Imho mans presence on another former dead space rock would be less of an issue than the current one.
The two issues I would have with it is that a) it of course transport more energy which will be turned into heat here but I guess the effect of that is at least smaller than the one of greenhouse gases and later on melting polar ices and such and b) possibly some issue with the electro-magnetic transfer of the energy over to the earth (but I don't know if that's an issue?)
Thorium we already mine whatever we want it or not. We need much less of it than we would need uranium, the reactors may be safer and supposedly you only needed to store the left overs for 300 years to make them no more harmful than regular granite. Which of course is a huge advantage over the uranium reactors too.
India for whatever reason (lack of developed reactors?) is instead building (at least one) reactor which will instead run on uranium (somewhat in the normal way I assume) made from the thorium they have. Which doesn't seem all that cool.
I don't see why it's better to fuck this one up sooner than we could use a lifeless (?) rock and help prevent messing this one up at least all that much.
But then again more energy and progress will likely consumer more natural resources and destroy things on this one regardless. If only we had picked ecological materials and construction for everything everywhere so what we left got turned into soil again and whatever wasn't organic we possibly let be.
A) I didn't even know that word existed. "Senare" och "det senare" would be the same word in Swedish.
B) I obviously mean that it would give us a reason to get to the moon again (not necessary in meat-bag form) and do some space stuff which is always cool.
What I'm trying to say: Start planning, researching and building those damn thorium reactors or just plan, research for and decide that we're going to build solar cells on the moon. Both are doable. We just have to decide we want to do them and put some effort into getting there. It make sense to do both / either. As for doing research the gains may not go to the one who did the research so as such I think it make more sense to do that on a government or cooperative level but whatever. Either alternative need some intense funding to get going to, which is also easier to do on a larger cooperative scale.
A magazine I've read mentioned we got the models for the molten salt thorium reactors but we need to have decent materials to build the pipes and (research?) the filtering equipment. They put the figure into getting that research done at 40 billion. Sure it also take some time but the sooner we start the sooner we'll get done with it.
The same magazine (different issue) also talked about solar cells on the moon, there was some guy arguing for it if I remember correctly (and if so he may have done that for some time), he put the price tag at 500 billion which of course is a lot of money but it also say about that was put into searching (? (building to?)) for new oil each year and if one look at it that way it's obviously very doable from an economical point of view.
Both options seem rather good and better than many other options at least.
Just built those damn thorium reactors or solar cells on the moon.
40 (researching materials & systems for reactors) or 500(+?) billion dollar depending on which project you're doing is more or less nothing when it comes to energy production and consumption anyway.
You'd learn other cool stuff to, the later would get us to the moon and who knows maybe a moon base or more space stations and more eyes towards the sky and more belief in science and how awesome humans are, I guess less environmental impact here..
I've seen a lot of comments naming specific scenarios where a gamepad is better. That's completely pointless. If a gamepad is better in that scenario then you'll just use a gamepad.
But if you're going to argue like that then a mouse and keyboard is also better in that scenario and hence the controller is useless..
For those two situations at least.
That we want to know how well it performs against either if this is what one will be using I don't find weird at all.
Me I wonder about the ergonomics of having your thumb push against a stiff surface the whole time, even if the pressure needed is very small.
Also I think the purpose of this is to play games. Not just specific mouse and keyboard games, but that the touch-pads allowed an easier way of handling those to.
Actually it wasn't all that much about jellyfish as much as what the fuck we're doing to all sea life, sea bottoms, wild life in general, insects, forests, our water, the climate.
The comments about how this and that have to go always come from people who benefit on the death of those individuals either by direct usage and sales or by getting rid of competition.
But it's very obvious who the biggest issue is, who's the largest predator, the one who really throw ecological systems out of balance, poison the planet and so on.
The fishing fleets are way over-dimensioned and I kinda wish someone just sank every ship they saw but that wouldn't be environmental friendly so I'd rather see they got confiscated / all usage of them as far as fishing goes was banned.
Over here in Sweden the Naturvårdsverket (Natural care ministry) always decide that we need LESS of the predators and how half of the current amount of wolves and less when what we had just a few years ago when they started to shoot some to try to get support for bringing wolves from other countries here to solve the inbreeding within the population. They think 170 is enough. Others say 700. And still some hunter organization (?) think it should be split into one for nature preservation and one for hunting because they don't take care of the hunters interests..
Damn idiots for all I care. Take this picture for example: Facebook group picture - shoot wolves "One family... murdering another. And they call it ''sport''. It is murder. Please, stop the killing!"
This is what humans do: Facebook group picture - 36.000 elephants killed last year There was some other picture about the last rhinos in some reserve having been shot to, there was 300 or so there a short while ago but now they are gone. Good job idiots!
More dead wolves:
Reminds me of a picture of some chick with a dead giraffe around her neck. Yeah, you're so awesome! Managed to kill the exotic prey. How amazingly good you are!
Off topic as fuck but damn. Worry about a few manets? Because those are the problem?
And yeah, in some Swedish lake they kinda dredged a lake.. For fish. Because they wanted to get rid of the "crap fish" as they viewed it because the lake had little oxygen. Yeah, but how was that situation created? Where did all the predator fish go?
It's disgusting to send out freaking robots to kill of sea life just because you consider them too many / have messed up the balance of the seas. It's going after the symptoms rather than the cause.
I kinda get frustrated than the Bill Gates foundation make a post about how many people manage to survive what earlier killed them. But then again (as I may have already said?) it seems like humans who become richer (survive better?) get less children so I don't know what's worst. But then again rich people do the most damage to the planet so...
Was some TV show about sand and how we're kinda running out and take it up from the seas but when you take up sand outside the shore of some place other sand will fall down to fill its place. Anyway the problem is
I imagine the e-ink would be nicer. But anything over sitting in front of the computer with the wrong aspect ratio (could be fixed.. But size and comfort and all.)
I know about Calibre, but the other problem is the limited storage vs say the Sony readers which have microSD slots.
Also a book bundle unless it's like thousands of books doesn't really do it for me. Not that I know what I want to read or not or should read or not but I've always read very little and as if if I'm going to read something I'd likely pick something which I find interesting and which I look up. But if the e-book cost more than a physical copy or about the same why get that one instead?
Also I hate having to buy things multiple times. Why would I ever have to pay again to go from a movie I own on VHS to DVD to blu-ray? Imho I have already paid for the production and license so to say. All the various formats is just a pain in the ass.
I buy board games but I know the tablet versions are often free or very cheap. But I assume the price difference may not ONLY be in production and distribution cost (and seriously screw the retailers, who needs them? Why can't I just order from a freaking massive distribution center what I want myself rather than pay some additional middle man?), anyway, the argument could be that they make some money there and that helps with development of games. Yeah. Good. But is the system fair? I don't know. So I can't tell, but I'm curious.
Anyway, why can't they put a small "key guard" on the box inside the plastic with a key for the electronic copy of the game if you buy the physical copy? Like, "play the physical copy with your friends if you get the chance, if not you can always play the electronic version." Just mark it with "Includes a copy of Ticket to Ride for iOS and Android" for instance.
Formats change. The product remain the same or about the same (freshed), let me get access to it regardless of format!
A cousin of mine had just read a recently popular book and mentioned it on Facebook. I followed the link or googled for it and the pocket book was 49 SEK and the ebook was 59 SEK.
Now I must say I would personally prefer the e-book (at least at a better price) because it uses up less space, bookmarks itself and so on (just wish the readers was way better, perfect and fast PDF, higher resolution and larger screens, possibly color, more storage,..) but I consider a real book higher value because you can for instance sell it, trade it, lend it, more work was put into generating it, way higher distribution/shipping costs.
But still at a higher price. Only reason I can see for that is that they know demand for e-books are high enough and that it still sells, or something such.
Biggest positive factors of e-books is 1) Huge library 2) Cheaper price. Please don't mess up 2, because then 1 likely wouldn't happen anyway.
Now personally I guess I'd just copy the shit out of it (the content/books) if it's too expensive. But I buy the Indie bundles and feel somewhat bad about missing out even though I feel like I can't buy ALL of them and even less so don't see how I would ever be able (or even interested) in playing all the games. Last game I bought before those though was Warcraft III and the expansion The Frozen Throne for it (though I had booked World of Warcraft and would had bought Starcraft II had I a good enough machine for it.)
Anyway I'm quite sure I read some story about the insane amount the libraries had to pay for each lended copy of an e-book, I think it was higher than their cost for books? Possibly much higher. Which make no sense at all. I don't know whatever they pay extra for books or can only lend them a fixed amount of times or pay a fee per time or for a license / good will for using them. But e-books of course doesn't wear out and could be lended out in masses but there has to be some negotiation on price I guess, or have been somewhere, but it seemed completely f-d up.
If anyone got any details please share.
I don't own a reader atm. Kindle still seem like the best option but the limited storage (unless you actually buy books from Amazon), vendor lock-in (they sell books in their own format and the most popular one you can't use on their readers) and finally the Sony reader had much snappier zoom and scroll (?, may have been just one of them.)
"New e-book store / subscription service, pay^wjoin now!"
Offer me e-books like indie game bundles, pay what I want, DRM free. That will sell more content than "pay more than physical books!".. also libraries are "for free" (though I wish they was all shut down, especially in the cases where they are robbing society for e-books.)
Slashdot Mirror
Imho mans presence on another former dead space rock would be less of an issue than the current one.
The two issues I would have with it is that a) it of course transport more energy which will be turned into heat here but I guess the effect of that is at least smaller than the one of greenhouse gases and later on melting polar ices and such and b) possibly some issue with the electro-magnetic transfer of the energy over to the earth (but I don't know if that's an issue?)
Thorium we already mine whatever we want it or not. We need much less of it than we would need uranium, the reactors may be safer and supposedly you only needed to store the left overs for 300 years to make them no more harmful than regular granite. Which of course is a huge advantage over the uranium reactors too.
India for whatever reason (lack of developed reactors?) is instead building (at least one) reactor which will instead run on uranium (somewhat in the normal way I assume) made from the thorium they have. Which doesn't seem all that cool.
I don't see why it's better to fuck this one up sooner than we could use a lifeless (?) rock and help prevent messing this one up at least all that much.
But then again more energy and progress will likely consumer more natural resources and destroy things on this one regardless. If only we had picked ecological materials and construction for everything everywhere so what we left got turned into soil again and whatever wasn't organic we possibly let be.
A) I didn't even know that word existed. "Senare" och "det senare" would be the same word in Swedish.
B) I obviously mean that it would give us a reason to get to the moon again (not necessary in meat-bag form) and do some space stuff which is always cool.
What I'm trying to say:
Start planning, researching and building those damn thorium reactors or just plan, research for and decide that we're going to build solar cells on the moon. Both are doable. We just have to decide we want to do them and put some effort into getting there. It make sense to do both / either. As for doing research the gains may not go to the one who did the research so as such I think it make more sense to do that on a government or cooperative level but whatever. Either alternative need some intense funding to get going to, which is also easier to do on a larger cooperative scale.
A magazine I've read mentioned we got the models for the molten salt thorium reactors but we need to have decent materials to build the pipes and (research?) the filtering equipment. They put the figure into getting that research done at 40 billion. Sure it also take some time but the sooner we start the sooner we'll get done with it.
The same magazine (different issue) also talked about solar cells on the moon, there was some guy arguing for it if I remember correctly (and if so he may have done that for some time), he put the price tag at 500 billion which of course is a lot of money but it also say about that was put into searching (? (building to?)) for new oil each year and if one look at it that way it's obviously very doable from an economical point of view.
Both options seem rather good and better than many other options at least.
... too press submit just as you notice built rather than build.
Just built those damn thorium reactors or solar cells on the moon.
40 (researching materials & systems for reactors) or 500(+?) billion dollar depending on which project you're doing is more or less nothing when it comes to energy production and consumption anyway.
You'd learn other cool stuff to, the later would get us to the moon and who knows maybe a moon base or more space stations and more eyes towards the sky and more belief in science and how awesome humans are, I guess less environmental impact here..
Space stuff are cool, lots of energy is nice.
Just pay.
Port Grand Theft Auto V to Linux. Just like that. I know it's not gonna happen, but man would it be awesome.
Grand Penguin Thug V a cheap-ass clone wouldn't be enough for you?
I've seen a lot of comments naming specific scenarios where a gamepad is better. That's completely pointless. If a gamepad is better in that scenario then you'll just use a gamepad.
But if you're going to argue like that then a mouse and keyboard is also better in that scenario and hence the controller is useless..
For those two situations at least.
That we want to know how well it performs against either if this is what one will be using I don't find weird at all.
Me I wonder about the ergonomics of having your thumb push against a stiff surface the whole time, even if the pressure needed is very small.
Also I think the purpose of this is to play games. Not just specific mouse and keyboard games, but that the touch-pads allowed an easier way of handling those to.
Actually it wasn't all that much about jellyfish as much as what the fuck we're doing to all sea life, sea bottoms, wild life in general, insects, forests, our water, the climate.
The comments about how this and that have to go always come from people who benefit on the death of those individuals either by direct usage and sales or by getting rid of competition.
But it's very obvious who the biggest issue is, who's the largest predator, the one who really throw ecological systems out of balance, poison the planet and so on.
The fishing fleets are way over-dimensioned and I kinda wish someone just sank every ship they saw but that wouldn't be environmental friendly so I'd rather see they got confiscated / all usage of them as far as fishing goes was banned.
Over here in Sweden the Naturvårdsverket (Natural care ministry) always decide that we need LESS of the predators and how half of the current amount of wolves and less when what we had just a few years ago when they started to shoot some to try to get support for bringing wolves from other countries here to solve the inbreeding within the population. They think 170 is enough. Others say 700. And still some hunter organization (?) think it should be split into one for nature preservation and one for hunting because they don't take care of the hunters interests..
Damn idiots for all I care.
Take this picture for example:
Facebook group picture - shoot wolves
"One family... murdering another. And they call it ''sport''. It is murder. Please, stop the killing!"
How sane is this person?
Another facebook group picture - tortured mouse
Daily mail link
This is what humans do:
Facebook group picture - 36.000 elephants killed last year
There was some other picture about the last rhinos in some reserve having been shot to, there was 300 or so there a short while ago but now they are gone. Good job idiots!
More dead wolves:
Reminds me of a picture of some chick with a dead giraffe around her neck. Yeah, you're so awesome! Managed to kill the exotic prey. How amazingly good you are!
People = shit:
Facebook group picture - burned dog
Off topic as fuck but damn. Worry about a few manets?
Because those are the problem?
And yeah, in some Swedish lake they kinda dredged a lake.. For fish. Because they wanted to get rid of the "crap fish" as they viewed it because the lake had little oxygen. Yeah, but how was that situation created? Where did all the predator fish go?
It's disgusting to send out freaking robots to kill of sea life just because you consider them too many / have messed up the balance of the seas. It's going after the symptoms rather than the cause.
I kinda get frustrated than the Bill Gates foundation make a post about how many people manage to survive what earlier killed them. But then again (as I may have already said?) it seems like humans who become richer (survive better?) get less children so I don't know what's worst. But then again rich people do the most damage to the planet so ...
Was some TV show about sand and how we're kinda running out and take it up from the seas but when you take up sand outside the shore of some place other sand will fall down to fill its place. Anyway the problem is
What needs to be done is to destroy the fishing fleets.
Yeah... That must be it.
Wait for your turn!
They are still trying to figure out these non-ASCII char sets.
But there's lots of rule books and such as PDFs, also likely scans of stuff not released officially / from the beginning as ebooks.
Maybe magazines too?
But the screen size, resolution and lack of color and the speed of the device and how heavy PDF is to handle are additional issues with those.
Half-Life Forever.
For your Linux desktop.
I imagine the e-ink would be nicer. But anything over sitting in front of the computer with the wrong aspect ratio (could be fixed .. But size and comfort and all.)
I know about Calibre, but the other problem is the limited storage vs say the Sony readers which have microSD slots.
Not bad for 100 years of service.
Per second?
Who knows.
It will also use 2 liter. Or possibly a library of congress.
Also a book bundle unless it's like thousands of books doesn't really do it for me. Not that I know what I want to read or not or should read or not but I've always read very little and as if if I'm going to read something I'd likely pick something which I find interesting and which I look up. But if the e-book cost more than a physical copy or about the same why get that one instead?
Also I hate having to buy things multiple times. Why would I ever have to pay again to go from a movie I own on VHS to DVD to blu-ray? Imho I have already paid for the production and license so to say. All the various formats is just a pain in the ass.
I buy board games but I know the tablet versions are often free or very cheap. But I assume the price difference may not ONLY be in production and distribution cost (and seriously screw the retailers, who needs them? Why can't I just order from a freaking massive distribution center what I want myself rather than pay some additional middle man?), anyway, the argument could be that they make some money there and that helps with development of games. Yeah. Good. But is the system fair? I don't know. So I can't tell, but I'm curious.
Anyway, why can't they put a small "key guard" on the box inside the plastic with a key for the electronic copy of the game if you buy the physical copy? Like, "play the physical copy with your friends if you get the chance, if not you can always play the electronic version." Just mark it with "Includes a copy of Ticket to Ride for iOS and Android" for instance.
Formats change. The product remain the same or about the same (freshed), let me get access to it regardless of format!
Thank you. Though I kinda meant in general.
A cousin of mine had just read a recently popular book and mentioned it on Facebook. I followed the link or googled for it and the pocket book was 49 SEK and the ebook was 59 SEK.
Now I must say I would personally prefer the e-book (at least at a better price) because it uses up less space, bookmarks itself and so on (just wish the readers was way better, perfect and fast PDF, higher resolution and larger screens, possibly color, more storage, ..) but I consider a real book higher value because you can for instance sell it, trade it, lend it, more work was put into generating it, way higher distribution/shipping costs.
But still at a higher price. Only reason I can see for that is that they know demand for e-books are high enough and that it still sells, or something such.
Biggest positive factors of e-books is 1) Huge library 2) Cheaper price. Please don't mess up 2, because then 1 likely wouldn't happen anyway.
Now personally I guess I'd just copy the shit out of it (the content/books) if it's too expensive. But I buy the Indie bundles and feel somewhat bad about missing out even though I feel like I can't buy ALL of them and even less so don't see how I would ever be able (or even interested) in playing all the games. Last game I bought before those though was Warcraft III and the expansion The Frozen Throne for it (though I had booked World of Warcraft and would had bought Starcraft II had I a good enough machine for it.)
Anyway I'm quite sure I read some story about the insane amount the libraries had to pay for each lended copy of an e-book, I think it was higher than their cost for books? Possibly much higher. Which make no sense at all. I don't know whatever they pay extra for books or can only lend them a fixed amount of times or pay a fee per time or for a license / good will for using them. But e-books of course doesn't wear out and could be lended out in masses but there has to be some negotiation on price I guess, or have been somewhere, but it seemed completely f-d up.
If anyone got any details please share.
I don't own a reader atm. Kindle still seem like the best option but the limited storage (unless you actually buy books from Amazon), vendor lock-in (they sell books in their own format and the most popular one you can't use on their readers) and finally the Sony reader had much snappier zoom and scroll (?, may have been just one of them.)
"New e-book store / subscription service, pay^wjoin now!"
Offer me e-books like indie game bundles, pay what I want, DRM free. That will sell more content than "pay more than physical books!" .. also libraries are "for free" (though I wish they was all shut down, especially in the cases where they are robbing society for e-books.)
Can I or can't I read it on my e-book reader?
And what formats do they offer? If with DRM what devices support the DRM? All which support the format?
And if I want to is there a crack for removing the DRM?
The stuff that matters, things for geeks.
This type of crazy talk only serves to polarize the system even more and should not be encouraged.
The problem is clearly that of democracy.
This issue would never had materialized in China.
They need to come over and liberate you people from the burden of democracy.
Your comment doesn't make any sense.
One million men * five shoots each all hits = five million hits.
One shot & bullet per German.
That's one sexy machine.
Should get 1 BTC / week just for the looks of that beauty.
Yeah. I googled it and saw the governor title or whatever. Never bothered in investigating further. Turned out I should had I guess :)
Tails I'll nuke, heads I don't.
In Texas they become presidents!
They should had called it Lucky Luke.
No-one draws faster!