When people predict what things will be like in the future, it's often very wrong....
True enough.
think about what's in our day to day lives that's actually new in the last 10 years or so.
Cell phones so cheap nearly everyone has one. Internet for the masses. Companies doing business online (some were 10 years ago, sure, but is there any comparison to today?). OnStar. GPS (consumer level). Digital cameras. Of course, these changes are more evolutionary than revolutionary, but it is simply not true to say that things have not changed from 10 years ago. Then most people didn't have internet access or a cellphone. Today, most can't remember how they got along without them. The same will probably be true of the next ten years.
Well, let's look at the options from the consumer's point of view:
Buy One device for $50 in 50 years. Total: $50
Except for the fact that lasting 50 years (in reasonable working condition) does not imply 50 years of useful life. Better quality (of pictures, using the camera example) and new features can make a product of a few years ago less desirable to a user than the newer cheap product despite the fact that the cheap version will wear out or break long before the older one. You'd probably have a hard time finding products from 30, 40, 50 years ago that were "built to last forever" even though the people who bought them are relatively plentiful. There's a reason for that.
Buy 25 devices for $10 in 50 years. Total: $250
The fact that you can make a product that will last 50 years in no way implies that a consumer will want or need it for that length of time.
But, even if you assume most of the population is stupid and doesn't see the benefits, you still only need 1/20 (.05) of the population to buy you product to acheive the same sales as the companies who need 10%
Again, sales are not the same as profit. You are assuming they are at least proportionate, which is often not the case. Businesses usually want to maximize profit.
In short- it's CHEAPER for the consumer, and it makes MORE money for the business. What's not to like?
It isn't necessarily cheaper, and almost certainly doesn't make more money for the company.
What's not to like?
It probably does not meet the needs of most consumers. You're only considering two factors: durability/long life and price. Will consumers chose a smaller, lighter product even if it means it won't last as long? Obviously. And that makes it less expensive too? C'mon. And depending the specific product, there may be many other factors involved as well. Do lots of consumers make poor buying decisions because they are mainly price-driven? Sure. But whatever you're buying, you should consider what best meets your needs. Buying cheap is not always a bad choice.
Because then all the consumers (With almost 300 million people in the USA, lets figure there are 150 million consumers) will buy your $50 camera.
I don't know who allegedly taught you economic theory (or common sense) but maybe you should ask for your money back if they didn't teach you about a thing economists call a "demand curve" which relates demand to price. It is the simplest model, but it adequately demonstrates that not all consumers are willing to buy at the higher end of the price range.
Also, the profit (price minus cost) per unit is more important in determining how much money you actually have when you're done than sale price.
Lets just take a set of events here, just to show you how corrupt the entire system is.
Let's take a contrary example to show how effective the system is: You don't invest anything in my company, I never make a product that takes off. I never hire thousands of employees, so they are not only not making "probably double" what they could be had you invested and your return was capped, many are making much less than they would have in your scenario.
Now, let's look at you scenario a little closer:
Because I invested $100,000, I made 10,000 time more back and I did absolutely nothing....
Not true. You put your money at risk. And since many more business ventures fail than succeed, that is a significant consideration.
Additionally, in order to increase the value of my stock, the company is required to by law to pretty much do as I say.
Again, not really true. While public companies have a duty to investors, unless you own a controlling interest, you generally can't exercise direct control. Furthermore, your interest in the company could be diluted when the company goes public, or a portion of your investment could be subject to a buyback option by the owner, or other restrictions.
Now, if the company only had to pay back, at maximum, 10 times the investment....
That would be more like a loan than a direct investment. Business owners have that option as well.
Who defines "useful knowledge"... you? god? the president?
"Useful", though somewhat subjective, is a well defined term. Since you seem rather confused about my meaning, despite adequate context, I'll reiterate a few of the major time wasters on the internet that fall outside "pursuit of useful knowledge". Keep in mind this is not an exhaustive list and there may be exceptions that do involve seeking "useful knowledge": chat, p0rn, gambling, games, some shopping/ebay.
I might read about gardening online and you might read about cars, and we both might believe that the other is wasting the resources of the internet....
You appear to be confusing "useful" and "interesting"; or perhaps useful to an individual vs. useful in a general sense.
And of course they'll only cover the "name" events or ones that we have a hope of winning.
Actually, it sounds like NBC will be giving a good go at maximum coverage on their various networks (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, and Bravo), claiming that they will cover all sports (though perhaps not every event in each sport). Finally, Trampoline will get the coverage it deserves!
If girl.com was a problem and katie.com wasn't, and both were resolved, then it's more likely to be what girl.com was pointing at that was the issue, not who owned what.
Essentially, they were concerned about whether the website could harm the book, but not the reverse. And the website was harmed by the book. The fact that Penguin did not forsee this could certainly be an oversite. The fact that they've chosen not to compensate or even apologize to KJ in any way, despite the fact that she was (allegedly/apparently) harmed, is not.
I'm fairly certain KJ has stated that she's never been offered money by Penguin, KT, or Parry Aftab. Whoever is behind the effort to get the domain name from KJ (no doubt someone who will benefit financially from the new business selling internet safety curricula to schools, etc...) apparently is trying to get it for free.
Re:Is Parry Aftab Katie Tarbox's lawyer?
on
Katie Jones Interviewed
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Parry Aftab's website claims that she will be on "O'Reilly Factor" this month (although she misspelled O'Reilly on her site). Perhaps Bill will hit her with some tough questions about being an internet abuser? Bill's fan email is oreilly@foxnews.com
Some questions I'd like to see him ask are along the lines of : Katie Tarbox claims you do not represent her, but Katie Jones feels that you did claim to represent K.T. Who do you really represent in the matter of the katie.com book title/domain name issue?
Isn't it hypocritical to present yourself as a defender of rights online while trying to get a valuable domain name for free through threats and intimidation?
I'm sure others of you will have insightful questions as well. And at least making O'Reilly aware of this conflict could also make the show more interesting.
Penguin would either have to spend a lot of cash on a lawsuit or changing the name of the book.
Or Penguin (or whoever is behind the new business ventures of selling "safe web use" materials to schools, etc...) could do what they should have done in the beginning: offer a fair price to buy the domain name.
If Yahoo has a rule against "abusive" posts and chooses to delete some posts but not delete other posts that are libelous, that could open them to liability in a lawsuit.
It could, but I suspect that Yahoo's terms of service are rife with disclaimers about not being able to monitor all posts, not being responsible for user's content, etc.... A lot will depend on how the plaintiff went about trying to have the offending posts removed (the article makes it sound like he made some effort). And possibly Yahoo's policies for dealing with complaints and what it considers an "abusive message". Evidently, the offending posts are gone now, but there is no mention of when they were removed.
College is by all acounts [sic] a peice [sic] of crap.
Nonsense. A number of people have relayed accounts here today of the value they received from their college education.
For someone who is really into programming, by the time they get to College they know 1/2 the material or more that will be "taught" to them.
Evidently the many posts stressing that there is much more to computer science than programming have been wasted on you.
Gen-eds are a waste of time. And the forced non-computer science aspect of a degree is worthless. The college wants your money.
A well rounded eduction forces you to experience things you normally would not chose. Whether that actually includes anything you find interesting or useful depends mostly on you. But any time you exercise your brain, especially in ways you're not used to, it makes you smarter. So if you apply yourself rather than just doing the minimum to get by, you get more benefit.
And of course there is the reason that led me to take (and enjoy) liberal arts classes when I was young and dumb -- all the hot chicks were liberal arts majors.
I'm not really sure if you can be taught to think independantly.
Perhaps. A good teacher can make you think about things differently, analyze, consider other factors/viewpoints etc... (if you're at least somewhat willing). That may not be quite the same as thinking for yourself, but it is probably a good start. Liberal arts classes tend to be better suited to this type of thinking than hard sciences where answers are typically right or wrong.
Another thing that concerns me is that many university graduates are so ignorant of things that should be taught in high school, or before. I'm thinking of things like basic history (world and U.S. --of course, I'm referring to U.S. students), basic civics/government, and so on.
I understand. But if the number is 10 or 15 or 20, then we're back to "slow change". If you work on something less contentious with respect to public and regulatory oversite, you can probably effect change more quickly. Also, if you chose something more scalable (my understanding is that designs already approved by the NRC are ones with one or a few large reactors, rather than more numerous, smaller ones --but I could be mistaken) you would be able to get the cleaner sources online more quickly, albeit more gradually than building very large plants and replacing a significant amount in one shot.
Another advantage to gradual change is that it allows time for people and systems to adapt and work out any kinks.
How long does it take to build a new nuc plant?
Let's say 5 years.
I'd say that is extremely optimistic. In fact, I could easily conceive a number of realistic scenarios in which you'd be lucky to break ground in 5 years. You'd be better off subsidizing something like this (crude oil from industrial waste). I'm not sure what kind of cost per barrel they're getting, as it is primarily being marketed as waste disposal rather than energy production. Combine legislation favorable to that technology with serious increases in mandated fuel economy (CAFE) and you could put a big dent in our reliance on foreign oil.
I should have been more clear regarding the context of that comment. Better battery or fuel cell technology is needed (IMO) for widespread adoption of electric vehicles due to the limitations (range, cost, recharge time, etc...) of currently available vehicles. There have been production EVs available to consumers, but I'm not sure if there are any cars currently available (there may still be some smaller vehicles like the Bombardier, GEM and Th!nk which I believe are classified as "low speed vehicles" limited to 25 or 30 mph). I believe Toyota has discontinued the RAV4-EV and Ford's Ranger EV never made it to the consumer market AFAIK (it was introduced as a fleet vehicle).
[w]ith no internet, I dunno, I usually feel just fine...
Doesn't sound like someone claiming to be addicted. Keep in mind addict != heavy user. I don't claim to have done extensive research on "internet addiction", but I've heard about a fair number of cases and all have been centered around one or more of the "frivolities" I mentioned, thus my assessment. YMMV.
Nuclear power can be used in transportation to power electrolysis to generate hydrogen for fuel cells, or simply used to recharge a battery.
Most definitely. Electricity generated from any source could. The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years. Thus the point that neither nuclear nor solar are well suited to replace oil as our primary energy source for transportation.
That's the other side of the coin. Either advances in clean energy technology bring the cost down to be competitive, or externalities of coal and other fossil fuels are applied to the producer and/or consumer. Or (most likely) they meet somewhere in the middle. There are several variations on this. Taxation is one method, i.e. tax breaks or subsidies for clean energy sources and/or additional assessments on fossil fuels. Tightening environmental standards also puts the costs back on the producer. Since producers will tend to simply pass additional costs on to consumers, reducing externalities is also a gradual process.
I think you already realize that these are two different senses of "ready".
Absolutely. And given the fact that cost per KW of solar power has declined steadily for many years, while popular acceptability of nuclear power hasn't seemed to change much indicates to me that solar is probably more ready than nuclear.
Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY.
Very true. And we don't need to change the way we generate electricity to make that happen. In fact, there are thousands of electric vehicles on the road today. But they won't make dent in the market until they're as cheap and easy (i.e. recharge or swap battery/fuel cell in a few minutes) as gas or diesel cars are today. It has to be no more hassle than filling up with gas, and cost about the same (or cost a lot less, if it is more trouble).
Billions of Defense-budget dollars can buy a lot of batteries. As for infrastructure, supplying re-charge sockets (or battery-swaps) at current fuel stations isn't significantly more difficult than the air/water self-service facilities which those stations already have.
I see two major issues. First, there should be standard for charging systems. That could be a serious problem if each manufacturer wants their proprietary system to be the standard (pretty likely). The other problem could be getting retailers to install them. Not only do you need a rapid charger that will top off your batteries in a matter of minutes (less than 10 or 15 is probably necessary for consumer acceptance if other factors remain equal), but you need a reasonably uniform method of metering/selling. The latter may not be technically challenging, but it will add to the cost of a charging station.
I'm a big fan of solar. And I'm not opposed to nuclear, particularly if plans would account for permanent waste handling. And I like electric vehicles (but it will be hard to beat hybrids). My point is that you won't make changes happen overnight. Alternative fuel vehicles and solar power and other alternatives are making progress and gaining market share. But unless there is a phenomenal breakthrough in the technology (or major disaster that boosts oil prices or cuts supply to make it no longer competitive), it will continue to be a slow, gradual change.
The barrier to widespread use of nuclear is that it is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar.
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS
And infrastructure. Electricity is fine for trains and trolleys, but another major component of mass transit (especially if you're talking about replacing a significant portion of private vehicles) is an extensive bus system. What kind of hybrid vehicles are you referring to that would use grid electricity? The ones I'm aware of only use gasoline as a fuel source. The "hybrid" part is the drivetrain which uses power from both the internal combustion engine and an electric motor to improve efficiency (batteries are charged by the IC engine).
And ask yourself, in how many ways could the Palestine situation be fixed by a large infusion of *Western* cash?
The real benefit to getting rid of our oil economy would be leaving many supporters of our enemies with little or no income.
And the only choice which is ready *today* is nuclear...
The only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost.
But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East...
I doubt it would help much, because we don't use a lot of oil (relatively speaking) for electic generation. Coal is the big player there. Most of our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited.
the fact is, the fanatical Islamics wouldn't care enough to leave their region to bother us, if we were COMPLETELY disengaged from their part of the world -- which we COULD be, if not for our petro-addiction.
I could be mistaken, but I thought the big issue most Islamic extremists hate us for (or at least cite most often) is our support of Isreal.
Who, exactly is touting this as good? If you believe in man made climate change, 30% less damaging than coal just isn't good enough. We need to be moving away from fossil fuels, not finding marginally less damaging ways to burn them.
First, you don't need to believe in man made climate change to consider less pollution "good". Also, I agree that we should be moving to non-polluting (or as nearly as possible) energy sources, but that isn't going to happen until clean energy sources are reasonably cost competitive on a scale that allows similar capacity. So realistically the two options are: keep burning coal the old way until alternatives are adopted; or burn significantly cleaner until alternatives are adopted.
Is thirst for knowledge really an addiction that should be treated like a mental illness and cured?
Do you really think people claiming "internet addiction" are doing research and trying to learn useful knowledge? I would wager that nearly all "internet addicts" spend virtually all their online time in a small set of activities such as: chat, "adult" content, and gambling. There are probably also subsets that are "addicted" to ebay, games (the term "EverCrack" comes to mind), and a few other areas.
A sibling post describing the issue in more detail makes it sound like "internet addiction" is mainly a euphemism for "lazy, undisciplined and poorly socialized".
Slashdot Mirror
True enough.
think about what's in our day to day lives that's actually new in the last 10 years or so.
Cell phones so cheap nearly everyone has one. Internet for the masses. Companies doing business online (some were 10 years ago, sure, but is there any comparison to today?). OnStar. GPS (consumer level). Digital cameras. Of course, these changes are more evolutionary than revolutionary, but it is simply not true to say that things have not changed from 10 years ago. Then most people didn't have internet access or a cellphone. Today, most can't remember how they got along without them. The same will probably be true of the next ten years.
Buy One device for $50 in 50 years. Total: $50
Except for the fact that lasting 50 years (in reasonable working condition) does not imply 50 years of useful life. Better quality (of pictures, using the camera example) and new features can make a product of a few years ago less desirable to a user than the newer cheap product despite the fact that the cheap version will wear out or break long before the older one. You'd probably have a hard time finding products from 30, 40, 50 years ago that were "built to last forever" even though the people who bought them are relatively plentiful. There's a reason for that.
Buy 25 devices for $10 in 50 years. Total: $250
The fact that you can make a product that will last 50 years in no way implies that a consumer will want or need it for that length of time.
But, even if you assume most of the population is stupid and doesn't see the benefits, you still only need 1/20 (.05) of the population to buy you product to acheive the same sales as the companies who need 10%
Again, sales are not the same as profit. You are assuming they are at least proportionate, which is often not the case. Businesses usually want to maximize profit.
In short- it's CHEAPER for the consumer, and it makes MORE money for the business. What's not to like?
It isn't necessarily cheaper, and almost certainly doesn't make more money for the company.
What's not to like?
It probably does not meet the needs of most consumers. You're only considering two factors: durability/long life and price. Will consumers chose a smaller, lighter product even if it means it won't last as long? Obviously. And that makes it less expensive too? C'mon. And depending the specific product, there may be many other factors involved as well. Do lots of consumers make poor buying decisions because they are mainly price-driven? Sure. But whatever you're buying, you should consider what best meets your needs. Buying cheap is not always a bad choice.
I don't know who allegedly taught you economic theory (or common sense) but maybe you should ask for your money back if they didn't teach you about a thing economists call a "demand curve" which relates demand to price. It is the simplest model, but it adequately demonstrates that not all consumers are willing to buy at the higher end of the price range.
Also, the profit (price minus cost) per unit is more important in determining how much money you actually have when you're done than sale price.
Let's take a contrary example to show how effective the system is:
You don't invest anything in my company, I never make a product that takes off. I never hire thousands of employees, so they are not only not making "probably double" what they could be had you invested and your return was capped, many are making much less than they would have in your scenario.
Now, let's look at you scenario a little closer:
Because I invested $100,000, I made 10,000 time more back and I did absolutely nothing....
Not true. You put your money at risk. And since many more business ventures fail than succeed, that is a significant consideration.
Additionally, in order to increase the value of my stock, the company is required to by law to pretty much do as I say.
Again, not really true. While public companies have a duty to investors, unless you own a controlling interest, you generally can't exercise direct control. Furthermore, your interest in the company could be diluted when the company goes public, or a portion of your investment could be subject to a buyback option by the owner, or other restrictions.
Now, if the company only had to pay back, at maximum, 10 times the investment....
That would be more like a loan than a direct investment. Business owners have that option as well.
"Useful", though somewhat subjective, is a well defined term. Since you seem rather confused about my meaning, despite adequate context, I'll reiterate a few of the major time wasters on the internet that fall outside "pursuit of useful knowledge". Keep in mind this is not an exhaustive list and there may be exceptions that do involve seeking "useful knowledge": chat, p0rn, gambling, games, some shopping/ebay.
I might read about gardening online and you might read about cars, and we both might believe that the other is wasting the resources of the internet....
You appear to be confusing "useful" and "interesting"; or perhaps useful to an individual vs. useful in a general sense.
Actually, it sounds like NBC will be giving a good go at maximum coverage on their various networks (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, USA, and Bravo), claiming that they will cover all sports (though perhaps not every event in each sport). Finally, Trampoline will get the coverage it deserves!
You must be new here.
Essentially, they were concerned about whether the website could harm the book, but not the reverse. And the website was harmed by the book. The fact that Penguin did not forsee this could certainly be an oversite. The fact that they've chosen not to compensate or even apologize to KJ in any way, despite the fact that she was (allegedly/apparently) harmed, is not.
I'm fairly certain KJ has stated that she's never been offered money by Penguin, KT, or Parry Aftab. Whoever is behind the effort to get the domain name from KJ (no doubt someone who will benefit financially from the new business selling internet safety curricula to schools, etc...) apparently is trying to get it for free.
Some questions I'd like to see him ask are along the lines of :
Katie Tarbox claims you do not represent her, but Katie Jones feels that you did claim to represent K.T. Who do you really represent in the matter of the katie.com book title/domain name issue?
Isn't it hypocritical to present yourself as a defender of rights online while trying to get a valuable domain name for free through threats and intimidation?
I'm sure others of you will have insightful questions as well. And at least making O'Reilly aware of this conflict could also make the show more interesting.
Or Penguin (or whoever is behind the new business ventures of selling "safe web use" materials to schools, etc...) could do what they should have done in the beginning: offer a fair price to buy the domain name.
It could, but I suspect that Yahoo's terms of service are rife with disclaimers about not being able to monitor all posts, not being responsible for user's content, etc.... A lot will depend on how the plaintiff went about trying to have the offending posts removed (the article makes it sound like he made some effort). And possibly Yahoo's policies for dealing with complaints and what it considers an "abusive message". Evidently, the offending posts are gone now, but there is no mention of when they were removed.
Nonsense. A number of people have relayed accounts here today of the value they received from their college education.
For someone who is really into programming, by the time they get to College they know 1/2 the material or more that will be "taught" to them.
Evidently the many posts stressing that there is much more to computer science than programming have been wasted on you.
Gen-eds are a waste of time. And the forced non-computer science aspect of a degree is worthless. The college wants your money.
A well rounded eduction forces you to experience things you normally would not chose. Whether that actually includes anything you find interesting or useful depends mostly on you. But any time you exercise your brain, especially in ways you're not used to, it makes you smarter. So if you apply yourself rather than just doing the minimum to get by, you get more benefit.
And of course there is the reason that led me to take (and enjoy) liberal arts classes when I was young and dumb -- all the hot chicks were liberal arts majors.
Perhaps. A good teacher can make you think about things differently, analyze, consider other factors/viewpoints etc... (if you're at least somewhat willing). That may not be quite the same as thinking for yourself, but it is probably a good start. Liberal arts classes tend to be better suited to this type of thinking than hard sciences where answers are typically right or wrong.
Another thing that concerns me is that many university graduates are so ignorant of things that should be taught in high school, or before. I'm thinking of things like basic history (world and U.S. --of course, I'm referring to U.S. students), basic civics/government, and so on.
Another advantage to gradual change is that it allows time for people and systems to adapt and work out any kinks.
I'd say that is extremely optimistic. In fact, I could easily conceive a number of realistic scenarios in which you'd be lucky to break ground in 5 years. You'd be better off subsidizing something like this (crude oil from industrial waste). I'm not sure what kind of cost per barrel they're getting, as it is primarily being marketed as waste disposal rather than energy production. Combine legislation favorable to that technology with serious increases in mandated fuel economy (CAFE) and you could put a big dent in our reliance on foreign oil.
I should have been more clear regarding the context of that comment. Better battery or fuel cell technology is needed (IMO) for widespread adoption of electric vehicles due to the limitations (range, cost, recharge time, etc...) of currently available vehicles. There have been production EVs available to consumers, but I'm not sure if there are any cars currently available (there may still be some smaller vehicles like the Bombardier, GEM and Th!nk which I believe are classified as "low speed vehicles" limited to 25 or 30 mph). I believe Toyota has discontinued the RAV4-EV and Ford's Ranger EV never made it to the consumer market AFAIK (it was introduced as a fleet vehicle).
Doesn't sound like someone claiming to be addicted. Keep in mind addict != heavy user. I don't claim to have done extensive research on "internet addiction", but I've heard about a fair number of cases and all have been centered around one or more of the "frivolities" I mentioned, thus my assessment. YMMV.
Most definitely. Electricity generated from any source could. The issue is that vehicles using advanced batteries or fuel cells are not available and probably won't be for several years. Thus the point that neither nuclear nor solar are well suited to replace oil as our primary energy source for transportation.
That's the other side of the coin. Either advances in clean energy technology bring the cost down to be competitive, or externalities of coal and other fossil fuels are applied to the producer and/or consumer. Or (most likely) they meet somewhere in the middle. There are several variations on this. Taxation is one method, i.e. tax breaks or subsidies for clean energy sources and/or additional assessments on fossil fuels. Tightening environmental standards also puts the costs back on the producer. Since producers will tend to simply pass additional costs on to consumers, reducing externalities is also a gradual process.
Absolutely. And given the fact that cost per KW of solar power has declined steadily for many years, while popular acceptability of nuclear power hasn't seemed to change much indicates to me that solar is probably more ready than nuclear.
Nuc-gen'd electric could be used to power cars TODAY.
Very true. And we don't need to change the way we generate electricity to make that happen. In fact, there are thousands of electric vehicles on the road today. But they won't make dent in the market until they're as cheap and easy (i.e. recharge or swap battery/fuel cell in a few minutes) as gas or diesel cars are today. It has to be no more hassle than filling up with gas, and cost about the same (or cost a lot less, if it is more trouble).
Billions of Defense-budget dollars can buy a lot of batteries. As for infrastructure, supplying re-charge sockets (or battery-swaps) at current fuel stations isn't significantly more difficult than the air/water self-service facilities which those stations already have.
I see two major issues. First, there should be standard for charging systems. That could be a serious problem if each manufacturer wants their proprietary system to be the standard (pretty likely). The other problem could be getting retailers to install them. Not only do you need a rapid charger that will top off your batteries in a matter of minutes (less than 10 or 15 is probably necessary for consumer acceptance if other factors remain equal), but you need a reasonably uniform method of metering/selling. The latter may not be technically challenging, but it will add to the cost of a charging station.
I'm a big fan of solar. And I'm not opposed to nuclear, particularly if plans would account for permanent waste handling. And I like electric vehicles (but it will be hard to beat hybrids). My point is that you won't make changes happen overnight. Alternative fuel vehicles and solar power and other alternatives are making progress and gaining market share. But unless there is a phenomenal breakthrough in the technology (or major disaster that boosts oil prices or cuts supply to make it no longer competitive), it will continue to be a slow, gradual change.
The barrier to widespread use of nuclear is that it is unpopular with the public/politically. One could make the case that it is even less ready than solar.
nuc-gen'd electric is unsuitable because of our current transportation HABITS
And infrastructure. Electricity is fine for trains and trolleys, but another major component of mass transit (especially if you're talking about replacing a significant portion of private vehicles) is an extensive bus system. What kind of hybrid vehicles are you referring to that would use grid electricity? The ones I'm aware of only use gasoline as a fuel source. The "hybrid" part is the drivetrain which uses power from both the internal combustion engine and an electric motor to improve efficiency (batteries are charged by the IC engine).
And ask yourself, in how many ways could the Palestine situation be fixed by a large infusion of *Western* cash?
The real benefit to getting rid of our oil economy would be leaving many supporters of our enemies with little or no income.
The only barrier to more widespread adoption of solar is the cost.
But if we go full-speed immediately to develop enough nuclear capacity to COMPLETELY eliminate our dependence on petro sources which are actually or potentially volatile or unreliable -- e.g., the Middle East...
I doubt it would help much, because we don't use a lot of oil (relatively speaking) for electic generation. Coal is the big player there. Most of our oil consumption is for transportation -- something for which both nuclear and solar are poorly suited.
the fact is, the fanatical Islamics wouldn't care enough to leave their region to bother us, if we were COMPLETELY disengaged from their part of the world -- which we COULD be, if not for our petro-addiction.
I could be mistaken, but I thought the big issue most Islamic extremists hate us for (or at least cite most often) is our support of Isreal.
First, you don't need to believe in man made climate change to consider less pollution "good". Also, I agree that we should be moving to non-polluting (or as nearly as possible) energy sources, but that isn't going to happen until clean energy sources are reasonably cost competitive on a scale that allows similar capacity. So realistically the two options are: keep burning coal the old way until alternatives are adopted; or burn significantly cleaner until alternatives are adopted.
A sibling post describing the issue in more detail makes it sound like "internet addiction" is mainly a euphemism for "lazy, undisciplined and poorly socialized".
Well, yeah. That works great if they also force all their clients, vendors and partners to switch as well.