I hate to make it sound like I'm pissing on the protesters, but how is it the fault of techies that house pricing is going up?
Look, it's simple, if you study and work hard in something you enjoy, but is difficult for other people to understand, let alone do, yet everybody wants more of then, you will be marginalized because people are afraid of the latent power that you poses. Unfortunately I'm only being half sarcastic.
People who work with technology will be subject to this because of the barrier to entry to work in technology is thinking and thinking is hard work, the hardest work. Technology should be driving down the cost of education but more importantly the availability of information to everyone. So with the realization that "Hey the spy agencies really do spy on us" and "Wow, tech companies are where they get it from" techies become the "How this is happening" or the "instrument", if you will.
I can't speak to the deeper social issues were that caused the spiraling house prices in the first place however, I do wonder how many of the people who protested are prepared to give up the technology tools they were using to organize themselves. I'm not saying they don't have a valid complaint however it's probably valid to ask and understand so there is an opportunity to act ethically about it.
At the same time you got to admit getting around on free private buses with wifi and not using the city's public transport is kinda "in ya face" and bound to make people wonder "well, why are you so special". I can see why people would think that's kind of Morally Superior.
Its strictly dollars and cents. CFC is a toxic nightmare, and LED costs more to buy and operate than incandescent.
It's a real pity the anti-nuclear lobby ensured we have no way to produce lots of cheap, non-polluting electricity, now isn't it?
Except that the evidence is that 93% of US emissions, according to data from the EPA, of CFC-114 is from the enrichment of Uranium. That is the official, government recognized, industrially measured component of nuclear fuel enrichment. CFC114 is an intrinsic part of the enrichment process called 'Gaseous Diffusion', and if CFC114 wasn't an intrinsic part of the process it would not be used.
This is because Ultracentrifuge is so difficult to establish on a industrial scale and has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-nuclear lobby.
Burnouts are a skill acquired when a Bogan (White trash or whatever) is finally able to purchase a vehicle capable of breaking traction on dry ground. After this qualification they are ready for a doughnut (or Dohhy) usually in a carpark where there are plenty of victi^h^h^h^h^honlookers present to qualify you as a full on dickhead.
Like much automation these days, such a feature would automate the process of becoming a dickhead, allowing many more dickheads because, as you are probably aware, what the world needs is more dickheads.
The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore
I'm sure the pyramids and sphinx in Egypt will be surprised to hear that. Never mind that Mount Rushmore isn't a structure (it's a carving) and receives regular maintenance to ensure the faces don't crumble and fall off.
I understand that it's a carving. I think a structure similar to the NORAD facility would probably be the type of engineering project that would be appropriate.
This is the primary call of the open letter, Responsible Nuclear Advocacy. Despite my criticisms of the Nuclear Industry I support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water revealed by Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once. As I pointed out in another post, the design of the Swedish facility shows how a reactor facility that complies with the industry designed improvements could be implemented.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box.
I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of
Seriously, all of the people who freak out about the waste are just being ridiculous. So what if the stuff is dangerous for 10,000 years? We don't have to solve that problem, all we have to do is to keep it safe for a few centuries, and make sure that our descendants understand what it was that we did and what the potential issues are.
The key thing to understand in our generation is the cost of the infrastructure to transport the spent fuel around. In the U.S this is estimated to be a 30 year project with significant costs attached to it, in and of itself. Fukushima has demonstrated the danger inherent in the spent fuel cooling pools, that is why any infrastructure project has to start with an actual location to transport it to.
In the U.S Yucca mountain does not meet the requirements Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products, especially the ones you are referring to. Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash, you *need* granite if you want a serious facility. Even the Swedish test facility is better designed than Yucca and the design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.
I can think of precious few examples in human history where the poor numbered so many and the rich, through peaceful means, gave up their wealth. It is, traditionally, a very bloody affair.
Well that is the cost of apathy. At least the US is safe even if it is insecure. Benjamin Franklin would be proud.
If you think stealing a van and hitting someone warrants death, you are an unhinged individual (or more likely, an internet tough guy). Even the Old Testament said "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"- that is, the punishment should match the crime. If someone takes your eye out, you're entitled to take up to one eye- not the whole head.
And I don't think there are many people who would argue that the Old Testament was too lenient...
Actually in the bible it says; An eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth, vengeance is mine saith the Lord
In other words, you are expressly forbidden to take revenge and, in later proverbs, instructed to seek justice under the laws of man - to which the Lord will agree. Much like other misunderstood, misquoted parts of the bible the proverbs have been twisted to suit whoever wants to convey a particular message.
However, if you believed in God you may be inclined to think that whatever crimes the thieves had amassed during their lives had led them to a point where this happened to them. You could also call it Karma, fate or coincidence, whatever your personal belief system leads you to.
What is there that dictates that an artist should be compensated every time a song is played? The rest of us are paid by the hour, by the job, under contract, or whatever. What is so special about artists, that they should be paid in perpetuity for having done a performance?
Then why should authors or anyone else who gets paid royalties. The reason is because it takes a long time to create a piece of art that is worth listening to. "A performance" entails an enormous amount of upfront time and expense, all paid by the artist, in the same way a business is set up. It's not unreasonable for them to be paid royalties based on the perception of the value of the work.
The REAL problem is, the artists get such a small piece of the pie, in comparison to the major labels. When a song becomes a global hit, the label makes billions, the artist gets a few million as a reward for enriching the label. And, all the REST of the artists are left believing that entertainment should pay big.
Thats true, the artist should get paid bigger than what they are now for enriching peoples lives and going through the crap that the music industry puts them through so that you can hear something that makes you feel, think or experience something you didn't before. What value is placed on the sacrifices a musician has to make when performing, like being on the road away from family and people they care about to bring you the experience of a live performance.
Dude - if you love music, play your music. If you love money more than you love music, maybe you should lay your guitar aside, and learn how to make a living. Musicians are cool and all, but FFS, we don't owe you a living for singing and playing.
Perhaps it's also about repaying all of the family and friends that supported them while they were establishing their careers. If you don't think you owe the artists that you listen to a living then stop listening to music that you love and enjoy. Your life has had something added to it, something you shared with loved ones, friends and even people you don't even know. You got in your car everyday and listened to that song over and over, your time commuting went faster and all the other benefits from an enhanced state of mind because someone took the time to create it in the first place.
Other people got something else from it, so yeah, musicians are owed a living just like anyone else is who goes through the shit they take for their career.
Is that it is created and published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 Australia licence. Perhaps the answer is to open source everything and just give up on trying to patent anything anymore, at least in Australia.
Slashdot Mirror
IT IS NEVER ENOUGH!!!
I hate to make it sound like I'm pissing on the protesters, but how is it the fault of techies that house pricing is going up?
Look, it's simple, if you study and work hard in something you enjoy, but is difficult for other people to understand, let alone do, yet everybody wants more of then, you will be marginalized because people are afraid of the latent power that you poses. Unfortunately I'm only being half sarcastic.
People who work with technology will be subject to this because of the barrier to entry to work in technology is thinking and thinking is hard work, the hardest work. Technology should be driving down the cost of education but more importantly the availability of information to everyone. So with the realization that "Hey the spy agencies really do spy on us" and "Wow, tech companies are where they get it from" techies become the "How this is happening" or the "instrument", if you will.
I can't speak to the deeper social issues were that caused the spiraling house prices in the first place however, I do wonder how many of the people who protested are prepared to give up the technology tools they were using to organize themselves. I'm not saying they don't have a valid complaint however it's probably valid to ask and understand so there is an opportunity to act ethically about it.
At the same time you got to admit getting around on free private buses with wifi and not using the city's public transport is kinda "in ya face" and bound to make people wonder "well, why are you so special". I can see why people would think that's kind of Morally Superior.
That these protests were organized using the technology of the companies they were protesting against.
I'm....losing...my..mind..Dave......Dave....Would you like me to sing a song?
What could possibly go wrong!
it will be interesting to see how much pressure inevitabley gets placed on them by citizens using bitcoin to purchase.
It's a real pity the anti-nuclear lobby ensured we have no way to produce lots of cheap, non-polluting electricity, now isn't it?
Except that the evidence is that 93% of US emissions, according to data from the EPA, of CFC-114 is from the enrichment of Uranium. That is the official, government recognized, industrially measured component of nuclear fuel enrichment. CFC114 is an intrinsic part of the enrichment process called 'Gaseous Diffusion', and if CFC114 wasn't an intrinsic part of the process it would not be used.
This is because Ultracentrifuge is so difficult to establish on a industrial scale and has absolutely nothing to do with the anti-nuclear lobby.
This is the real question being grappled with, the important issue.
Yaaah!
millions of geeks all groaned in frustration and were suddenly silenced.
The EV1 was a good reason to be proud, perhaps if GM made cars like that...
Shut yo' mouth!
That's no way to talk to the man who protects his brother man.
You Brits and your language are atrocious. I'm glad we kicked you out of America way back when.
bzzzzt! Horsetralian!
because, as you are probably aware, what the world needs is more dickheads.
Is that you, Shaft?
Damn Right!
Burnouts are a skill acquired when a Bogan (White trash or whatever) is finally able to purchase a vehicle capable of breaking traction on dry ground. After this qualification they are ready for a doughnut (or Dohhy) usually in a carpark where there are plenty of victi^h^h^h^h^honlookers present to qualify you as a full on dickhead.
Like much automation these days, such a feature would automate the process of becoming a dickhead, allowing many more dickheads because, as you are probably aware, what the world needs is more dickheads.
The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore
I'm sure the pyramids and sphinx in Egypt will be surprised to hear that. Never mind that Mount Rushmore isn't a structure (it's a carving) and receives regular maintenance to ensure the faces don't crumble and fall off.
I understand that it's a carving. I think a structure similar to the NORAD facility would probably be the type of engineering project that would be appropriate.
This is the primary call of the open letter, Responsible Nuclear Advocacy. Despite my criticisms of the Nuclear Industry I support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 (and much more U-238) currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist these issue onto later generations.
One of the core reasons I support the development of such a reactor because it is capable of utilising weapons grade plutonium as fuel creating an impetus for disarmament and, hopefully, slowly defusing the asymmetrical weapons threat.
Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water revealed by Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.
We need something made of granite. The only human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years is Mt Rushmore, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the spent fuel containment facility are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once. As I pointed out in another post, the design of the Swedish facility shows how a reactor facility that complies with the industry designed improvements could be implemented.
Even doing that will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.
I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor as a potential solution and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last the thousands of years it will take to use that fuel. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility and chomp up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether.
Why? Because Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because said technology (material sciences) are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes the facility to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. A reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen) and avoids all the energetic costs associated with mining, enrichment and de-commissioning/demolition of the reactor.
As long we are producing plutonium and there is no where for it to go we will have a Nuclear Weapons threat and this is the price we pay for opening that pandora's box. I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of
+5 insightful
Seriously, all of the people who freak out about the waste are just being ridiculous. So what if the stuff is dangerous for 10,000 years? We don't have to solve that problem, all we have to do is to keep it safe for a few centuries, and make sure that our descendants understand what it was that we did and what the potential issues are.
The key thing to understand in our generation is the cost of the infrastructure to transport the spent fuel around. In the U.S this is estimated to be a 30 year project with significant costs attached to it, in and of itself. Fukushima has demonstrated the danger inherent in the spent fuel cooling pools, that is why any infrastructure project has to start with an actual location to transport it to.
In the U.S Yucca mountain does not meet the requirements Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products, especially the ones you are referring to. Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash, you *need* granite if you want a serious facility. Even the Swedish test facility is better designed than Yucca and the design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.
Yes, but I'm shocked at how no one is talking about the amount of "first post" trolls wasted with an actual insightful first post.
I can think of precious few examples in human history where the poor numbered so many and the rich, through peaceful means, gave up their wealth. It is, traditionally, a very bloody affair.
Well that is the cost of apathy. At least the US is safe even if it is insecure. Benjamin Franklin would be proud.
If you think stealing a van and hitting someone warrants death, you are an unhinged individual (or more likely, an internet tough guy). Even the Old Testament said "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"- that is, the punishment should match the crime. If someone takes your eye out, you're entitled to take up to one eye- not the whole head.
And I don't think there are many people who would argue that the Old Testament was too lenient...
Actually in the bible it says; An eye for and eye, a tooth for a tooth, vengeance is mine saith the Lord
In other words, you are expressly forbidden to take revenge and, in later proverbs, instructed to seek justice under the laws of man - to which the Lord will agree. Much like other misunderstood, misquoted parts of the bible the proverbs have been twisted to suit whoever wants to convey a particular message.
However, if you believed in God you may be inclined to think that whatever crimes the thieves had amassed during their lives had led them to a point where this happened to them. You could also call it Karma, fate or coincidence, whatever your personal belief system leads you to.
Personally, I am not qualified to judge them.
Ask them which of the things they need implemented now is a greater priority and let them figure out the resourcing themselves.
Then why should authors or anyone else who gets paid royalties. The reason is because it takes a long time to create a piece of art that is worth listening to. "A performance" entails an enormous amount of upfront time and expense, all paid by the artist, in the same way a business is set up. It's not unreasonable for them to be paid royalties based on the perception of the value of the work.
Thats true, the artist should get paid bigger than what they are now for enriching peoples lives and going through the crap that the music industry puts them through so that you can hear something that makes you feel, think or experience something you didn't before. What value is placed on the sacrifices a musician has to make when performing, like being on the road away from family and people they care about to bring you the experience of a live performance.
Perhaps it's also about repaying all of the family and friends that supported them while they were establishing their careers. If you don't think you owe the artists that you listen to a living then stop listening to music that you love and enjoy. Your life has had something added to it, something you shared with loved ones, friends and even people you don't even know. You got in your car everyday and listened to that song over and over, your time commuting went faster and all the other benefits from an enhanced state of mind because someone took the time to create it in the first place.
Other people got something else from it, so yeah, musicians are owed a living just like anyone else is who goes through the shit they take for their career.
No! Men and women are EQUAL, dammit! I'm not listening, lalalalalala...!
One of the great myths of our time is that "equality" is the same as "identicality."
Maybe it's time to start thinking of Males and Females as complementary - as Dr Gur describes.
Is that it is created and published under the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 Australia licence. Perhaps the answer is to open source everything and just give up on trying to patent anything anymore, at least in Australia.