If he really wanted to duplicate lightning he'd charge up some big capacitors to extremely high voltages and draw arcs between their terminals. THAT would be a better simulation of lightning than the output of any Tesla coil.
I will never forgive the SyFy channel for perverting the spelling of "Sci-Fi".
Bonnie Hammer's successor stated that it was because they couldn't get copyright on "Sci-fi".
Not to mention killing off Stargate... or any decent show for that matter. We're now stuck with rubbish like Eureka.
They've had a history of that. Take Sliders for example. They tried very hard to kill it off because "it wasn't getting the numbers we wanted." Cast changes, writer changes... but it was still popular. Ms. Hammer, in her infinite wisdom, ultimately decided that Sci-Fi couldn't afford to keep it in production because they'd committed to a season of "Next Wave", in her words "a guaranteed hit." Turned out to be a guaranteed flop, but by then Sliders was history.
Maybe they've done some surveys and decided that their target audience should actually be a bunch of retards.
Yes, considering that they've put on psychics, wrestling, and a number of other drain-bamaged shows in an effort to broaden their viewer base. Hey, dimbulbs... what color is the sky in your world? John Edwards is not science fiction! There are plenty of other cable channels that cover that crap: I tuned in to their channel because they were offering something special. In the end, what they achieved was the alienation of the viewers who watched their programming because it was the SCIENCE-fiction channel!
The only retards here are the drain-bamaged fools run that operation. The Sci-Fi Channel, back in its heyday with the likes of Sliders, Stargate and other great shows was about the only reason I bothered to have cable TV. Certainly wasn't for the lame selection of movies that most cable companies offer. Now they spend millions making some of the most incredibly bad movies (and I mean bad... not "so bad they're good", they're just stupid) rather than pumping that capital into some more quality TV series.
It's even more depressing when I see all the ex-Stargate actors and actresses showing up in SyFy's movies.
Not saying it isn't theoretically possible, but to be able to "set it up" to happen just at the right moment when a call is made to "kill" the person isn't realistically plausible.
Well, if you had a high-powered microwave beam capable of ionizing the air above the person you are trying to assassinate you might have better luck. Of course, from a practical standpoint you might as well just cook him with the thing and forget the lightning.
At the risk of sounding like a dick, I have to say that's not even wrong. Lightning and em fields don't work that way.
Well, since we're discussing SyFy Channel movies, I have to say that not a single one of them has ever been based on anything resembling science, science-fiction or reality. Really, you'd think they could at least consult a local college physics instructor before throwing this crap out there. Of course, the only difference between a SyFy Channel flick and a Roland Emmerich production is that he a. gets bigger name actors and b. spends more on special effects that ten year's worth of SyFy's movie budgets.
I can't wait for the SyFy movie based on the 'true story':)
There was one SyFy (I still choke when I type that) where they had to use a giant Tesla-coil-like thing at some Arctic research base to realign the Earth's magnetic field or some such nonsense. It was on TV one evening: the movie was so bad I had to turn it off.
And yet the "big 3" networks routinely get better ratings than cartoons and Fox News combined, and they don't spout off conspiracy theories about George Soros. I see you didn't even try to respond to the actual topic.
That's the problem here. We allow terms to be used with such impugnity that they become pretty much meaningless. It's not limited to politics of course. Advertisers love to do the same thing to language.
Downloading a single MP3 is "piracy". In neither case does the relevant law support the usage.
No more of a "legitimate military target" than a tea ship. Honestly, every person I know is more terrified of our own government at this point than of someone blowing up a plane or building.
Well, I'm not "terrified" of it yet, exactly, but I'm more than a little concerned about where it is going. Of course, the response of government is usually along the lines of "well, if you only knew what we've had to do keep you safe... but we can't tell you that, 'cause it's a secret."
The World Trade center was just a civilian office building with perhaps a high concentration of financial firms due to it's location. The idea that it should be elevated to "legitimate military target" for "command and control" purposes is just retarded.
It sounds like something that's the product of a certain form of mindless political bias.
A police station is no more of a valid military target either.
I have news for you: ever since the invention of the long-range bomber (and now ICBMS, cruise-missiles, drones and probably other things we don't know about) civilian populations have been legitimate military targets. It didn't used to be that way, but it is now. How does the old joke go? Military engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
In wars past you had to fight your way through the enemy's ground forces in order to reach his cities, his production facilities. If you succeeded in doing that, you had pretty much already won, so additional deaths among the populace were largely unnecessary. However, once the ability to drop bombs on cities without having to engage ground forces was practical, everything changed. Now the means of production of war materiel could be attacked directly: no need to beat the grunts on the ground, no need to cut his supply lines. Just destroy the factories that make everything he needs to keep going. No weapons, no ammo, no food... take out the batteries and the war machine grinds to a halt.
But here's the problem (and it was a moral dilemma at the time.) Who do you think mans the enemy's factories? Soldiers? Where do you think those factories are located? Remote deserts? The answer is... neither: wars are supplied mostly by repurposed commercial plants, located in the enemy's cities, operated by the same ordinary citizens who used to make underwear and automobiles in times of peace.
What it comes down to is this: in any modern war, there are no non-combatants. There are only people who are lucky enough not to get bombed. That's especially true in the atomic age: nuclear weapons are not what you would call surgical.
Of course, only terrorists imagine that they are in some kind of "war", and we for our part legitimize them by calling our response a "War on Terror". What we really have is, at best, an expensive overreaction on the part of law enforcement. Much like all of our other "War ons..."
But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?
If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.
Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.
It certainly can be. Infrastructure exists because people depend upon it. Blow up natural gas or power distribution facilities in the middle of winter (even if that act doesn't injure a single person in and of itself) and cause a few hundred thousand people to freeze to death would certainly qualify as terrorism. Or an act of war, if we find out that the people who did it were backed by a national government.
Ok, so what other "news" source routinely demonizes George Soros? It's not a conspiracy theory, and you guys aren't a "major portion" of the population. Cartoons get better rating than Fox News. The point is that you twerps are a vocal ignorant minority that knows how to troll the internet. If Fox News isn't the source of the irrational Soros hate, then what is?
I would think that Republicans would be cheering for Soros. Weren't they for small government and self-determination, too?
The people who are supporting the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, are living in the past. Neither of our major political parties bear anything more than superficial resemblance to their former selves, and pretending that they do just guarantees that matters will go from worse to awful.
Once Lieberman retires next year to be replaced by Linda McMahon, she'll put the smackdown on these terrorist jabronies.
Uh huh. Here's a better story:
CITIZENS WANT TRAITOR LABEL ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
"A group of irate citizens sent a letter to Senator Joe Lieberman taking him to task because Congressional policy does not expressly ban treasonous, corrupt or inept behavior. The letter also pointed out that other countries do ban such activities, and that Congress' inconsistent, arrogant and frequently ignorant behavior is adversely affecting our ability to survive and maintain what is left of our standard of living, our freedoms, indeed our very future"
Hypocrites, all of them.
Let Congress clean its own house before it starts pointing any more goddamn fingers. I'm tired of these sanctimonious pricks decrying others for not doing their part, when in fact it is Congress who put is in a situation where terrorism is an issue. Face it, it was Congressional dealmaking and corporate collusion over several decades that made us a target in the first place.
What bullshit exactly are you talking about? The bullshit that Fox News isn't the head of a vast conspiracy???
Anything with Murdoch involved pretty much qualifies as a conspiracy. More to the point, the bulk of our once-independent news media organizations are controlled by just a few corporations (Newscorp and ClearChannel, for example.) That qualifies as a de facto conspiracy, when you get right down to it.
My guess is that they will anyway. DT makes statements like this not because they are accurate, necessarily, but because they advance the chance of the deal happening (which they are contractually obligated to do). When the deal is cancelled, they will obviously reexamine things.
I certainly hope you are correct. As a T-Mobile customer, I am not happy about AT&T being anywhere near my provider. I was an AT&T subscriber for a while, and was not pleased, then I went to Sprint and was (if possible) even less happy, and then finally landed on T-Mobile. I know, everyone's mileage will vary, but my experience so far has generally been a good one.
I do like the thought of three billion dollars of AT&T's money (or some fraction thereof) going to upgrade T-Mobile's network. To be fair, though, we aren't really talking about AT&T... it's SBC, the Southern Bastard's Club, the most hated of the original RBOCs (the so-called Baby Bells) that took over the parent company some time ago.
since it is the public votes the legislators who enact these ip protection laws.
I might agree if said legislators were obeying the will of the people. I think that the very evident, widescale reaction against SOPA and Protect-IP indicates that our elected officials are doing the exact opposite (in spite of content industry rhetoric.) Our leaders are doing what a few large copyright holders want them to, and if a bunch of us get hurt in the process... well, that's just too bad. So don't you dare blame the American public for this: when we're well-informed as to consequences (as is happening with SOPA) we object vehemently and take what steps the law permits. Now, if you want to state that our government is corrupt and suffering undue corporate influence... there I will agree.
The problem is people do not understand the concept of trade-offs and the fact it they effect every decision.
It's risk-benefit analysis, and it is by nature a cold-blooded business, but it is the only way to assure that you get what you need while minimizing the impact. The problem is, we Americans want zero-impact, perfect safety and absolute reliability. The fact that you can't ever have that doesn't seem to matter in our decision-making.
I don't think nuclear has ever killed anyone at all in the US, actually.
In 1961, all three operators of SL-1 in Idaho were killed. The cause was one of the operators manually withdrawing a control rod too far. One theory is that it was a suicide-murder due to a love triangle.
And after Three Mile Island, cancer deaths in the years following decreased slightly. Not statistically relevant either way, but at the time there was a lot of (ahem!) "concern" that TMI's release of radioactive gas was going to kill a lot of people. Of course, it didn't work out that way, but when did our media ever let facts get in the way of, well... anything.
Actually, I blame a couple of things for the American citizen's demonstrable inability to make rational decisions. One, education, or the lack thereof. Two, the public media, which are incapable of reporting anything even resembling the truth, especially regarding technological issues. Remember when that fellow got arrested a few years ago for playing around with a laser pointer with his son in his own back yard? They pointed it at a police helicopter and shortly afterwards SWAT took him down as a potential terrorist. It was a legitimate concern, I suppose, but the police reaction was way over the top.
In any event, I actually watched this "News Anchorman" (I believe the anchors were in his head where his brain should have been) commenting, with a straight face, "One has to ask if it is possible for these readily-available devices to burn through an aircraft cockpit and kill the pilots." Ignorance must truly be bliss, I suppose.
Reporting on nuclear power issues is generally performed with a similar level of competence.
That's based on recent completion costs in USD rather than some fantasy "estimate" made up to justify a forthcoming indefinite boondogle for the military-industrial complex.
Keep in mind, however, that the old Atomic Energy Commission (whose mandate was to promote the use of atomic power) was replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which does little else but put up costly roadblocks to building and commissioning nuclear facilities. The NRC is a legacy of the anti-nuclear hysteria of the sixties and seventies, so you really have to factor in the political cost as well as the actual costs.
Even worse, there are all the issues that happen from coal *mining*. Never mind what happens on the burning end, coal mining kills people and ruins huge areas of land.
If you're comparing basically anything to coal, coal is worse.
This is the question everyone really should be asking:
When coal runs out, when oil runs out, when natural gas runs out... with what will we replace them?
Any answer that involves the long-term use of fossil fuels is a non-starter. If we do not have a more viable option than nuclear power when there's no more coal, it's a forced putt: we'll go nuclear in a big way, whether we feel "safe" or not. We're in the big leagues now: a multi-terawatt civilization, whose power requirements are increasing with no end in sight, one in desperate need of denser energy sources.
The reality is this: fossil fuels are a. not a long-term solution and b. should be considered as civilization's flying start, our grubstake for the future. We absolutely will need to replace them for power production at some time in the not-too-distant future. If someone knows of a technology that can provide continuous electric power at current and foreseeable usage levels that doesn't involve combustion or nuclear fission I would very much like to know what it is.
I will say this as well: all the anti-nuclear, green-power proponents will be screaming bloody murder, right along with the rest of us, when the rolling blackouts begin. Mark my words.
Good points. Plus, the article mentions that T-Mobile will get $3 billion in cash. That's only partially true. DT will get the cash. My guess is T-Mobile will see very little, if any of that cash.
Deutsche Telekom has already stated that it will not be investing any of that money in T-Mobile.
Slashdot Mirror
If he really wanted to duplicate lightning he'd charge up some big capacitors to extremely high voltages and draw arcs between their terminals. THAT would be a better simulation of lightning than the output of any Tesla coil.
Say, a Cockroft-Walton generator?
I will never forgive the SyFy channel for perverting the spelling of "Sci-Fi".
Bonnie Hammer's successor stated that it was because they couldn't get copyright on "Sci-fi".
Not to mention killing off Stargate... or any decent show for that matter. We're now stuck with rubbish like Eureka.
They've had a history of that. Take Sliders for example. They tried very hard to kill it off because "it wasn't getting the numbers we wanted." Cast changes, writer changes ... but it was still popular. Ms. Hammer, in her infinite wisdom, ultimately decided that Sci-Fi couldn't afford to keep it in production because they'd committed to a season of "Next Wave", in her words "a guaranteed hit." Turned out to be a guaranteed flop, but by then Sliders was history.
Maybe they've done some surveys and decided that their target audience should actually be a bunch of retards.
Yes, considering that they've put on psychics, wrestling, and a number of other drain-bamaged shows in an effort to broaden their viewer base. Hey, dimbulbs ... what color is the sky in your world? John Edwards is not science fiction! There are plenty of other cable channels that cover that crap: I tuned in to their channel because they were offering something special. In the end, what they achieved was the alienation of the viewers who watched their programming because it was the SCIENCE-fiction channel!
... not "so bad they're good", they're just stupid) rather than pumping that capital into some more quality TV series.
The only retards here are the drain-bamaged fools run that operation. The Sci-Fi Channel, back in its heyday with the likes of Sliders, Stargate and other great shows was about the only reason I bothered to have cable TV. Certainly wasn't for the lame selection of movies that most cable companies offer. Now they spend millions making some of the most incredibly bad movies (and I mean bad
It's even more depressing when I see all the ex-Stargate actors and actresses showing up in SyFy's movies.
Not saying it isn't theoretically possible, but to be able to "set it up" to happen just at the right moment when a call is made to "kill" the person isn't realistically plausible.
Well, if you had a high-powered microwave beam capable of ionizing the air above the person you are trying to assassinate you might have better luck. Of course, from a practical standpoint you might as well just cook him with the thing and forget the lightning.
At the risk of sounding like a dick, I have to say that's not even wrong. Lightning and em fields don't work that way.
Well, since we're discussing SyFy Channel movies, I have to say that not a single one of them has ever been based on anything resembling science, science-fiction or reality. Really, you'd think they could at least consult a local college physics instructor before throwing this crap out there. Of course, the only difference between a SyFy Channel flick and a Roland Emmerich production is that he a. gets bigger name actors and b. spends more on special effects that ten year's worth of SyFy's movie budgets.
I can't wait for the SyFy movie based on the 'true story' :)
There was one SyFy (I still choke when I type that) where they had to use a giant Tesla-coil-like thing at some Arctic research base to realign the Earth's magnetic field or some such nonsense. It was on TV one evening: the movie was so bad I had to turn it off.
And yet the "big 3" networks routinely get better ratings than cartoons and Fox News combined, and they don't spout off conspiracy theories about George Soros. I see you didn't even try to respond to the actual topic.
Lighten up, Scooby.
A politician lied, imagine that?
That's the problem here. We allow terms to be used with such impugnity that they become pretty much meaningless. It's not limited to politics of course. Advertisers love to do the same thing to language.
Downloading a single MP3 is "piracy". In neither case does the relevant law support the usage.
No more of a "legitimate military target" than a tea ship. Honestly, every person I know is more terrified of our own government at this point than of someone blowing up a plane or building.
Well, I'm not "terrified" of it yet, exactly, but I'm more than a little concerned about where it is going. Of course, the response of government is usually along the lines of "well, if you only knew what we've had to do keep you safe ... but we can't tell you that, 'cause it's a secret."
That's nonsense.
The World Trade center was just a civilian office building with perhaps a high concentration of financial firms due to it's location. The idea that it should be elevated to "legitimate military target" for "command and control" purposes is just retarded.
It sounds like something that's the product of a certain form of mindless political bias.
A police station is no more of a valid military target either.
I have news for you: ever since the invention of the long-range bomber (and now ICBMS, cruise-missiles, drones and probably other things we don't know about) civilian populations have been legitimate military targets. It didn't used to be that way, but it is now. How does the old joke go? Military engineers build weapons. Civil engineers build targets.
... take out the batteries and the war machine grinds to a halt.
... neither: wars are supplied mostly by repurposed commercial plants, located in the enemy's cities, operated by the same ordinary citizens who used to make underwear and automobiles in times of peace.
..."
In wars past you had to fight your way through the enemy's ground forces in order to reach his cities, his production facilities. If you succeeded in doing that, you had pretty much already won, so additional deaths among the populace were largely unnecessary. However, once the ability to drop bombs on cities without having to engage ground forces was practical, everything changed. Now the means of production of war materiel could be attacked directly: no need to beat the grunts on the ground, no need to cut his supply lines. Just destroy the factories that make everything he needs to keep going. No weapons, no ammo, no food
But here's the problem (and it was a moral dilemma at the time.) Who do you think mans the enemy's factories? Soldiers? Where do you think those factories are located? Remote deserts? The answer is
What it comes down to is this: in any modern war, there are no non-combatants. There are only people who are lucky enough not to get bombed. That's especially true in the atomic age: nuclear weapons are not what you would call surgical.
Of course, only terrorists imagine that they are in some kind of "war", and we for our part legitimize them by calling our response a "War on Terror". What we really have is, at best, an expensive overreaction on the part of law enforcement. Much like all of our other "War ons
But does warfare against industrial sites count as terrorism, where the primary intent is to damage that site's abilities rather than instill fear of death in the general population, really count as terrorism?
If the answer to your question is no, then 9/11 was not a terrorist attack.
Oh, and the answer to your question is no. Attacking infrastructure is not terrorism.
It certainly can be. Infrastructure exists because people depend upon it. Blow up natural gas or power distribution facilities in the middle of winter (even if that act doesn't injure a single person in and of itself) and cause a few hundred thousand people to freeze to death would certainly qualify as terrorism. Or an act of war, if we find out that the people who did it were backed by a national government.
Why would we want to discourage potential terrorists from doing stuff that makes them easier to identify?
Garnering political capital, which has nothing to do with being practical.
Ok, so what other "news" source routinely demonizes George Soros? It's not a conspiracy theory, and you guys aren't a "major portion" of the population. Cartoons get better rating than Fox News. The point is that you twerps are a vocal ignorant minority that knows how to troll the internet. If Fox News isn't the source of the irrational Soros hate, then what is?
Fox News ... isn't a cartoon?
I would think that Republicans would be cheering for Soros. Weren't they for small government and self-determination, too?
The people who are supporting the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, are living in the past. Neither of our major political parties bear anything more than superficial resemblance to their former selves, and pretending that they do just guarantees that matters will go from worse to awful.
Once Lieberman retires next year to be replaced by Linda McMahon, she'll put the smackdown on these terrorist jabronies.
Uh huh. Here's a better story:
CITIZENS WANT TRAITOR LABEL ON GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
"A group of irate citizens sent a letter to Senator Joe Lieberman taking him to task because Congressional policy does not expressly ban treasonous, corrupt or inept behavior. The letter also pointed out that other countries do ban such activities, and that Congress' inconsistent, arrogant and frequently ignorant behavior is adversely affecting our ability to survive and maintain what is left of our standard of living, our freedoms, indeed our very future"
Hypocrites, all of them.
Let Congress clean its own house before it starts pointing any more goddamn fingers. I'm tired of these sanctimonious pricks decrying others for not doing their part, when in fact it is Congress who put is in a situation where terrorism is an issue. Face it, it was Congressional dealmaking and corporate collusion over several decades that made us a target in the first place.
What bullshit exactly are you talking about? The bullshit that Fox News isn't the head of a vast conspiracy???
Anything with Murdoch involved pretty much qualifies as a conspiracy. More to the point, the bulk of our once-independent news media organizations are controlled by just a few corporations (Newscorp and ClearChannel, for example.) That qualifies as a de facto conspiracy, when you get right down to it.
My guess is that they will anyway. DT makes statements like this not because they are accurate, necessarily, but because they advance the chance of the deal happening (which they are contractually obligated to do). When the deal is cancelled, they will obviously reexamine things.
I certainly hope you are correct. As a T-Mobile customer, I am not happy about AT&T being anywhere near my provider. I was an AT&T subscriber for a while, and was not pleased, then I went to Sprint and was (if possible) even less happy, and then finally landed on T-Mobile. I know, everyone's mileage will vary, but my experience so far has generally been a good one.
... it's SBC, the Southern Bastard's Club, the most hated of the original RBOCs (the so-called Baby Bells) that took over the parent company some time ago.
I do like the thought of three billion dollars of AT&T's money (or some fraction thereof) going to upgrade T-Mobile's network. To be fair, though, we aren't really talking about AT&T
Bloodsuckers.
.ch is switzerland.
Yes, but where is the root server that is handling primary request for those TLDs?
since it is the public votes the legislators who enact these ip protection laws.
I might agree if said legislators were obeying the will of the people. I think that the very evident, widescale reaction against SOPA and Protect-IP indicates that our elected officials are doing the exact opposite (in spite of content industry rhetoric.) Our leaders are doing what a few large copyright holders want them to, and if a bunch of us get hurt in the process ... well, that's just too bad. So don't you dare blame the American public for this: when we're well-informed as to consequences (as is happening with SOPA) we object vehemently and take what steps the law permits. Now, if you want to state that our government is corrupt and suffering undue corporate influence ... there I will agree.
The problem is people do not understand the concept of trade-offs and the fact it they effect every decision.
It's risk-benefit analysis, and it is by nature a cold-blooded business, but it is the only way to assure that you get what you need while minimizing the impact. The problem is, we Americans want zero-impact, perfect safety and absolute reliability. The fact that you can't ever have that doesn't seem to matter in our decision-making.
I don't think nuclear has ever killed anyone at all in the US, actually.
In 1961, all three operators of SL-1 in Idaho were killed. The cause was one of the operators manually withdrawing a control rod too far. One theory is that it was a suicide-murder due to a love triangle.
And after Three Mile Island, cancer deaths in the years following decreased slightly. Not statistically relevant either way, but at the time there was a lot of (ahem!) "concern" that TMI's release of radioactive gas was going to kill a lot of people. Of course, it didn't work out that way, but when did our media ever let facts get in the way of, well ... anything.
Actually, I blame a couple of things for the American citizen's demonstrable inability to make rational decisions. One, education, or the lack thereof. Two, the public media, which are incapable of reporting anything even resembling the truth, especially regarding technological issues. Remember when that fellow got arrested a few years ago for playing around with a laser pointer with his son in his own back yard? They pointed it at a police helicopter and shortly afterwards SWAT took him down as a potential terrorist. It was a legitimate concern, I suppose, but the police reaction was way over the top.
In any event, I actually watched this "News Anchorman" (I believe the anchors were in his head where his brain should have been) commenting, with a straight face, "One has to ask if it is possible for these readily-available devices to burn through an aircraft cockpit and kill the pilots." Ignorance must truly be bliss, I suppose.
Reporting on nuclear power issues is generally performed with a similar level of competence.
I think we should power our society by burning chiropractors.
You can more than double the output if you catalyze the reaction with pureed scientologists.
That's based on recent completion costs in USD rather than some fantasy "estimate" made up to justify a forthcoming indefinite boondogle for the military-industrial complex.
Keep in mind, however, that the old Atomic Energy Commission (whose mandate was to promote the use of atomic power) was replaced by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which does little else but put up costly roadblocks to building and commissioning nuclear facilities. The NRC is a legacy of the anti-nuclear hysteria of the sixties and seventies, so you really have to factor in the political cost as well as the actual costs.
Yeah it's just stupid, pu-239 is no more toxic than sugar
Yes, but how does it taste?
Even worse, there are all the issues that happen from coal *mining*. Never mind what happens on the burning end, coal mining kills people and ruins huge areas of land.
If you're comparing basically anything to coal, coal is worse.
This is the question everyone really should be asking:
... with what will we replace them?
When coal runs out, when oil runs out, when natural gas runs out
Any answer that involves the long-term use of fossil fuels is a non-starter. If we do not have a more viable option than nuclear power when there's no more coal, it's a forced putt: we'll go nuclear in a big way, whether we feel "safe" or not. We're in the big leagues now: a multi-terawatt civilization, whose power requirements are increasing with no end in sight, one in desperate need of denser energy sources.
The reality is this: fossil fuels are a. not a long-term solution and b. should be considered as civilization's flying start, our grubstake for the future. We absolutely will need to replace them for power production at some time in the not-too-distant future. If someone knows of a technology that can provide continuous electric power at current and foreseeable usage levels that doesn't involve combustion or nuclear fission I would very much like to know what it is.
I will say this as well: all the anti-nuclear, green-power proponents will be screaming bloody murder, right along with the rest of us, when the rolling blackouts begin. Mark my words.
Good points. Plus, the article mentions that T-Mobile will get $3 billion in cash. That's only partially true. DT will get the cash. My guess is T-Mobile will see very little, if any of that cash.
Deutsche Telekom has already stated that it will not be investing any of that money in T-Mobile.