All these estimations seem to think that the Uranium just appears in the reactors. It's hauled great distances from mines that tear into the planet and refineries that throw out most of the rock. Almost none of this is powered by nuclear power, or even biofuels or some other renewable energy.
Nuclear power is dependent upon cheap portable energy to produce such cheap energy. Unless we come up with a better way to power all the equipment that makes it possible to run the reactors, they'll be useless.
Why should I have to reduce my standard of living when we have technology (nuclear) that won't cause climate change?
You're under the mistaken assumption that reducing your energy consumption also reduces your standard of living. This is factually incorrect. It is perfectly possible to maintain your standard of living while reducing consumption through efficiency increases. It's perfectly feasible to decrease your energy use by 50% or more without seriously affecting your standard of living.
This isn't to say nuclear isn't a good thing, but the fewer plants we need to build, the better, right?
And the grandparent's an idiot for thinking nuclear is unsafe. Unsustainable, maybe (you need fossil fuels to mine and ship the uranium), but not unsafe.
Let me preface what I'm about to say with this: I'm not an anti-nuke freak. In fact, I think nuclear power plants are the only thing that could sustain a permanent colony from Mars on outward. Nuclear power is perfectly safe.
However, more sunlight hits the planet in one second than we can use in an entire year. If we split this collection between solar panels and plants for biofuel, we could easily provide enough power for everyone, and without having to build giant centralized generation systems. Remember the blackout in 2003? Well, imagine if we all had solar panels on our roofs and batteries in our basements and more efficient loads on all of it. None of that would have happened.
I'm not opposed to terrestrial nuclear power because "OMG NUKEZ ARE TEH BADDZORZ!!1!!111!" I'm opposed to nuclear power because there are simpler ways to achieve the same end. Some nuclear plants with a big push for wind and solar and tidal, as well as decreasing our per capita energy usage is the model I'm in favor of. If we were on a barren rock, I'd go for the nukes. But we've got plenty of other sources of energy.
Yes, there are. Unfortunately, none of them are offered in your area.
And if you even think that you can get your community to roll out your own ISP, you'll find that, at least in PA, you have to get Comcast and Verizon's permission.
If they've got Best Buy, they'll make them suck more, but they'll get more penetration. More broadband choice would be great, and even a degraded Speakeasy has to be better than Comcast or Verizon.
I've not found another text editor that compares favorably to Textmate. It's incredibly inuitive and incredibly beautiful. I've spent hours tweaking things like JEdit or Notepad++ to get the funtionality and user experience from them that I can get in minutes from a fresh TextMate install, but I can never get them quite right, even if I use the exact same fonts and colors. And nothing matches TextMates Escape or Tab code completion, not to mention the folder drawer or Cmd+T file opening.
If a piece of software saves me time in setting it up and while I use it, it's worth the price of being closed source. I find that very few open source apps live up to the level of fit and finish that OS X has, with Adium being a notable exception. And for all their expertise at writing daemons or server applications, the open source community couldn't make an effective, efficient, intuitive UI to save their life.
I hate paying for software as much as the next guy, but TextMate is definitely worth it.
Just wait till you get married. Having a dedicated place for entertainment just means your wife knows where to go to bug you. At least with my laptop I get 15 extra minutes of solitude while she looks around the house for me.
The average IQ, by definition, is 100. Now, I'd imagine that most people on Slashdot are above average intelligence and therefore don't have a basis for understanding someone with an IQ of 100. It really is like talking to a child.
Depending on how cheaply you can get your Internet access and how much TV you watch, buying a season pass on iTunes could wind up being cheaper than paying for cable.
Unfortunately for me, the only reliable broadband in my area is from Comcast, who charges you an extra $15/month for broadband if you don't get it bundled with their $15/month basic cable.
Firefly, may she rest in peace, BSG, the new Dr. Who and Torchwood are "grown up" Sci Fi with a wider appeal. This is evident by the ratings they're getting. Either that, or there are many more nerds now than there ever were.
Let's imagine: Time and space are your playthings. The vast majority of species little more than amusing trifles. You can go from the beginning of the universe to the end of time and be back in time for tea. Your ship looks like a bright blue police box and your only real enemies are ugly lumps of goo in armored suits.
5) Circumvent them by only buying music from independent labels who distribute without DRM or with a creative commons license and watch as the bastards flail helplessly trying to sue you for not breaking any copyrights.
Jonathan Coulton did the same thing with his music, only he did some HTML trickery to get it working. With a little work, you could get the MP3s off of the site without paying, but they're so good that you'd rather just give him the money.
As for making money this way, he says that he makes more than a signed artist like the Dresden Dolls, who recently said they make about $1500/month while on tour. And he's not with any record label and he only recently became a professional musician.
Same here. But what's worse is that Verizon and Comcast can't keep up with the demand because of the large number of college students, and yet still aren't rolling out faster speeds.
And under your criteria, places without a certain level of income-density aren't going to EVER get true broadband. And so you'll have people with high incomes leaving those areas for places where the services dominate, and lead to an underclass.
If this were the case than Manhattan and Beverly Hills and San Francisco would have 100Mb symmetrical fiber connections like the ones that are available in similar places in Japan, South Korea, and Sweden.
Let me provide another example. I live near one of the most expensive colleges in the country, and I'm surrounded by students living off campus. Even though I'm in a small city, you'd expect that I'd have some decent broadband choice, even if I had to pay through the nose. It's a fairly lucrative market: College students with parents rich enough to give their kids brand new luxury cars. You'd think Comcast and Verizon, or some other company, would have come through with fiber ages ago.
However, I have two choices: Comcast's expensive service with decent download speeds but atrocious upload speeds, or Verizon's service with poor download speeds and similar upload speeds.
The evidence simply doesn't support your contention that broadband providers are spreading true broadband, like the stuff that's in other countries, to places as fast as they can. They're dragging their feet and using the outdated telecommunications laws to their advantage. They're even getting state and federal governments to write new laws to support them, like the one last year in PA that made it illegal for a community to provide broadband if Verizon or Comcast are going to provide it within the next year.
What's needed is a push from consumers to understand what would truly be available if we opened up the market and got the government truly dedicated to providing next-generation communications to the people.
P.S. I live in "Amish country" and we don't just have a Gap store, but a Gap outlet, along with dozens of other factory outlets.
So the TVA and other Rural Electrification movements weren't necessary? I mean, eventually the cost to run power lines into Appalachia would have dropped dramatically and demand for electricity would have brought it to those poor people eventually, right?
Or to pick a Republican backed notion: The wealthy would have created the highway system for their own use, right? And eventually, it would have been affordable to ordinary folks.
To put it another way: Don't start your argument with ad hominem attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
All these estimations seem to think that the Uranium just appears in the reactors. It's hauled great distances from mines that tear into the planet and refineries that throw out most of the rock. Almost none of this is powered by nuclear power, or even biofuels or some other renewable energy.
Nuclear power is dependent upon cheap portable energy to produce such cheap energy. Unless we come up with a better way to power all the equipment that makes it possible to run the reactors, they'll be useless.
Why should I have to reduce my standard of living when we have technology (nuclear) that won't cause climate change?
You're under the mistaken assumption that reducing your energy consumption also reduces your standard of living. This is factually incorrect. It is perfectly possible to maintain your standard of living while reducing consumption through efficiency increases. It's perfectly feasible to decrease your energy use by 50% or more without seriously affecting your standard of living.
This isn't to say nuclear isn't a good thing, but the fewer plants we need to build, the better, right?
And the grandparent's an idiot for thinking nuclear is unsafe. Unsustainable, maybe (you need fossil fuels to mine and ship the uranium), but not unsafe.
Let me preface what I'm about to say with this: I'm not an anti-nuke freak. In fact, I think nuclear power plants are the only thing that could sustain a permanent colony from Mars on outward. Nuclear power is perfectly safe.
However, more sunlight hits the planet in one second than we can use in an entire year. If we split this collection between solar panels and plants for biofuel, we could easily provide enough power for everyone, and without having to build giant centralized generation systems. Remember the blackout in 2003? Well, imagine if we all had solar panels on our roofs and batteries in our basements and more efficient loads on all of it. None of that would have happened.
I'm not opposed to terrestrial nuclear power because "OMG NUKEZ ARE TEH BADDZORZ!!1!!111!" I'm opposed to nuclear power because there are simpler ways to achieve the same end. Some nuclear plants with a big push for wind and solar and tidal, as well as decreasing our per capita energy usage is the model I'm in favor of. If we were on a barren rock, I'd go for the nukes. But we've got plenty of other sources of energy.
DynDNS and ddclient are your friends.
Yes, there are. Unfortunately, none of them are offered in your area.
And if you even think that you can get your community to roll out your own ISP, you'll find that, at least in PA, you have to get Comcast and Verizon's permission.
That's funny. The most talented hackers I know can go for days without knowing what the weather is like.
If they've got Best Buy, they'll make them suck more, but they'll get more penetration. More broadband choice would be great, and even a degraded Speakeasy has to be better than Comcast or Verizon.
Yeah, but you'd rather hang out with the Apple guy outside of work.
Between "Macaca" and the recent Obama video, it's a pretty good bet that politicians have at least heard of YouTube.
That is, those politicians who realize the Internet isn't, in fact, a truck.
That's funny, because TextMate isn't an Apple product.
And give me a break. I typed that between Alt-Tabbing back to work. I lost my train of thought.
Run Mac OS X...
I've not found another text editor that compares favorably to Textmate. It's incredibly inuitive and incredibly beautiful. I've spent hours tweaking things like JEdit or Notepad++ to get the funtionality and user experience from them that I can get in minutes from a fresh TextMate install, but I can never get them quite right, even if I use the exact same fonts and colors. And nothing matches TextMates Escape or Tab code completion, not to mention the folder drawer or Cmd+T file opening.
If a piece of software saves me time in setting it up and while I use it, it's worth the price of being closed source. I find that very few open source apps live up to the level of fit and finish that OS X has, with Adium being a notable exception. And for all their expertise at writing daemons or server applications, the open source community couldn't make an effective, efficient, intuitive UI to save their life.
I hate paying for software as much as the next guy, but TextMate is definitely worth it.
Just wait till you get married. Having a dedicated place for entertainment just means your wife knows where to go to bug you. At least with my laptop I get 15 extra minutes of solitude while she looks around the house for me.
Not to mention the corner pub has free wifi.
Those keyboards use the reflectivity of your fingernails to sense what keys they hit.
The average IQ, by definition, is 100. Now, I'd imagine that most people on Slashdot are above average intelligence and therefore don't have a basis for understanding someone with an IQ of 100. It really is like talking to a child.
I know! And the iPod has no wireless and less space than a Nomad! They'll never catch on.
Depending on how cheaply you can get your Internet access and how much TV you watch, buying a season pass on iTunes could wind up being cheaper than paying for cable.
Unfortunately for me, the only reliable broadband in my area is from Comcast, who charges you an extra $15/month for broadband if you don't get it bundled with their $15/month basic cable.
Firefly, may she rest in peace, BSG, the new Dr. Who and Torchwood are "grown up" Sci Fi with a wider appeal. This is evident by the ratings they're getting. Either that, or there are many more nerds now than there ever were.
Let's imagine: Time and space are your playthings. The vast majority of species little more than amusing trifles. You can go from the beginning of the universe to the end of time and be back in time for tea. Your ship looks like a bright blue police box and your only real enemies are ugly lumps of goo in armored suits.
Wouldn't you be a little goofy?
5) Circumvent them by only buying music from independent labels who distribute without DRM or with a creative commons license and watch as the bastards flail helplessly trying to sue you for not breaking any copyrights.
6) Write and perform your own music.
Jonathan Coulton did the same thing with his music, only he did some HTML trickery to get it working. With a little work, you could get the MP3s off of the site without paying, but they're so good that you'd rather just give him the money.
As for making money this way, he says that he makes more than a signed artist like the Dresden Dolls, who recently said they make about $1500/month while on tour. And he's not with any record label and he only recently became a professional musician.
Same here. But what's worse is that Verizon and Comcast can't keep up with the demand because of the large number of college students, and yet still aren't rolling out faster speeds.
And under your criteria, places without a certain level of income-density aren't going to EVER get true broadband. And so you'll have people with high incomes leaving those areas for places where the services dominate, and lead to an underclass.
Capitalism is AWESOME.
If this were the case than Manhattan and Beverly Hills and San Francisco would have 100Mb symmetrical fiber connections like the ones that are available in similar places in Japan, South Korea, and Sweden.
Let me provide another example. I live near one of the most expensive colleges in the country, and I'm surrounded by students living off campus. Even though I'm in a small city, you'd expect that I'd have some decent broadband choice, even if I had to pay through the nose. It's a fairly lucrative market: College students with parents rich enough to give their kids brand new luxury cars. You'd think Comcast and Verizon, or some other company, would have come through with fiber ages ago.
However, I have two choices: Comcast's expensive service with decent download speeds but atrocious upload speeds, or Verizon's service with poor download speeds and similar upload speeds.
The evidence simply doesn't support your contention that broadband providers are spreading true broadband, like the stuff that's in other countries, to places as fast as they can. They're dragging their feet and using the outdated telecommunications laws to their advantage. They're even getting state and federal governments to write new laws to support them, like the one last year in PA that made it illegal for a community to provide broadband if Verizon or Comcast are going to provide it within the next year.
What's needed is a push from consumers to understand what would truly be available if we opened up the market and got the government truly dedicated to providing next-generation communications to the people.
P.S. I live in "Amish country" and we don't just have a Gap store, but a Gap outlet, along with dozens of other factory outlets.
So the TVA and other Rural Electrification movements weren't necessary? I mean, eventually the cost to run power lines into Appalachia would have dropped dramatically and demand for electricity would have brought it to those poor people eventually, right?
Or to pick a Republican backed notion: The wealthy would have created the highway system for their own use, right? And eventually, it would have been affordable to ordinary folks.
To put it another way: Don't start your argument with ad hominem attacks.