This has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth.
No, it doesn't. Those 13 people at Instagram made out like bandits, true...but what are they going to do with that money? They're going to (a) invest it and (b) spend it. If they invest it, other businesses will benefit from it, which in turn will benefit their employees. If they spend it, whoever produces the goods and/or services they spend it on will benefit.
Using Kodak is a very poor example. Kodak had every possible opportunity to capitalize on the digital age. Instead, they felt threatened by it to the point of shunning it until it was too late. Same goes for Blockbuster vs. Netflix. Technology will always march on, and those who don't adapt will always be swept to the wayside by it...and those who do adapt will always prosper in the new order. It's been this way since the first machine put the skilled laborer out of a job. Just because we've got an Internet now doesn't mean this is going to stop. It can't be stopped without stopping progress altogether.
All they did was do a good, useful job, maybe raise a family, contribute to making a good community - in short, all the stuff we'd like Americans to do - and they're priced out through no fault of theirs.
And as they get "priced out" of the market, they will leave their job, either for a higher-wage job in another field or for a similar wage job in a different locale. And the supply of talent for your hypothetical service tech will fall...and the salaries for these techs will rise as demand outstrips supply...and things will balance again in a while.
Left alone to itself, without onerous regulation or price fixing, the free market will *always* establish a new equilibrium when these fluctuations happen. We fuck things up when we try to "fix" something that isn't broken in the first place. Artificial wage controls. Rent controls. They all create more problems than they solve, and all are unsustainable in the long term.
So the *signature* piece of Obama's second term agenda -- the legislation he's harped on loudly and constantly -- launches with an epic fail. The contractors working the site were sounding alarms well in advance of the launch. And yet Obama is somehow utterly unaware that the launch could be anything but a total success? I call bullshit. Either Obama is the most disconnected president in recent history when it comes to the success of his *core legislative agenda* or he's just bullshitting about not knowing there were issues on launch day.
...this kind of government idiocy, ineptitude, and invasion of privacy is exactly the same kind of crap we're inviting into our healthcare system. TSA, NSA, DMV...ACA. Yeah, gimme more of that fucked up shit.
...but good luck finding another sucker willing to take his place. The USS Blackberry has been sinking for a long time now. Nothing and nobody is going to save it. Whoever takes the helm at this point will preside over the dissolution of the company, not its revival.
...armed gunman opens fire on unarmed targets, and the logical response is to request that his targets be allowed to arm themselves to fend off future attacks of a similar nature. Remind me again why it's practically impossible for me to purchase a handgun to defend myself in California?
You understand that you're opening the door for a horror show of atrocities with your "no permanent damage" qualification, right?
As opposed to the door already open for atrocities *with* permanent damage, yes, I understand that fully. I choose the non-permanent damage, thanks very much. As an analogy, which would you rather have happen to you: get shot or get tasered? I can assure you, the former is much more painful and damaging than the latter.
Since I've never demonstrated the ability or desire to do any such thing, the likelihood of this scenario coming to pass is so ridiculously tiny as to relegate your point to Reductio ad absurdum. The people we are waterboarding, on the other hand, have demonstrated both the desire and the ability to do us harm. Indeed, many of those we've released from Gitmo have been recaptured later doing exactly the same kind of stuff they swore they'd never do as a condition of their release. You've never experienced the fanatical hatred these "people" have for those who don't share their ideology. They'd kill you, right now, not even knowing you, your views, or anything else about you other than the fact that you're not "one of them."
You think it's A-OK to deliberately put someone in that condition?
Yes. I do. Because the people subjected to this stuff aren't just random civilains snatched off the street for the fun of it. They're hardened, zealous, fanatical psychopaths who want all of us dead and our way of life destroyed. Perhaps you can't conceive of that kind of evil residing in a person. I can, due to bitter experience. You sit in pious judgement yet you've never been there, in that situation, where stark contrasts between "good" and "bad" are clearly evident.
I will admit there are methods of information extraction that are more reliable than waterboarding. However, many of them require one thing usually in short supply: time.
Here's a thought experiment for you to consider:
Think of the person (or people) most dear to you in your life. They are kidnapped. You managed to capture the kidnapper yourself only to find out that those dearest to you will die in a matter of hours unless you can extract their location and have them rescued. The kidnapper is zealous, resolute, unyielding. None of the "more effective" means of information extraction are available in the short time you have before your loved ones are killed. Do you (a) do nothing, and let them die, or (b) use whatever means available to you -- including waterboarding -- to attempt information extraction?
I challenge anyone to realistically choose option (a). The partisans in this argument will blithely say they'd choose the moral high ground, but in reality they would not. If lives are at stake -- lives that mean something to you -- you do whatever you have to do to save them, morals be damned.
"Doing X is better than doing Y" is not a justification for doing X.
You have the luxury of living in a world where people's lives don't hang in the balance. It's all fine well and good to sit in judgement when you're safe and secure at home or at work. When you have people who are willing to eviscerate you and your friends just because you don't bow to their religion or ideology, people who are more than willing to sacrifice themselves and any number of innocents around them to further their agenda, you cannot maintain the mindset you have now. If you do, you get killed. I'm sorry to say it, but you're just too naive about how the real world works.
This old chestnut again? When are people going to stop comparing the US -- a vast geographic area with large areas of low population density -- with Europe? Or Korea for that matter? It costs more because larger areas need coverage compared to European counterparts. It costs more because rural areas get artificially-low costs because they're subsidized by urban areas with artificially-high costs.
Speaking as a former Marine who *has* been waterboarded (as an exercise, not as part of an interrogation) I can say it's a thoroughly terrifying ordeal. It's probably the scariest experience I've ever had during my entire time in the Corps despite the fact that I *knew* no permanent harm was being done to me. And that's exactly why I support it. Fully. Without any reservations whatsoever. Terrifying someone's mind into complying with interrogation is orders of magnitude better than, say, ripping out fingernails, branding with hot irons, or other things that permanently damage and cripple the subject, don't you think?
And don't give me any crap about how we should just leave these people alone and they'll leave us alone. The world's too small and our ideologies are too diametrically opposed for that. Britain, France, and the U.S. tried leaving Nazi Germany alone and that didn't work out so well in the end.
Orbital physics where totally ignored in favor of the dramatic effect and a number of the activities done by the characters are/where totally impossible.
So the story you would've preferred would've gone like this:
1. Gorgeous 15-minute opening montage of HST repair mission being interrupted by debris disaster. 2. Clooney & Bullock survive only to die slowly of asphyxiation for the next hour or two when their air runs out. 3. The end.
1. Satellite orbits are offset, because of launch details, and precisely so that the ridiculous snowball effect does not occur... but the movie needs a problem, so these old reliable villains the Russians oblige by forgetting what space agencies have known for at least half a century.
Actually, I recall an article on this very subject some months ago that it's a real possibility NASA has (and continues to) study. The theory posits that one (or perhaps a very few) satellite could get shredded, the debris from which collides with other satellites which get shredded, and so forth until the debris field is vast enough to be a threat to anything orbiting at or near the same altitude and inclination. You don't even need "head on" collision speeds. When you're whipping around the Earth at 18,000mph, even minor differences in speed of a few 100mph are enough to do major damage.
And while satellite orbits are indeed offset to prevent collisions, this does nothing to protect against a satellite that might make some uncontrolled changes in its orbit (thruster stuck on, explosive venting, etc.) or which is acted on by an external force (shot down by an anti-satellite weapon).
2. Debris would not be completing their orbit nearly as quickly, but the movie needs a recurring danger, so they do.
The movie depicts the debris orbiting every 90 minutes. The ISS orbits every 90 minutes. NASA.gov confirms this, or would if the website wasn't shut down. So this isn't an error in the movie.
Interestingly, we're not told the relative speed and orbit of the debris field. It's clear it's moving at high speed relative to the Shuttle, ISS, and so forth If it where truly a head-on scenario, the debris would have a cumulative closing speed of 36,000mph and our survivors would encounter it every 45 minutes instead of every 90. My guess is the debris is orbiting a couple thousand miles faster -- or perhaps even slower -- than the survivors, given a relative orbital period encounter every 90 minutes. This does bring up the inconvenient issue of how something orbiting at a different speed can stay at the same altitude for at least three orbits, but as I said elsewhere, the director admitted liberties were taken with orbital mechanics.
3. The orbits of the installations in the movie are nowhere close to each other, but the movie needs to visit interesting places, so the actors travel ridiculous distances and match speeds unattainable with what they have.
This part you got right. The director is on record saying liberties were taken with respect to orbital mechanics in order to provide Clooney and Bullock a way to survive the destruction of their mission. Reality would've been a bit more cruel and left no way for them to seek safety after the destruction of their Shuttle.
4. Once Clooney is hanging off Bullocks, they have stopped relative to the station, which means they have achieved orbital speed, but the movie needs a heroic sacrifice, so...
Another gaffe you got right. I noticed this immediately when watching. Clooney should've bounced back towards the station after the slack in the tether and the parachute lines had been taken up. There was no force acting on him to pull him away, so he shouldn't have been lost.
...these are the same assclowns everyone wants to trust their healthcare insurance to when they claim they'll cover more conditions, add in pre-existing conditions, add tens of millions of people to the list of insured, won't hire any new doctors, quality of service will go up, and prices will go down? Yeah, right. And Social Security will still be solvent by the time I reach retirement age.
It's time we quit buying the bridges these idiots keep selling us.
To be fair, this issue could easily affect any sizable power plant, nuclear or fossil. Giant coal-fired boilers also typically use nearby bodies of water to cool their condensers, same as a nuclear plant. The sensationalist "threat to nuclear plant" bit in the title is a bit overmuch.
Not sure how this is "damning". I'd have thought it would prove the principle that the optimizations aren't app specific.
What am I missing?
It's not app-specific, it's app *name* specific. It's analogous to the Quake/Quack benchmark scandal years (OMG, more than a decade...time flies) ago. Samsung wrote this boosting protocol to enable itself when running benchmarks and *only* when running benchmarks. There is no legitimate way to invoke it, so no user will ever see the benefit of it when running any app *other than* the benchmark itself.
For the inevitable car analogy: you take a Samsung car for a test drive, and when you floor it you feel 200hp worth of acceleration. Since the car is identical in almost every other aspect to competing HTC cars and Motorola cars (same price, similar trim, same engine) but they only make you feel about 150hp worth of acceleration, you opt for the Samsung car. Only when you drive it off the lot, you only feel 150hp worth of acceleration. You take it back to the dealer thinking something's wrong only to be informed the car will only give you 200hp when in "test drive by prospective customer" mode, and now that you've bought the car you're no longer in that category and cannot invoke it.
once they shred it to little bits and "diluted" it with non-radio active materials.
Once you "dilute" materials as you describe, they can pass the detectors with little chance of being detected. And if the radioactivity is that low after being "diluted" then by definition it's low enough to be of negligible danger to any consumer product it might make its way into.
It's also worth noting that in the above post citing elevator buttons and belt buckles, neither item emitted enough radiation to be dangerous. In each case, the dose was so low as to be negligible. People need to keep in mind they're exposed to radiation *everywhere*, *everyday*. You get around 3mSV annually just from background sources and nobody is screaming about that, yet here we are worrying about an elevator button that *might* expose you to 1mSV if you licked it every single day for a year.
Your example is so ridiculous I'm tempted to ignore it, but perhaps you can benefit from a little criticism here. The incident you cite has nothing to do with recycling irradiated metals into consumer products. A derelict hospital was broken into by thieves who stole a container of radioactive material that had been *illegally* abandoned. This in no way backs up your assertion that "lots of radioactive steel parts end up in the scrap line for being smelted for new cars and stuff." It doesn't even come close. It's not even in the same general area, Hell it's not even in the same *galaxy* of reason as your original assertion. So, you fail. Epic fail. Public Epic Fail at that.
That has nothing to do with Carter. Breeder reactors are notoriously difficult to operate. I know only one commercial breeding reactor that is still operational and it was built in the USSR.
Perhaps you're unaware of the concepts of cause and effect. Had breeder reactor technology been pursued vigorously *then* it would be much less difficult to operate *now*. Besides, dealing with the waste products from light water reactors is also "notoriously difficult" in case you hadn't noticed. I'd rather deal with the "difficult" option that produces power rather than instead of the one that produces a hundred thousand years worth of dangerous radioactivity.
Slashdot Mirror
This has the net effect of centralizing wealth and limiting overall economic growth.
No, it doesn't. Those 13 people at Instagram made out like bandits, true...but what are they going to do with that money? They're going to (a) invest it and (b) spend it. If they invest it, other businesses will benefit from it, which in turn will benefit their employees. If they spend it, whoever produces the goods and/or services they spend it on will benefit.
Using Kodak is a very poor example. Kodak had every possible opportunity to capitalize on the digital age. Instead, they felt threatened by it to the point of shunning it until it was too late. Same goes for Blockbuster vs. Netflix. Technology will always march on, and those who don't adapt will always be swept to the wayside by it...and those who do adapt will always prosper in the new order. It's been this way since the first machine put the skilled laborer out of a job. Just because we've got an Internet now doesn't mean this is going to stop. It can't be stopped without stopping progress altogether.
All they did was do a good, useful job, maybe raise a family, contribute to making a good community - in short, all the stuff we'd like Americans to do - and they're priced out through no fault of theirs.
And as they get "priced out" of the market, they will leave their job, either for a higher-wage job in another field or for a similar wage job in a different locale. And the supply of talent for your hypothetical service tech will fall...and the salaries for these techs will rise as demand outstrips supply...and things will balance again in a while.
Left alone to itself, without onerous regulation or price fixing, the free market will *always* establish a new equilibrium when these fluctuations happen. We fuck things up when we try to "fix" something that isn't broken in the first place. Artificial wage controls. Rent controls. They all create more problems than they solve, and all are unsustainable in the long term.
to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions
All the more reason to use it! Remind me again why the government needs to know what I, as a free, law-abiding citizen, do with my finances.
So the *signature* piece of Obama's second term agenda -- the legislation he's harped on loudly and constantly -- launches with an epic fail. The contractors working the site were sounding alarms well in advance of the launch. And yet Obama is somehow utterly unaware that the launch could be anything but a total success? I call bullshit. Either Obama is the most disconnected president in recent history when it comes to the success of his *core legislative agenda* or he's just bullshitting about not knowing there were issues on launch day.
Just ask Pelosi: they had to launch the website so they could find out what would crash it.
...this kind of government idiocy, ineptitude, and invasion of privacy is exactly the same kind of crap we're inviting into our healthcare system. TSA, NSA, DMV...ACA. Yeah, gimme more of that fucked up shit.
...but good luck finding another sucker willing to take his place. The USS Blackberry has been sinking for a long time now. Nothing and nobody is going to save it. Whoever takes the helm at this point will preside over the dissolution of the company, not its revival.
...armed gunman opens fire on unarmed targets, and the logical response is to request that his targets be allowed to arm themselves to fend off future attacks of a similar nature. Remind me again why it's practically impossible for me to purchase a handgun to defend myself in California?
You understand that you're opening the door for a horror show of atrocities with your "no permanent damage" qualification, right?
As opposed to the door already open for atrocities *with* permanent damage, yes, I understand that fully. I choose the non-permanent damage, thanks very much. As an analogy, which would you rather have happen to you: get shot or get tasered? I can assure you, the former is much more painful and damaging than the latter.
Wait, you think it is appropriate to induce terror in a man who has not been convicted of any crime?
When we capture a guy carrying an IED, that's as "convicted" as it needs to be, whether he's killed anyone with it yet or not.
Since I've never demonstrated the ability or desire to do any such thing, the likelihood of this scenario coming to pass is so ridiculously tiny as to relegate your point to Reductio ad absurdum. The people we are waterboarding, on the other hand, have demonstrated both the desire and the ability to do us harm. Indeed, many of those we've released from Gitmo have been recaptured later doing exactly the same kind of stuff they swore they'd never do as a condition of their release. You've never experienced the fanatical hatred these "people" have for those who don't share their ideology. They'd kill you, right now, not even knowing you, your views, or anything else about you other than the fact that you're not "one of them."
Traditional methods are indeed more effective...assuming you have the time and facilities and manpower to use them. That isn't always an option.
You think it's A-OK to deliberately put someone in that condition?
Yes. I do. Because the people subjected to this stuff aren't just random civilains snatched off the street for the fun of it. They're hardened, zealous, fanatical psychopaths who want all of us dead and our way of life destroyed. Perhaps you can't conceive of that kind of evil residing in a person. I can, due to bitter experience. You sit in pious judgement yet you've never been there, in that situation, where stark contrasts between "good" and "bad" are clearly evident.
It's not a means of information extraction.
I will admit there are methods of information extraction that are more reliable than waterboarding. However, many of them require one thing usually in short supply: time.
Here's a thought experiment for you to consider:
Think of the person (or people) most dear to you in your life. They are kidnapped. You managed to capture the kidnapper yourself only to find out that those dearest to you will die in a matter of hours unless you can extract their location and have them rescued. The kidnapper is zealous, resolute, unyielding. None of the "more effective" means of information extraction are available in the short time you have before your loved ones are killed. Do you (a) do nothing, and let them die, or (b) use whatever means available to you -- including waterboarding -- to attempt information extraction?
I challenge anyone to realistically choose option (a). The partisans in this argument will blithely say they'd choose the moral high ground, but in reality they would not. If lives are at stake -- lives that mean something to you -- you do whatever you have to do to save them, morals be damned.
"Doing X is better than doing Y" is not a justification for doing X.
You have the luxury of living in a world where people's lives don't hang in the balance. It's all fine well and good to sit in judgement when you're safe and secure at home or at work. When you have people who are willing to eviscerate you and your friends just because you don't bow to their religion or ideology, people who are more than willing to sacrifice themselves and any number of innocents around them to further their agenda, you cannot maintain the mindset you have now. If you do, you get killed. I'm sorry to say it, but you're just too naive about how the real world works.
This old chestnut again? When are people going to stop comparing the US -- a vast geographic area with large areas of low population density -- with Europe? Or Korea for that matter? It costs more because larger areas need coverage compared to European counterparts. It costs more because rural areas get artificially-low costs because they're subsidized by urban areas with artificially-high costs.
Speaking as a former Marine who *has* been waterboarded (as an exercise, not as part of an interrogation) I can say it's a thoroughly terrifying ordeal. It's probably the scariest experience I've ever had during my entire time in the Corps despite the fact that I *knew* no permanent harm was being done to me. And that's exactly why I support it. Fully. Without any reservations whatsoever. Terrifying someone's mind into complying with interrogation is orders of magnitude better than, say, ripping out fingernails, branding with hot irons, or other things that permanently damage and cripple the subject, don't you think?
And don't give me any crap about how we should just leave these people alone and they'll leave us alone. The world's too small and our ideologies are too diametrically opposed for that. Britain, France, and the U.S. tried leaving Nazi Germany alone and that didn't work out so well in the end.
Orbital physics where totally ignored in favor of the dramatic effect and a number of the activities done by the characters are/where totally impossible.
So the story you would've preferred would've gone like this:
1. Gorgeous 15-minute opening montage of HST repair mission being interrupted by debris disaster.
2. Clooney & Bullock survive only to die slowly of asphyxiation for the next hour or two when their air runs out.
3. The end.
1. Satellite orbits are offset, because of launch details, and precisely so that the ridiculous snowball effect does not occur... but the movie needs a problem, so these old reliable villains the Russians oblige by forgetting what space agencies have known for at least half a century.
Actually, I recall an article on this very subject some months ago that it's a real possibility NASA has (and continues to) study. The theory posits that one (or perhaps a very few) satellite could get shredded, the debris from which collides with other satellites which get shredded, and so forth until the debris field is vast enough to be a threat to anything orbiting at or near the same altitude and inclination. You don't even need "head on" collision speeds. When you're whipping around the Earth at 18,000mph, even minor differences in speed of a few 100mph are enough to do major damage.
And while satellite orbits are indeed offset to prevent collisions, this does nothing to protect against a satellite that might make some uncontrolled changes in its orbit (thruster stuck on, explosive venting, etc.) or which is acted on by an external force (shot down by an anti-satellite weapon).
2. Debris would not be completing their orbit nearly as quickly, but the movie needs a recurring danger, so they do.
The movie depicts the debris orbiting every 90 minutes. The ISS orbits every 90 minutes. NASA.gov confirms this, or would if the website wasn't shut down. So this isn't an error in the movie.
Interestingly, we're not told the relative speed and orbit of the debris field. It's clear it's moving at high speed relative to the Shuttle, ISS, and so forth If it where truly a head-on scenario, the debris would have a cumulative closing speed of 36,000mph and our survivors would encounter it every 45 minutes instead of every 90. My guess is the debris is orbiting a couple thousand miles faster -- or perhaps even slower -- than the survivors, given a relative orbital period encounter every 90 minutes. This does bring up the inconvenient issue of how something orbiting at a different speed can stay at the same altitude for at least three orbits, but as I said elsewhere, the director admitted liberties were taken with orbital mechanics.
3. The orbits of the installations in the movie are nowhere close to each other, but the movie needs to visit interesting places, so the actors travel ridiculous distances and match speeds unattainable with what they have.
This part you got right. The director is on record saying liberties were taken with respect to orbital mechanics in order to provide Clooney and Bullock a way to survive the destruction of their mission. Reality would've been a bit more cruel and left no way for them to seek safety after the destruction of their Shuttle.
4. Once Clooney is hanging off Bullocks, they have stopped relative to the station, which means they have achieved orbital speed, but the movie needs a heroic sacrifice, so...
Another gaffe you got right. I noticed this immediately when watching. Clooney should've bounced back towards the station after the slack in the tether and the parachute lines had been taken up. There was no force acting on him to pull him away, so he shouldn't have been lost.
...these are the same assclowns everyone wants to trust their healthcare insurance to when they claim they'll cover more conditions, add in pre-existing conditions, add tens of millions of people to the list of insured, won't hire any new doctors, quality of service will go up, and prices will go down? Yeah, right. And Social Security will still be solvent by the time I reach retirement age.
It's time we quit buying the bridges these idiots keep selling us.
To be fair, this issue could easily affect any sizable power plant, nuclear or fossil. Giant coal-fired boilers also typically use nearby bodies of water to cool their condensers, same as a nuclear plant. The sensationalist "threat to nuclear plant" bit in the title is a bit overmuch.
Not sure how this is "damning". I'd have thought it would prove the principle that the optimizations aren't app specific.
What am I missing?
It's not app-specific, it's app *name* specific. It's analogous to the Quake/Quack benchmark scandal years (OMG, more than a decade...time flies) ago. Samsung wrote this boosting protocol to enable itself when running benchmarks and *only* when running benchmarks. There is no legitimate way to invoke it, so no user will ever see the benefit of it when running any app *other than* the benchmark itself.
For the inevitable car analogy: you take a Samsung car for a test drive, and when you floor it you feel 200hp worth of acceleration. Since the car is identical in almost every other aspect to competing HTC cars and Motorola cars (same price, similar trim, same engine) but they only make you feel about 150hp worth of acceleration, you opt for the Samsung car. Only when you drive it off the lot, you only feel 150hp worth of acceleration. You take it back to the dealer thinking something's wrong only to be informed the car will only give you 200hp when in "test drive by prospective customer" mode, and now that you've bought the car you're no longer in that category and cannot invoke it.
once they shred it to little bits and "diluted" it with non-radio active materials.
Once you "dilute" materials as you describe, they can pass the detectors with little chance of being detected. And if the radioactivity is that low after being "diluted" then by definition it's low enough to be of negligible danger to any consumer product it might make its way into.
It's also worth noting that in the above post citing elevator buttons and belt buckles, neither item emitted enough radiation to be dangerous. In each case, the dose was so low as to be negligible. People need to keep in mind they're exposed to radiation *everywhere*, *everyday*. You get around 3mSV annually just from background sources and nobody is screaming about that, yet here we are worrying about an elevator button that *might* expose you to 1mSV if you licked it every single day for a year.
Perspective, folks. Perspective.
Your example is so ridiculous I'm tempted to ignore it, but perhaps you can benefit from a little criticism here. The incident you cite has nothing to do with recycling irradiated metals into consumer products. A derelict hospital was broken into by thieves who stole a container of radioactive material that had been *illegally* abandoned. This in no way backs up your assertion that "lots of radioactive steel parts end up in the scrap line for being smelted for new cars and stuff." It doesn't even come close. It's not even in the same general area, Hell it's not even in the same *galaxy* of reason as your original assertion. So, you fail. Epic fail. Public Epic Fail at that.
That has nothing to do with Carter. Breeder reactors are notoriously difficult to operate. I know only one commercial breeding reactor that is still operational and it was built in the USSR.
Perhaps you're unaware of the concepts of cause and effect. Had breeder reactor technology been pursued vigorously *then* it would be much less difficult to operate *now*. Besides, dealing with the waste products from light water reactors is also "notoriously difficult" in case you hadn't noticed. I'd rather deal with the "difficult" option that produces power rather than instead of the one that produces a hundred thousand years worth of dangerous radioactivity.