this was my first thought we well - they don't need to own them, they already have everything they want. in fact all you really own is the liability....
i think until you learn even a little about how a power grid works, you'll continue to hear, and be frustrated by, the base load arguement against solar,wind and wave.
"Had we invested a fraction of the research funding that we have given to nuclear power industries into renewable energy research, we would probably already have most of our energy from renewalbe sources. "
the fact is we HAVEN'T invested in nuclear at all for about 20 years,beyond keeping existing reactors going. and how do you come to the conslusion we could make solar/wind/wave able to provide a constant load?!?! is any amount of research going to make the sun shine and the wind blow on queue?!
"Nuclear power is inherently dangerous, we do not know how to deal with the waste, the nuclear fossil fuel will last only a couple of decades" - bull-fucking-shit! the nuclear industry has a saftey record 2nd to none for a start. then consider modern reactors have passive saftey masures making a meltdown impossible.
and i've also heard this argument that uranium fuel will run out in 50 years. yes, present STOCKS will run out if we don't dig up anymore, or look for/develope new deposits. i know for a fact (i work in resources) australia has MASSIVE reserves of uranium, which could provide fuel to the world for easily 500 years at present rates. then there are breeder reactors, which can extend the life of fuel rods 50x, at which point you end up with either a low rad material which isn't dangerous or a highly active material which has a 1/2 life of 200 years - easily containable.
but i know you won't listen to reason, you've been spoon fed this nonsense for years. i'll just wait for your lights to go out.
the term "green" has lost all meaning through over use.
if you mean "less impact on the environment" then nuclear power is almost as good as it get for anything that produces the kind of load needed to run a nation.
it has one by product which is easy to contain. coal emits tons of radiation and toxic gases into the air, geo thermal is limited to certain locations.
solar, wind and wave can't maintain a consistent load 24/7, so i'm curious as to what alternative you propose.
he's wrong, and just regurgitating what he's read on crap sites like greenpeace.
australia for example has huge deposits which haven't been tapped, and that's just what we know is there from the exploration done prior to 1985 - you have to remember that very little exploration has been done and methods have improve dramaticly in the last 30 years.
if i had to guess, even using the old reactors and not using breeders, there is 10 times the 80 years worth that's been tossed around. from 1975 to 2007 known deposits increases 3x
you are confusing people perceptions with fact. the shield against liability is to lower the cost of the insurance required to under write the project, which is again about perception
no to mention that the last breeder in france was taken off line because enviromentalists fired a rocket at it. typical greenie logic at work there - nuclear is bad, so lets fire a rocket at it and try cause a disaster to prove we are right!
in deep shafts in geologically stable area's, contained in specially designed vessels that won't break or rust? it's not a big challenge at all to contain something for 200 years. remember that it's radiation levels are FALLING over that whole time to a point where it's harmless....
do you really believe the company building a nuclear power station are going to source their money from the local bank branch at their retail rate of 8%??? omfg did i mention fail?
if you have a worknig prototype then i'd forget all about the technical side then, and focus on the business side. put together some market research and approach a venture captial firm or some other source of investors. that will get you your money for the product developement.
i'm guessing he is struggling with the part where he has to actually produce something. comming up with the idea and lodging a patent is the easy part, it's when you try to make your idea work is where all flaws in your idea come out, which is why i believe patents without working or mathamaticly proven prototypes should be rejected.
it'll teach them to shut the blinds next time they get out their tenticled thing. personally i think this reeks of "lets sue a corperation because we can". the google car is no worse then a pair of eyes walking down the street or one of the millions of camera's around the place.
people like you are whats wrong with the world. not everything you disagree with is unethical, and needs to be turned into a big save the whales/children/rainforest cruisade.
i don't think you know what unethical means. bestbuy sell stuff, this helps them sell it. it doesn't cause them to break any laws or bend any truths more then any other salesman in the history of selling. i don't see the conflict.
reading some of the so called articles on/., not THAT is propaganda.
as much as MS is a troll themselfs, they have really suffered from all these nonsense software lawsuits. i hope these trolls don't win a penny and that the fright prompts MS to get behind patent reform.
whats wrong with low prices? would you prefer high prices so people can't invest in cleaner technology eg. i can't afford that prius because the cost of living means i'm JUST scraping by. i think there is a hole in your thinking there.
TTWTF here is that someone believes there are only 7 million file sharers in the UK. sure that figure is bullshit, but the number should be a hell of a lot higher not lower.
what if mom unplugs your server to give your basement it's annual vacuum? there are elements of a professionally run datacenter that can't be reproduced at home for the same cost.
if your worried about losing data, buy a slot in a colocation facility so it's your hardware everything is sitting on and you can encrypt the drive and put tamper alarms on it
actually there is evidence being slightly overweight is ok - after all our bodies are designed to try store extra energy when it can. obviously obese people were never part of that plan. what is more dangerous is poor diet with little fibre or real nutrients and high sugar and fats.
your just as selective about which expert advice you choose to listen to, so don't even try playing that card. i'd argue the "overwhelming consensus" comes from lobby groups and government agencies who see global warming as their own cash bonanza.you only need to listen to the way anyone questioning global warming gets tarred and feathered to see it's not science driving it.
sorry, the sun IS responsible for global warming, which supports life on earth.
your other problem is that other planets are indeed warming as well.
the biggest beef i have with popular global warming is that CO2 does not, and never has, been a significant greenhouse gas. but suddenly it's responsible for our planets temp???! the sun and water vapour is the key driver, the classic diagram of CO2 reflecting heat like a green house is an outright lie - that function is provided by water vapour.
what i want to know is what kind of idiot goes to jail to protect passwords to his employers computer system?!
it sounds to me like this guy has mental issues - if you recieved a written request from your manager for a password to non personal equipment, you'd just fucking do it wouldn't you? it'on paper, if anything goes wrong it's on his head....
Slashdot Mirror
this was my first thought we well - they don't need to own them, they already have everything they want. in fact all you really own is the liability....
"Had we invested a fraction of the research funding that we have given to nuclear power industries into renewable energy research, we would probably already have most of our energy from renewalbe sources. "
the fact is we HAVEN'T invested in nuclear at all for about 20 years,beyond keeping existing reactors going. and how do you come to the conslusion we could make solar/wind/wave able to provide a constant load?!?! is any amount of research going to make the sun shine and the wind blow on queue?!
"Nuclear power is inherently dangerous, we do not know how to deal with the waste, the nuclear fossil fuel will last only a couple of decades" - bull-fucking-shit! the nuclear industry has a saftey record 2nd to none for a start. then consider modern reactors have passive saftey masures making a meltdown impossible.
and i've also heard this argument that uranium fuel will run out in 50 years. yes, present STOCKS will run out if we don't dig up anymore, or look for/develope new deposits. i know for a fact (i work in resources) australia has MASSIVE reserves of uranium, which could provide fuel to the world for easily 500 years at present rates. then there are breeder reactors, which can extend the life of fuel rods 50x, at which point you end up with either a low rad material which isn't dangerous or a highly active material which has a 1/2 life of 200 years - easily containable.
but i know you won't listen to reason, you've been spoon fed this nonsense for years. i'll just wait for your lights to go out.
if you mean "less impact on the environment" then nuclear power is almost as good as it get for anything that produces the kind of load needed to run a nation.
it has one by product which is easy to contain. coal emits tons of radiation and toxic gases into the air, geo thermal is limited to certain locations.
solar, wind and wave can't maintain a consistent load 24/7, so i'm curious as to what alternative you propose.
if it's paid for and sitting on a laptop, it's a sale you fucking moron.
australia for example has huge deposits which haven't been tapped, and that's just what we know is there from the exploration done prior to 1985 - you have to remember that very little exploration has been done and methods have improve dramaticly in the last 30 years.
if i had to guess, even using the old reactors and not using breeders, there is 10 times the 80 years worth that's been tossed around. from 1975 to 2007 known deposits increases 3x
you are confusing people perceptions with fact. the shield against liability is to lower the cost of the insurance required to under write the project, which is again about perception
no to mention that the last breeder in france was taken off line because enviromentalists fired a rocket at it. typical greenie logic at work there - nuclear is bad, so lets fire a rocket at it and try cause a disaster to prove we are right!
in deep shafts in geologically stable area's, contained in specially designed vessels that won't break or rust? it's not a big challenge at all to contain something for 200 years. remember that it's radiation levels are FALLING over that whole time to a point where it's harmless....
do you really believe the company building a nuclear power station are going to source their money from the local bank branch at their retail rate of 8%??? omfg did i mention fail?
remember business people make money, not techies.
i'm guessing he is struggling with the part where he has to actually produce something. comming up with the idea and lodging a patent is the easy part, it's when you try to make your idea work is where all flaws in your idea come out, which is why i believe patents without working or mathamaticly proven prototypes should be rejected.
counter strike. i win.
it'll teach them to shut the blinds next time they get out their tenticled thing. personally i think this reeks of "lets sue a corperation because we can". the google car is no worse then a pair of eyes walking down the street or one of the millions of camera's around the place.
people like you are whats wrong with the world. not everything you disagree with is unethical, and needs to be turned into a big save the whales/children/rainforest cruisade.
reading some of the so called articles on /., not THAT is propaganda.
as much as MS is a troll themselfs, they have really suffered from all these nonsense software lawsuits. i hope these trolls don't win a penny and that the fright prompts MS to get behind patent reform.
whats wrong with low prices? would you prefer high prices so people can't invest in cleaner technology eg. i can't afford that prius because the cost of living means i'm JUST scraping by. i think there is a hole in your thinking there.
TTWTF here is that someone believes there are only 7 million file sharers in the UK. sure that figure is bullshit, but the number should be a hell of a lot higher not lower.
if your worried about losing data, buy a slot in a colocation facility so it's your hardware everything is sitting on and you can encrypt the drive and put tamper alarms on it
actually there is evidence being slightly overweight is ok - after all our bodies are designed to try store extra energy when it can. obviously obese people were never part of that plan. what is more dangerous is poor diet with little fibre or real nutrients and high sugar and fats.
your just as selective about which expert advice you choose to listen to, so don't even try playing that card. i'd argue the "overwhelming consensus" comes from lobby groups and government agencies who see global warming as their own cash bonanza.you only need to listen to the way anyone questioning global warming gets tarred and feathered to see it's not science driving it.
your other problem is that other planets are indeed warming as well.
the biggest beef i have with popular global warming is that CO2 does not, and never has, been a significant greenhouse gas. but suddenly it's responsible for our planets temp???! the sun and water vapour is the key driver, the classic diagram of CO2 reflecting heat like a green house is an outright lie - that function is provided by water vapour.
what i want to know is what kind of idiot goes to jail to protect passwords to his employers computer system?!
it sounds to me like this guy has mental issues - if you recieved a written request from your manager for a password to non personal equipment, you'd just fucking do it wouldn't you? it'on paper, if anything goes wrong it's on his head....
do you really think apple would survive that trial?
and people say MS are the devil for bundling. atleast they've never prevented other peoples apps from being installed under windows.