"What do we do with 48 tons of nuclear waste generated per year per plant?"
48 tons of radiocative waste per plant per year? OH NOES!!!!11!!
Wow, that's about the same as a coal plant fart, but I don't see you complaining about the amount of radiocative crap those plants are dumping STRAIGHT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. And that's just the radioactive crap. That doesn't include the mercury, lead and other lovely crud you get from burning coal.
"Arrogant people think nuclear power is perfectly safe. Paranoid people think nuclear power will destroy the planet. Intelligent people see plant designs that are intrinsically safe, but want to know what we're going to do with the waste."
Well, I can guarentee they're not going to dump it in the air. And it's energy to waste ratio is a hell of a lot better looking than fossil fuels. Wanna guess how many tons of toxic waste your average coal plant makes a year?
"The ONLY solution the industry has right now is "bury it" (Yucca), "make it someone else's problem" (Arizona's) and "hope we're not around if it is a problem"(whoever is on the planet when Yucca breaks open, or is attacked, or a society 1,000 years from now, which can't read English, trundles into the mysterious cave and comes out with Magical Glowing Glass.)"
Short of breeder reactors, the best option is to just bury it. And it doesn't even take a lot of space to contain all the waste that would ever be generated. As far as a society in a 1000 years, you are arrogantly assuming that a) We'll actually make it another 1000 years (50/50 at best) and b) Society will have completely forgotten about the concept of a geiger counter.
I'm far more concerned about the wastes being generated from our fossil power plants than nuclear waste.
"If press reports of the 1970s are not to be taken seriously, those of today regarding the nature and origins of climate change should also be viewed with healthy skepticism."
Let's see...1970...1970...why that was 30 years ago. Do you honestly think that meteorological scientists are using the same models? Do you think the increase in computational capacity has had no impact on the science? Do you think all the new data, from ice-cores to global monitoring has not aided in better describing the weather patterns of this planet? Do you think that not one thing has changed since then?
Yeah, nothing changes in 3 decades.
This is an extremely weak argument. Actually, it's not even an argument. But I digress.
Fine, you want to be skeptic. That's just being lazy. Why be skeptic when you can get off your ass and figure it out for yourself.
There are many many sites where you can go and peruse meteorological data, and download it as well. There are even visualization packages (free) that you can download and program yourself.
These data include multiple atmospheric layers of data over time, GOES satellite imagery, IR, water vapor, etc. Just about any parameter you'd care to look at.
The data are quite clear. The global temperature is indeed rising. The weather patterns are changing. What remains to be seen is how much and what impact it has.
Cause is irrelevant at this point. Not much could be done whether human induced or not.
So the choice is yours. You can go and look at the data yourself. Or, you can continue with your irrelevant drivel about 30-year-old met models.
Ins thaaa newsshhh toda...*hic*..todayyy: April 01, 2008....er summthun. Synthehol Naashion: Good druunks are stilla drunkin...thanks to Missster Nutt. 98% of...*hic*... the population isshhh drunk...passhh me a beereer (*hic*)...Wassha hangoverrr? Mishter Nutt is now working (HAH HAH) on...good....cryshtal that don breaak ur teetsss. In other newsshhh...4 lawsuits...*hic* have...awwww who careshh...only two gweeeks still read thish and that's 'cuz they too drunk to chansh their homepagesh.
The people haven't decided anything. For many families, Walmart is about all they can afford.
Walmart is so successful because it caters to the largest market segment, the poor and working poor. Coming from a poor family, I know that you don't "make choices" about what you buy and where you buy it from. You go to the cheapest store that is the closest.
This is hardly about democracy and freedom. It's about getting the necessities to live on. If you can only afford the cheapest prices (Walmart), then you only have one real choice.
And besides, calling for a boycott of Walmart on here is pointless as we do not constitue the target market. You would have to get the millions of poor/working poor to boycott. Let me know how that works out.
The dead hooker was removed due to environmental concerns, however they did include a gift certificate for hot coffee from the shady looking house on the corner.
Not necessarily. Atmospheric conditions have to be right for clouds to form. For example, take a look a Abu Dhabi (sp?) in the summer. It is ofter that you see temps in the 90-100 range with 80%+ humidity levels. Plenty of water vapor in the air, but rarely a cloud to be seen.
The Atlantic "dead zone" is another location where there is plenty of water vapor, but little in the way of clouds.
Just because there is more water vapor does not necessarily mean more clouds (globally). The global average humidty could go up by a single percent. That could have an impact in warming, but may not necessarily have an affect on global cloud coverage.
"Yet in order to evolve lungs that could take advantage of oxygen in the atmosphere there must have been some informational exchange."
1. Animal can be out of water for a short duration.
2. Through random variation, some can stay out of water longer than others.
3. Ones who could stay out of water longer reproduce more successfully.
4. Repeat.
Remember, this is a process that takes millions of years. Humans have a hard time grasping exactly how long a time that is.
No information exchange necessary (other than transmitting genetic material). In fact, there is a whole branch of computer science that emulates this called genetic algorithms.
Evolution is little more than a genetic algorithm, with the most succesful generations reproducing and passing on their succesful changes to the next generation.
A more recent bilogical example (that we actually caused), anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Through random mutations, some bacteria were not killed with anti-biotic A. The survivors reproduce. The survivors get hit with anti-biotic A. Fewer are killed of due to random mutation. Pretty soon you have a bacteria that is completly resistant to anti-biotic A.
With bacteria, these changes happen faster because a million generations can happen over a short time period. But there isn't any information exchange. There are DNA mutations that alter the protien structures of the organism.
Unless you count the genetic mutation itself, that is.
~X~
"Thus the jump from "global warming" to "zOMG HURRICANES" still strikes me as unlikely..."
A sea surface temperature increase of even a half-degree represents an enormous enormous amount of additional energy feeding into our planetary weather systems.
The norms for areas where we have records for. This includes tree rings and ice core samples which go back several thousand years.
We only have detailed reords for about the past 150 years, but on the longer timescales the ice-cores and tree rings give a general idea what the climate was like. The norms I was referring to however, only deal with the past 150 years.
I'm not "making stuff up". You misinterpereted what I said (or maybe I wasn't specific enough).
And that's not even the point I was trying to make. The point is simple, the climate is changing. It's deviating from the averages that we have come to expect. That means we have to change with it.
Regardless of whether we are causing it or helping it we have to anticipate the changes and adapt to them.
This is possibly one of the funniest posts I've ever read on slashdot.
And kudos to you coward, for not showing yourself. Obviously you do not believe in your own words enough to back them up.
Also, please, get some help. If you have enough time to spew this worthless tripe onto slashdot, you definately need a hobby.
I also suggest a course on concise writing. Filling a post full of obtuse adjectives and antiquated colloquialisms does little to get your point across. Instead of sounding intelligent, you come across as a pious, egotistical jackass. Your post screams that you are needy, pathetic, and are desperately craving attention. Your endless whining throughout your post also makes you sound like a spoiled little girl who didn't get a pony for Christmas.
As you said in your post, using big words does not make you intelligent. Indeed, this is very true in your case. Why? Because I can express in three words what took you almost three pages of endless drivel to say:
"Taco, you suck."
Now, why don't you go read some self-help books and gain some social skills. There really is more to life than being an attention-starved egomaniacal sociopath.
Paranoia is fear without reason.
However, there are reasons to be concerned. It's plain to see the glacial retreats all over the world. It's also pretty obvious that the permafrost in the Sibera, Alaska, and northern Canada are thawing. It's also obvious that the forest line has been moving northward as well. The sea surface temperatures world-wide have been increasing. Warmer water aquatic animals have been trekking further northward (and southward).
And yes, the weather has been straying from the "norms".
Now maybe it's just coincidence that all this happens to coincide with the rapid industrialization of the planet, but I doubt it.
But let's say this is just part of the natural cycle. In that case, we certainly are not helping the situation.
Regardless, we need to start thinking about how this will impact the planet because it's going to happen and will happen quickly.
And to correct your statement, excess energy does cause storms. If the Earth can't radiate the heat off into space, it has to go somewhere. Since most of the earth is covered by water, a majority of this excess energy goes into oceans. Ocean temps strongly impact weather. You can figure out the rest.
All that aside, when would YOU start to take action? When the sea levels raise by 5 feet? When England and northern Europe no longer have "summer" due to the gulf stream being weakend? When an averge hurricane season has 30 storms a year?
By that point, it's already far too late to do anything about it. Some scientist already think it's too late and are recommending we begin preparing for the climate changes.
About 5,000 years ago there was a rapid global climactic shift that destroyed several civilizations. While I believe technologically we could definately survive such a change now, just imagine the problems that would be caused if the US midwest turned into a desert and bread costs $30.00 a loaf.
~X~
It is not just correlation between greenhouse gases and warmer temperatures. It is a simple fact. More greenhouse gases = higher tempertures. For a solid example of this, look at Venus.
What has been debatable is whether or not humans are causing it. Some argue natural causes are to blame. Others say we are.
Whatever the story is, we are at best not helping the situation. And in fact, if we are not the primary cause then within a couple of centuries we will be. Again, simple math backs this up.
Take the world's oil reserves. Figure out the mass. Multiply by 80% (average carbon content). Then add that to the atmosphere.
Using publicly available numbers, I figured that we would be adding enough CO2 to our atmosphere to boost from it's meager percentage now to 15% to 20%, putting us comfortably within the theoretical concentrations when the dinosaurs roamed (and a global mean temperature in the 90F+).
The CO2 will build up to this point in a little less than two centuries if global oil consumption continues at it's current rate.
So if we aren't the cause now, great. But if we keep going in the direction we're heading, then it won't matter. It won't be the end of the world, as it would be difficult to cause the same runaway greenhouse effect as Venus, but it would significantly change the planet.
So when Linus does this, it's a good thing, but when a business does this, it's bad?
I'm sorry, but when you're being an asshole, you're being an asshole. It doesn't matter if you're the Emperor of Linux or the President of the United States. Being an asshole transcends all boundries.
Don't be an apologist, or make excuses about his lack of respect or decency to those who work hard for the OSS community. It only makes you sound like a battered wife: "He only beats me when he's drunk."
The guy was being an asshole. Emperor or not, he's getting all the flack he deserves.
If the asteroid were only travelling at 1600 mph, then it wouldn't be that big of a problem. However most asteroids when the get this far into the solar system are usually cruising at around 25000 mph, which makes for a pretty nasty bump.
How about using resonate frequency to shatter the asteroids? I'm sure a craft with a decent reactor on board could find and then create resonating frequencies in these objects to shake them apart. Maybe not the nickel-iron asteroids but the gravel based ones should be fairly easy to disinitegrate.
I think another option is to use gyroscopes to change the orientation of oblong asteroids a key points in it's orbit and let the ambient gravitational forces do the work. Same idea, a small nuclear powered craft that attaches to the surface of the asteroid and starts gyrating to affect how it tumbles. Depending on which direction we want this object thrown, we could have the gyroscope change the orientation of the asteroid when it's near the sun (this would take time), which would slightly alter the orbit over time.
Better yet, combine the two. Use the asteroids own momentum plus the shatterring to scatter itself across the solar system.
The fuel for the trip will most likely be xenon gas (ion propulsion). Chemical rockets would probably be used once it got there, as ion propulsion would not be able to create enough force to keep the craft from smashing into the asteroid.
Slashdot Mirror
"What do we do with 48 tons of nuclear waste generated per year per plant?"
48 tons of radiocative waste per plant per year? OH NOES!!!!11!!
Wow, that's about the same as a coal plant fart, but I don't see you complaining about the amount of radiocative crap those plants are dumping STRAIGHT INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. And that's just the radioactive crap. That doesn't include the mercury, lead and other lovely crud you get from burning coal.
"Arrogant people think nuclear power is perfectly safe. Paranoid people think nuclear power will destroy the planet. Intelligent people see plant designs that are intrinsically safe, but want to know what we're going to do with the waste."
Well, I can guarentee they're not going to dump it in the air. And it's energy to waste ratio is a hell of a lot better looking than fossil fuels. Wanna guess how many tons of toxic waste your average coal plant makes a year?
"The ONLY solution the industry has right now is "bury it" (Yucca), "make it someone else's problem" (Arizona's) and "hope we're not around if it is a problem"(whoever is on the planet when Yucca breaks open, or is attacked, or a society 1,000 years from now, which can't read English, trundles into the mysterious cave and comes out with Magical Glowing Glass.)"
Short of breeder reactors, the best option is to just bury it. And it doesn't even take a lot of space to contain all the waste that would ever be generated. As far as a society in a 1000 years, you are arrogantly assuming that a) We'll actually make it another 1000 years (50/50 at best) and b) Society will have completely forgotten about the concept of a geiger counter.
I'm far more concerned about the wastes being generated from our fossil power plants than nuclear waste.
~X~
"If press reports of the 1970s are not to be taken seriously, those of today regarding the nature and origins of climate change should also be viewed with healthy skepticism."
Let's see...1970...1970...why that was 30 years ago. Do you honestly think that meteorological scientists are using the same models? Do you think the increase in computational capacity has had no impact on the science? Do you think all the new data, from ice-cores to global monitoring has not aided in better describing the weather patterns of this planet? Do you think that not one thing has changed since then?
Yeah, nothing changes in 3 decades.
This is an extremely weak argument. Actually, it's not even an argument. But I digress.
Fine, you want to be skeptic. That's just being lazy. Why be skeptic when you can get off your ass and figure it out for yourself.
There are many many sites where you can go and peruse meteorological data, and download it as well. There are even visualization packages (free) that you can download and program yourself.
These data include multiple atmospheric layers of data over time, GOES satellite imagery, IR, water vapor, etc. Just about any parameter you'd care to look at.
The data are quite clear. The global temperature is indeed rising. The weather patterns are changing. What remains to be seen is how much and what impact it has.
Cause is irrelevant at this point. Not much could be done whether human induced or not.
So the choice is yours. You can go and look at the data yourself. Or, you can continue with your irrelevant drivel about 30-year-old met models.
~X~
"more important point that God Has A Tapping Finger".
You mispelled "Noodly Appendage", you insensitive clod!
~X~
Correction:
...awwww who careshh...only two gweeeks still read thish and that's 'cuz they too drunk to chansh their homepagesh.
Ins thaaa newsshhh toda...*hic*..todayyy: April 01, 2008....er summthun. Synthehol Naashion: Good druunks are stilla drunkin...thanks to Missster Nutt. 98% of...*hic*... the population isshhh drunk...passhh me a beereer (*hic*)...Wassha hangoverrr? Mishter Nutt is now working (HAH HAH) on...good....cryshtal that don breaak ur teetsss. In other newsshhh...4 lawsuits...*hic* have
KEEEEGGGAAAAAAARRZZZZZZZZ RULKLLLELLELELLSSSSSZZZZZZZ!!!
~X~
The people haven't decided anything. For many families, Walmart is about all they can afford.
Walmart is so successful because it caters to the largest market segment, the poor and working poor. Coming from a poor family, I know that you don't "make choices" about what you buy and where you buy it from. You go to the cheapest store that is the closest.
This is hardly about democracy and freedom. It's about getting the necessities to live on. If you can only afford the cheapest prices (Walmart), then you only have one real choice.
And besides, calling for a boycott of Walmart on here is pointless as we do not constitue the target market. You would have to get the millions of poor/working poor to boycott. Let me know how that works out.
~X~
The dead hooker was removed due to environmental concerns, however they did include a gift certificate for hot coffee from the shady looking house on the corner.
~X~
*bluaaaaarrrrrrrrrffffffffffffff*
Thanks for making me puke on my keyboard. You owe me a new one.
~X~
"Vapourous water = Clouds"
Not necessarily. Atmospheric conditions have to be right for clouds to form. For example, take a look a Abu Dhabi (sp?) in the summer. It is ofter that you see temps in the 90-100 range with 80%+ humidity levels. Plenty of water vapor in the air, but rarely a cloud to be seen.
The Atlantic "dead zone" is another location where there is plenty of water vapor, but little in the way of clouds.
Just because there is more water vapor does not necessarily mean more clouds (globally). The global average humidty could go up by a single percent. That could have an impact in warming, but may not necessarily have an affect on global cloud coverage.
~X~
"Yet in order to evolve lungs that could take advantage of oxygen in the atmosphere there must have been some informational exchange." 1. Animal can be out of water for a short duration. 2. Through random variation, some can stay out of water longer than others. 3. Ones who could stay out of water longer reproduce more successfully. 4. Repeat. Remember, this is a process that takes millions of years. Humans have a hard time grasping exactly how long a time that is. No information exchange necessary (other than transmitting genetic material). In fact, there is a whole branch of computer science that emulates this called genetic algorithms. Evolution is little more than a genetic algorithm, with the most succesful generations reproducing and passing on their succesful changes to the next generation. A more recent bilogical example (that we actually caused), anti-biotic resistant bacteria. Through random mutations, some bacteria were not killed with anti-biotic A. The survivors reproduce. The survivors get hit with anti-biotic A. Fewer are killed of due to random mutation. Pretty soon you have a bacteria that is completly resistant to anti-biotic A. With bacteria, these changes happen faster because a million generations can happen over a short time period. But there isn't any information exchange. There are DNA mutations that alter the protien structures of the organism. Unless you count the genetic mutation itself, that is. ~X~
"Thus the jump from "global warming" to "zOMG HURRICANES" still strikes me as unlikely..."
A sea surface temperature increase of even a half-degree represents an enormous enormous amount of additional energy feeding into our planetary weather systems.
It doesn't strike me as unlikely at all.
~X~
You'll have to forgive bogie. It's St. Patty's day and he's a bit of a lush.
~X~
The norms for areas where we have records for. This includes tree rings and ice core samples which go back several thousand years.
. html
We only have detailed reords for about the past 150 years, but on the longer timescales the ice-cores and tree rings give a general idea what the climate was like. The norms I was referring to however, only deal with the past 150 years.
I'm not "making stuff up". You misinterpereted what I said (or maybe I wasn't specific enough).
And that's not even the point I was trying to make. The point is simple, the climate is changing. It's deviating from the averages that we have come to expect. That means we have to change with it.
Regardless of whether we are causing it or helping it we have to anticipate the changes and adapt to them.
The other choice is do nothing and watch, and hope we don't have the same climatic shifts that we've seen in the past. See http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/summary
~X~
This is possibly one of the funniest posts I've ever read on slashdot.
And kudos to you coward, for not showing yourself. Obviously you do not believe in your own words enough to back them up.
Also, please, get some help. If you have enough time to spew this worthless tripe onto slashdot, you definately need a hobby.
I also suggest a course on concise writing. Filling a post full of obtuse adjectives and antiquated colloquialisms does little to get your point across. Instead of sounding intelligent, you come across as a pious, egotistical jackass. Your post screams that you are needy, pathetic, and are desperately craving attention. Your endless whining throughout your post also makes you sound like a spoiled little girl who didn't get a pony for Christmas.
As you said in your post, using big words does not make you intelligent. Indeed, this is very true in your case. Why? Because I can express in three words what took you almost three pages of endless drivel to say:
"Taco, you suck."
Now, why don't you go read some self-help books and gain some social skills. There really is more to life than being an attention-starved egomaniacal sociopath.
~X~
Paranoia is fear without reason. However, there are reasons to be concerned. It's plain to see the glacial retreats all over the world. It's also pretty obvious that the permafrost in the Sibera, Alaska, and northern Canada are thawing. It's also obvious that the forest line has been moving northward as well. The sea surface temperatures world-wide have been increasing. Warmer water aquatic animals have been trekking further northward (and southward). And yes, the weather has been straying from the "norms". Now maybe it's just coincidence that all this happens to coincide with the rapid industrialization of the planet, but I doubt it. But let's say this is just part of the natural cycle. In that case, we certainly are not helping the situation. Regardless, we need to start thinking about how this will impact the planet because it's going to happen and will happen quickly. And to correct your statement, excess energy does cause storms. If the Earth can't radiate the heat off into space, it has to go somewhere. Since most of the earth is covered by water, a majority of this excess energy goes into oceans. Ocean temps strongly impact weather. You can figure out the rest. All that aside, when would YOU start to take action? When the sea levels raise by 5 feet? When England and northern Europe no longer have "summer" due to the gulf stream being weakend? When an averge hurricane season has 30 storms a year? By that point, it's already far too late to do anything about it. Some scientist already think it's too late and are recommending we begin preparing for the climate changes. About 5,000 years ago there was a rapid global climactic shift that destroyed several civilizations. While I believe technologically we could definately survive such a change now, just imagine the problems that would be caused if the US midwest turned into a desert and bread costs $30.00 a loaf. ~X~
Silicosis? Is that related to pneumonoultramicroscopicsiliconvolcanoconiosis?
:)
I finally got to use that word.
~X~
It is not just correlation between greenhouse gases and warmer temperatures. It is a simple fact. More greenhouse gases = higher tempertures. For a solid example of this, look at Venus.
What has been debatable is whether or not humans are causing it. Some argue natural causes are to blame. Others say we are.
Whatever the story is, we are at best not helping the situation. And in fact, if we are not the primary cause then within a couple of centuries we will be. Again, simple math backs this up.
Take the world's oil reserves. Figure out the mass. Multiply by 80% (average carbon content). Then add that to the atmosphere.
Using publicly available numbers, I figured that we would be adding enough CO2 to our atmosphere to boost from it's meager percentage now to 15% to 20%, putting us comfortably within the theoretical concentrations when the dinosaurs roamed (and a global mean temperature in the 90F+).
The CO2 will build up to this point in a little less than two centuries if global oil consumption continues at it's current rate.
So if we aren't the cause now, great. But if we keep going in the direction we're heading, then it won't matter. It won't be the end of the world, as it would be difficult to cause the same runaway greenhouse effect as Venus, but it would significantly change the planet.
~X~
And did you happen to notice the lack of pirates and dinosaurs at the time.
:P
I think more is at work here.
~X~
So when Linus does this, it's a good thing, but when a business does this, it's bad?
I'm sorry, but when you're being an asshole, you're being an asshole. It doesn't matter if you're the Emperor of Linux or the President of the United States. Being an asshole transcends all boundries.
Don't be an apologist, or make excuses about his lack of respect or decency to those who work hard for the OSS community. It only makes you sound like a battered wife: "He only beats me when he's drunk."
The guy was being an asshole. Emperor or not, he's getting all the flack he deserves.
~X~
While true, his latest comments remind me more of the Evil Emperor from Star Wars rather than the benevolent dictator some like to portray him as.
Seriously, I think he could be a little more cordial, even in jest.
~X~
You might want to put a cap on both heads then, chief.
~X~
Why stop there? If you drink enough mercury you become completely impervious to all radiation!
~X~
If the asteroid were only travelling at 1600 mph, then it wouldn't be that big of a problem. However most asteroids when the get this far into the solar system are usually cruising at around 25000 mph, which makes for a pretty nasty bump.
How about using resonate frequency to shatter the asteroids? I'm sure a craft with a decent reactor on board could find and then create resonating frequencies in these objects to shake them apart. Maybe not the nickel-iron asteroids but the gravel based ones should be fairly easy to disinitegrate.
I think another option is to use gyroscopes to change the orientation of oblong asteroids a key points in it's orbit and let the ambient gravitational forces do the work. Same idea, a small nuclear powered craft that attaches to the surface of the asteroid and starts gyrating to affect how it tumbles. Depending on which direction we want this object thrown, we could have the gyroscope change the orientation of the asteroid when it's near the sun (this would take time), which would slightly alter the orbit over time.
Better yet, combine the two. Use the asteroids own momentum plus the shatterring to scatter itself across the solar system.
Just some ideas.
~X~
The fuel for the trip will most likely be xenon gas (ion propulsion). Chemical rockets would probably be used once it got there, as ion propulsion would not be able to create enough force to keep the craft from smashing into the asteroid.
~X~
If Intelligent Design were toilet paper, I wouldn't even wipe my ass with it.
~X~
I'll just set that on the wall next to the unpickable lock, the unstealable car, and the unhackable DRM.
~X~