The main problem I have with nuclear power is the enormous investment required to make it working, and the minimum scale that it can be done on.
While any reasonably competent hobbyist can cobble together a wind generator and battery array on his or her own quite cheaply and easily, the same cannot be said for nuclear power.
Personally, I think the answer does lie in local micro-generation, and the role adjustment of the grid to become solely a transfer medium rather than distribution channel. Large scale power generation could play a part in such a system, but, in my conceptualization of it, it would be a small part with the majority of power being generated by people from solar and wind sources and then sharing their generated power on the grid. People who generate would also have battery banks, distributing even the storage facilities among the community.
Such an arrangement, were it guided by appropriate legislation and regulations, would place the responsibility for power generation into the hands of the same people who consume, allowing people to choose whether they want to earn money from or spend money on their power needs. It would be power by the people, to the people, if you'll excuse the pun.
The problem with this is that no big business would be able to dominate such an arrangement, thus there will never be a political will behind it.
So you're saying that, in the absence of such a system, if you see a sudden obstacle in front of you, you'd assess the ability of the vehicle *behind* you to stop in time before you brake?
According to the law, if they hit you from behind, it's their problem. All cars should assume that the car in front will slam its brakes on at any second, and leave an appropriate gap.
It seems a new dialect of Idiotish is born every time the high school system vomits out another generation.
Can we stop it with the language mutilation please? Yes, I know languages evolve, but what's going on now is not evolution, but more akin to what happened to the wildlife around Chernobyl.
You know, 5 years ago the argument was that Linux had the technical stability to be used in enterprise scenarios, but lacked the polish to be used on the desktop.
Now you're saying that it's too oriented towards basic desktop use and can't be used in the enterprise?
Seriously, wtf is going on with Microsoft shills. With the cash they spend on marketing, I'd have thought they could hire astroturfers with more than one brain cell.
This is the dumbest comment I've seen in a long, long time.
The majority of people here who don't like Windows are running Linux, which is free, which is why they are happy to upgrade their OS all the time. They dislike the Windows world because in it you lose the capacity to upgrade the OS without upgrading their hardware.
The other camp who are running Windows don't like upgrading their hardware precisely *because* they've just spent a pile of cash on an OS upgrade.
So your argument is broken from both of your angles of attack. Which brings me to my final question: Were you born stupid or were you dropped on your head as a child?
It's quite telling about the level of our civilization when spinelessly discarding one's principles for the sake of a video game is considered normal.
Either pay for it, or pirate it and let them know why, or say you're not going to play it and stick with your word. If you have a principle, stand up for it. Hell, in my day, we had to die for our principles. Now people want to have principles and not even have to give up a video game for them. Kids these days...
Yes, enjoyment is a part of life, but as always, the balance is the key.
When a country spends around $20 billion (with a "b") on a single sporting event, one has to question whether the balance is right, or whether, somewhere along the way, we've lost the ability to prioritize social goals appropriately.
Just to put that sum into perspective, it is roughly two hundred times greater than the highest estimated amount of money required to immunize every child in Africa against malaria, which kills one child about every 16 seconds. So we can't take 0.5% of that budget for such a cause?
The increase in technological capacity of the so called "first world" in the last 100 years or so is surpassed only by the increase in callous disregard for others, and I think this is the OP's point.
So you believe that atmospheric pollution, oil spills and groundwater contamination are myths and hysteria? Perhaps incidents like the Bhopal disaster and the Exxon Valdez spill could demonstrate that the risk to human and animal survival is very real, and based in observed fact.
Dude really, you're on the wrong forum. Perhaps www.RavingPsychoticIndustryDrones.com would be more to your liking.
Yea for sure, all his robots require human control given that they are mechanical devices, so if he ever gets depressed and wants to commit suicide, he can make it look like the robots killed him. It's scare the crap out of everyone else. That's one hell of a practical joke.
Better still, a separate report issued yesterday by Ofcom revealed that the majority of broadband users had no idea about the speed of their connection anyway.
Maybe because at the moment there are very few applications of an Internet connection for which you'd notice the difference between 1mbit and 10mbit.
Unless you are a habitual downloader (a group statistically overrepresented here on Slashdot), you won't notice any difference to your web and email by moving above 1mbit. Hell, with the intelligent buffering that most video sites have, it's likely that you wouldn't even notice the difference on those sites unless you're really paying attention.
So cut it with the "we need faster broadband" BS. What we need before a 100mbit pipe is a legislative framework that ensures that consumers can actually use that 100mbit pipe without getting shagged six ways from Sunday by their ISP.
Slashdot Mirror
Your rational and level-headed responses are not welcome here. Please wait for security to arrive and escort you off the Internet.
The main problem I have with nuclear power is the enormous investment required to make it working, and the minimum scale that it can be done on.
While any reasonably competent hobbyist can cobble together a wind generator and battery array on his or her own quite cheaply and easily, the same cannot be said for nuclear power.
Personally, I think the answer does lie in local micro-generation, and the role adjustment of the grid to become solely a transfer medium rather than distribution channel. Large scale power generation could play a part in such a system, but, in my conceptualization of it, it would be a small part with the majority of power being generated by people from solar and wind sources and then sharing their generated power on the grid. People who generate would also have battery banks, distributing even the storage facilities among the community.
Such an arrangement, were it guided by appropriate legislation and regulations, would place the responsibility for power generation into the hands of the same people who consume, allowing people to choose whether they want to earn money from or spend money on their power needs. It would be power by the people, to the people, if you'll excuse the pun.
The problem with this is that no big business would be able to dominate such an arrangement, thus there will never be a political will behind it.
So you're saying that, in the absence of such a system, if you see a sudden obstacle in front of you, you'd assess the ability of the vehicle *behind* you to stop in time before you brake?
Dude, get off the roads.
According to the law, if they hit you from behind, it's their problem. All cars should assume that the car in front will slam its brakes on at any second, and leave an appropriate gap.
I like driving. But I like the idea of sleeping through the traffic jam on the way to work more.
There is already a mechanism to get rid of such people. It was called the Constitution. Pity you guys broke it by electing Bush twice.
According to the last group in the White House, trials became unnecessary on Sept 11, 2001.
Where did you find a back ho and how much did she charge?
Tell that to Diebold.
I was referring to the tendency to use it in everyday speech and the interpolation of its words into people's vocabularies.
The fact that it was created for 1984 doesn't make me cringe less when I hear the word "ungood" used in a regular spoken conversation.
The question should really be, would you *really* trust a program that nobody could audit?
It seems a new dialect of Idiotish is born every time the high school system vomits out another generation.
Can we stop it with the language mutilation please? Yes, I know languages evolve, but what's going on now is not evolution, but more akin to what happened to the wildlife around Chernobyl.
*cough*
Games.
*cough*
You know, 5 years ago the argument was that Linux had the technical stability to be used in enterprise scenarios, but lacked the polish to be used on the desktop.
Now you're saying that it's too oriented towards basic desktop use and can't be used in the enterprise?
Seriously, wtf is going on with Microsoft shills. With the cash they spend on marketing, I'd have thought they could hire astroturfers with more than one brain cell.
There is no such thing as unbiased. Objectivity is a myth. If you ignore biased media, you must live in a black hole.
This is the dumbest comment I've seen in a long, long time.
The majority of people here who don't like Windows are running Linux, which is free, which is why they are happy to upgrade their OS all the time. They dislike the Windows world because in it you lose the capacity to upgrade the OS without upgrading their hardware.
The other camp who are running Windows don't like upgrading their hardware precisely *because* they've just spent a pile of cash on an OS upgrade.
So your argument is broken from both of your angles of attack. Which brings me to my final question: Were you born stupid or were you dropped on your head as a child?
It's quite telling about the level of our civilization when spinelessly discarding one's principles for the sake of a video game is considered normal.
Either pay for it, or pirate it and let them know why, or say you're not going to play it and stick with your word. If you have a principle, stand up for it. Hell, in my day, we had to die for our principles. Now people want to have principles and not even have to give up a video game for them. Kids these days...
Not according to the western legal system.
Yea, coz, like, that worked out so well for us in that other country threatening our way of life, Iraq! We should do it again to the Russians!
Yes, enjoyment is a part of life, but as always, the balance is the key.
When a country spends around $20 billion (with a "b") on a single sporting event, one has to question whether the balance is right, or whether, somewhere along the way, we've lost the ability to prioritize social goals appropriately.
Just to put that sum into perspective, it is roughly two hundred times greater than the highest estimated amount of money required to immunize every child in Africa against malaria, which kills one child about every 16 seconds. So we can't take 0.5% of that budget for such a cause?
The increase in technological capacity of the so called "first world" in the last 100 years or so is surpassed only by the increase in callous disregard for others, and I think this is the OP's point.
So you believe that atmospheric pollution, oil spills and groundwater contamination are myths and hysteria? Perhaps incidents like the Bhopal disaster and the Exxon Valdez spill could demonstrate that the risk to human and animal survival is very real, and based in observed fact.
Dude really, you're on the wrong forum. Perhaps www.RavingPsychoticIndustryDrones.com would be more to your liking.
Yea for sure, all his robots require human control given that they are mechanical devices, so if he ever gets depressed and wants to commit suicide, he can make it look like the robots killed him. It's scare the crap out of everyone else. That's one hell of a practical joke.
On another note, are you from YouTube?
Oh, so they pay while sitting down? How novel!
Maybe because at the moment there are very few applications of an Internet connection for which you'd notice the difference between 1mbit and 10mbit.
Unless you are a habitual downloader (a group statistically overrepresented here on Slashdot), you won't notice any difference to your web and email by moving above 1mbit. Hell, with the intelligent buffering that most video sites have, it's likely that you wouldn't even notice the difference on those sites unless you're really paying attention.
So cut it with the "we need faster broadband" BS. What we need before a 100mbit pipe is a legislative framework that ensures that consumers can actually use that 100mbit pipe without getting shagged six ways from Sunday by their ISP.
I'm looking at you, Telstra.
He'd be able to start a fire in your living room with calipers and a protractor!