Perhaps, but taking that to the next logical point, you switch to electric cars and filter at the power plant smokestack.
It's going to be a whole lot easier to implement one big filter than 10 million individual filters driving around in all sorts of weather and salt conditions.
Well thank you Einstein...now they will try that!;-)~ Seriously though, patents already exist for genes/DNA/etc. I don't see it being too far a stretch to say that patenting an organization is that big a stretch...
The reason to harvest the CO2 is that while it's in the atmosphere at current levels (let alone another 100 years worth of emissions) it's going to cause us problems. Pull it out of the atmosphere and do something useful with it is the only solution that will turn things around.
That said, reducing current emissions is the first step. Harvesting existing CO2 is probably step 10 or 11 down that path.
It's not that people don't pay income taxes at some point in time, it's that they don't make enough to qualify to pay 'income taxes'. They do however pay plenty of sales tax, gas tax, etc.
The GOP canard is using the 49% non-income tax payers to make people *think* that 49% pay NO tax...which is patently false.
Because they didn't make any money above federal poverty rates....but hey, don't let details get in the way of a perfectly overused irrelevant statistic.
the top 1% paid 40%
When they account for 50%+ of the income, the should be paying *more* taxes, not less.
I do agree with you about sports needing to be streamed live. It's a money cow waiting to be milked.
They said the same thing about putting sports on live TV initially. Until someone invented the VCR/DVR which meant you don't have to watch it 'live' and so can skip commercials thus killing the 'money cow'.
I sometimes enjoy watching a big boxing match but I'm not shelling out 50 bucks for a 5 minute knockout. I also know that it will be on youtube and other places very shortly after airing.
Streaming today is simply live TV before the VCR. It will eventually be recorded at the destination and able to be replayed (or restreamed!).
Ambulances/Firetrucks are still sent out and that person is still sent to the hospital for life threatening issues. That cost is billed to said customer who I will assert won't be able to pay the ridiculous bills.
You and I end up paying for that through higher insurance premiums. So yes people get 'hurt' by someone not wearing their seat belt.
I saw Avatar in 3D and literally didn't see anything useful in using that medium over regular 2D. I would assume they pulled out most of the stops on something that big to make 3D work.
Perhaps when it evolves into something that is 'actually' 3D and not 'simulated' 3D they will have something, but until then it is not and never has been '3D'. You can't change your perspective to look at an object from a different direction like you can in actual 3D life.
Mine effectively is...sorta anyway. Big bad Bank of America has a 'ShopSafe' program where I can get a randomly generated card/ccv/exp set with a fixed limit that I choose. Even has a $x/month recurring charge option for say, Netflix or other subscription services.
I give that random number out to merchants so if things are hacked, they only have on average a $50 limit to work with. Not $50 limit to my liability, but a fixed limit on that card number's chargeable amount.
And my cc number never leaves my pocket. If some vendor gets hacked, the exposed number is simply shut down and I don't have to then go change numbers at 14 other merchants.
My 2 factor is something I 'know', my password, and something I 'have' the generated number. It's not exact as the 'have' can be determined if they get the 'know', but it is two separate pieces of data. Though if followed through to the extreme (which I don't) and if this card was never used at retail places then the 'have' would be the ccv number which I need to enter to generate the random cc num.
I really don't like BofA, but I haven't found anyone else with this type of online payment random card number ability.
You might be surprised that there is still a restriction in Germany on eating wild boars because of Chernobyl.
Hundreds of miles away, 25 years later. They don't reclaim stuff to the point of being able to consume the produced goods quickly enough to support a planet when the arable land area starts changing by the decade.
I'm not interested in filling MY lifeboat until it sinks.
Very true. How about when your lifeboat is no longer 'adaptable' to the new environment? Hopefully the other people aren't quite as 'me first' as you are. It's called compassion...
Because, just maybe, the VAST bulk of today's plant aren't passive cooled? What ifs are great, but the here and now is not passively cooled reactors.
Actually, it is mostly due to fears of proliferation and terrorism
Sources? My understanding is that breeder reactors are the sort used for proliferation...and we precisely didn't use them for that reason. As for terrorism, that wasn't a serious concern when most of these were being built.
They cost a lot because it would be B.A.D. if they were allowed to be as shoddy as regular coal plants. The fact that they are so well engineered has made a generation of people think it's safe. Much like the Space Shuttles were thought to be quite safe until just a few years ago....
That is why it is better to build a passively safe reactor that cannot melt down.
Nice concept and I agree. Now back to the reality of our situation today...
As you say, the 'good' solutions are massively expensive - expressly because of the risks involved in nuclear.
Not sure about that. If that is true, the safer designs should be cheaper, because they are safer and pose less risk. No, the reason it is expensive is because it is complicated technology that is highly regulated (rightly so).
Ask yourself *why* it is highly regulated? Perhaps because of the risks of it not being 'safe'?
Nuclear simply always will have massive risks. It gave us bombs for the cold war and energy to boot. It helps offset global warming...at least somewhat. But the risks are always there waiting for something unplanned to expose them.
If nuclear goes boom you're potential failure area pretty quickly becomes fatalities. Simply because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't plausible.
Coal mine deaths are part of operational deaths. It's a planned activity.
Someone posted a link to a peer reviewed study showing 10+K deaths in the US due to Fukushima based on year to year deaths. Certainly makes you question just how effective our 'safeguards' are.
As far as 'good' solutions go. Fukushima was considered 'safe' prior to this disaster. Anything you say is 'safe' today will be proven unsafe at some point. Given corporate/political pressures to extend the lives of these plants, they will be run well past the point they should be shut down.
As you say, the 'good' solutions are massively expensive - expressly because of the risks involved in nuclear.
Oh goody, we're taking data from Earthlink.net accounts now?;-) The data is from the 50s. That said Bruce Hoglund seems to be at least reasonably knowledgeable on the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but taking that to the next logical point, you switch to electric cars and filter at the power plant smokestack.
It's going to be a whole lot easier to implement one big filter than 10 million individual filters driving around in all sorts of weather and salt conditions.
Trees brought about a whole new eco system and cloud layer.
Last I checked, clouds were generally considered part of the atmosphere and as such not 'absorbed' by the planet ;-)
They don't have a patent on trees, dammit!
Well thank you Einstein...now they will try that! ;-)~ Seriously though, patents already exist for genes/DNA/etc. I don't see it being too far a stretch to say that patenting an organization is that big a stretch...
The reason to harvest the CO2 is that while it's in the atmosphere at current levels (let alone another 100 years worth of emissions) it's going to cause us problems. Pull it out of the atmosphere and do something useful with it is the only solution that will turn things around.
That said, reducing current emissions is the first step. Harvesting existing CO2 is probably step 10 or 11 down that path.
but giving NO benefit to people who use 50MB a month
FALSE! They're getting a free cap! ;-)~
I'm glad they're doing it so frigging badly then.
Consume at too big a rate? We'll just stop you from consuming at all. Until next month when you probably do the same thing.
Likewise, we'll impose caps so low that they affect 95% of users just so we can claim we're stopping the 1%.
Brilliant! (if viewed through monopoly supplied monocle)
It's not that people don't pay income taxes at some point in time, it's that they don't make enough to qualify to pay 'income taxes'. They do however pay plenty of sales tax, gas tax, etc.
The GOP canard is using the 49% non-income tax payers to make people *think* that 49% pay NO tax...which is patently false.
49% don't actually pay income tax
Because they didn't make any money above federal poverty rates....but hey, don't let details get in the way of a perfectly overused irrelevant statistic.
the top 1% paid 40%
When they account for 50%+ of the income, the should be paying *more* taxes, not less.
I do agree with you about sports needing to be streamed live. It's a money cow waiting to be milked.
They said the same thing about putting sports on live TV initially. Until someone invented the VCR/DVR which meant you don't have to watch it 'live' and so can skip commercials thus killing the 'money cow'.
I sometimes enjoy watching a big boxing match but I'm not shelling out 50 bucks for a 5 minute knockout. I also know that it will be on youtube and other places very shortly after airing.
Streaming today is simply live TV before the VCR. It will eventually be recorded at the destination and able to be replayed (or restreamed!).
Ambulances/Firetrucks are still sent out and that person is still sent to the hospital for life threatening issues. That cost is billed to said customer who I will assert won't be able to pay the ridiculous bills.
You and I end up paying for that through higher insurance premiums. So yes people get 'hurt' by someone not wearing their seat belt.
I saw Avatar in 3D and literally didn't see anything useful in using that medium over regular 2D. I would assume they pulled out most of the stops on something that big to make 3D work.
Perhaps when it evolves into something that is 'actually' 3D and not 'simulated' 3D they will have something, but until then it is not and never has been '3D'. You can't change your perspective to look at an object from a different direction like you can in actual 3D life.
Mine effectively is...sorta anyway. Big bad Bank of America has a 'ShopSafe' program where I can get a randomly generated card/ccv/exp set with a fixed limit that I choose. Even has a $x/month recurring charge option for say, Netflix or other subscription services.
I give that random number out to merchants so if things are hacked, they only have on average a $50 limit to work with. Not $50 limit to my liability, but a fixed limit on that card number's chargeable amount.
And my cc number never leaves my pocket. If some vendor gets hacked, the exposed number is simply shut down and I don't have to then go change numbers at 14 other merchants.
My 2 factor is something I 'know', my password, and something I 'have' the generated number. It's not exact as the 'have' can be determined if they get the 'know', but it is two separate pieces of data. Though if followed through to the extreme (which I don't) and if this card was never used at retail places then the 'have' would be the ccv number which I need to enter to generate the random cc num.
I really don't like BofA, but I haven't found anyone else with this type of online payment random card number ability.
don't criticize someone for pointing out where the limit is
You mention compassion when possible. yet the original poster had none.
I'll point out he's an ass all day long and be perfectly justified.
That would be because of "even small amounts of radiation are unhealthy" hypothesis. It has been rebuked many times in science
Bullshit. Sources? And then prove that the levels seen in Germany are below 'normal' levels.
You might be surprised that there is still a restriction in Germany on eating wild boars because of Chernobyl.
Hundreds of miles away, 25 years later. They don't reclaim stuff to the point of being able to consume the produced goods quickly enough to support a planet when the arable land area starts changing by the decade.
1. Corp polluted, over-fished production area
2. Take it back from Corp.
3. ????
4. Eat?
If it's already wasted/squandered/polluted, taking it back isn't exactly useful.
Look to the Gulf for examples. Or perhaps that Russia that's leaking a BP Gulf spill every 2 months...
Except that the corporations polluted, over-fished or otherwise mismanaged it...so it no longer produces enough to sustain.
I'm not interested in filling MY lifeboat until it sinks.
Very true. How about when your lifeboat is no longer 'adaptable' to the new environment? Hopefully the other people aren't quite as 'me first' as you are. It's called compassion...
adapt or die
It's nice being cavalier with peoples lives. Best hope they aren't so cavalier with yours when yours is on the line...
Why do you think that is not the reality of today
Because, just maybe, the VAST bulk of today's plant aren't passive cooled? What ifs are great, but the here and now is not passively cooled reactors.
Actually, it is mostly due to fears of proliferation and terrorism
Sources? My understanding is that breeder reactors are the sort used for proliferation...and we precisely didn't use them for that reason. As for terrorism, that wasn't a serious concern when most of these were being built.
They cost a lot because it would be B.A.D. if they were allowed to be as shoddy as regular coal plants. The fact that they are so well engineered has made a generation of people think it's safe. Much like the Space Shuttles were thought to be quite safe until just a few years ago....
At best men get 2MB. Women can do 4MB if it's cold out.
;-)
Besides it was a man who said "640K ought to be enough for anybody". Compensation anyone?
On the upside perhaps he needs the tax write-off before 12/31? sigh...
That is why it is better to build a passively safe reactor that cannot melt down.
Nice concept and I agree. Now back to the reality of our situation today...
As you say, the 'good' solutions are massively expensive - expressly because of the risks involved in nuclear.
Not sure about that. If that is true, the safer designs should be cheaper, because they are safer and pose less risk. No, the reason it is expensive is because it is complicated technology that is highly regulated (rightly so).
Ask yourself *why* it is highly regulated? Perhaps because of the risks of it not being 'safe'?
Nuclear simply always will have massive risks. It gave us bombs for the cold war and energy to boot. It helps offset global warming...at least somewhat. But the risks are always there waiting for something unplanned to expose them.
If nuclear goes boom you're potential failure area pretty quickly becomes fatalities. Simply because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it isn't plausible.
Coal mine deaths are part of operational deaths. It's a planned activity.
Someone posted a link to a peer reviewed study showing 10+K deaths in the US due to Fukushima based on year to year deaths. Certainly makes you question just how effective our 'safeguards' are.
As far as 'good' solutions go. Fukushima was considered 'safe' prior to this disaster. Anything you say is 'safe' today will be proven unsafe at some point. Given corporate/political pressures to extend the lives of these plants, they will be run well past the point they should be shut down.
As you say, the 'good' solutions are massively expensive - expressly because of the risks involved in nuclear.
This site is a reference for mainly energy-related, molten salt technologies, and will ultimately replace the web site: http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/index.html
Oh goody, we're taking data from Earthlink.net accounts now? ;-) The data is from the 50s. That said Bruce Hoglund seems to be at least reasonably knowledgeable on the topic.