Point taken about efficient energy storage, however, we need to start somewhere. If the resources are placed in that space, there will be fruit.
Also, breeder reactors are not a magic pill. There is no such thing as a negligable amount of nuclear waste. The waste from breeder reactors is not non-existent, and regardless of how much less waste there is, there is still waste and it is even more toxic than conventional nuclear waste.
At some point, some generation is going to have to solve this... whether its the next 10 years of expensively developing clean energy, or 500 years from now when the waste from breeder reactors becomes problematic. Seems to me it would make sense to abandon building new reactors until we can manage the waste problem now.
Thanks, but obviously the Diggmob has taken over slashdot... When a +5 insightful ends up -1 troll its pretty clearly sockpuppets at work... looks like she's layed into all my posts on this story, thanks for noticing they were neither flamebait nor troll. Bring on the metamoderators!
I agree. I also see that in the sense that they wanted, they failed miserably... there were cams available opening night. However, they also succeeded in a way they didn't intend: dark movies make for horrible, nearly unwatchable cams... or so I have heard.
You miss the point of solar energy. Breeder reactors create less, but an even more deadly longer lasting waste. The idea only postpones the problem, because eventually, maybe 200 short years of running breeder reactors, and we are at the same point... super deadly waste that can neither be transported nor safely stored.
Solar, you see, regardless of the amount of effort required to achieve a mostly solar energy source, is always clean...
I think it is people like you that are having a knee jerk reaction to the energy crisis. Fuck instant energy gratification... let's do this the RIGHT way.
Because of the waste... it is deadly for 30K years, can't be transported safely. There are ~3000 train accidents a year... you start moving that stuff around and there's going to be serious problems.
As I noted above, a single nuclear power plant could have provided all the bomb fuel we ever wanted. 109 more reactors gives new meaning to the word 'overkill.'
Continuing nuclear development becomes absurd because of dangers of transporting the waste to a location where it can be safely stored for 30K years... which arguably doesn't exist anyway. Also, you're completely wrong about the area required... its estimated an area the size of Nevada covered with panels could power the entire US... Sure, a lotta area, but its a small percentage of the entire US. And no one seems to notice that every single temporary nuclear waste storage facility in the US was at capacity 10 years ago. We have a nuclear waste problem right now! And you want to make more before the problem has even been honestly and publically discussed or solved in earnest?
Dude. Hypothetically... swap the incalculable research/resources expended between nuclear and solar over that period, and by today, solar WOULD be as cheap as nuclear and nuclear would be as expensive as solar. Solar is expensive because it has been ignored. Give it 60+ years of full effort development, it gets cheap.
This is true, however, a single power plant could have provided all the nuclear fuel for all the nuclear weapons made... instead, like a crazed Peter Sellers character, we built over 100.
If the amount of resources that were poured into nuclear development in the 50's were poured into solar development today, solar development would probably be double that of microprocessors. Sure, solar development is advancing today faster than ever before, but even today, the effort is miniscule compared to what was dumped into nukes.
hmm.... Me thinks your priorities are messed up. Drunk driving kills thousands a year, and as of yet, there are no cases of stoned driving killing anyone (though there must be anacdotal evidence somewhere). I am not saying its OK, but drunk driving is infinately worse.
The whole argument for the illegality of pot has roots in racism. It started as a campaign against black men in the 1920's... That smoking pot made them rape white women. It was how McCarthy made a name for himself.
Sorry, I used your post to prove a point, not actually to reply to it. But if you are the inquisitive type that WANTs a non-locked down device, whether computer or phone, there's about a million plus that have 'opened' the iPhone platform alone (also... you can run anything on your Mac if you want... Windows, Linux, OpenBSD, whatever... and if you are even a little nerdy, you can get OS X to run on most x86 compatible hardware, Intel or AMD), and a piece of paper shouldn't stop you. My phone has been jailbroken open for a year; also, I haven't missed 3G nor GPS (though, if I could have one thing added, it'd be GPS... but until they release a 32GB or 64GB phone, this fake-GPS thing will do).
Apple has this NDA, and this EULA... but they have yet to go after an individual that chooses to run OS X on, say, a Dell, nor have they gone after anyone for actually speaking to someone else about the SDK (however, sure, they went after Pystar, and anyone with the balls to 'make available' pre-release OS X stuff).
Apple doesn't give a crap what you do with their product, so long as you are not attempting to make a buck with their innovation nor revealing secrets before they publicly release, or as long as you don't expect support (though there are documented accounts of Apple support actually helping hackint0sh users). Honestly, the naysayers posts are kind of absurd. The ONLY gripe that makes sense is that Apple hardware is expensive... and, well, I agree (but I concede if you match feature for feature, they are competitive). But that's business. If no one bought their products, the prices would fall. If everyone bought ONLY their products, you better believe their prices will go up even higher. This is known as demand... the higher the demand, the higher the price (I know nearly zero about business, but I know that).
Yeah, but Nokia and Google are doomed... with Apple being so 'anti-competitive.' Apple will never let anything they produce make it to market and *gasp* compete with Apple's products.
I hope you see my sarcasm here, because, if anything, Apple's competition will make Nokia's products better, in the same way Firefox made IE better.
Wow. You just proved that Apple isn't anti-competitive. You considered Apple's neato phone, and seem to prefer Nokia's neato phone over it. That means Nokia and Apple are competing.
I haven't read all comments yet, but no one thus far complaining of anti-competition has backed up the claim. Is Apple preventing Google from developing Android? No. They are competing against it. Is Apple preventing another hardware company from creating their own propritary, BSD based, easy to use, eye-candy filled OS? I don't see it.
Apparently, above posters are confusing the concept of being very competitive with anti-competition. They hate Apple for being competitive!
Every anti-competitive trick used by M$ is also used by Apple.
I can't argue with those that won't buy Apple that were modded above you; its their personal preference. For the same sort of reasons I wince everytime someone says they can't do business without Microsoft -- Microsoft was successful at marketing this (completely false) idea. However, wtf are you talking about? How many times has Apple poorly copied another tech companies' innovative product, and flooded the market with it at a price where they take a loss, effectively running the innovator out of business? THAT is how Microsoft is anti-competitive. Apple's SDK NDA, as absurd as it is, isn't preventing competition.
Its a poor argument that 'if someone's going to murder, they'll find a way, so guns are good'--- geez, we don't have to make it so easy for them (i.e. point and click). The counter analogy that comes to mind is an alcoholic in a dry county... yes, they'll just go to the next county over for their drinks, but if you've ever been 'thirsty' in a dry county you'll agree its a pain in the ass, and banning is a powerful deterrent.
so how many gun rampage shootings have there been in England? Here, it seems once a month someone goes to a mall, post office, university or their workplace, kills between 4-30 people before committing suicide. I'm pretty sure this only happens in the US.
And its nearly every week, if not every day theres an accidental shooting. The concept of self-defense is fine, but the choosen tools for it are statistically problematic.
On behalf of correct reasoning Americans, I apologize. But don't blame the police... they don't deserve to be shot dead. Gun advocates can't get it through their head that the more guns there are, the more violent gun deaths there are. Why someone needs 12 handguns, 4 rifels and 2 shotguns for self-defense is beyond all reason, espescially when its far more likely that a gun owner will kill themselves, someone they love, or commit a gun related crime themselves than ever even have the opportunity to successfully defend themselves. Much of the crazy gun shit that happens here could never happen in England or Japan where, presumably, only criminals have guns.
There's a problem with "non-lethal." The problem is that, such as with Tasers, they are used far more often than philosophically intended. If Tasers were only used as proscribed, (i.e. as a substitute for a gun) they'd be great, but because of the "non-lethal" label, they get overused in situations when a gun would never be appropriate (such as when escorting a political protester from a public gathering, or shutting up a smart mouthed and cuffed suspect).
Slashdot Mirror
Point taken about efficient energy storage, however, we need to start somewhere. If the resources are placed in that space, there will be fruit.
Also, breeder reactors are not a magic pill. There is no such thing as a negligable amount of nuclear waste. The waste from breeder reactors is not non-existent, and regardless of how much less waste there is, there is still waste and it is even more toxic than conventional nuclear waste.
At some point, some generation is going to have to solve this... whether its the next 10 years of expensively developing clean energy, or 500 years from now when the waste from breeder reactors becomes problematic. Seems to me it would make sense to abandon building new reactors until we can manage the waste problem now.
Thanks, but obviously the Diggmob has taken over slashdot... When a +5 insightful ends up -1 troll its pretty clearly sockpuppets at work... looks like she's layed into all my posts on this story, thanks for noticing they were neither flamebait nor troll. Bring on the metamoderators!
I agree. I also see that in the sense that they wanted, they failed miserably... there were cams available opening night. However, they also succeeded in a way they didn't intend: dark movies make for horrible, nearly unwatchable cams... or so I have heard.
You miss the point of solar energy. Breeder reactors create less, but an even more deadly longer lasting waste. The idea only postpones the problem, because eventually, maybe 200 short years of running breeder reactors, and we are at the same point... super deadly waste that can neither be transported nor safely stored.
Solar, you see, regardless of the amount of effort required to achieve a mostly solar energy source, is always clean...
I think it is people like you that are having a knee jerk reaction to the energy crisis. Fuck instant energy gratification... let's do this the RIGHT way.
Because of the waste... it is deadly for 30K years, can't be transported safely. There are ~3000 train accidents a year... you start moving that stuff around and there's going to be serious problems.
As I noted above, a single nuclear power plant could have provided all the bomb fuel we ever wanted. 109 more reactors gives new meaning to the word 'overkill.'
Continuing nuclear development becomes absurd because of dangers of transporting the waste to a location where it can be safely stored for 30K years... which arguably doesn't exist anyway. Also, you're completely wrong about the area required... its estimated an area the size of Nevada covered with panels could power the entire US... Sure, a lotta area, but its a small percentage of the entire US. And no one seems to notice that every single temporary nuclear waste storage facility in the US was at capacity 10 years ago. We have a nuclear waste problem right now! And you want to make more before the problem has even been honestly and publically discussed or solved in earnest?
Dude. Hypothetically... swap the incalculable research/resources expended between nuclear and solar over that period, and by today, solar WOULD be as cheap as nuclear and nuclear would be as expensive as solar. Solar is expensive because it has been ignored. Give it 60+ years of full effort development, it gets cheap.
This is true, however, a single power plant could have provided all the nuclear fuel for all the nuclear weapons made... instead, like a crazed Peter Sellers character, we built over 100.
If the amount of resources that were poured into nuclear development in the 50's were poured into solar development today, solar development would probably be double that of microprocessors. Sure, solar development is advancing today faster than ever before, but even today, the effort is miniscule compared to what was dumped into nukes.
hmm.... Me thinks your priorities are messed up. Drunk driving kills thousands a year, and as of yet, there are no cases of stoned driving killing anyone (though there must be anacdotal evidence somewhere). I am not saying its OK, but drunk driving is infinately worse.
The whole argument for the illegality of pot has roots in racism. It started as a campaign against black men in the 1920's... That smoking pot made them rape white women. It was how McCarthy made a name for himself.
I always liked the TREE command in DOS. Is there a similar command in UNIX?
undoubtedly, Canadian Supermodels
The real question is why the MPAA spent the money on lawyers and court costs when the could have just bought the tickets!
Sorry, I used your post to prove a point, not actually to reply to it. But if you are the inquisitive type that WANTs a non-locked down device, whether computer or phone, there's about a million plus that have 'opened' the iPhone platform alone (also... you can run anything on your Mac if you want... Windows, Linux, OpenBSD, whatever... and if you are even a little nerdy, you can get OS X to run on most x86 compatible hardware, Intel or AMD), and a piece of paper shouldn't stop you. My phone has been jailbroken open for a year; also, I haven't missed 3G nor GPS (though, if I could have one thing added, it'd be GPS... but until they release a 32GB or 64GB phone, this fake-GPS thing will do).
Apple has this NDA, and this EULA... but they have yet to go after an individual that chooses to run OS X on, say, a Dell, nor have they gone after anyone for actually speaking to someone else about the SDK (however, sure, they went after Pystar, and anyone with the balls to 'make available' pre-release OS X stuff).
Apple doesn't give a crap what you do with their product, so long as you are not attempting to make a buck with their innovation nor revealing secrets before they publicly release, or as long as you don't expect support (though there are documented accounts of Apple support actually helping hackint0sh users). Honestly, the naysayers posts are kind of absurd. The ONLY gripe that makes sense is that Apple hardware is expensive... and, well, I agree (but I concede if you match feature for feature, they are competitive). But that's business. If no one bought their products, the prices would fall. If everyone bought ONLY their products, you better believe their prices will go up even higher. This is known as demand... the higher the demand, the higher the price (I know nearly zero about business, but I know that).
Yeah, but Nokia and Google are doomed... with Apple being so 'anti-competitive.' Apple will never let anything they produce make it to market and *gasp* compete with Apple's products.
I hope you see my sarcasm here, because, if anything, Apple's competition will make Nokia's products better, in the same way Firefox made IE better.
Wow. You just proved that Apple isn't anti-competitive. You considered Apple's neato phone, and seem to prefer Nokia's neato phone over it. That means Nokia and Apple are competing.
I haven't read all comments yet, but no one thus far complaining of anti-competition has backed up the claim. Is Apple preventing Google from developing Android? No. They are competing against it. Is Apple preventing another hardware company from creating their own propritary, BSD based, easy to use, eye-candy filled OS? I don't see it.
Apparently, above posters are confusing the concept of being very competitive with anti-competition. They hate Apple for being competitive!
Every anti-competitive trick used by M$ is also used by Apple.
I can't argue with those that won't buy Apple that were modded above you; its their personal preference. For the same sort of reasons I wince everytime someone says they can't do business without Microsoft -- Microsoft was successful at marketing this (completely false) idea. However, wtf are you talking about? How many times has Apple poorly copied another tech companies' innovative product, and flooded the market with it at a price where they take a loss, effectively running the innovator out of business? THAT is how Microsoft is anti-competitive. Apple's SDK NDA, as absurd as it is, isn't preventing competition.
Hmm... I always thought it used ffmpeg to use x264.
that's because Handbrake uses ffmpeg
Its a poor argument that 'if someone's going to murder, they'll find a way, so guns are good'--- geez, we don't have to make it so easy for them (i.e. point and click). The counter analogy that comes to mind is an alcoholic in a dry county... yes, they'll just go to the next county over for their drinks, but if you've ever been 'thirsty' in a dry county you'll agree its a pain in the ass, and banning is a powerful deterrent.
so how many gun rampage shootings have there been in England? Here, it seems once a month someone goes to a mall, post office, university or their workplace, kills between 4-30 people before committing suicide. I'm pretty sure this only happens in the US.
And its nearly every week, if not every day theres an accidental shooting. The concept of self-defense is fine, but the choosen tools for it are statistically problematic.
OK, well, you're both wrong.
violent crime rates
relatively stable since the peak in 1993, though has been steadily increasing since 2005
gun ownership associated with homicide
This, however, is undeniable... more guns, more homicides:
...in areas where household firearm ownership rates were higher, a disproportionately large number of people died from homicide.
On behalf of correct reasoning Americans, I apologize. But don't blame the police... they don't deserve to be shot dead. Gun advocates can't get it through their head that the more guns there are, the more violent gun deaths there are. Why someone needs 12 handguns, 4 rifels and 2 shotguns for self-defense is beyond all reason, espescially when its far more likely that a gun owner will kill themselves, someone they love, or commit a gun related crime themselves than ever even have the opportunity to successfully defend themselves. Much of the crazy gun shit that happens here could never happen in England or Japan where, presumably, only criminals have guns.
There's a problem with "non-lethal." The problem is that, such as with Tasers, they are used far more often than philosophically intended. If Tasers were only used as proscribed, (i.e. as a substitute for a gun) they'd be great, but because of the "non-lethal" label, they get overused in situations when a gun would never be appropriate (such as when escorting a political protester from a public gathering, or shutting up a smart mouthed and cuffed suspect).