colonizing Antarctica, it would be 3 or for orders of magnitude CHEAPER than colonizing either Mars or the Moon.
Of course, Colonizers for Mars and the Moon would face FAR MORE hostile conditions in addition to being millions of miles farther away from re-supply and ESCAPE!!!!!
Antarctica has a breathable atmosphere.
Antarctica has an abundant, readily available supply of water.
Antarctica has native fauna (seals, penguins) that can be eaten.
Antarctica has less WAY less deadly cosmic rays.
The average temperature in Antarctica is actually HIGHER than either Mars OR the Moon. It also experiences less overall fluctuation in temperature.
So by all means, lets colonize Antarctica before we consider an Lunar or Martian effort. It will be cheaper and the fleeing families will be back to better climates much sooner.
Antarctica has the following things that neither mars nor the moon have:
1) Breathable atmosphere.
2) More hospitable climate (cosmic rays)
3) Readily available water just sitting on the surface. No mining required.
4) Seasonal game (penguins and seals).
5) Transportation and refuel costs are about 100,000 times less.
6) A functional airport.
7) Return trip (once people are excessively miserable on a barren (though less barren than the moon and mars) is only about $1000 or so.
The notion of a moon-station or mars mission is just money wasted. Space exploration should be left to life-long career professionals
BTW, if a big asteroid comes to destroy Earth, we can just dig some deep holes and store enough food to last a couple of decades. It would be far cheaper and more reliable than attempting to return barely self-sustaining mars colonists to earth.
They never take into account disposal fees. The energy industry is counting on Uncle Sam to build them a free disposal facility in Yucca Mountain. The Nuclear power would be about as free as the roads I drive on. Taxpayers (not rate-payers) flip the bill.
I'm not a tree hugger. But I do realize that Nuclear power still has a HUGE disposal problem. ALL the energy from EVERY plant in the US has yet to find a final resting place. Even the Yucca mountain proposal still has some possibility for contamination.
We need to find a way to bottle that re-process the fuel and imprison the stuff in solid inert mixtures. Either that, or find create disposal units that drill one way trips down past the earth's crust into hot/squishy rock layers.
Until then, nucular power is still risky until they deliver on the ultra-sonic fusion concepts.
Right now, the display is the big power consumer in portable devices. The processors have been tuned to use minimal power.
The Scion 5Mx has a B/W LCD screen. How long do the batteries last when the backlight is on????
When OLED comes to laptops, that will significantly increase battery time.
If Microsoft had a monopoly on the console market, it would. They would simply outrageous royalties on X-Box games.
You wouldn't get the box at Best-Buy. You'd get it from the "Microsoft Store". Or from mail-order. One per household.
I too believe that scenario is highly unlikely. But if Microsoft could control the software, it's possible.
Microsoft DOES sell X-Box AND Human Interface Devices. They're certainly not giving THOSE away. Though if Microsoft could get enough royalties of games, I could see them giving X-Box away.
In the future, my desktop will cost $20 and my Intellimouse will cost $200. Go figure
Wow another great prediction from the anti-psychic Bill Gates.
Sorry Bill, but software is far more replicable than hardware. It's the SOFTWARE that is becoming more free as we go along.
As far as visual goes, I don't think that's correct. He's envisioning a workflow type application for controlling logic. Diagramming most code is far more difficult then simply writing it. 4GL is a pipe dream.
I DO believe that future programmers will be more like carpenters. High levels of modularity will make custom software construction as practical as cutting and nailing/gluing/screwing together the components down at Home Depot. Programs that ARE sold will be far more extensible (plugin enabled) with managed code.
The future of software is changing. As usual, Gates doesn't have a clue. He was right about ONE thing 30 years ago. He swindled the owners of Q-DOS and IBM. He's been riding that ever since.
Sorry to be a smart ass, but that problem has already been solved.
3 in 1 pda car charger
It's my dream to see wind farms on the great lakes chugging out zero maintenance power for the midwest. The coasts would put theirs in the ocean (of course).
Of course, EVERY house would be equipped with grid inter-tie and solar panels that would help power the air conditioner during peak energy usage (when it's brightest and hottest).
but how many people do you see deliberately going out in a thunder storm?
That's because they don't want to get wet. People don't take cover during dry lightning. Neither do I. I just stay away from flagpoles.
Yes, I do.
In addition to losing your money at the Casino, you also lose the opportunity to invest it at a 4-10% return (depending on the security). Once you factor that in, the small potential for victory in a few games (blackjack and roulette) are completely lost.
Regarding Poker. You can't win vs the house over any period of time. You can only win vs fellow players. Reason???? The house takes a cut off every pot. So why bother using the Casino when you can use private poker games or poker tournaments?????
Finally, if you think that Casinos are such an "opportunity", I suggest you go become a professional gambler vs the Casinos. The odds are ALL rigged against you. Most pro gamblers lead a hand to mouth existence. It's really not a choice. The one's you quote are simply the survivors.
In other words, if a plague hits a village and there is a 20% survival rate, that doesn't mean the plague is "not so bad".
They should concentrate on laptop battery replacement plugins. These don't require anyone to buy into your "platform". It's especially relevant since people end up replacing laptop batteries every year or two anyways. Why not offer a long-life alternative.
Two other good near term applications (things with HUGE batteries)
* Portable power tools
* Radio controlled toys.
* Small electric vehicles (golf carts, pickers)
* Mobile printers
* Mobile speakers
* Headlamps (caving lamps, like Petzl makes)
Future Military applications
* Radio Communicators (walkie-talkies) (the military would love this one)
* Air conditioned "jackets"
etc...
We're still a few years off from a REAL PDA powered by fuel cell. When they do. I hope they don't try to make "methonal only" power systems to pad their bottom lines. Proper fuel-cell systems will be half battery, half fuel cell. People should still be able to get half their juice from the grid and failover to fuel-cell when that fails.
Casino games are about handing your money over to the Casino. They are taxes for people who are bad at math.
Anything that would interfere with the Casino's ability to suck all your money away is illegal. The Casinos employ VERY large men with guns to make it so.
The occasional rube who wins is 100% acceptable. They'll post the persons picture and make a big deal so the 254 out 255 people get a distorted view of their chances of winning. But anything that you do to enhance your chances at being number 255 is strictly off limits.
Seriously, I think that governments should tax casinos to the point where they can BARELY make a profit. It would be like church Bingo run by Donald Trump.
Big corporations tend to attract a different type of leadership than non-profits.
Folks going into large corporations (or startups) are in it for the money. This is what motivates them. You are far more likely to get rotten black hearts once the executive selection process is over with. In fact the more black-hearted someone is, the more vicious they are in destroying their competitions.
Non-profits, by contrast, tend to attract people who are more interested in the mission. Beyond keeping the organization afloat, they generally wouldn't sell them-selves out for extra money. They've already demonstrated their ethics by passing over bigger offers from corporations.
Political types are a mixed bag. Beginners make shit. But the those on top of the food chain have the potential to make major $$$ in high stakes campaign and lobbying (for major corporations).
But still, I'd trust the typical beauracrat more than I trust the typical corporate executive. The beauracrat WILL protect his own turf. The big difference is that he's typically not after EVERYONE ELSE's turf like the corporate executive.
Honestly, I think the leather are probably good for blocking radiation. But I'd be concerned that it would soak up moisture and dust that's radioactive.
I guess that they don't have access to disposable Tyvex suits in the Ukraine. I really didn't have heavy lead suits in mind. Just something light and disposable.
And I bet that nature is thriving in that area.
Interesting that the holdouts may end up commanding serious mineral rights fees from the Mining company over the Anthracite.