Nah, war is good for the economy, always has been. What is being spent is being recycled through the arms industry, and it is creating jobs etc. Gives it a really good kickstart. Not morally agreeable, but that's the way it is.
The "always has been" is simply wrong. There are numerous examples throughout history of nation-states left bankrupt and economically weakened after a war.
Second, a substantial part of the 3 billion a month being spent on the Iraq war is being spent IN IRAQ, and isn't getting recycled back to the US.
Third, this is a relatively low tech war. Most of the money being spent in the US on this war is just to buy more food, bullets and body-bags, that money isn't having the effect you think it will. There isn't any boost to entire industries the way there would be if this were a "total war" and the US had fully militarized its economy, as it did for WWII (and even then the US heartland was never damaged during the war, unlike everyone else).
The only people benefiting are just a few companies holding the majority of the no-bid contracts to support the war, mainly Haliburton and the like.
It's not a boycot as such, just a general loss of sales. Voting with your wallet, as the saying goes.
It would be better if the countries buying up our debt would be the ones to close their wallets. Only then will my fellow citizens realize just what kind of precarious economic situation we are heading into. If push came to shove, the rest of the world could decisively prove to the US population that they can't ignore the rest of the world indefinitely because economically we depend on them more than they depend on us, and that being a military superpower means nothing if you can't remain an economic superpower in order to pay for it. It may happen anyway if we continue to deficit spend with no discipline, and the countries buying our debt start to worry that we've lost control, and may not be able to honor the 7 trillion dollars worth of US IOUs that are already out there, on top of the trillions more that are coming.
Tho speaking from a WinUser perspective, RAR via WinRAR has largely displaced ZIP for me -- not because it's better (a lot of the time it's not, and RAR is also relatively slow) but because the first PKWare for Win32 was so awful, and WinZIP was scarcely better. Whereas WinRAR behaves mostly (if not perfectly) how I expect a WinApp to behave.
Yes, I mentioned earlier that one of Phil's biggest mistakes was the same as Wordperfect: not taking Windows seriously enough, soon enough. Their Win stuff was awkward and poorly designed and far too late to the party.
I've never used RAR, but I've heard its compression doesn't beat the new, 7zip (don't know about spanning and all the usability issues). I do know 7z's *nix CL program is awkward, however I have used 7zip's Windows "file/archive manager", because it supports *all* the other compression methods as well as 7zip, including RAR and standard ZIP, and found it to be much better, as well as a single complete solution to compression. It integrates seamlessly with the Explorer/File Manager's right click context menu, which means for me that many operations don't even require opening 7zip up, just a right-click, and click to "extract here" or "compress subdirectory" or whatever. Its hosted on sourceforge (7zip is open-source to boot), so if you haven't already, you may want to compare it to what you use now.
Disclaimer: I don't use Windows that much anymore anyway - so what works for me may be totally insufficient for you. If you haven't yet seen the difference though, 7zip's compression capability versus ZIP, BZIP2, and even the arithmetic compressor PPMD is just stunning. I swear to you on the 2nd or 3rd day of using it, I recompressed a bzip2 file and the.7z version was just so much smaller than the.bz2 version that I checked the file assuming I had messed up and somehow not included the entirety of the original tar. It was all there. As with all compressors though, actual performance depends on what you're compressing, so YMMV.
and providing better compression and better multi-volume support, was ARJ.
Oh please don't remind me how old I am.:) ARJ didn't come until later, and I used it for awhile. IIRC, it depended on what you were compressing as to whether ARJ or ZIP was better, but my RAM is really failing me on this DB query so I won't say that is a fact.
But In The Beginning There Was Only ARC and ZIP, And There Was No Harmony In The Universe.:)
It just occurred to me that where you were located (US, EU, Japan, etc.) probably had a lot to do with what you saw first and in what order, too. IIRC, LHA or one of the others came from Japan.
It's just that ZIP has these little niggling shortcomings:)
Agreed. I too remember how annoying it was to make backups that spanned multiple disks. Playing with CL parameters, having it fail and have to start all over, etc. Some things were not exactly intuitive.
Somebody elsewhere posted a link to a comparison showing Athlon64's temperatures were somewhat lower or comparable, but for desktop systems, once you get a system that automatically adjusts its CPU speed based on load, the "average" temperature becomes meaningless, and concerns over overheating virtually disappear, because the processor spends a large amount of time throttled down anyway. It'll run full tilt for only as long as you play that 3D intensive game, or for as long as it takes gcc to compile your kernel.:) As soon as the compile is over, the motherboard throttles the CPU back.
Consider my situation (A64 3200 with the CPU's PowerNow active and the MSI motherboard's "Core Cell" logic controlling the CPU): running KDE with all the fancy graphics on and some cute animations going on in the taskbar, 3 browser windows with most of them having multiple tabs open, kmail open, amarok playing some music, editing in a browser window or in the other likely scenario, editing in Kdevelop or a Kate editor window, or running MC doing file/system maintenance, and yet my CPU load doesn't crack 6%. You really have to make your CPU *work* before it'll even go to full speed.:) And the kicker: as part of this integrated CPU control, this motherboard will also *dynamically* *overclock* your CPU (up to 10% over base speed - how fast you can actually go will depend on your own CPU) if you tell it to in the BIOS. Again, its controlled completely on the motherboard silicon, Linux/Windows doesn't know and doesn't care (but will observe the CPU's core clock speed changing). So when I need the power, my A64 will run at 107% of rated speed, otherwise it runs as low as about a THIRD to a HALF of full speed. I can't remember the exact P-state speeds right now - I haven't paid attention in awhile because its automatic.
Temperature is simply not an issue anymore for me, and I really feel sorry for those folks sticking with Intel because they think AMD chips are inferior, or just because AMD chips don't have "Intel" printed on them or whatever.:( They're cheaper, they're about as fast, or faster, depending on what you do, and coupled with the right motherboard, they'll save you money on your electric bill. But hey, if they like their computer to double as a hot grill, then stick with Intel!:) Ah, the obligatory heat joke, you knew it was coming - and yes, I am a bad, bad person.:)
they also have Athlon64-M
Haven't heard of the latest models. I won't seriously pay attention till their Athlon64 version that supports PCI Express comes out and will then wait for MSI to make a motherboard to support that, but I'm in no hurry to replace my existing system anyway since, a) It "just works", and, b) Its "fast enough" (for now).
But the ZIP format was a lot easier to implement, especially inside a business app.
So you're implying it didn't compress better than ARC? That's not what I remember at all. ZIP was a better compressor than all the other methods at the time, that is what I meant by it being both technical superiority *and* PR that lead to ZIP's dominance.
>Tho last I recall paying attention to PKWare, the company had "upgraded" to a proprietary method.
I never paid attention after Phil's death. It didn't matter as you say because ZIP was already "free". My point was that despite setting ZIP free, Phil still managed to grow that company and make money until his death. I just found your reference to "PR" as odd, considering this forum is frequented by FOSS people who obviously believe Phil did exactly the right thing by setting it free, *AND* is an example of how someone can set software or an algorithm free and still make a living at supporting it.:)
In the long run however, it was still ZIP's technical superiority at the time that allowed its dominance to sink in. If you're saying someone could have released a lousy compressor at the time and it would have succeeded like ZIP did just because it was free to use, then I would disagree with that completely, after all, ARC's problem was its bad performance and bugs that allowed Phil's PKARC to gain market share anyway, long before Phil even created ZIP and released its format to the world. What *I* remember at the time, was comparing PKZIP to PKARC (which was already faster/better than the other ARC), and realizing it was not only just as fast or faster than the ARC version but compressed better to boot, so it was a no-brainer for me at the time to switch over to ZIP, as well as, I suspect, for tens of thousands of others who made the same simple comparison I did, and reached the same empirical conclusion. ZIP's success was NOT just because of "PR", even if you mean "PR" in a good kind of way (i.e. from a FOSS-like perspective).
If this is not satisfactory, then go to some Debian based solution. I tried, and I returned.
Of course, RH's problem is that others are doing the same and aren't returning.
I've never used RH, so I can't speak on the technical issues of Fedora, but I never really understood their intent behind Fedora as a "community supported distribution", because that is the very definition of what Debian already is. They can't compete with Debian as it already is unless they're willing to spend a lot of time and money to catch up, but saving money was the whole point of their pulling the plug on a free Red Hat Linux in the first place. It never made sense to me.
In your case, I'd wear the "Flamebait" mod as a badge of honor/courage.:)
Its mods like this that make me think more and more about just turning off the mods all together and seeing everything.... but then I'd have to put up with the truly Offtopic and "Yay First Post!" messages from ACs. Sigh.
I vote we just dump Troll and Flamebait mods, since one man's Troll is another man's Insightful. Oh well.
And to press the point home further, the parent should be modded insightful, not funny. Ostriches with their heads in the sand may look funny, but when we humans do the same the consequences are not.
I am not being really fair as linux could not clock manage at that time
With the right motherboard, Linux (or Windows for that matter) doesn't have to do anything. I'm using a MSI Neo motherboard with an Athlon64 in a desktop system. The CPU is throttled based on load automatically on the motherboard silicon. The OS doesn't even need to know.
Better yet, Athlon64's (with a supporting motherboard) even on the desktop can automatically run slower when there's no load so when you don't *need* the speed, it doesn't *run* at full speed. Hmm, looking on my task bar now my CPU usage bar isn't even visible - boy this/. stuff is hard work for me but my CPU doesn't even seem to notice!:D
Intel, as has recently become the norm, is just playing catchup with AMD. Nothing new here folks, move along smartly now.:)
Keep your blinders on. Sony and Nintendo are going to lose.
And when MS wins and their competitors all lose, the rest of the world (besides MS's monopoly-friendly home country) is beginning to see that *they* lose as well. Someone else here seems to have their blinders still on, too.
but ZIP became a de-facto standard on PR grounds, rather than technical ones.
Old timers from the early DOS days may remember differently.:) It was both technical and "PR" grounds that Phil Katz won on. He started out by making a better "ARC" compressor/decompressor, the ARC people litigated (on dubious grounds IMO - see the "Defending Phil" link from the link below), and Phil's response was to build a better mousetrap: the ZIP format & compression method. At the time, ZIP was hands-down the best that was available to the masses, because Phil released pkzip to the world as non-obnoxious shareware (if he had behaved like the ARC people there never would have been a FOSS 'gzip' in the *nix world - IMO) that quickly spread and rendered the ARC people a dinosaur that no one now remembers. Phil's company still exists however and the fact that the best compression method method today,.7z (aka 7-zip), is a variation of his ZIP, I think, says something about the technical quality of his ZIP back then.
Granted, he wasn't perfect, he made the same mistake about Windows that the Wordperfect people did for example, but despite essentially releasing his creation to the world for anyone to use, Phil died well off, if not rich (but it was a tragic ending nevertheless), and his PKWARE company is still alive and well, whereas the ARC people, well, ask most "youngsters" these days about the.arc format and you'll just get quizzical looks on their faces.....
however the amounts are tiny, the paper is bullshit,
No. No one said the amounts were large, but they are there. Whereas an NPP doesn't release any radiation at all. The truth of the statement still stands. If you're arguing that its an exaggeration, then I only have to point to all the crap the anti-nuclear crowd puts out as a counterexample.
Geeks always gravitate to the most high tech and 'cool' form of power.
No. I gravitate to the most economic and practical solution to the problems of greenhouse gas emissions, oil dependence, but first and foremost: COST. No other significant power source is currently cheaper than nuclear power despite the initial high cost to build a reactor (which if we start building them regularly using standardized designs wouldn't be so expensive anyway). Its simple economics. We can solve the aforementioned problems right now, its not a matter of technology or expense, its just a lack of knowledge on the part of the population (fearing what they don't understand, whether or not the fear is justified) and a lack political will among the pols.
I'll bite - the paper at the ornl link is junk science that ignores concentration -
I'll bite back, what does concentration have to do with anything? The previous post is still correct, as is the claims in the link: coal plants release more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear plants do, because under normal conditions nukes don't release any at all, wheras coal releases things like radon gas, uranium, and thorium (most of the last 2 are in the remaining fly ash, but some of it escapes out of the stacks, airborne).
A nuclear plant's construction costs are substantial relative to other types of power plants. However, once a reactor is built, it is cost-effective to keep it running at high capacity. As a result, utilities operate nuclear reactors as base load power. In contrast, it is normally prudent for utilities to respond to short-term changes in the demand for power by increasing or cutting back generation at their fossil fuel power plants.
Nuclear electricity production costs were cheaper than coal, oil and natural gas in 2002.
According to Resource Data International (RDI), nuclear generation costs in 2002 averaged 1.71 cents (US) per kilowatt-hour, lower than coal at 1.85 cents (US), natural gas at 4.06 cents (US), and oil at 4.41 cents (US).
A more comprehensive cost analysis conducted by the European Commission (EC) in 2000 took into account both internal and external costs. Internal costs include operating costs such as labour, fuel and supplies, plus capital expenditures, for all elements of the nuclear cycle, from exploration to decommissioning and waste disposal. External costs are the costs reflecting damage to the environment and the negative impact on communities: how much the activity contributes to global warming through greenhouse gases, and how large a "footprint" it leaves on human health.
The EC study concluded that the cost of electricity generation plus environmental factors for nuclear is substantially below that of fossil fuels, and it does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions.
a nuclear power plant runs well into the Billions, how much do you think it would increase your electric bill to pay for a new Nuclear Plant?
Despite high startup costs, nuclear's cost per megawatt is lower because natural gas is more expensive. NG is also an air polluter (but not as bad as the other fossil fuels).
Getting fatal doses (or dying) while preparing the bomb is also not a consideration
Umm, yes it is, given our hypothetical jihadist would never get out of the plower plant alive. The kind of radiation levels in the core are fatal within MINUTES, not days or months. And the physical burns from the radiation will incapacitate them anyway.
the number of civilians killed in nuclear accidents at power plants is... zero.
Define U.S. Nuclear Reactors.
Define "civilians"? You first.
You want to add operators too? Fine. We'll add these 3 deaths in from 30 years ago and then compare to the 30 or so people who die every year just in coal mine accidents. Do you still want to pursue this line?
Me too. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, just put all the affected packages on hold until the broken package is fixed.
It takes a little time to get up to speed with aptitude (its UI is very functional but not exactly user-friendly), but once you do, its easy to "hold" packages so that nothing breaks on your system until the dependencies are fixed on debian.org, at which time you just "un-hold" the affected packages and let them upgrade as normal. Aptitude lets you walk a package's dependency tree, forwards and backwards, so its easy, once you've done it awhile, to find and hold an entire tree of dependencies that are currently "broken". Afterwards, every once and awhile, you try to unhold the primary package and see of the dependency problem has been fixed. If it has, let aptitude, via apt-get, upgrade the packages, if not, put the packages back on hold.
If you get conservative, and just start keeping most stuff on hold unless its something you want or need, then this problem gets even rarer, because often the problem packages may now already be on hold and thus you never "see" the problem at all.
It does require a different mindset from the typical use of apt-get though. apt-get is primarily designed for the upgrade from one fixed version of Debian to another, but when using it to constantly update from a moving, changing target like unstable/Sid, its usefulness really falls apart. To keep your system going for long periods of time in light of daily changes like that, you simply have to get more conservative and adopt an attitude of "only mess with the stuff that I really need".
is indeed exciting, but interferometry is very technically challenging and increases somewhat exponentially with the number of apertures
but the field of view just sucks arse:-( Technical challenges are also significant for adaptive optics.
I don't claim to know all the technical challenges, but technical challenges are far simpler and a hell of a lot cheaper to solve here on the ground, than maintaining even a single telescope in orbit. Some of the people running these VLTAs are the ones saying they'll be able to beat the Hubble very soon (saw an interview with a director of some VLTA going online in South America). By the time we can construct replacement parts, get a shuttle up there, and update the Hubble, 3-4 years, these VLTAs will be overtaking the Hubble's ability, and in that time we'll have spent 100s of millions that could have been spent on James Webb, we'll have taken away NASA time from JW, and we could have more economically spent less money fixing those technical challenges for ground-based scopes like you mentioned to get the same capability.
JWST and hubble are complimentary, not competing.
I understand that for your needs the Hubble would be just as valuable as JW, but for the primary driving force that is pushing us to put these scopes in orbit, seeing the past, the Hubble simply *can't* compete with the JW.
Look, if it were up to me, we'd keep the Hubble for one more cycle, unfortunately Washington politicians have IMO a bizarre set of priorities right now for spending. They're not going to let us have both. Period. With that in mind, and given that VLTAs have already exceeded Hubble's resolution, and will very likely be able to fully replace Hubble's functionality within 10 years or so, I believe it just makes sense to back the scope that can see the farthest into the past, and unfortunately for the Hubble, that is the James Webb.
Slashdot Mirror
You sure that isn't the other way around?
The "always has been" is simply wrong. There are numerous examples throughout history of nation-states left bankrupt and economically weakened after a war.
Second, a substantial part of the 3 billion a month being spent on the Iraq war is being spent IN IRAQ, and isn't getting recycled back to the US.
Third, this is a relatively low tech war. Most of the money being spent in the US on this war is just to buy more food, bullets and body-bags, that money isn't having the effect you think it will. There isn't any boost to entire industries the way there would be if this were a "total war" and the US had fully militarized its economy, as it did for WWII (and even then the US heartland was never damaged during the war, unlike everyone else).
The only people benefiting are just a few companies holding the majority of the no-bid contracts to support the war, mainly Haliburton and the like.
It would be better if the countries buying up our debt would be the ones to close their wallets. Only then will my fellow citizens realize just what kind of precarious economic situation we are heading into. If push came to shove, the rest of the world could decisively prove to the US population that they can't ignore the rest of the world indefinitely because economically we depend on them more than they depend on us, and that being a military superpower means nothing if you can't remain an economic superpower in order to pay for it. It may happen anyway if we continue to deficit spend with no discipline, and the countries buying our debt start to worry that we've lost control, and may not be able to honor the 7 trillion dollars worth of US IOUs that are already out there, on top of the trillions more that are coming.
Yes, I mentioned earlier that one of Phil's biggest mistakes was the same as Wordperfect: not taking Windows seriously enough, soon enough. Their Win stuff was awkward and poorly designed and far too late to the party.
I've never used RAR, but I've heard its compression doesn't beat the new, 7zip (don't know about spanning and all the usability issues). I do know 7z's *nix CL program is awkward, however I have used 7zip's Windows "file/archive manager", because it supports *all* the other compression methods as well as 7zip, including RAR and standard ZIP, and found it to be much better, as well as a single complete solution to compression. It integrates seamlessly with the Explorer/File Manager's right click context menu, which means for me that many operations don't even require opening 7zip up, just a right-click, and click to "extract here" or "compress subdirectory" or whatever. Its hosted on sourceforge (7zip is open-source to boot), so if you haven't already, you may want to compare it to what you use now.
Disclaimer: I don't use Windows that much anymore anyway - so what works for me may be totally insufficient for you. If you haven't yet seen the difference though, 7zip's compression capability versus ZIP, BZIP2, and even the arithmetic compressor PPMD is just stunning. I swear to you on the 2nd or 3rd day of using it, I recompressed a bzip2 file and the
Oh please don't remind me how old I am.
But In The Beginning There Was Only ARC and ZIP, And There Was No Harmony In The Universe.
It just occurred to me that where you were located (US, EU, Japan, etc.) probably had a lot to do with what you saw first and in what order, too. IIRC, LHA or one of the others came from Japan.
Agreed. I too remember how annoying it was to make backups that spanned multiple disks. Playing with CL parameters, having it fail and have to start all over, etc. Some things were not exactly intuitive.
Nice talking to you!
Somebody elsewhere posted a link to a comparison showing Athlon64's temperatures were somewhat lower or comparable, but for desktop systems, once you get a system that automatically adjusts its CPU speed based on load, the "average" temperature becomes meaningless, and concerns over overheating virtually disappear, because the processor spends a large amount of time throttled down anyway. It'll run full tilt for only as long as you play that 3D intensive game, or for as long as it takes gcc to compile your kernel.
Consider my situation (A64 3200 with the CPU's PowerNow active and the MSI motherboard's "Core Cell" logic controlling the CPU): running KDE with all the fancy graphics on and some cute animations going on in the taskbar, 3 browser windows with most of them having multiple tabs open, kmail open, amarok playing some music, editing in a browser window or in the other likely scenario, editing in Kdevelop or a Kate editor window, or running MC doing file/system maintenance, and yet my CPU load doesn't crack 6%. You really have to make your CPU *work* before it'll even go to full speed.
Temperature is simply not an issue anymore for me, and I really feel sorry for those folks sticking with Intel because they think AMD chips are inferior, or just because AMD chips don't have "Intel" printed on them or whatever.
Haven't heard of the latest models. I won't seriously pay attention till their Athlon64 version that supports PCI Express comes out and will then wait for MSI to make a motherboard to support that, but I'm in no hurry to replace my existing system anyway since, a) It "just works", and, b) Its "fast enough" (for now).
So you're implying it didn't compress better than ARC? That's not what I remember at all. ZIP was a better compressor than all the other methods at the time, that is what I meant by it being both technical superiority *and* PR that lead to ZIP's dominance.
>Tho last I recall paying attention to PKWare, the company had "upgraded" to a proprietary method.
I never paid attention after Phil's death. It didn't matter as you say because ZIP was already "free". My point was that despite setting ZIP free, Phil still managed to grow that company and make money until his death. I just found your reference to "PR" as odd, considering this forum is frequented by FOSS people who obviously believe Phil did exactly the right thing by setting it free, *AND* is an example of how someone can set software or an algorithm free and still make a living at supporting it.
In the long run however, it was still ZIP's technical superiority at the time that allowed its dominance to sink in. If you're saying someone could have released a lousy compressor at the time and it would have succeeded like ZIP did just because it was free to use, then I would disagree with that completely, after all, ARC's problem was its bad performance and bugs that allowed Phil's PKARC to gain market share anyway, long before Phil even created ZIP and released its format to the world. What *I* remember at the time, was comparing PKZIP to PKARC (which was already faster/better than the other ARC), and realizing it was not only just as fast or faster than the ARC version but compressed better to boot, so it was a no-brainer for me at the time to switch over to ZIP, as well as, I suspect, for tens of thousands of others who made the same simple comparison I did, and reached the same empirical conclusion. ZIP's success was NOT just because of "PR", even if you mean "PR" in a good kind of way (i.e. from a FOSS-like perspective).
Of course, RH's problem is that others are doing the same and aren't returning.
I've never used RH, so I can't speak on the technical issues of Fedora, but I never really understood their intent behind Fedora as a "community supported distribution", because that is the very definition of what Debian already is. They can't compete with Debian as it already is unless they're willing to spend a lot of time and money to catch up, but saving money was the whole point of their pulling the plug on a free Red Hat Linux in the first place. It never made sense to me.
In your case, I'd wear the "Flamebait" mod as a badge of honor/courage. :)
Its mods like this that make me think more and more about just turning off the mods all together and seeing everything.... but then I'd have to put up with the truly Offtopic and "Yay First Post!" messages from ACs. Sigh.
I vote we just dump Troll and Flamebait mods, since one man's Troll is another man's Insightful. Oh well.
Is "the eighties" the slang name of some federal prison I'm not aware of?
And to press the point home further, the parent should be modded insightful, not funny. Ostriches with their heads in the sand may look funny, but when we humans do the same the consequences are not.
or an Athlon64.
[ducks and runs for cover]
With the right motherboard, Linux (or Windows for that matter) doesn't have to do anything. I'm using a MSI Neo motherboard with an Athlon64 in a desktop system. The CPU is throttled based on load automatically on the motherboard silicon. The OS doesn't even need to know.
Better yet, Athlon64's (with a supporting motherboard) even on the desktop can automatically run slower when there's no load so when you don't *need* the speed, it doesn't *run* at full speed. Hmm, looking on my task bar now my CPU usage bar isn't even visible - boy this /. stuff is hard work for me but my CPU doesn't even seem to notice! :D
:)
Intel, as has recently become the norm, is just playing catchup with AMD. Nothing new here folks, move along smartly now.
And when MS wins and their competitors all lose, the rest of the world (besides MS's monopoly-friendly home country) is beginning to see that *they* lose as well. Someone else here seems to have their blinders still on, too.
Old timers from the early DOS days may remember differently.
Granted, he wasn't perfect, he made the same mistake about Windows that the Wordperfect people did for example, but despite essentially releasing his creation to the world for anyone to use, Phil died well off, if not rich (but it was a tragic ending nevertheless), and his PKWARE company is still alive and well, whereas the ARC people, well, ask most "youngsters" these days about the
No. No one said the amounts were large, but they are there. Whereas an NPP doesn't release any radiation at all. The truth of the statement still stands. If you're arguing that its an exaggeration, then I only have to point to all the crap the anti-nuclear crowd puts out as a counterexample.
No. I gravitate to the most economic and practical solution to the problems of greenhouse gas emissions, oil dependence, but first and foremost: COST. No other significant power source is currently cheaper than nuclear power despite the initial high cost to build a reactor (which if we start building them regularly using standardized designs wouldn't be so expensive anyway). Its simple economics. We can solve the aforementioned problems right now, its not a matter of technology or expense, its just a lack of knowledge on the part of the population (fearing what they don't understand, whether or not the fear is justified) and a lack political will among the pols.
I'll bite back, what does concentration have to do with anything? The previous post is still correct, as is the claims in the link: coal plants release more radioactive material into the environment than nuclear plants do, because under normal conditions nukes don't release any at all, wheras coal releases things like radon gas, uranium, and thorium (most of the last 2 are in the remaining fly ash, but some of it escapes out of the stacks, airborne).
Says who?
From here.
Despite high startup costs, nuclear's cost per megawatt is lower because natural gas is more expensive. NG is also an air polluter (but not as bad as the other fossil fuels).
Umm, yes it is, given our hypothetical jihadist would never get out of the plower plant alive. The kind of radiation levels in the core are fatal within MINUTES, not days or months. And the physical burns from the radiation will incapacitate them anyway.
Define "civilians"? You first.
You want to add operators too? Fine. We'll add these 3 deaths in from 30 years ago and then compare to the 30 or so people who die every year just in coal mine accidents. Do you still want to pursue this line?
Ouch! That should have been "couldn't care less".
What can I say? I'm a habitual offender, a serial rapist of the English language.
Me too. It doesn't happen often, but when it does, just put all the affected packages on hold until the broken package is fixed.
It takes a little time to get up to speed with aptitude (its UI is very functional but not exactly user-friendly), but once you do, its easy to "hold" packages so that nothing breaks on your system until the dependencies are fixed on debian.org, at which time you just "un-hold" the affected packages and let them upgrade as normal. Aptitude lets you walk a package's dependency tree, forwards and backwards, so its easy, once you've done it awhile, to find and hold an entire tree of dependencies that are currently "broken". Afterwards, every once and awhile, you try to unhold the primary package and see of the dependency problem has been fixed. If it has, let aptitude, via apt-get, upgrade the packages, if not, put the packages back on hold.
If you get conservative, and just start keeping most stuff on hold unless its something you want or need, then this problem gets even rarer, because often the problem packages may now already be on hold and thus you never "see" the problem at all.
It does require a different mindset from the typical use of apt-get though. apt-get is primarily designed for the upgrade from one fixed version of Debian to another, but when using it to constantly update from a moving, changing target like unstable/Sid, its usefulness really falls apart. To keep your system going for long periods of time in light of daily changes like that, you simply have to get more conservative and adopt an attitude of "only mess with the stuff that I really need".
I don't claim to know all the technical challenges, but technical challenges are far simpler and a hell of a lot cheaper to solve here on the ground, than maintaining even a single telescope in orbit. Some of the people running these VLTAs are the ones saying they'll be able to beat the Hubble very soon (saw an interview with a director of some VLTA going online in South America). By the time we can construct replacement parts, get a shuttle up there, and update the Hubble, 3-4 years, these VLTAs will be overtaking the Hubble's ability, and in that time we'll have spent 100s of millions that could have been spent on James Webb, we'll have taken away NASA time from JW, and we could have more economically spent less money fixing those technical challenges for ground-based scopes like you mentioned to get the same capability.
I understand that for your needs the Hubble would be just as valuable as JW, but for the primary driving force that is pushing us to put these scopes in orbit, seeing the past, the Hubble simply *can't* compete with the JW.
Look, if it were up to me, we'd keep the Hubble for one more cycle, unfortunately Washington politicians have IMO a bizarre set of priorities right now for spending. They're not going to let us have both. Period. With that in mind, and given that VLTAs have already exceeded Hubble's resolution, and will very likely be able to fully replace Hubble's functionality within 10 years or so, I believe it just makes sense to back the scope that can see the farthest into the past, and unfortunately for the Hubble, that is the James Webb.