I have no idea. I just know a little about how a fusion reactor is supposed to work under normal conditions.
I do know that there is less waste than with a fission reactor. In both cases the chamber has to be treated as waste. The fuel itself from fission is additionnel waste compared to fusion. The problem, while still there, is definitely not as bad. As to figures regarding volume, I don't know. As to years, I always heard something like 50 years of storage for the vault.
Fusion research is a difficult, multi-field, international problem that will require a lot of effort and money to solve. We are not talking about a lone scientist in some backroom trying to get a tabletop version to work. So don't expect some guy posting on/. to have all the answers.
Dude, our energy needs are increasing daily. But to increase that rapidly that you blow through a few millions of years worth of fuel in such short a time that other energy sources can't be find implies that we are really stupid and deserve our faith. By the time we have used that amount of energy, either human has gone extinct or has populated nearby star systems, even with slower than light speeds. Even with all the energy we use today, it's insignificant with what the sun pumps out every second. No, the energy problem is for the next 50 years, not the millennia afterwards. But that is just what I think.
Really? Did you think so? Thanks, that means a lot to me.
Rest assured I am who I claim I am. In posts as this I am very careful in what I write and I doubt every line. First to make sure I didn't make stupid mistakes, because I don't feel like being made an idiot by someone who knows better, and second because I know myself that there is much knowledge about this and that I still have much to learn about it. It's also easy to make a mistake in a rather quickly written comment.
At the moment I making a site about stuff like this, but it's not yet finished so I can't point you to it for verification of my claims about me.
if a fusion reactor lost containment and went kaboom
What do you mean by losing containment?
If the chamber bursts, the plasma comes into contact with the outside world. Everything in reach of the plasma is going to have a lousy day, but there isn't an explosion. Also, such an environment isn't exactly beneficiary to fusion reactions.
If the magnetic fields disappear, the plasma comes into contact with the wall. Again not very positive, for the wall and potentially for everything outside. Again, something which doesn't exactly promotes fusion reactions.
The only way, as I see it, for such a reactor to explode is to maintain confinement and keep adding fuel and fuel until it explodes.
An explosion is a lose of containment, but lose of containment doesn't imply an explosion.
In my other post, I did forgot to mention x-rays. But I have no idea about the amount of x-rays produced in a tokamak or in case of failure or the effect of it on humans, so I won't comment on that.
As to the radioactive particles from fission. It's the short lived ones that are dangerous, not the ones that are stable for a few billion years. Heck, we are living in a world filled with particles that have a 4+ billion years half live. Everything else has mostly decayed and disappeared since Earth's formation.
Worst cases I can think off. Mind you, I haven't studied fusion reactor disasters, yet. So I could be wide off. However, it is my impression that not many people are worried about this. And that what I write down here is the prevailing knowledge. I have a masters degree in physics and worked on a tokamak for my masters thesis. For my PhD, I will be working on plasma's within a few weeks. So, that you know, I am not a crackpot scientist. English is not my native language, have patience.
You fill the reactor with as much fuel as you can, and you keep the machine going (i.e. you keep the magnetic field lines on, so that the plasma is confined and fusion reactions are going on.). Once enough fuel is inserted and energy is build up, you get an hydrogen bomb. An hydrogen bomb requires a classical fission bomb to get temperatures high enough so that fusion starts. But this can not happen accidently. In other to use a fusion reactor as a bomb, you intentionally have to add fuel to get it that far that it will explode. Any fusion reactor will have safety mechanisms. Now such things can fail. But since the fuel is sitting outside, safety systems can be designed that no fuel is inserted unless the operator (assisted by a computer) authorises fuel injection. Contrast this to a fission reactor (the ones in operation now). All the fuel is present inside the reactor. The only thing operators can do is manipulate the burning rate. When something fails here all the fuel just keeps burning. If something goes wrong in a fusion reactor, the reactor simply has to burn out. This happens rather quickly. there is no need to keep fuel inside that is needed more than for a minute or so. (Don't know how much or how long, just below the critical value for a explosion.) Fission reactors have fuel rods inside that lasted for years. Fusion reactors can be designed that fail safe means that no fuel is injected. You have to override such systems just to inject fuel, just to keep it going. In fission, fail save means that carbon rods are inserted between the fuel rods and you hope/pray that the fission reactions stop.
Okay, so what happens when everything goes wrong. No extra fuel is injected and the operators are no longer in control of the machine. It can not explode because there is not enough fuel inside. So forget Chernobyl and TMI. This means that everything outside the building is safe.
So, it can not explode. That leaves radiation. These are neutrons, gamma's (high energy light waves), high energy particles (alpha's mostly). There are other particle inside a reactor than alpha particles. Alpha particles (20% of the energy of a fusion reaction, 80% goes into the neutrons) are needed to keep temperaturs high. But this needs to be supplemented by external energy sources (another fail save, stop injecting energy.) Now these other particles, such as helium (this is the waste from fusion reactors. Even the waste has high economical value ! ) and carbon (eroded from the wall) have to be continually extracted from the reactor because the are bad for maintaining the required temperatures and energy levels. Alpha particles are stopped by a piece a paper. Don't worry about them. The neutrons are needed to generate tritium (tritium is radioactive, I think it has a 20 minute halve life inside the human body). But tritium will only be needed in the first few generations. Because using tritium is the easiest way to get towards a working fusion reactor. So the neutrons activate the reactor and the reactor will be stored for 50-100 years as high radioactive waste. Strontium, as you mentioned, although present in carbon and a waste product of coal plants is not present in fusion reactors. So these neutrons hit the wall, generate tritium and heat the wall/water in pipes and exit the chamber. (the water inside the chamber wall is the first water pipe system and generates steam in a secondary pipe system. From here you have a classical power plant of any kind.) Blocking those neutrons coming from the reactor chamb
Uh.. anyone else a tinsy little bit worried about that word "infinite"?!
Nope, because the reporter probably doesn't know what he's talking about.
When we have a working fusion reactor (expected somewhere in the second part of this century), the reactor itself of course won't provide infinite energy. But there is enough fuel on earth (and by extension on the moon) to last us a few million years. Longer than humans have been around. So in that sense, the first working fusion reactor will provide infinite energy, because we finally figured out how to build one. Once the first one is build, building dozens more is merely left as an exercise for the engineers.:)
Theoretically, when there is ignition, all the energy generated is pure profit. You don't have to add energy anymore, only fuel. So the energy output/energy input = infinite. But that is not the same as infinite energy. You still needs to add fuel. The amount of fuel injected in a reactor determines how much you get out of it. That is certainly high, but definitely less than infinite. And in practice, there will always be some losses. So the ouput/input ratio may be high, but not infinite. There is also no need to worry about something like TMI or Chernobyl. In a classical nuclear reactor, all the fuel needed for years sits inside the reactor waiting to be used. In a fusion reactor, the fuel pellets are injected from the outside on a need to have basis.
Ah, if some knew back then, and he continued despite this, than yes give him all credit due. But in the episodes and films I saw, Sulu was never portrayed as gay. So no need to worship Star Trek itself because one of its actors came out of the closet. Star Trek didn't stand up for gay rights, Takei now does.
Star Trek didn't go anywhere, boldly or not, with this. Takei just came out in the last few months. Good for him, but it's not really shocking world news. When I heard this for the first time, I didn't freak out, I didn't applaud him. It was just another outing. It was at best some interesting tidbit.
Now, what have been really shocking or whatever it might have been, was if the creators of the original series knowingly and purposely hired Takei because he was gay and dedicated a episode to this aspect.
Star Trek shouldn't be applauded because they unknowingly had a gay helmsman, they should be remember for the other civil rights movement, such as having a character Uhura on board.
Now if he had come out during the first run of the series, it might have had an impact, in light of the show, in those years. Now, the original series is 30 years old.
Off course. I meant over the source (magnet) inside the field lines themselves.
Thanks for the link.
They used a field of 16 Tesla. That is quit large. ITER is planned for 13 Tesla or thereabouts.
So, no levitation for us puny humans.
Don't take this article seriously. The only thing they'll ever make is a good chuckle for physicists.
Hey, why didn't they throw in levitation as well? Didn't someone do an experiment where they levitated a frog by putting it over a strong magnetic field?
I don't know the frequencies and amplitudes required for damaging human cells. Is there a radio-physicist in the audience?
This is - I think - only a problem until we discover how to do gene therapy (correct term?: a medical procedure which corrects genetic defects).
No, not that blue eyes, blond hear, but dawn syndrom and such.
In the mean time, we should be harsh on behalve of the gene pool.
Also instead trying to save every life, just for the sake of it, we should concentrate on the quality of life. What good is getting barely enough food and healthcare if the only thing you can in your life is sit in some desert feeling hungry while waiting for the next round humanitarian aid to pass by.
Instead of giving healthcare to places like africa and god knows where, we should have giving them an education system first. They would have build their own healthcare system, it would have kept the population level under control and Africa would have been in a better place.
We had and have war for oil, but God help us all when a war over water breaks out. For we can live without oil (perhaps not at current tech and comfort levels) but without water we can not do.
We did not gave them life, we gave misery. Educate the people and they will not need our help or compassion or money or food
Life in itself is worthless. The qualities that make life worth living is important. That, we did not give.
At least none of my money (direct or indirectly) would be going to that.
Companies don't make sci-fi because of their love for it. They make it because it makes them money. Perhaps not that much, but still enough. If it wouldn't, it just gets canned.
It doesn't matter which one is cheaper. The value it has for me is what important. Not even for free would I want to watch a reality show bases on it's merits. For a decent sci-fi show I would even pay some amount. How much? That depends on many factors (script, acting, money to spend, competition,...).
Either you pay for it by higher product prices (commercials are also not free) or you pay for the TV show yourself.
In the last case at least your money is going to shows you want to watch.
And no matter how much you try to resist commercials, they'll get you in the end. And if you don't buy anything anymore for which you saw an add, then what are you going to do? Live of sunlight?
So yes, bring on paid for shows. It saves me time (not having to watch ads), it saves me annoyance (not having to watch stupid ads or stupid shows while socialising with the family) and only shows I endorse get money. So that would be more sci-fi and no bloody reality.
As I remember the story, she wanted to put her kid into college.
The person who did the tattoo tried to talk her out of it for many hours, but she wouldn't cave.
I'm quite sure I'm not insane, but I'm equally sure you lack a sense of perspective:-)
Most likely. I am just sick of commercials. I don't want to watch them, I don't want them to trick me into buying stuff I don't need or want, I don't want them to waste my time.
Over the years it just keeps getting worse. Well, It's not yet as horrible in the States, from what I read. I don't understand how you can watch TV like that.
In the next few months H(ard)D(isk)-recorders are hitting the stores here. Finally.
Ads? Fucking ADS? You know what you can do with your fucking ads...
You can show them to me when the crows have picked my eyes out of their sockets.
I try not look at ads in a magazine. I keep the control next to me, so I can change the channel within 5 seconds to minimize ad-exposure.
Ads? You got to be kidding me
I rather zap for 5 minutes than watch one damned ad.
I block ads on my Mac, and if one gets through, I go beserk.
I have some difficulty with radio ads. Because the idiots always play them right before the news. And the news doesn't always last 10 minuts. So it might be over before turning the damned thing back on. Or you just miss the first newsitem. Luckily those ads are not that obnoxious. But still mighty annoying.
Oh, and the last few DVD's I bought here in europe have unskippable ads for second rate movies I don't even want to watch for free.
It's MY fucking DVD, if I want to SKIP your STUPID ADS, I WILL. They are MY eyes, it's MY time.
Ads, you got to kidding me.
You just keep your propaganda, I'll keep my money.
Okay, sarcasme and/. are clearly bad combinations.
yes, you don't count children and elderly in the figures. In fact, if you are unemployed for too long, they don't even count you (at least in Belgium). So the actual numbers are usually slightly higher than the official ones.
My question, again, is where did the 50% come from. Show me some proof.
I can accept fluctuations in the unemployment figures depending on age or location. But I can not accept a figure that is ~5 times as high as the national level. At least not without proof.
So the sarcasm was: to get to a 50% figure, you surely have counted the children and elderly.
Dude, this is really a lousy day.
I know, I am just wondering how he got to 50% without including children and elderly.
And just citing a number on/. is something everyone can do. But hey, it's France, lets do some bashing and make up some numbers and blame everything on the nanny state. Perhaps unemployment is high, but not that many people are forced to live on the streets. Unlike some other countries.
Indeed, but it was the whining against the european social model that angered me, and the unsupported claim of 50% unemployment.
Socialism is not communism, for crying out loud.
Actually, from what I've read, unemployment is more like 50%
Yeah, you are so absolutely fucking right. Those fucking communist don't want their kids to work. Can you imagine that? Someone who is 11 or 12 should work 12 hours a day. If not in the coal mines at least as a bell boy.
Oh, and those elderly, you know those old people who fill our young with communist propaganda. You don't think they work, do you? Hiding behind old age and mental deterioration. They should be hacking rootkits, and promoting capitalistic software.
Oh, but what the fuck do I know, I just read/.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no idea. I just know a little about how a fusion reactor is supposed to work under normal conditions. /. to have all the answers.
I do know that there is less waste than with a fission reactor. In both cases the chamber has to be treated as waste. The fuel itself from fission is additionnel waste compared to fusion. The problem, while still there, is definitely not as bad. As to figures regarding volume, I don't know. As to years, I always heard something like 50 years of storage for the vault.
Fusion research is a difficult, multi-field, international problem that will require a lot of effort and money to solve. We are not talking about a lone scientist in some backroom trying to get a tabletop version to work. So don't expect some guy posting on
Dude, our energy needs are increasing daily. But to increase that rapidly that you blow through a few millions of years worth of fuel in such short a time that other energy sources can't be find implies that we are really stupid and deserve our faith. By the time we have used that amount of energy, either human has gone extinct or has populated nearby star systems, even with slower than light speeds.
Even with all the energy we use today, it's insignificant with what the sun pumps out every second. No, the energy problem is for the next 50 years, not the millennia afterwards. But that is just what I think.
Really? Did you think so? Thanks, that means a lot to me.
Rest assured I am who I claim I am. In posts as this I am very careful in what I write and I doubt every line. First to make sure I didn't make stupid mistakes, because I don't feel like being made an idiot by someone who knows better, and second because I know myself that there is much knowledge about this and that I still have much to learn about it. It's also easy to make a mistake in a rather quickly written comment.
At the moment I making a site about stuff like this, but it's not yet finished so I can't point you to it for verification of my claims about me.
if a fusion reactor lost containment and went kaboom
What do you mean by losing containment?
If the chamber bursts, the plasma comes into contact with the outside world. Everything in reach of the plasma is going to have a lousy day, but there isn't an explosion. Also, such an environment isn't exactly beneficiary to fusion reactions.
If the magnetic fields disappear, the plasma comes into contact with the wall. Again not very positive, for the wall and potentially for everything outside. Again, something which doesn't exactly promotes fusion reactions.
The only way, as I see it, for such a reactor to explode is to maintain confinement and keep adding fuel and fuel until it explodes.
An explosion is a lose of containment, but lose of containment doesn't imply an explosion.
In my other post, I did forgot to mention x-rays. But I have no idea about the amount of x-rays produced in a tokamak or in case of failure or the effect of it on humans, so I won't comment on that.
As to the radioactive particles from fission. It's the short lived ones that are dangerous, not the ones that are stable for a few billion years. Heck, we are living in a world filled with particles that have a 4+ billion years half live. Everything else has mostly decayed and disappeared since Earth's formation.
Worst cases I can think off. Mind you, I haven't studied fusion reactor disasters, yet. So I could be wide off. However, it is my impression that not many people are worried about this. And that what I write down here is the prevailing knowledge. I have a masters degree in physics and worked on a tokamak for my masters thesis. For my PhD, I will be working on plasma's within a few weeks. So, that you know, I am not a crackpot scientist. English is not my native language, have patience.
You fill the reactor with as much fuel as you can, and you keep the machine going (i.e. you keep the magnetic field lines on, so that the plasma is confined and fusion reactions are going on.). Once enough fuel is inserted and energy is build up, you get an hydrogen bomb. An hydrogen bomb requires a classical fission bomb to get temperatures high enough so that fusion starts. But this can not happen accidently. In other to use a fusion reactor as a bomb, you intentionally have to add fuel to get it that far that it will explode. Any fusion reactor will have safety mechanisms. Now such things can fail. But since the fuel is sitting outside, safety systems can be designed that no fuel is inserted unless the operator (assisted by a computer) authorises fuel injection.
Contrast this to a fission reactor (the ones in operation now). All the fuel is present inside the reactor. The only thing operators can do is manipulate the burning rate. When something fails here all the fuel just keeps burning.
If something goes wrong in a fusion reactor, the reactor simply has to burn out. This happens rather quickly. there is no need to keep fuel inside that is needed more than for a minute or so. (Don't know how much or how long, just below the critical value for a explosion.) Fission reactors have fuel rods inside that lasted for years. Fusion reactors can be designed that fail safe means that no fuel is injected. You have to override such systems just to inject fuel, just to keep it going. In fission, fail save means that carbon rods are inserted between the fuel rods and you hope/pray that the fission reactions stop.
Okay, so what happens when everything goes wrong. No extra fuel is injected and the operators are no longer in control of the machine. It can not explode because there is not enough fuel inside. So forget Chernobyl and TMI. This means that everything outside the building is safe.
So, it can not explode. That leaves radiation. These are neutrons, gamma's (high energy light waves), high energy particles (alpha's mostly). There are other particle inside a reactor than alpha particles. Alpha particles (20% of the energy of a fusion reaction, 80% goes into the neutrons) are needed to keep temperaturs high. But this needs to be supplemented by external energy sources (another fail save, stop injecting energy.) Now these other particles, such as helium (this is the waste from fusion reactors. Even the waste has high economical value ! ) and carbon (eroded from the wall) have to be continually extracted from the reactor because the are bad for maintaining the required temperatures and energy levels. Alpha particles are stopped by a piece a paper. Don't worry about them. The neutrons are needed to generate tritium (tritium is radioactive, I think it has a 20 minute halve life inside the human body). But tritium will only be needed in the first few generations. Because using tritium is the easiest way to get towards a working fusion reactor. So the neutrons activate the reactor and the reactor will be stored for 50-100 years as high radioactive waste. Strontium, as you mentioned, although present in carbon and a waste product of coal plants is not present in fusion reactors. So these neutrons hit the wall, generate tritium and heat the wall/water in pipes and exit the chamber. (the water inside the chamber wall is the first water pipe system and generates steam in a secondary pipe system. From here you have a classical power plant of any kind.) Blocking those neutrons coming from the reactor chamb
Nope, because the reporter probably doesn't know what he's talking about. :)
When we have a working fusion reactor (expected somewhere in the second part of this century), the reactor itself of course won't provide infinite energy. But there is enough fuel on earth (and by extension on the moon) to last us a few million years. Longer than humans have been around. So in that sense, the first working fusion reactor will provide infinite energy, because we finally figured out how to build one. Once the first one is build, building dozens more is merely left as an exercise for the engineers.
Theoretically, when there is ignition, all the energy generated is pure profit. You don't have to add energy anymore, only fuel. So the energy output/energy input = infinite. But that is not the same as infinite energy. You still needs to add fuel. The amount of fuel injected in a reactor determines how much you get out of it. That is certainly high, but definitely less than infinite. And in practice, there will always be some losses. So the ouput/input ratio may be high, but not infinite.
There is also no need to worry about something like TMI or Chernobyl. In a classical nuclear reactor, all the fuel needed for years sits inside the reactor waiting to be used. In a fusion reactor, the fuel pellets are injected from the outside on a need to have basis.
Ah, if some knew back then, and he continued despite this, than yes give him all credit due. But in the episodes and films I saw, Sulu was never portrayed as gay. So no need to worship Star Trek itself because one of its actors came out of the closet. Star Trek didn't stand up for gay rights, Takei now does.
Star Trek didn't go anywhere, boldly or not, with this. Takei just came out in the last few months. Good for him, but it's not really shocking world news. When I heard this for the first time, I didn't freak out, I didn't applaud him. It was just another outing. It was at best some interesting tidbit.
Now, what have been really shocking or whatever it might have been, was if the creators of the original series knowingly and purposely hired Takei because he was gay and dedicated a episode to this aspect.
Star Trek shouldn't be applauded because they unknowingly had a gay helmsman, they should be remember for the other civil rights movement, such as having a character Uhura on board.
Now if he had come out during the first run of the series, it might have had an impact, in light of the show, in those years. Now, the original series is 30 years old.
Off course. I meant over the source (magnet) inside the field lines themselves.
Thanks for the link.
They used a field of 16 Tesla. That is quit large. ITER is planned for 13 Tesla or thereabouts.
So, no levitation for us puny humans.
Don't take this article seriously. The only thing they'll ever make is a good chuckle for physicists.
Hey, why didn't they throw in levitation as well? Didn't someone do an experiment where they levitated a frog by putting it over a strong magnetic field?
I don't know the frequencies and amplitudes required for damaging human cells. Is there a radio-physicist in the audience?
No, not that blue eyes, blond hear, but dawn syndrom and such.
In the mean time, we should be harsh on behalve of the gene pool.
Also instead trying to save every life, just for the sake of it, we should concentrate on the quality of life. What good is getting barely enough food and healthcare if the only thing you can in your life is sit in some desert feeling hungry while waiting for the next round humanitarian aid to pass by.
Instead of giving healthcare to places like africa and god knows where, we should have giving them an education system first. They would have build their own healthcare system, it would have kept the population level under control and Africa would have been in a better place.
We had and have war for oil, but God help us all when a war over water breaks out. For we can live without oil (perhaps not at current tech and comfort levels) but without water we can not do.
We did not gave them life, we gave misery.
Educate the people and they will not need our help or compassion or money or food
Life in itself is worthless. The qualities that make life worth living is important. That, we did not give.
At least none of my money (direct or indirectly) would be going to that.
Companies don't make sci-fi because of their love for it. They make it because it makes them money. Perhaps not that much, but still enough. If it wouldn't, it just gets canned.
It doesn't matter which one is cheaper. The value it has for me is what important. Not even for free would I want to watch a reality show bases on it's merits. For a decent sci-fi show I would even pay some amount. How much? That depends on many factors (script, acting, money to spend, competition,...).
Either you pay for it by higher product prices (commercials are also not free) or you pay for the TV show yourself.
In the last case at least your money is going to shows you want to watch.
And no matter how much you try to resist commercials, they'll get you in the end. And if you don't buy anything anymore for which you saw an add, then what are you going to do? Live of sunlight?
So yes, bring on paid for shows. It saves me time (not having to watch ads), it saves me annoyance (not having to watch stupid ads or stupid shows while socialising with the family) and only shows I endorse get money. So that would be more sci-fi and no bloody reality.
As I remember the story, she wanted to put her kid into college.
The person who did the tattoo tried to talk her out of it for many hours, but she wouldn't cave.
Installed yesterday. No problems so far.
I'm quite sure I'm not insane, but I'm equally sure you lack a sense of perspective :-)
Most likely. I am just sick of commercials. I don't want to watch them, I don't want them to trick me into buying stuff I don't need or want, I don't want them to waste my time.
Over the years it just keeps getting worse. Well, It's not yet as horrible in the States, from what I read. I don't understand how you can watch TV like that. In the next few months H(ard)D(isk)-recorders are hitting the stores here. Finally.
You can show them to me when the crows have picked my eyes out of their sockets.
I try not look at ads in a magazine. I keep the control next to me, so I can change the channel within 5 seconds to minimize ad-exposure.
Ads? You got to be kidding me
I rather zap for 5 minutes than watch one damned ad.
I block ads on my Mac, and if one gets through, I go beserk.
I have some difficulty with radio ads. Because the idiots always play them right before the news. And the news doesn't always last 10 minuts. So it might be over before turning the damned thing back on. Or you just miss the first newsitem. Luckily those ads are not that obnoxious. But still mighty annoying.
Oh, and the last few DVD's I bought here in europe have unskippable ads for second rate movies I don't even want to watch for free.
It's MY fucking DVD, if I want to SKIP your STUPID ADS, I WILL. They are MY eyes, it's MY time.
Ads, you got to kidding me.
You just keep your propaganda, I'll keep my money.
Is it usable as an eBook?
It can probably be used as an eBook, but is it usable/comfortable/enjoyable?
So, why isn't there a reform on contributions?
Make it an election topic.
NOOOOoooooooo.... /. for to long.
I can't see the grammar flaws. I have been reading
Where is my copy of LOTR.
Okay, sarcasme and /. are clearly bad combinations.
yes, you don't count children and elderly in the figures. In fact, if you are unemployed for too long, they don't even count you (at least in Belgium). So the actual numbers are usually slightly higher than the official ones.
My question, again, is where did the 50% come from. Show me some proof.
I can accept fluctuations in the unemployment figures depending on age or location. But I can not accept a figure that is ~5 times as high as the national level. At least not without proof.
So the sarcasm was: to get to a 50% figure, you surely have counted the children and elderly.
Dude, this is really a lousy day.
I know, I am just wondering how he got to 50% without including children and elderly. /. is something everyone can do. But hey, it's France, lets do some bashing and make up some numbers and blame everything on the nanny state. Perhaps unemployment is high, but not that many people are forced to live on the streets. Unlike some other countries.
And just citing a number on
Indeed, but it was the whining against the european social model that angered me, and the unsupported claim of 50% unemployment.
Socialism is not communism, for crying out loud.
Actually, from what I've read, unemployment is more like 50% /.
Yeah, you are so absolutely fucking right. Those fucking communist don't want their kids to work. Can you imagine that? Someone who is 11 or 12 should work 12 hours a day. If not in the coal mines at least as a bell boy.
Oh, and those elderly, you know those old people who fill our young with communist propaganda. You don't think they work, do you? Hiding behind old age and mental deterioration. They should be hacking rootkits, and promoting capitalistic software.
Oh, but what the fuck do I know, I just read
Can't we play hide and seek, just this once?