Clean nuclear fuel would be ideal (see the link I posted above), but the technology isn't quite ready yet. Until then, I don't think it's responsible to abandon solar, wind, and other 'clean' alternatives simply because the immediate return on investment isn't high enough.
Where did I advocate for abandoning them? My only point is that nuclear power, even with it's current downsides, is way better for the environment than carbon based fuels. We could virtually eliminate carbon from electrical production. That would be a huge step in the right direction and would provide for other possibilities -- plug-in hybrids that recharge from a carbon-free energy source for example.
Ok, how about solar or wind? Great! BUT - it's going to be expensive up front and not very efficient on a nationwide scale for some time yet. I want my cheap power! * sigh *
Don't worry, the enviro-nazis will shoot those down too, once they realize the scale that we'll need to deploy either of those technologies on to sustain modern civilization. You really think that Greenpeace is going to lay down and let us cover thousands of acres of the Southwest with solar panels? Do you think the NIMBY crowd will stand for having to look at thousands of wind turbines and the transmission lines to get the power to someplace useful? Hell, wind turbines are already causing an uproar and they haven't even been deployed on a meaningful scale yet.
Sometimes I think the more extreme parts of the environmentalist movement won't be happy unless humanity decides to stop reproducing and dies off. And don't even get me started on the NIMBY/BANANA jackasses. I want good cell-phone service but I don't wanna look at cell phone towers. I want electricity but don't you dare place a transmission line where I might have to look at it.
The only thing that will force a revolution in this industry is when you convince the parents of the entire teen population not to pay for shit their kids don't need.
Yes, but they generate tons of nuclear waste that doesn't go away for thousands of years.
Waste that could largely be reprocessed into usable fuel if we hadn't abandoned the technology for political reasons back in the 70s. Of course we did and now we get to play catch up with France of all places. And why are tons of nuclear waste a worse thing to deal with than millions of tons of CO2? If we had a real nuclear program back in the 70s/80s we'd be typing this on electricity generated without releasing a single molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Instead the environmentalist lobby keeps saying no to everything because renewables are right around the corner. They've been saying that for decades yet it hasn't materialized. Hmm, I wonder why?
Until then, we should be more responsible as a race and utilize cleaner fuels
What cleaner fuels? Every "cleaner" fuel that can be deployed on a large enough scale to sustain civilization is carbon based. If you believe that man is impacting climate change then this should be the last thing you want.
Yeah, that's the problem. Not only is it shortsighted and greedy, but bio-oil is still oil. Dressing on a pig.
So what? If you believe that man is causing climate change, then it isn't oil itself that's the problem. It's releasing carbon that's been sequestered for a long time that's the problem. Bio-fuels have the potential of being carbon neutral. They aren't currently but that's the idea behind them.
Personally I think nuclear would be a better way to go but the NIMBY and environmentalist crowds will see to it that never happens. Actually both crowds have a stunning track record of keeping us in the status quo. I'm not real optimistic that this will change anytime soon.
Thousands of acres sitting empty. Who'd want to live there? Solar...
Or we could build a single nuclear power plant that doesn't need thousands of acres as a footprint and would generate more power to boot. Just saying.....
And if 30% of our time and energy are going into producing more energy... There isn't much time and energy available to do other things, like run a civilization.
If only we had the technology to produce energy with a favorable EROEI. Maybe one day we'll be able to split the atom or something.
Nobody credible on the subject of biofuels has seriously advocated using food crops for fuel
Except the US Government. Oh wait, you said credible. I guess that's what we get when you put a political entity in charge of something. Something the people clamoring for Governmental intervention might want to consider....
I have the T-Mobile total internet plan add on for $19.99 which includes true unlimited internet with tethering. Works great on my PowerBook G4 and my Nokia N800 both via bluetooth.
I love T-Mobile but the sad reality is they are only as nice as they are because their network sucks and good customer service is one way to retain customers. If they ever manage to build out a network that equals Verizon or AT&T it will only be a matter of time before some PHB jackass gets the bright idea to start screwing customers to increase the bottom line.
I had to leave them seven months ago when I moved in with the GF because they had no coverage at her house. Now I'm stuck with Big Red and low and behold -- T-Mobile just activated a tower that covers my new location. *sigh*
Apple has nothing on the wireless industry. This is the same industry that disables features that compete with their business model "for your protection", charges nearly as much to send a 160 character SMS as it would cost me to mail a letter across the country, sticks people with five digit bills when their device gets stolen, charges five times as much for minutes over your allowance as they do for your allowance minutes and locks you into long term contracts using the "subsidy" of the phone as an excuse even when you bring your own phone.
In short, if the revolution comes, the wireless carriers will be up against the wall right after we finish with the Wall Street Executives and RIAA lawyers.
Sounds to me like a classic mafia protection scheme.
Except the mafia has a lot more to offer you than RIAA. Sure they take your money, but they can also hook you up with gambling, girls, drugs, loan sharking and protection. RIAA doesn't hook you up with anything other than lawyers and shitty music, at least as far as I can tell.
And at least you always know where you stand with Tony Soprano. Can you say that about RIAA?;)
Perhaps the USA and the UK aren't so different after all.
Well, it seems that our system has more checks and balances than the UK does. We have 50 individual sovereign states that are still willing to flip Washington off every now and then. We have the Supreme Court which has shot down or at least severely constrained many attempts by the Executive and Legislature to violate our founding documents. The Upper House of our Legislature isn't toothless and actually has the power to stop legislation. We also (yeah I couldn't resist) have guns;)
I'm hard pressed to think of what checks and balances remain under the British system. The House of Lords was defanged a long time ago and if the Monarchy ever refused Royal Assent I'm sure that would be end of it as an institution. Hopefully our friends across the pond will wake up before it's too late.....
the fact remains that the UK is now so controlled and monitored, that in the event of a dictator choosing to seize power, the UK population would be unable to fight back
And whose fault is that? The idiots in Government passing the stupid policies or the population that has allowed (even encouraged in some instances) them to do so?
05:17pm - Achmed returns with rest of parts to build bomb, but comcast triple play package more fun, when it works
05:30pm - Comcast down again. Fifth time today. Achmed suggests using bomb on them instead.
What's the point of encrypting data that you are uploading to a social networking site for public consumption? And how effective would it really be at keeping the Government out anyway? What's to stop them getting a subpoena to pull the data directly off Facebook's servers?
Given that your typical civilian can't even bother to check to see that all four of his tires aren't flat before leaving his driveway, color me skeptical that they will follow a "pre-takeoff checklist" before powering up the flying car.
Really? No guns? Not even for the military or the police? Because if they have them there will be some amount of corruption and criminals will manage to obtain firearms. So which society exists that has zero firearms?
I think the point is that free speech is free because it implies that the participants want to coexist in a civil democracy. Nazis do not want democracy. They are Nazis. The Fuhrerprincip, racial organization, are all at odds fundamentally with the American constitution
Ah, so if I advocate for changing our system of government to something else you have the right to infringe upon my free speech? I've often advocated for repealing the 17th amendment and ending the direct election of Senators. Is that speech that you'd seek to censor because I'm advocating for less "democracy"?
the USA should not repeat the same mistake the Weimar Germans made. WE should not let Democracy be used as an vehicle to destroy itself.
The mistake that the Weimar Germans made wasn't in allowing the NSDAP to have freedom of expression. The mistake that the Weimar Germans made was in allowing the NSDAP to bully the legislature into passing an Enabling Act that granted extraordinary powers to the Cabinet at the expense of the Legislature. Free speech was not the downfall of The Weimar Republic. Legislators who lacked backbone were the downfall of the Weimar Republic.
Sorry, but we already lost 50 million people fixing that mistake and I don't think we need to do it again.
That comment serves no purpose other than to inflame opinion. Freedom of speech didn't put the Jews into the ovens or slaughter tens of millions of Russians. I hope you can see the irony in advocating a policy that the Nazi's would have imposed in order to combat the possibility of a Nazi regime coming to power.
I wasn't aware of either of those things. Why did Kasparov agree to compete under those circumstances? Did IBM pull something nasty on him at the last second or did he just want to play Deep Blue badly enough that he agreed anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
Clean nuclear fuel would be ideal (see the link I posted above), but the technology isn't quite ready yet. Until then, I don't think it's responsible to abandon solar, wind, and other 'clean' alternatives simply because the immediate return on investment isn't high enough.
Where did I advocate for abandoning them? My only point is that nuclear power, even with it's current downsides, is way better for the environment than carbon based fuels. We could virtually eliminate carbon from electrical production. That would be a huge step in the right direction and would provide for other possibilities -- plug-in hybrids that recharge from a carbon-free energy source for example.
Ok, how about solar or wind? Great! BUT - it's going to be expensive up front and not very efficient on a nationwide scale for some time yet. I want my cheap power! * sigh *
Don't worry, the enviro-nazis will shoot those down too, once they realize the scale that we'll need to deploy either of those technologies on to sustain modern civilization. You really think that Greenpeace is going to lay down and let us cover thousands of acres of the Southwest with solar panels? Do you think the NIMBY crowd will stand for having to look at thousands of wind turbines and the transmission lines to get the power to someplace useful? Hell, wind turbines are already causing an uproar and they haven't even been deployed on a meaningful scale yet.
Sometimes I think the more extreme parts of the environmentalist movement won't be happy unless humanity decides to stop reproducing and dies off. And don't even get me started on the NIMBY/BANANA jackasses. I want good cell-phone service but I don't wanna look at cell phone towers. I want electricity but don't you dare place a transmission line where I might have to look at it.
The only thing that will force a revolution in this industry is when you convince the parents of the entire teen population not to pay for shit their kids don't need.
Fixed that for you ;)
Yes, but they generate tons of nuclear waste that doesn't go away for thousands of years.
Waste that could largely be reprocessed into usable fuel if we hadn't abandoned the technology for political reasons back in the 70s. Of course we did and now we get to play catch up with France of all places. And why are tons of nuclear waste a worse thing to deal with than millions of tons of CO2? If we had a real nuclear program back in the 70s/80s we'd be typing this on electricity generated without releasing a single molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere.
Instead the environmentalist lobby keeps saying no to everything because renewables are right around the corner. They've been saying that for decades yet it hasn't materialized. Hmm, I wonder why?
Until then, we should be more responsible as a race and utilize cleaner fuels
What cleaner fuels? Every "cleaner" fuel that can be deployed on a large enough scale to sustain civilization is carbon based. If you believe that man is impacting climate change then this should be the last thing you want.
Yeah, that's the problem. Not only is it shortsighted and greedy, but bio-oil is still oil. Dressing on a pig.
So what? If you believe that man is causing climate change, then it isn't oil itself that's the problem. It's releasing carbon that's been sequestered for a long time that's the problem. Bio-fuels have the potential of being carbon neutral. They aren't currently but that's the idea behind them.
Personally I think nuclear would be a better way to go but the NIMBY and environmentalist crowds will see to it that never happens. Actually both crowds have a stunning track record of keeping us in the status quo. I'm not real optimistic that this will change anytime soon.
Thousands of acres sitting empty. Who'd want to live there? Solar...
Or we could build a single nuclear power plant that doesn't need thousands of acres as a footprint and would generate more power to boot. Just saying.....
And if 30% of our time and energy are going into producing more energy... There isn't much time and energy available to do other things, like run a civilization.
If only we had the technology to produce energy with a favorable EROEI. Maybe one day we'll be able to split the atom or something.
Nobody credible on the subject of biofuels has seriously advocated using food crops for fuel
Except the US Government. Oh wait, you said credible. I guess that's what we get when you put a political entity in charge of something. Something the people clamoring for Governmental intervention might want to consider....
I have the T-Mobile total internet plan add on for $19.99 which includes true unlimited internet with tethering. Works great on my PowerBook G4 and my Nokia N800 both via bluetooth.
I love T-Mobile but the sad reality is they are only as nice as they are because their network sucks and good customer service is one way to retain customers. If they ever manage to build out a network that equals Verizon or AT&T it will only be a matter of time before some PHB jackass gets the bright idea to start screwing customers to increase the bottom line.
I had to leave them seven months ago when I moved in with the GF because they had no coverage at her house. Now I'm stuck with Big Red and low and behold -- T-Mobile just activated a tower that covers my new location. *sigh*
Apple is the devil
Apple has nothing on the wireless industry. This is the same industry that disables features that compete with their business model "for your protection", charges nearly as much to send a 160 character SMS as it would cost me to mail a letter across the country, sticks people with five digit bills when their device gets stolen, charges five times as much for minutes over your allowance as they do for your allowance minutes and locks you into long term contracts using the "subsidy" of the phone as an excuse even when you bring your own phone.
In short, if the revolution comes, the wireless carriers will be up against the wall right after we finish with the Wall Street Executives and RIAA lawyers.
I look down on you, I've got wireless FiOS straight to God's ear. She doesn't care for it much, apparently it clogs her ears.
Fixed that for you ;)
Well when you put it that way it's kind of hard to continue arguing with your "logic" ;)
I bet they didn't have to worry about nuclear proliferation or climate change either.
Sounds to me like a classic mafia protection scheme.
Except the mafia has a lot more to offer you than RIAA. Sure they take your money, but they can also hook you up with gambling, girls, drugs, loan sharking and protection. RIAA doesn't hook you up with anything other than lawyers and shitty music, at least as far as I can tell.
And at least you always know where you stand with Tony Soprano. Can you say that about RIAA? ;)
Perhaps the USA and the UK aren't so different after all.
Well, it seems that our system has more checks and balances than the UK does. We have 50 individual sovereign states that are still willing to flip Washington off every now and then. We have the Supreme Court which has shot down or at least severely constrained many attempts by the Executive and Legislature to violate our founding documents. The Upper House of our Legislature isn't toothless and actually has the power to stop legislation. We also (yeah I couldn't resist) have guns ;)
I'm hard pressed to think of what checks and balances remain under the British system. The House of Lords was defanged a long time ago and if the Monarchy ever refused Royal Assent I'm sure that would be end of it as an institution. Hopefully our friends across the pond will wake up before it's too late.....
the fact remains that the UK is now so controlled and monitored, that in the event of a dictator choosing to seize power, the UK population would be unable to fight back
And whose fault is that? The idiots in Government passing the stupid policies or the population that has allowed (even encouraged in some instances) them to do so?
We would rather stay comfortable and placated with our modern opiate.
Says the person posting on /.
Yeah, I agree with what you said, but it just had to be pointed out ;)
05:17pm - Achmed returns with rest of parts to build bomb, but comcast triple play package more fun, when it works
05:30pm - Comcast down again. Fifth time today. Achmed suggests using bomb on them instead.
Fixed that for you.
Hell, what if they just offered encryption?
What's the point of encrypting data that you are uploading to a social networking site for public consumption? And how effective would it really be at keeping the Government out anyway? What's to stop them getting a subpoena to pull the data directly off Facebook's servers?
this leaves a useful load of just 430 pounds. Gasoline weighs 6 pounds per gallon. With two real people aboard, it won't have much range...
Or just one American ;) *rimshot*
For that to happen, we'd need to find ways to make over a ton of machine fly at 25 mph
Yeah, if only we could figure out how to do that.....
Given that your typical civilian can't even bother to check to see that all four of his tires aren't flat before leaving his driveway, color me skeptical that they will follow a "pre-takeoff checklist" before powering up the flying car.
Really? No guns? Not even for the military or the police? Because if they have them there will be some amount of corruption and criminals will manage to obtain firearms. So which society exists that has zero firearms?
I think the point is that free speech is free because it implies that the participants want to coexist in a civil democracy. Nazis do not want democracy. They are Nazis. The Fuhrerprincip, racial organization, are all at odds fundamentally with the American constitution
Ah, so if I advocate for changing our system of government to something else you have the right to infringe upon my free speech? I've often advocated for repealing the 17th amendment and ending the direct election of Senators. Is that speech that you'd seek to censor because I'm advocating for less "democracy"?
the USA should not repeat the same mistake the Weimar Germans made. WE should not let Democracy be used as an vehicle to destroy itself.
The mistake that the Weimar Germans made wasn't in allowing the NSDAP to have freedom of expression. The mistake that the Weimar Germans made was in allowing the NSDAP to bully the legislature into passing an Enabling Act that granted extraordinary powers to the Cabinet at the expense of the Legislature. Free speech was not the downfall of The Weimar Republic. Legislators who lacked backbone were the downfall of the Weimar Republic.
Sorry, but we already lost 50 million people fixing that mistake and I don't think we need to do it again.
That comment serves no purpose other than to inflame opinion. Freedom of speech didn't put the Jews into the ovens or slaughter tens of millions of Russians. I hope you can see the irony in advocating a policy that the Nazi's would have imposed in order to combat the possibility of a Nazi regime coming to power.
So what your really saying is that free speech is dangerous and must be controlled? Good to know where you stand.
I wasn't aware of either of those things. Why did Kasparov agree to compete under those circumstances? Did IBM pull something nasty on him at the last second or did he just want to play Deep Blue badly enough that he agreed anyway?