There is such a thing as a safe nuclear plant, LFTR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..., a type of reactor that is walk-away safe. No active safety systems, nothing to power to keep the plant safe, you can walk away from it and it will never melt-down. It doesn't even use the same family of fissile material.
The real problem and that 90% of the people pushing alternatives like PV and such is that they don't understand that scale at which humanity consumes energy. The land needs to build enough PV are staggering, a 1MW facility requires about 7.9 acres of land, not much until you consider that most nukes produce 1200MW on about 100 acres, you would need 9480 acres to get the same capability. The amount of land needed to displace fossil fuel consumption is staggering. Solar PV is fine for your rooftop to help offset grid costs to your household, but it can not scale to satisfy the needs of the world, at least not at the ~9% efficiency they currently have, maybe at 75% or more but not now.
With cheap abundant clean electrical energy you can generate liquid fuels from the carbon in the atmosphere, the best way to get that kind of load is nuclear and the best nuke we currently have is LFTR. The key is displacing fossil fuel use with something that can maintain and grow with our current consumption. PV is not going to cut it.
Will AMI (and the TCPA) allow owners of these "trusted" computers to turn off or disable the features that are being discussed? Will we as users of our hardware be able to control what features are on and what features are not, or will these choices be up to Microsoft and its partners(TCPA)? How is AMI addressing these issues of choice and control?
Even if you did sign a "Gag" policy or what ever, in the US you can not sign away your rights. Even non-complete contracts are worthless, I don't know why companies insist on them. Personally I would tell the audit dept of your former employer that if they some much as peep one thing to your current employer that is not favorable, you will sue them until there eyes pop out.
It seems that companies these days have gotten so used to stepping on peoples rights that they do it with out second thought. Maybe some laywer can answer this but where in the US Constitution does it guarantee a company any rights? Our media and big business have been getting away with it for so long that big business think that they are right. Unfortuneatly most judges in this country seem to agree with them.
I would not let them get away with it, but then again it is not me being threatened.
You have got to be kidding me!! The reason to tele-commute is to save the employee the trouble and expense to commute into the office. The employer gets no real benefit, they can't be sure the employee is working a full day for a full days pay, etc. I for one don't want anyone coming into my home to "check up" on anything! So an employer is in no way responsible for the ergonomics of an employee's home / home office. At most the employer may be responsible for the connection to the office, but that is it. Does the tele-commuter want the boss to have video cameras installed so he can monitor the employee to be sure he/she is working? OSHA has over-stepped its authority with this one. IMHO.
Slashdot Mirror
There is such a thing as a safe nuclear plant, LFTR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L..., a type of reactor that is walk-away safe. No active safety systems, nothing to power to keep the plant safe, you can walk away from it and it will never melt-down. It doesn't even use the same family of fissile material.
Germany is not the top PV anything anymore: http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
as for storing PV-generated power, good luck with that: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
The real problem and that 90% of the people pushing alternatives like PV and such is that they don't understand that scale at which humanity consumes energy. The land needs to build enough PV are staggering, a 1MW facility requires about 7.9 acres of land, not much until you consider that most nukes produce 1200MW on about 100 acres, you would need 9480 acres to get the same capability. The amount of land needed to displace fossil fuel consumption is staggering. Solar PV is fine for your rooftop to help offset grid costs to your household, but it can not scale to satisfy the needs of the world, at least not at the ~9% efficiency they currently have, maybe at 75% or more but not now.
With cheap abundant clean electrical energy you can generate liquid fuels from the carbon in the atmosphere, the best way to get that kind of load is nuclear and the best nuke we currently have is LFTR. The key is displacing fossil fuel use with something that can maintain and grow with our current consumption. PV is not going to cut it.
Will AMI (and the TCPA) allow owners of these "trusted" computers to turn off or disable the features that are being discussed? Will we as users of our hardware be able to control what features are on and what features are not, or will these choices be up to Microsoft and its partners(TCPA)? How is AMI addressing these issues of choice and control?
Even if you did sign a "Gag" policy or what ever, in the US you can not sign away your rights. Even non-complete contracts are worthless, I don't know why companies insist on them. Personally I would tell the audit dept of your former employer that if they some much as peep one thing to your current employer that is not favorable, you will sue them until there eyes pop out.
It seems that companies these days have gotten so used to stepping on peoples rights that they do it with out second thought. Maybe some laywer can answer this but where in the US Constitution does it guarantee a company any rights? Our media and big business have been getting away with it for so long that big business think that they are right. Unfortuneatly most judges in this country seem to agree with them.
I would not let them get away with it, but then again it is not me being threatened.
what do you expect from Kubrick??
You have got to be kidding me!! The reason to tele-commute is to save the employee the trouble and expense to commute into the office. The employer gets no real benefit, they can't be sure the employee is working a full day for a full days pay, etc. I for one don't want anyone coming into my home to "check up" on anything! So an employer is in no way responsible for the ergonomics of an employee's home / home office. At most the employer may be responsible for the connection to the office, but that is it. Does the tele-commuter want the boss to have video cameras installed so he can monitor the employee to be sure he/she is working? OSHA has over-stepped its authority with this one. IMHO.