"To be optionally made available to schools and homes that request it, the feed would offer built-in filters of 'pornography and inappropriate content'"
If they really stick to that deal, then maybe there won't be a problem.
Except that only a pedophile would want to turn off child porn filters. So, if you turn them off, you must be a pedophile and kept under surveillance. It is a perfect excuse for search warrant, phone tap warrant, mail scanning warrant, and whatever others there are.
And of course, if the filters just happen to accidentally block some political content opposed to Australian governmen, well, that's the price of freedom, no ?
I know you're joking but most will just die because their protected environment went away.
How many will die if insulin were just not available? A friend needs ranitidine to survive, without it he'd be dead within a short period of time. Turn off the civilization switch and you'll lose a huge percentage.
Of course, if the protected environment of current civilization were to be taken away, most of the perfectly healthy people would also perish. Not only are there many times more of us than hunter-gatherer lifestyle can support, but I for one have no idea how to live off the land.
Hasn't he been disbarred yet? Seriously if it was you or I going on like this month after month we'd probably at least get a month commited for evaluation.
He has been committed to a psychiatric evaluation, which he somehow managed to pass, and the Florida Bar has been trying to get him disbarred, so far without results.
The man is the real-life equivalent of GNAA. In a way, it is admirable how he takes trolling to the level of art.
AFAIK for example.WAV is a lossless format, so despite this comment being modded as funny. You *could* rip it to a digital format without losing any of the quality of the original recording.
Wrong. LPs are analog, while WAV is digital. The very act of converting the analog to digital causes some loss of information, and therefore quality.
The problem is that a digital recording by definition has a finite resolution. It can only record sound volume levels for a finite amount of different frequencies, and volume levels themselves are similarly limited. To make it even worse, the volume levels can't be recorded continuously, but at certain intervals.
An analog recording can in theory have infinite resolution in both frequency, volume, and time, and some is inevitably lost to rounding when converting to digital.
Let's just save time and money for the taxpayers. If someone rapes a child (under the age of 13), toss them into a large incinerator. I am serious.
What happens if two 12-year olds fuck ? After all, they are both under the age of consent, so they are guilty of statutory rape. For that matter, should a 13-year old who fucks a 12-year old be killed ? For extra nastiness, suppose the 12-year old is actually just a day younger than the 13-year old.
This is why simple, quick solutions don't usually work very well as laws. Which, now that I started thinking about it, suggests that politicians shouldn't be making laws in the first place, since they almost certainly go for simplistic crap.
The real solution is to give sexual predators the punishment they truly deserve in the first place, which is life in prison without possibility of parole.
"Sexual predator" can be a guy who goes around raping children, or it can be the guy who picks up women in a bar; both of them are predatory, but the acts they perform are hardly comparable. Appropriate punishment - if any - for any particular act needs to be decided in an act-by-act basis, not by throwing around crappy rethoric like "sexual predator".
I'm sure some people here will spew stuff about how they are 'sick' and need 'help'. Trust me, life in prison is a compromise compared to what I think they should really get. You don't help a rabid dog; you put it down.
I believe you. However, I personally think that the people who liken humans to rabid dogs, vermin, or anything else nasty are the ones most likely to go on to perform such crimes. After all, once you accept the idea that humanity can be taken from someone, it becomes a lot easier to justify doing horrible things to him; and it also becomes easier to justify stripping others of their humanity.
In other words, wipe the foam from your own mouth before calling someone else a rabid dog.
The same should hold for anyone who sexually abuses children. I'm not talking about the 20 year old/15 year old thing. I mean the real sexual predators.
And who would that be ? What is the specific age difference needed to make someone a "real" sexual predator ? Any other conditions ?
This is precisely why I don't like the term "sexual predator": it is wide enough to be near useless.
Those who want to be soft on sex offenders are most likely not parents, and most definitely not parents of a child who has been abused.
People who haven't been personally hurt by a crime can usually keep cooler heads about it. That's why we don't allow the victim to act as the judge or the jury, but require these positions to be held by people impartial to the issue.
That's the theory, anyway. Unfortunately, the politicians have realized that the strong protective instincts most people - especially parents - have regarding children make them vulnerable to a campaign which focuses on being "though" on "sexual predators", and accusing others of being "soft" on them. I wonder what the appropriate punishment for a politician who rides raped children as a rethoric horse to reach office would be ?
But... if you brainwash some kid into doing something that is still a sort of exploitation... is it okay then?
We aren't talking about kids, we're talking about teenagers. And while social conditioning - to respect the capitalist virtue of utilizing any and all earning potential, in this case - can certainly be considered a kind of brainwashing, one could as well ask: is it exploitation to hire someone to work, since they've been brainwashed to believe that bank robbing is not an acceptable way of getting money ?
Neccessary to attract a mate; increases the chances of breeding.
or the vulnerable external genitalia we male humans have.
Neccessary to keep the sperm at optimal temperature, which is lower than the optimal temperature for the rest of the body. Increases your chances of breeding, and isn't actually all that vulnerable; if an enemy is close enough to kick you in the balls, it is close enough to rip out your throat.
For the most part people think that sleep must be needed because people feel sleepy.
No, people think that they need sleep because not sleeping will kill you.
One could also use simple logic: you are vulnerable while you sleep, so if it isn't an actual physical need, I doubt very much it would be as widespread phenomenom as it is.
The problem with our system of justice (western democratic justice) is that it doesn't allow for the beating the crap out of someone who really deserves it, when the law won't deal with them effectively. It is always "poor innocent cyber squatter" this that and the other thing. What is needed is a bit of Frontier Justice, like described above.
Unfortunately, Frontier Justice boils down into "I don't like you, so die". Besides, the squatters can simply use their ill-gotten gains and hire thugs to beat up you.
As frustrating as having a legalistic justice system all wrapped up in rigid forms and bureuacracy can be, the alternative is worse. And as tempting as simply beating the living crap out of people who desperately need it might be, there is almost certainly people who think you deserve it.
Even if the squatters filtered on both IP address AND multiple hits, this could be resolved by allowing real name lookups to be submitted into the random name lookup web site. Then if you wanted to lookup ihatedomainnamesquatters.com, not only you but everyone else that has been looking up random names, will look up ihatedomainnamesquatters.com also. It would be virtually impossible to tell the difference between real interest, and fake.
Unless, of course, the squatters would find the website and filter on its contents;).
Since past 3 months, the area outside Akihabara train station itself in Tokyo is experience a curious phenomenon. Droves of young girls barely 12 or 14, sit in costumes outside, selling their "Sexy and cute" photo albums.
I guess that means that the true enterpreneur spirit is still alive and well in Japan;).
Seriously, doesn't US have the child beauty contests as well ? Doesn't really seem that different to me...
And then there is Enjo kosai... the practice of "compensated dating"... basically young schoolgirls having liaisons with middle aged Japanese businessmen for quick pocket money.
Prostitution. Why not ? It's not like a schoolgirl has many other ways of making money, and it's not like the girl is being exploited by a pimp or something. Are there any good arguments against this practice, which don't boil down to "it insults my sexual morals" ?
And then you have this certain prefecture in Japan, that still refuses to make sex with minors an illegal and punishable act. Japanese businessmen regularly flock to the place for a "good time".
Here in Finland, the age of majority is 18, while the age of consent is 16. In fact in most places the age of consent is lower than the age of majority. So you need to clarify your complaint further.
For that matter, the Constition only binds the Government. Corporations are free to do what they will to whom they like.
Which is a huge problem nowadays when corporations are as powerful if not more so than governments. Overwhelming power should always be coupled with strict restrictions on how it can be used; otherwise, abuse of that power is inevitable.
As you must have used a digital device to read the GP, and you must have used one to reply to it, you must have TWO digital devices.
How do you know he didn't use an analog computer, or one using more than 2 quantization levels ? Both of which, BTW, are patented by me. As is patenting anything for the purposes of extortion, as well as using faulty logic to try to hike up the cost, for that matter. Pay up.
OTOH with P2P every time anyone requests a file that data has to traverse every link even though it might have been requested only 5 minutes earlier from someone else.
This depends on the design of the P2P network in question. It is certainly possible to implement caching schemes; after all, for example Gnutella uses HTTP as the file transfer protocol, so it should be possible to use the existing proxies for caching files.
My own ISP reckons the off peak backbone usage over 80% is P2P from only 5% of users... it's horribly inneficient.
This says nothing of efficiency, and simply means that only 5% of users actually utilize the service for anywhere near the capacity they paid for.
(Automatics creep forward slightly when you don't touch any pedals at all, while a manual will either sit still or roll with gravity.)
Assuming that the gear is in neutral, yes. Otherwise the car will either creep forward (or backward, if the gear is in reverse), or the engine will stop, depending on how much power it generates in idle.
I choose option 3: fire the crappy band that can only make one good song for every nine bad songs.
Good bands don't work as cheap as crappy ones, thought. By firing the crappy band and presumably hiring a good band in their stead you increased your costs and therefore decreased shareholder profits. Consequently, you'll be fired and the crappy band rehired.
The whole stock system is set up to divorce power from reponsibility and give everyone involved an excuse that "I had to do it, I'd be fired if I didn't, I'm just a cog in the machine, etc" and be right about it. The end result is that corporations, who hold the most power in our semi-capitalistic society by the virtue of holding most money, act like psychopaths. Of course the end result is a total clusterfuck; it's a miracle things work as well as they do.
Sorry about the rant. But the fact remains that your solution isn't going to work, because letting principles get in the way of profits is incompatible with how corporation works.
So what are they saying here? They know exactly what their fans "dream" about and they aren't selling that? Why not? What possible sense could it make to refrain from selling their target audience the products for which there is maximal demand?
Suppose you are an RIAA exec. You have 100 songs, of which 10 are good and 90 bad. Each CD can hold 10 songs. You want to sell as many CD's as possible. What do you do ? Do you put the 10 good songs into a single CD, so everyone who wants them can buy that single CD and ignore the remaining 9 crap-loaded disks... Or will you put 1 good and 9 bad songs into each CD, so that anyone who wants those 10 good ones has to buy the 90 bad ones as well ?
It's not correct to claim that anywhere near the full carbon mass of the tree will be eventually converted to CO2 after its death.
Really ? Where does it go, then ? And if so, why haven't all the trees sucking CO2 from the atmosphere depleted it long ago ?
You also don't address the efficiency of coal versus wood, since we're not interested in producing CO2, but obtaining useful energy.
We are interested in producing useful energy without causing disasters, such as a runaway greenhouse effect. This requires, amongst other things, making sure that the method of energy generation doesn't cause a constant increase in CO2 levels. After all, energy doesn't do you much good if you poison or drown yourself while obtaining it.
You're really just tricking yourself with improper logic.
And you are making claims without backing them with neither evidence nor logic.
Listing the imperfections of renewable energy sources, while important, doesn't make nuclear power any cleaner than it is.
Since it is the cleanness of various energy production methods relative to each other which matters, I beg to differ.
A dam may create a lasting danger of breach and flooding, but a nuclear reactor creates a lasting danger of radiation leak and widespread contamination.
Yes. The question is: which allows us to produce the required amount of energy with the least risks ? Nuclear power has very good track record, with only one serious accident in the whole of its history, and even that was cause by willfull stupidity of operators in a shoddy Soviet facility.
The difference is that a dam doesn't produce waste that has a half-life of thousands of years, or hundreds of years, or any half-life at all, which then needs to be transported in lead containers and buried where nobody complains.
A substance with a thousand-year half-life is too inactive to be particularly dangerous. And please understand that, as far as I'm concerned, burying the waste where nobody complains is far preferable to releasing it to the atmosphere, as dams and fossil fuel plants do.
We are all aware that there is no such thing as a free lunch. This doesn't make a radioactive lunch any tastier.
The question is, again, which is worse: the small amount of radiactive waste from a nuclear plant, or the huge amounts of various poisons - some of them radiactive - released by pretty much all other alternatives ?
The trees were already absorbing CO2 by living there before you burned them. By removing them (for burning), you are reducing the CO2 uptake rate, and then increasing it again by planting more trees. If new trees take up CO2 at the same rate as old trees, then the global CO2 uptake rate is unchanged by your actions, yet you've turned a bunch of trees into CO2. On the other hand, if you left the trees there and burned coal, the global CO2 uptake rate is unchanged by your actions, and you've turned a bunch of coal into CO2.
A tree can be viewed as a power plant which turns CO2 into wood by using the energy of sunlight. The carbon atoms don't disappear, they become part of the tree's structure. So, if you burn trees at the same rate as they grow, you aren't increasing the carbon in circulation any.
On the other hand, if you mine coal and burn it, and leave the trees alone, they will eventually die of old age, disease, or some other reason. Having died, the tree decomposes, releasing all the carbon it stored during its lifetime; after it has decomposed enough, a new tree starts growing in the space freed, sucking up the carbon yet again. Absorbing the carbon from burning coal would require a new tree to grow where one didn't before - or, to be exact, for the total biomass of Earth's forests to grow; unfortunately, the forests already cover pretty much all available space, and even if they didn't, they still couldn't increase their size forever due to the limited size of Earth.
Of course this is a simplified view, since carbon from trees and other plants is also transported to animals which eat them and up through the food chain; but the basic point is that burning trees doesn't change the amount of carbon in circulation in the biosphere as long as you don't take out wood from the forests faster than they can regrow it. Since airborne CO2 is part of the material flow of biosphere, it too stays roughly at the same levels in that scenario. On the other hand, burning coal (re)introduces more carbon to the system, increasing the CO2 levels long-term.
It's simple, really: if you don't add or remove any carbon, the amount of carbon stays unchanged, even if the relative amounts of various forms may change a little. Since burning wood doesn't introduce more carbon into the system, the CO2 levels stay unchanged in the long term, despite the spike caused at the moment of burning.
When the CO2 was captured isn't really relevant -- there's no real difference between burning trees and releasing X tons of CO2 and leaving those trees on the ground, with the CO2 captured, and instead burning enough coal and oil to release the same tons of CO2.
Wrong. If you burn the trees, the patch of land they grew on is now empty, so more trees will grow there, sucking up the CO2 you released from burning the previous patch. On the other hand, if you burn coal, the land is still occupied by the trees, and doesn't have room for more, so the CO2 isn't going to be reabsorbed.
All that really matters is the global production of CO2 compared to the global uptake of CO2.
There are many cleaner ways to generate electricity than nuclear.
No, there isn't.
Hydro,
Requires a dam. Not only does this turn a huge area of land into underwater wasteland, and cause an ever-present risk of the dam bursting and causing a flood downstream, but the vegetation which was left underwater rots and generates huge amounts of greenhouse gasses, which aren't reabsorbed because the vegetation can't grow back underwater.
geothermal,
In all but few locations in the world this requires a deep hole, from which energy is extracted by pumping water down and catching steam as the water boils. Unfortunately, not only is the water contaminated by the heavy metals and other crap down there, but there is also a risk of earthquakes being triggered by drilling and the thermal stresses.
tidal and wave,
These disturb ecosystems dependent of said phenomenom for wide ares. The construction over such huge areas is also not exactly clean.
wind and solar energy are all cleaner.
Wind and solar take a huge amount of area to generate significant amount of energy, and are pretty unreliable on top of that.
So no, you aren't going to get much cleaner than nuclear, where waste is buried deep into bedrock where it bothers no one. Nuclear has the least enviromental impact of all known power-generation methods.
Of course, this assumes properly managed nuclear reactors, which a neighborhood reactor propably wouldn't be.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that only a pedophile would want to turn off child porn filters. So, if you turn them off, you must be a pedophile and kept under surveillance. It is a perfect excuse for search warrant, phone tap warrant, mail scanning warrant, and whatever others there are.
And of course, if the filters just happen to accidentally block some political content opposed to Australian governmen, well, that's the price of freedom, no ?
So they're like every other corporate entity, then ?
Just think of the unions as companies specializing in providing manpower.
Of course, if the protected environment of current civilization were to be taken away, most of the perfectly healthy people would also perish. Not only are there many times more of us than hunter-gatherer lifestyle can support, but I for one have no idea how to live off the land.
He has been committed to a psychiatric evaluation, which he somehow managed to pass, and the Florida Bar has been trying to get him disbarred, so far without results.
The man is the real-life equivalent of GNAA. In a way, it is admirable how he takes trolling to the level of art.
Wrong. LPs are analog, while WAV is digital. The very act of converting the analog to digital causes some loss of information, and therefore quality.
The problem is that a digital recording by definition has a finite resolution. It can only record sound volume levels for a finite amount of different frequencies, and volume levels themselves are similarly limited. To make it even worse, the volume levels can't be recorded continuously, but at certain intervals.
An analog recording can in theory have infinite resolution in both frequency, volume, and time, and some is inevitably lost to rounding when converting to digital.
What happens if two 12-year olds fuck ? After all, they are both under the age of consent, so they are guilty of statutory rape. For that matter, should a 13-year old who fucks a 12-year old be killed ? For extra nastiness, suppose the 12-year old is actually just a day younger than the 13-year old.
This is why simple, quick solutions don't usually work very well as laws. Which, now that I started thinking about it, suggests that politicians shouldn't be making laws in the first place, since they almost certainly go for simplistic crap.
"Sexual predator" can be a guy who goes around raping children, or it can be the guy who picks up women in a bar; both of them are predatory, but the acts they perform are hardly comparable. Appropriate punishment - if any - for any particular act needs to be decided in an act-by-act basis, not by throwing around crappy rethoric like "sexual predator".
I believe you. However, I personally think that the people who liken humans to rabid dogs, vermin, or anything else nasty are the ones most likely to go on to perform such crimes. After all, once you accept the idea that humanity can be taken from someone, it becomes a lot easier to justify doing horrible things to him; and it also becomes easier to justify stripping others of their humanity.
In other words, wipe the foam from your own mouth before calling someone else a rabid dog.
And who would that be ? What is the specific age difference needed to make someone a "real" sexual predator ? Any other conditions ?
This is precisely why I don't like the term "sexual predator": it is wide enough to be near useless.
People who haven't been personally hurt by a crime can usually keep cooler heads about it. That's why we don't allow the victim to act as the judge or the jury, but require these positions to be held by people impartial to the issue.
That's the theory, anyway. Unfortunately, the politicians have realized that the strong protective instincts most people - especially parents - have regarding children make them vulnerable to a campaign which focuses on being "though" on "sexual predators", and accusing others of being "soft" on them. I wonder what the appropriate punishment for a politician who rides raped children as a rethoric horse to reach office would be ?
We aren't talking about kids, we're talking about teenagers. And while social conditioning - to respect the capitalist virtue of utilizing any and all earning potential, in this case - can certainly be considered a kind of brainwashing, one could as well ask: is it exploitation to hire someone to work, since they've been brainwashed to believe that bank robbing is not an acceptable way of getting money ?
Neccessary to attract a mate; increases the chances of breeding.
Neccessary to keep the sperm at optimal temperature, which is lower than the optimal temperature for the rest of the body. Increases your chances of breeding, and isn't actually all that vulnerable; if an enemy is close enough to kick you in the balls, it is close enough to rip out your throat.
No, people think that they need sleep because not sleeping will kill you.
One could also use simple logic: you are vulnerable while you sleep, so if it isn't an actual physical need, I doubt very much it would be as widespread phenomenom as it is.
Maybe you could rip a sample from those LP's to MP3 and put it online somewhere, so we could decide for ourselves if it sounds better ?-)
Unfortunately, Frontier Justice boils down into "I don't like you, so die". Besides, the squatters can simply use their ill-gotten gains and hire thugs to beat up you.
As frustrating as having a legalistic justice system all wrapped up in rigid forms and bureuacracy can be, the alternative is worse. And as tempting as simply beating the living crap out of people who desperately need it might be, there is almost certainly people who think you deserve it.
Unless, of course, the squatters would find the website and filter on its contents ;).
I guess that means that the true enterpreneur spirit is still alive and well in Japan ;).
Seriously, doesn't US have the child beauty contests as well ? Doesn't really seem that different to me...
Prostitution. Why not ? It's not like a schoolgirl has many other ways of making money, and it's not like the girl is being exploited by a pimp or something. Are there any good arguments against this practice, which don't boil down to "it insults my sexual morals" ?
Here in Finland, the age of majority is 18, while the age of consent is 16. In fact in most places the age of consent is lower than the age of majority. So you need to clarify your complaint further.
Which is a huge problem nowadays when corporations are as powerful if not more so than governments. Overwhelming power should always be coupled with strict restrictions on how it can be used; otherwise, abuse of that power is inevitable.
How do you know he didn't use an analog computer, or one using more than 2 quantization levels ? Both of which, BTW, are patented by me. As is patenting anything for the purposes of extortion, as well as using faulty logic to try to hike up the cost, for that matter. Pay up.
This depends on the design of the P2P network in question. It is certainly possible to implement caching schemes; after all, for example Gnutella uses HTTP as the file transfer protocol, so it should be possible to use the existing proxies for caching files.
This says nothing of efficiency, and simply means that only 5% of users actually utilize the service for anywhere near the capacity they paid for.
Assuming that the gear is in neutral, yes. Otherwise the car will either creep forward (or backward, if the gear is in reverse), or the engine will stop, depending on how much power it generates in idle.
Good bands don't work as cheap as crappy ones, thought. By firing the crappy band and presumably hiring a good band in their stead you increased your costs and therefore decreased shareholder profits. Consequently, you'll be fired and the crappy band rehired.
The whole stock system is set up to divorce power from reponsibility and give everyone involved an excuse that "I had to do it, I'd be fired if I didn't, I'm just a cog in the machine, etc" and be right about it. The end result is that corporations, who hold the most power in our semi-capitalistic society by the virtue of holding most money, act like psychopaths. Of course the end result is a total clusterfuck; it's a miracle things work as well as they do.
Sorry about the rant. But the fact remains that your solution isn't going to work, because letting principles get in the way of profits is incompatible with how corporation works.
Suppose you are an RIAA exec. You have 100 songs, of which 10 are good and 90 bad. Each CD can hold 10 songs. You want to sell as many CD's as possible. What do you do ? Do you put the 10 good songs into a single CD, so everyone who wants them can buy that single CD and ignore the remaining 9 crap-loaded disks... Or will you put 1 good and 9 bad songs into each CD, so that anyone who wants those 10 good ones has to buy the 90 bad ones as well ?
Really ? Where does it go, then ? And if so, why haven't all the trees sucking CO2 from the atmosphere depleted it long ago ?
We are interested in producing useful energy without causing disasters, such as a runaway greenhouse effect. This requires, amongst other things, making sure that the method of energy generation doesn't cause a constant increase in CO2 levels. After all, energy doesn't do you much good if you poison or drown yourself while obtaining it.
And you are making claims without backing them with neither evidence nor logic.
Since it is the cleanness of various energy production methods relative to each other which matters, I beg to differ.
Yes. The question is: which allows us to produce the required amount of energy with the least risks ? Nuclear power has very good track record, with only one serious accident in the whole of its history, and even that was cause by willfull stupidity of operators in a shoddy Soviet facility.
A substance with a thousand-year half-life is too inactive to be particularly dangerous. And please understand that, as far as I'm concerned, burying the waste where nobody complains is far preferable to releasing it to the atmosphere, as dams and fossil fuel plants do.
The question is, again, which is worse: the small amount of radiactive waste from a nuclear plant, or the huge amounts of various poisons - some of them radiactive - released by pretty much all other alternatives ?
A tree can be viewed as a power plant which turns CO2 into wood by using the energy of sunlight. The carbon atoms don't disappear, they become part of the tree's structure. So, if you burn trees at the same rate as they grow, you aren't increasing the carbon in circulation any.
On the other hand, if you mine coal and burn it, and leave the trees alone, they will eventually die of old age, disease, or some other reason. Having died, the tree decomposes, releasing all the carbon it stored during its lifetime; after it has decomposed enough, a new tree starts growing in the space freed, sucking up the carbon yet again. Absorbing the carbon from burning coal would require a new tree to grow where one didn't before - or, to be exact, for the total biomass of Earth's forests to grow; unfortunately, the forests already cover pretty much all available space, and even if they didn't, they still couldn't increase their size forever due to the limited size of Earth.
Of course this is a simplified view, since carbon from trees and other plants is also transported to animals which eat them and up through the food chain; but the basic point is that burning trees doesn't change the amount of carbon in circulation in the biosphere as long as you don't take out wood from the forests faster than they can regrow it. Since airborne CO2 is part of the material flow of biosphere, it too stays roughly at the same levels in that scenario. On the other hand, burning coal (re)introduces more carbon to the system, increasing the CO2 levels long-term.
It's simple, really: if you don't add or remove any carbon, the amount of carbon stays unchanged, even if the relative amounts of various forms may change a little. Since burning wood doesn't introduce more carbon into the system, the CO2 levels stay unchanged in the long term, despite the spike caused at the moment of burning.
Wrong. If you burn the trees, the patch of land they grew on is now empty, so more trees will grow there, sucking up the CO2 you released from burning the previous patch. On the other hand, if you burn coal, the land is still occupied by the trees, and doesn't have room for more, so the CO2 isn't going to be reabsorbed.
Yes, and the uptake differs in these two cases.
No, there isn't.
Requires a dam. Not only does this turn a huge area of land into underwater wasteland, and cause an ever-present risk of the dam bursting and causing a flood downstream, but the vegetation which was left underwater rots and generates huge amounts of greenhouse gasses, which aren't reabsorbed because the vegetation can't grow back underwater.
In all but few locations in the world this requires a deep hole, from which energy is extracted by pumping water down and catching steam as the water boils. Unfortunately, not only is the water contaminated by the heavy metals and other crap down there, but there is also a risk of earthquakes being triggered by drilling and the thermal stresses.
These disturb ecosystems dependent of said phenomenom for wide ares. The construction over such huge areas is also not exactly clean.
Wind and solar take a huge amount of area to generate significant amount of energy, and are pretty unreliable on top of that.
So no, you aren't going to get much cleaner than nuclear, where waste is buried deep into bedrock where it bothers no one. Nuclear has the least enviromental impact of all known power-generation methods.
Of course, this assumes properly managed nuclear reactors, which a neighborhood reactor propably wouldn't be.