What if it is used when there is no "widespread unrest"? This is not an unlikely scenario. The police and military are widely known for using force and violence against peaceful assemblies, and peaceful individuals, where this is no reason to use force. I think you may be a little naive if you think it will only be used in theatening situations.
What makes you think it would only be used on "enemy combatants" and not innocent civilians? By the way, doesn't the government claim that the war in Iraq is over, and that there's a new Iraq Constitution to be upheld, spreading democracy and all that? What kind of an example does this give of the American democratic values that are supposed to be being embraced?
An example of Mac pricing, have a look at Apple's 30" Cinema LCD, then have a look at Dell's *identical* OEM part, which is just over half the price.
I doubt they are identical. Apple displays use a different screen technology to most of the displays on the market, which gives a wider viewing angle. Furthermore, does the Dell come with Firewire ports on the display?
There are turnkey nuclear reactor designs that can be built on mass-production lines, shipped to their installation site and dropped into place within a month.
Yeah right. Planning permits take longer to complete than that. And what about safety checks? Are you seriously suggesting that a complex nuclear power plant can just be set up in a month? And what about planning and building the waste disposal facilities? There aren't any long-term disposal facilities in existence today.
All that's required (as I said before) is the elimination of frivolous lawsuits to let the market appear and to allow these business plans to move forward.
What do you mean by "frivilous" lawsuits?
What? You sound an awful lot like an ID proponent right there.
Huh? Where did I mention ID?
That nuclear is not only good but very good is a position on an issue, not a conclusion.
But that's not what you said. You said that nuclear power was the only way to have a future. A pretty extreme position. There are many other alternatives, if society wishes to explore them.
after serious consideration, no other proposal has any credible assertions to make. Wind is already close to maximum extraction in the US. Large scale solar is so expensive to install, it doesn't pay back the investment.
Even if we were to believe your statements, which are erroneous - why do you conveniently ignore consuming less energy? There is no way we need to use as much energy as we currently do. So, why do you omit that option from your argument, seeing as it is so easy to do, compared to increasing energy generation?
One could argue that a distributed energy system (as in everyone generates there own power via solar homes, etc.) but a centralized system is just so much easier to get electricity to the most people.
This is the crux of the issue for me. Nuclear, while it has good points, just perpetuates the centralized "grid" mentality. We need to move beyond this. Power transmission over long distances is inefficient. We don't have large-scale storage capabilities yet, and distributed power adds redundancy, in case of emergencies.
The only reason nuke plants take so long to build is NIMBY attitude.
No, it isn't they take a long time to design, plan and build.
Easy, huh? Ever tried to change an industrial culture to consume less power? When gas prices rose dramatically this past year, people drove less, but we didn't do anything else less. If anything, overall consumption went up. Changing people's behaviors is infinitely harder than simply building twenty new nuclear plants,
I think you'd be surprised, if there was actually a serious attempt at this. Look how quickly attitudes towards race and women in the workplace changed, for example. Look at how quickly people became scared of terrorism and were willing to pass laws based on the fearmongering. If people in power treated the issue with a fraction of the urgency they did with terrorism, cultural change could come quite quickly.
Nuclear power is where this country's future is. Lots of nuclear power. If we don't decide to do that, there won't be nearly as much of a future.
Seeing as new nuclear plants take so long to build, then shouldn't the priority be on energy sources which can make a difference more immediately, like wind and solar? These can also generate hydrogen. We can also cut consumption, which is by far the easiest way to manage our energy demands. Everybody using just a little less energy would save as much power as building many nuclear plants would create.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has said it will spend all its assets within 50 years of both of them dying.
Bill Gates is a cyborg, and he will assimilate Melinda. How can you kill that which has no life? This is just a clever ruse to make people think he is a mortal human.
I'm sure that I'm not the only person here from the UK who is getting sick or the way that the mass media is hyping up this. Yes the poor guy was killed with something that is radioactive. So what? It emits alpha radiation.
I don't think the hype is because of radiation - but rather because this reads like something out of a spy novel - and unearths cold war tensions. Of course it's a big deal when someone gets assasinated in such a public way. It would have been big news, even it was a conventional poison.
So why play up the radiation? Because people don't understand it. I hate the mass media, they play to peoples' fears and always report on what they think will get the biggest reaction. If they could just cut it out I might be tempted to actually buy a newspaper more often.
Funny. The people who have been hyping the radiation on this slashdot thread have been people like you, complaining about the hyping of radiation, and linking it to nuclear power, etc.
The format war will become irrelevant as players adopt that model as OEMs don't want to risk being a loser in the format war
I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not like DVD+R vs. DVD-R, which was only a battle of blank media and recorders. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are primarily about pre-recorded movies. The movie industry won't want to release their movies in two different formats (three including DVD). Eventually the format war will have to be won on the movie studios' turf - or both formats fail and become irrelevant.
Anyone seriously into movies isn't going to be satisfied with the PS3's mediocre blu-ray output (i.e. not 1080p),
How many movies are actually released in 1080p? If there are no movies in the format, then it's kind of pointless for a movie buff to care about. I thought 1080i was the dominant format.
Slashdot Mirror
What if it is used when there is no "widespread unrest"? This is not an unlikely scenario. The police and military are widely known for using force and violence against peaceful assemblies, and peaceful individuals, where this is no reason to use force. I think you may be a little naive if you think it will only be used in theatening situations.
What makes you think it would only be used on "enemy combatants" and not innocent civilians? By the way, doesn't the government claim that the war in Iraq is over, and that there's a new Iraq Constitution to be upheld, spreading democracy and all that? What kind of an example does this give of the American democratic values that are supposed to be being embraced?
Got some sand in your vagina?
I doubt they are identical. Apple displays use a different screen technology to most of the displays on the market, which gives a wider viewing angle. Furthermore, does the Dell come with Firewire ports on the display?
What makes someone a "true Christian"? Isn't all that is required that you accept Jesus Christ in your heart?
Yeah right. Planning permits take longer to complete than that. And what about safety checks? Are you seriously suggesting that a complex nuclear power plant can just be set up in a month? And what about planning and building the waste disposal facilities? There aren't any long-term disposal facilities in existence today.
All that's required (as I said before) is the elimination of frivolous lawsuits to let the market appear and to allow these business plans to move forward.What do you mean by "frivilous" lawsuits?
What? You sound an awful lot like an ID proponent right there.Huh? Where did I mention ID?
That nuclear is not only good but very good is a position on an issue, not a conclusion.But that's not what you said. You said that nuclear power was the only way to have a future. A pretty extreme position. There are many other alternatives, if society wishes to explore them.
after serious consideration, no other proposal has any credible assertions to make. Wind is already close to maximum extraction in the US. Large scale solar is so expensive to install, it doesn't pay back the investment.Even if we were to believe your statements, which are erroneous - why do you conveniently ignore consuming less energy? There is no way we need to use as much energy as we currently do. So, why do you omit that option from your argument, seeing as it is so easy to do, compared to increasing energy generation?
Not many people know this, but Yuri Gargarin was a proud Ohioan.
Only if you think that slashdot's reason to exist is to promote Linux, and be nice to Microsoft. AFAIK, that is not slashdot's intended purpose.
Shouldn't that be the third (or fourth or fifth etc.) girl in the bar?
Do not attribute to incompetence that which is adequately explained by greed.
This is the crux of the issue for me. Nuclear, while it has good points, just perpetuates the centralized "grid" mentality. We need to move beyond this. Power transmission over long distances is inefficient. We don't have large-scale storage capabilities yet, and distributed power adds redundancy, in case of emergencies.
No, it isn't they take a long time to design, plan and build.
Easy, huh? Ever tried to change an industrial culture to consume less power? When gas prices rose dramatically this past year, people drove less, but we didn't do anything else less. If anything, overall consumption went up. Changing people's behaviors is infinitely harder than simply building twenty new nuclear plants,I think you'd be surprised, if there was actually a serious attempt at this. Look how quickly attitudes towards race and women in the workplace changed, for example. Look at how quickly people became scared of terrorism and were willing to pass laws based on the fearmongering. If people in power treated the issue with a fraction of the urgency they did with terrorism, cultural change could come quite quickly.
Nuclear power is where this country's future is. Lots of nuclear power. If we don't decide to do that, there won't be nearly as much of a future.Evidence?
Seeing as new nuclear plants take so long to build, then shouldn't the priority be on energy sources which can make a difference more immediately, like wind and solar? These can also generate hydrogen. We can also cut consumption, which is by far the easiest way to manage our energy demands. Everybody using just a little less energy would save as much power as building many nuclear plants would create.
Bill Gates is a cyborg, and he will assimilate Melinda. How can you kill that which has no life? This is just a clever ruse to make people think he is a mortal human.
Perhaps subtlety was not what they were after, but rather to send a loud message?
I don't think the hype is because of radiation - but rather because this reads like something out of a spy novel - and unearths cold war tensions. Of course it's a big deal when someone gets assasinated in such a public way. It would have been big news, even it was a conventional poison.
So why play up the radiation? Because people don't understand it. I hate the mass media, they play to peoples' fears and always report on what they think will get the biggest reaction. If they could just cut it out I might be tempted to actually buy a newspaper more often.Funny. The people who have been hyping the radiation on this slashdot thread have been people like you, complaining about the hyping of radiation, and linking it to nuclear power, etc.
Uhh, why do we really need to start developing new nuclear power plants?
Does anybody really want this violating the sanctity of their home, and scaring the children?
I don't think it's quite that simple. It's not like DVD+R vs. DVD-R, which was only a battle of blank media and recorders. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are primarily about pre-recorded movies. The movie industry won't want to release their movies in two different formats (three including DVD). Eventually the format war will have to be won on the movie studios' turf - or both formats fail and become irrelevant.
Wouldn't that be rather hard on your thumbs? Not to mention inconveniently placed.
Yes, it would have been. In fact, it actually was.
Wait, I just checked the article, and the PS3 does do 1080p, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
How many movies are actually released in 1080p? If there are no movies in the format, then it's kind of pointless for a movie buff to care about. I thought 1080i was the dominant format.
You're going to post to slashdot some time in the next 12 months.
Perhaps they couldn't get the link out of its packaging? Those tubes can be a bitch to open.