Gen 4 reactors will happily run in a way that it effectively reprocesses its own waste. It's also got passive safety and the resulting waste (which at this point really isn't fuel) has a half-life well short of the hundred years.
They are also fictional. We'll be able to judge how well they operate and how they reprocess own waste when we see one operating safely for some time.
No, it is not fuel. Part of it may become fuel if one is allowed to reprocess it. Reprocessing, however, is a very tightly regulated business, and in many places, for example in the US, or in Japan, or in Russia it is not an option, or not a very important option. Do you know why it isn't a wide-spread, happy industry? Yep, because it is expensive as hell, dangerous and dual-use.
Here's a fun experiment to do: stop pretending you carry a cesium source and a Geiger counter, and consider what should be done with the 1000+ tons of highly radioactive mud that is already collected on-site in Fukushima. Right next to the used fuel pool.
Please make it a rational solution that can guarantee no leaks for a few hundred years and doesn't cost a brazillion billion million yen.
Excellent rationalizing, but wrong. Nuclear waste is significantly more dangerous and harder to handle and reprocess than the other pollution in addition to being poisonous. http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
One, you have serious reading comprehension issues. OP claims coal produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power.
Two, that SA article has been debunked so many times, it isn't even funny. The 'research' it is based on is from 1977 and it discusses coal plants that aren't built anymore. Here, for your reading pleasure: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
What certainly played significant role in bringing down the Republic was the inability of the Romans to adapt their political system, which was quite efficient in running a city-state (or a loose union of several city-states), to govern the huge country their successful military campaigns created. It simply didn't scale well enough.
Another big hurdle, IIRC, was the impossibility of legal reform because the Roman viewed the laws of their forefathers as sacred. The legal mess they got on their hands in the last years of the Republic allowed all kinds of manipulation of the political system -- something which Caesar and his successors used skillfully to gradually take over.
I don't think we have enough facts to ascertain the role of the concrete in this process, though.
Actually, the premise that the Roman Empire fell because Julius Caesar began thinking like a king seems a bit wrong. The Empire was established after he died, after all, and lasted for hundreds of years after his death.
I think this is a hard case to argue, and the reason is most often the failure of the political process to properly assess the economics of the measures. Usually, the better the assessment, the better the chances of success, but government involvement is hardly a 100% success story.
Your problem is that you have the basics backwards and you try to solve this by arguing over definitions, and then you devolve in 'open your eyes sheeple' crap. This doesn't make you right, however.
Capitalism, a mode of the economy in which factors of production are privately owned and their output is voluntarily traded, exists all over the world. The 'free market' you're talking about is one idealization of one aspect of this system. Unlike capitalism, it is this 'free market' (the correct term is 'competitive market', where nobody has any power to dictate factor or good prices, or output levels) that does not exist.
Your attempt at analysis is also faulty because you aren't making distinctions between how and why phenomena that have similar effects come about and develop. A market distortion that occurs in a 'free market' under a natural monopoly (and yes, in the absence of government regulation, a natural monopoly is a 'free market', although not a competitive one) is a very different beast from the distortions of an economy that develop under a corrupt government, although they may share some similar effects once in place.
The problem I'm discussing is that a democratic political system operating a capitalist economy tends to reliably get into the state you call 'crony capitalism' over time because of the way the two interact, free market or not. Hence the need for an improvement. Pushing for a 'free market' utopia is about as much a solution to this problem as pushing for a communism of the Marx variety would be.
In my experience, this model has the potential to work successfully only in areas of the economy that are 'market failures' (i.e. significant departures from competition and economic efficiency) for some reason. And it is damned hard to get the proper regulations and controls right even then.
Capitalism is the organization of the economy in every place where you can own capital and use it more or less freely to do business and turn a profit. Depending on the structure of the political system in which a particular capitalist economy is operating there may be serious problems, including corruption, but it is still capitalism.
"Free market" is an altogether different and not very useful concept. I avoid using it and prefer instead to categorize specific markets by the degree of competition they allow and the effects this has on the factors of production, prices and market organization.
It may well be that 'sharing economy' is just a manifestation of a deeper problem, the inability of the drivers of development in the past century -- capitalism and democracy -- to cope with the problems the modern world is facing.
The world needs a new political and economic systems that can tackle the problems we're facing, and tackle them efficiently and in a way that makes sense both locally and globally. It is most likely that these will evolve out of what we already have with the experience and frustrations we gain from trial-and-error experiments like the sharing economy, free online education and whatnot.
You can't do that when big corporations are truly global. There have been mechanisms in place for the past 50 years to skirt national legislation by creating a 'consensus' among weaker states abroad and then importing it back as the 'international standard'. It is a lot safer to bribe officials outside of the country, where everyone involved is answerable to nobody. It is also a lot easier to keep negotiations under wraps. Not all international standards are bad, or come about by using this scheme, of course, but those that do most of the harm are.
I still want to know if you can see anything at all at 2k magnification. High magnification is easy. Good images at high magnification is what matters in a microscope.
No, just plain old Soviet propaganda without any backing whatsoever. As you may have heard, Putin's popular nickname is Obyeshchalkin, which roughly translates as 'the Promise guy'.
They aren't paranoid enough then. It is hard to see how using a Samsung device with Google instead of an Apple tablet and iOS is making them safer from spying.
Almost all Chinese multimeters look like Fluke, they even advertise them like that. The better ones (that cost $35-40ish) are indistinguishable from a Fluke.
Sparkfun definitely knew this (threads like 'this meter looks exactly like my Fluke' are common on all 'freeshipping' China crapware sites) and I doubt it very much sparkfun buyers have never been to alibaba or dhgate.
Was it? IIRC, their prediction was for the collapse starting around 2030. I also recall reading somewhere a year ago that so far we're moving along the worst-case scenario with a very good fit.
The only obvious answer is "because I'm too lazy". There are several options to both use a smartphone and social networks and have your privacy at your control, from installing a sensible third-party client to going full paranoid and installing OpenPDroid.
Slashdot Mirror
Who the hell is moding you up as insightful?
The people who can read a text and understand the argument that is presented. It looks like you're not one of them.
Gen 4 reactors will happily run in a way that it effectively reprocesses its own waste. It's also got passive safety and the resulting waste (which at this point really isn't fuel) has a half-life well short of the hundred years.
They are also fictional. We'll be able to judge how well they operate and how they reprocess own waste when we see one operating safely for some time.
No, it is not fuel. Part of it may become fuel if one is allowed to reprocess it. Reprocessing, however, is a very tightly regulated business, and in many places, for example in the US, or in Japan, or in Russia it is not an option, or not a very important option. Do you know why it isn't a wide-spread, happy industry? Yep, because it is expensive as hell, dangerous and dual-use.
Here's a fun experiment to do: stop pretending you carry a cesium source and a Geiger counter, and consider what should be done with the 1000+ tons of highly radioactive mud that is already collected on-site in Fukushima. Right next to the used fuel pool.
Please make it a rational solution that can guarantee no leaks for a few hundred years and doesn't cost a brazillion billion million yen.
Thanks.
Excellent rationalizing, but wrong. Nuclear waste is significantly more dangerous and harder to handle and reprocess than the other pollution in addition to being poisonous. http://hardware.slashdot.org/c...
One, you have serious reading comprehension issues. OP claims coal produces more nuclear waste than nuclear power.
Two, that SA article has been debunked so many times, it isn't even funny. The 'research' it is based on is from 1977 and it discusses coal plants that aren't built anymore. Here, for your reading pleasure: http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
nuclear plants produce less radioactive waste than coal plants
This is so stupid it defies belief. Care to substantiate this claim with numbers and sources thereof?
There is no such lesson in this particular sequence of historical events.
Even this claim sounds quite far-fetched to me.
What certainly played significant role in bringing down the Republic was the inability of the Romans to adapt their political system, which was quite efficient in running a city-state (or a loose union of several city-states), to govern the huge country their successful military campaigns created. It simply didn't scale well enough.
Another big hurdle, IIRC, was the impossibility of legal reform because the Roman viewed the laws of their forefathers as sacred. The legal mess they got on their hands in the last years of the Republic allowed all kinds of manipulation of the political system -- something which Caesar and his successors used skillfully to gradually take over.
I don't think we have enough facts to ascertain the role of the concrete in this process, though.
Actually, the premise that the Roman Empire fell because Julius Caesar began thinking like a king seems a bit wrong. The Empire was established after he died, after all, and lasted for hundreds of years after his death.
This is a complicated argument, and I'm not prepared to participate (no experience with the US health system anyway), but doesn't Obamacare help?
I think this is a hard case to argue, and the reason is most often the failure of the political process to properly assess the economics of the measures. Usually, the better the assessment, the better the chances of success, but government involvement is hardly a 100% success story.
Your problem is that you have the basics backwards and you try to solve this by arguing over definitions, and then you devolve in 'open your eyes sheeple' crap. This doesn't make you right, however.
Capitalism, a mode of the economy in which factors of production are privately owned and their output is voluntarily traded, exists all over the world. The 'free market' you're talking about is one idealization of one aspect of this system. Unlike capitalism, it is this 'free market' (the correct term is 'competitive market', where nobody has any power to dictate factor or good prices, or output levels) that does not exist.
Your attempt at analysis is also faulty because you aren't making distinctions between how and why phenomena that have similar effects come about and develop. A market distortion that occurs in a 'free market' under a natural monopoly (and yes, in the absence of government regulation, a natural monopoly is a 'free market', although not a competitive one) is a very different beast from the distortions of an economy that develop under a corrupt government, although they may share some similar effects once in place.
The problem I'm discussing is that a democratic political system operating a capitalist economy tends to reliably get into the state you call 'crony capitalism' over time because of the way the two interact, free market or not. Hence the need for an improvement. Pushing for a 'free market' utopia is about as much a solution to this problem as pushing for a communism of the Marx variety would be.
In my experience, this model has the potential to work successfully only in areas of the economy that are 'market failures' (i.e. significant departures from competition and economic efficiency) for some reason. And it is damned hard to get the proper regulations and controls right even then.
Capitalism is the organization of the economy in every place where you can own capital and use it more or less freely to do business and turn a profit. Depending on the structure of the political system in which a particular capitalist economy is operating there may be serious problems, including corruption, but it is still capitalism.
"Free market" is an altogether different and not very useful concept. I avoid using it and prefer instead to categorize specific markets by the degree of competition they allow and the effects this has on the factors of production, prices and market organization.
It may well be that 'sharing economy' is just a manifestation of a deeper problem, the inability of the drivers of development in the past century -- capitalism and democracy -- to cope with the problems the modern world is facing.
The world needs a new political and economic systems that can tackle the problems we're facing, and tackle them efficiently and in a way that makes sense both locally and globally. It is most likely that these will evolve out of what we already have with the experience and frustrations we gain from trial-and-error experiments like the sharing economy, free online education and whatnot.
We must not allow a byteshift gap!
You can't do that when big corporations are truly global. There have been mechanisms in place for the past 50 years to skirt national legislation by creating a 'consensus' among weaker states abroad and then importing it back as the 'international standard'. It is a lot safer to bribe officials outside of the country, where everyone involved is answerable to nobody. It is also a lot easier to keep negotiations under wraps. Not all international standards are bad, or come about by using this scheme, of course, but those that do most of the harm are.
I still want to know if you can see anything at all at 2k magnification. High magnification is easy. Good images at high magnification is what matters in a microscope.
How come these, err, 'dues' aren't rescinded when the person dies?
No, just plain old Soviet propaganda without any backing whatsoever. As you may have heard, Putin's popular nickname is Obyeshchalkin, which roughly translates as 'the Promise guy'.
They aren't paranoid enough then. It is hard to see how using a Samsung device with Google instead of an Apple tablet and iOS is making them safer from spying.
Almost all Chinese multimeters look like Fluke, they even advertise them like that. The better ones (that cost $35-40ish) are indistinguishable from a Fluke.
Sparkfun definitely knew this (threads like 'this meter looks exactly like my Fluke' are common on all 'freeshipping' China crapware sites) and I doubt it very much sparkfun buyers have never been to alibaba or dhgate.
That's about all there is to the story.
Was it? IIRC, their prediction was for the collapse starting around 2030. I also recall reading somewhere a year ago that so far we're moving along the worst-case scenario with a very good fit.
It was written 40 years ago, the title is "Limits to Growth".
The only obvious answer is "because I'm too lazy". There are several options to both use a smartphone and social networks and have your privacy at your control, from installing a sensible third-party client to going full paranoid and installing OpenPDroid.