In 1900, the world pop was 1.5 billion. In 1960, it was 3 billion. Today, it is 7 billion. By 2040, it will be 9 billion. What the hell would you call "rapidly expanding"?
What is happening right now in the upper midwest is called "weather" not "climate". Climate is a large-scale phenomenon (e.g. hemispheres) averaged over a long time (years or decades) while weather is a small-scale phenomenon (e.g. "upper midwest") measured over a short time (weeks or months).
Looking at world climate, eight of the ten hottest years in history have occurred since 2000. The other two were in the late 90's.
You clearly have zero knowledge of how uranium ore is processed into usable fuel. Only an time fraction of the original ore is uranium. Even then, the radiation level from an entire ton from of freshly-processed and purified U3O8 is about half that of what you will experience on a commercial jet flight. Even after the fuel has been used in a reactor, it is still produces millions of times more radiation than the original ore.
If you have an irrational fear of buried nuclear isotopes then you should probably be more scared about the unspent versions that occur naturally.
There's nothing irrational about it, given that the post-fuel isotopes are millions of times more concentrated, and hence more dangerous, than the ones in the ground.
But Frenkel quoted Nick Bostrom as saying this, not that he himself agreed with this. Bostrom is an idiot who constantly makes nonsensical statistical arguments about among other things, the end of the world (see The Doomsday argument).
So everybody has their own starship? And nobody's starship is any more powerful or luxurious than anybody else's?
There will always be scarcity. If there isn't any at the moment, someone will figure out how to create a new scarcity so that they can have more of it, and thus make others envy them.
There's a simple answer to all of these problems: cut population. If there were only 700 million people in the world, rather than 7000 million, there would be little unemployment, hunger or crime.
Or, just move to another state after graduating (which is very common anyway). That way, the state you graduated from will have no jurisdiction to tax you at all.
The reason nukes aren't being built has nothing to do with environmentalists, and everything to do with investors. As in, there aren't any.
Who wants to invest in something that may pay back its construction costs in 20 years, when 5 years is considered a long time for ROI. And that's only when the taxpayers are forced to underwrite the thing, since private insurance companies won't touch a nuke project.
Slashdot Mirror
You can drop anchor in the middle of the ocean? That's a hell of a long anchor chain.
This is gag, right? Right??
In 1900, the world pop was 1.5 billion. In 1960, it was 3 billion. Today, it is 7 billion. By 2040, it will be 9 billion.
What the hell would you call "rapidly expanding"?
But I like lead in my booze! Damn nanny state.
So you have never had a wet dream?
Jesus, what an idiot.
What is happening right now in the upper midwest is called "weather" not "climate".
Climate is a large-scale phenomenon (e.g. hemispheres) averaged over a long time (years or decades)
while weather is a small-scale phenomenon (e.g. "upper midwest") measured over a short time (weeks or months).
Looking at world climate, eight of the ten hottest years in history have occurred since 2000. The other two were in the late 90's.
One can dream.
Second line should have been "Only a tiny fraction of the original ore is uranium".
You clearly have zero knowledge of how uranium ore is processed into usable fuel.
Only an time fraction of the original ore is uranium.
Even then, the radiation level from an entire ton from of freshly-processed and purified U3O8 is about half that of what you will experience on a commercial jet flight.
Even after the fuel has been used in a reactor, it is still produces millions of times more radiation than the original ore.
There's nothing irrational about it, given that the post-fuel isotopes are millions of times more concentrated, and hence more dangerous, than the ones in the ground.
I use iTunes to transfer files between my computer and my ipad (and yes, it sucks). Is there another way?
But Frenkel quoted Nick Bostrom as saying this, not that he himself agreed with this.
Bostrom is an idiot who constantly makes nonsensical statistical arguments about among other things, the end of the world (see The Doomsday argument).
And it will say:
PC Load Letter
In other words, more social "science" horseshit.
It's amazing that people get paid to do this.
It sounds like a short form of astrophysics.
They should have defined the terms before asking the questions.
This was a very poorly written survey.
Actually, garbage men are mostly unionized and get pretty good pay.
It's the guys in the fast-food joints and Walmarts that are truly poor.
So everybody has their own starship? And nobody's starship is any more powerful or luxurious than anybody else's?
There will always be scarcity.
If there isn't any at the moment, someone will figure out how to create a new scarcity so that they can have more of it, and thus make others envy them.
Kurzweil is a nut case whose only justification for these predictions is that he really, really, really wants them come true before he dies.
There's a simple answer to all of these problems: cut population. If there were only 700 million people in the world, rather than 7000 million, there would be little unemployment, hunger or crime.
Or, just move to another state after graduating (which is very common anyway).
That way, the state you graduated from will have no jurisdiction to tax you at all.
That is , it says nothing at all. Didn't the poster read it?
Prove it.
And no, quoting another right-wing asshole who agrees with you doesn't count.
Except that they tend to melt down when the operators screw up. And they will, eventually.
The reason nukes aren't being built has nothing to do with environmentalists, and everything to do with investors.
As in, there aren't any.
Who wants to invest in something that may pay back its construction costs in 20 years, when 5 years is considered a long time for ROI.
And that's only when the taxpayers are forced to underwrite the thing, since private insurance companies won't touch a nuke project.