It's really cool- a Russian lady on a ninja motorcycle goes on annual trips through the area, takes photos, and Geiger counter readings.
It has a large section talking about the current state of Chernobyl... you would die within months if you were inside more than a timescale in minutes. If you stayed inside under an hour, you'd day within days.
What the hell? Clearly we have more than 5 reporters here on Slashdot.
The worldwide demand for reporters is dropping. It doesn't matter if you mod me down- it won't change reality. Newspapers are dying because you only need to write the typical national news story twice at most.
There are reporters out there willing to write for free to break into this dying field.
Newspapers and TV news have completely sold out to businesses and mostly just publish content (thinly disguised press releases) created by the businesses as new stories. Because that's profitable.
We *could* operate the way you suggest, but the reality is that we haven't done so for over 20 years. That's why newspapers have no value. They are not creating independent content. There is too much national content to leave time over for people to care about reading local content.
As the other poster points out, the current organization misses important stories all the time. Free bloggers catch and report on important stories increasingly often. The main value is a newspaper has funds to fight "SLAPP" lawsuits but for the most part they self- censor. They are no longer centered on providing news- they are centered on selling advertisements. They don't have enough excess income to fund high minded pursuits any more and haven't for a long time.
A substantial portion of articles and even videos are corporate produced press releases handed to the news organizations as free content.
The major difference this time is that we will find a viable, inexpensive replacement for over 90% of humanity. There literally be nothing they can do that a machine or computer can't do better.
Yes... it is inherently more dangerous than fighting a fire.
The fires are out now. The big refinery that caught on fire is no longer burning.
People walking through the area are not being given fatal doses of heat or smoke inhalation.
Nuclear power has a place. It may not be in the hands of "for profit" companies. But "profit" is also "power". So if you get a group who's power depends on nuclear plants, then they start making warped decisions a swell.
The tsunami risk was raised a couple years ago and ignored. Wasn't likely enough or risk was overblown or something like that.
We are dealing with VERY high impact negatives. Playing russian roulette with a gun with 2,000 chambers. You could click it every day for 7 years until you shot yourself-- but at the end you'd be dead. Until you died, it would seem very low risk.
Read their personal blogs. They already know they are dead now. They are now going in shifts lengths designed to kill them in a few months to a year instead of a few weeks.
But right now you can pay about $8 and watch a huge selection of programs. Then pay $8 to Hulu Plus and get most of the rest. Finally pay $79 a year to Amazon and watch almost all of the rest (including a bunch of near first run movies).
There is no "correct" price for anything. There is what people ask for and what people pay. In a normal market, pricing drops closer to the cost of production. If you could make a show and personally profit at $100,000, you'd probably do so but coming at it from making $1 per user in the past, you'd probably feel "$1 per user is fair" rather than a fixed amount.
So new entertainment is going to be priced much cheaper than traditional entertainment until the traditional model collapses.
Eventually, most TV shows, movies, songs, and games will be available for a very low subscription price (probably under $40 a month in current day prices). But the *new* shiny games will sell at a premium for a while each time.
I think 16 or 12 hours a day would be more reasonable (so 150% to 200% of your number). But otherwise, it seems reasonable.
As lots of users use 250gb each, it should drive increases in the monthly bandwidth. 250gb is kinda low-- 500gb would probably be more reasonable (until we figure out new uses).
I can see sneakernets coming into existence around some things like distribution downloads. (each person downloads something and then passes blu-ray disks around).
On an inflation basis, energy costs have tripled every 30 years (so power that costs 15c kw/h now cost 5c kw/h back in the 80's). Unfortunately solar systems only last 20 to 25 years (tho some are starting to say 30 years and offer 25 year warranties). And the inverters last less (7-10 years). Batteries last even less.
Say you are paying $1200 a year for power now (I know a lot of folks who pay more). And that you can cut that by half ($600).
So your potential savings over 20 years would be about $12,000 dollars if power didn't become more expensive. Now remember-- saved money is not taxable.
So if you save $600, it's like increasing your income by $1000. To get a taxable investment income of $1000 a year, you currently need about $25000.
No conclusions-- but solar power is actually a lot closer than people think.
Compared with putting money into the stock market- it's a sure thing. And if power does get more expensive- you are golden.
They can't accept a rational discussion on the subject which kinda supports your point.
To be fair, they are probably used to dealing with extremists from the other side and are having a hard time winding down the counterspin they normally need to keep going.
It's a real challenge around MANY issues these days. It's harder to tell the truth about anything these days.
We need to treat nuclear power as the gravely dangerous beast it is and always assume something is going to go wrong. That doesn't mean ban it. But it does say, don't ignore billion to one risks with extremely negative impact.
"Officially" still only 31 dead but estimates of 300,000 actual deaths. A 60x120 mile plot of two countries which won't be inhabitable for 600 years.
So instead of going all "rah rah" and how wonderful nuclear energy is, you need to keep in mind that it's like raising a chimpanzee as a pet. They seem cute until they rip your arms off.
Whenever oil goes above 90 dollars a barrel alternative energy starts coming online and people change their habits to reduce consumption.
That ultimately collapses the price which kills the alternative energy and allows people to revert to squandering.
If we ever reach a point where oil has a true floor of 90 dollars a gallon, then the other energy forms will come on line and then get cheaper. Solar power ultimately going to be cheaper where it is suitable.
That makes battery rare materials the pinch point. I wonder how effectively solar power can be used to create hydrocarbons. I am interested in the recent bacteria creating hydrocarbons too.
I think nuclear power is a good option- and i think that this experience will feed into future reactors.
Putting a little ink on paper and selling it for 50 cents is too easy. There are many stamps sold which are never used. Just like those special quarters
I'd apply it to investment income as well as salary income.
Likewise, I'd cut social security payments if your income (from any/all sources) exceeded the current national average income (that would cut my benefits too right now). The logic is that social security is insurance against poverty. If you are making $50k or more, then you don't need it.
If you later are bankrupted, then it will be there waiting for you.
Good point on the arbitrary cutoff point. However- prior to that period, we had a 90% tax rate and higher taxes on investment income.
I want to restrict the size of wealth so that we have many wealthy people who are somewhat richer than the rest wrestling over control of government. Its not good for the country to have a few hundred families and fewer corporations with so much power.
There's been an enormous wealth transfer (about 700 billion) from the bottom 50% up to the top 2%. (and really the top.5%). That's not healthy for society. At some point, things will get violent. Nothing seems to be reigning in the unlimited greed of the wealthy at this point and they've captured the government. I'd at least like things to be stable until I kick off from old age. I can't see how people will stand for 25 more years like the last 25.
People are just miserable all the time. And it just keeps getting worse.
Hysterical and lead me to robot chicken which was great fun.
However, it still made the same point.
Jar Jar provokes a reaction. The only other character who provoked a reaction in the last 3 movies was Palpatine. I have to credit the actor for that.
Darth Maul didn't even say a single word. When blocked from fighting by an invisible wall, both of them just sat down and didn't say a damn thing to each other. I didn't care about any of the characters. They were just ciphers.
I don't like Jar Jar-- but I recognize at least I *FELT* something when he was on the screen. He wasn't a cipher.
That's because for close to 17 years, we've constantly seen the worst case.
And the people at the top seem to be getting more grasping, greedy, and callous.
Your scenario isn't playing out.
Instead the companies do automate jobs, lay off employees, offshore jobs, and give huge salaries, bonuses, and benefits to a few dozen employees while working the remaining employees long hours due to fear they'll be laid off.
Kevin, I'm sure you are familiar with "Time and a Half for overtime".
This law (now over 70 years old) was created for the express purpose of making it cheaper to hire two workers instead of working one worker to death. Back then most people were hourly. There were fewer "exempt" positions and they were typically highly compensated.
Today... Because of secondary costs, time and a half is not the incentive it used to be (there is a lot more overhead per employee- about 50% of their salary from benefits) and there are many "exempt" positions which are really not "exempt". The people do not have substantial control over their working conditions and hours- they are really hourly employees.
We are in a worker shortage now- it was artificially created long ago. Prior to that, people worked saturdays and they worked 10+ hours per day. If productivity has gotten so high that we can't maintain employment and it's gotten so easy to abuse the "exempt" status, then it's time to tighten things up.
Put overtime in place for salary workers. And put everyone on a 4 day week. A 4 day week is almost as productive as a 5 day week so it might not be enough but it's a start.
They had human dexterity robots who could pick random parts from bins faster than humans and could toss cell phones in the air and catch them two years ago.
Automated warehouse workers are already here. Automated forklifts are being tested now.
Those two changes alone could cut employment by my corporation by 25% in the space of 5 years.
Slashdot Mirror
Your statement is so wrong that it is fractally wrong. There is not a level at which your statement is not wrong.
Google "Chernobyl" "elephants foot".
Read up on the ruins of the reactor- it's a HUGE problem. The concrete coating is rotting and there isn't money to build a new one.
When you are done- read this site: http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/index.html
It's really cool- a Russian lady on a ninja motorcycle goes on annual trips through the area, takes photos, and Geiger counter readings.
It has a large section talking about the current state of Chernobyl... you would die within months if you were inside more than a timescale in minutes. If you stayed inside under an hour, you'd day within days.
What the hell? Clearly we have more than 5 reporters here on Slashdot.
The worldwide demand for reporters is dropping. It doesn't matter if you mod me down- it won't change reality. Newspapers are dying because you only need to write the typical national news story twice at most.
There are reporters out there willing to write for free to break into this dying field.
Newspapers and TV news have completely sold out to businesses and mostly just publish content (thinly disguised press releases) created by the businesses as new stories. Because that's profitable.
Look at your average newspaper.
Most of the articles are wire articles.
We *could* operate the way you suggest, but the reality is that we haven't done so for over 20 years. That's why newspapers have no value. They are not creating independent content. There is too much national content to leave time over for people to care about reading local content.
As the other poster points out, the current organization misses important stories all the time. Free bloggers catch and report on important stories increasingly often. The main value is a newspaper has funds to fight "SLAPP" lawsuits but for the most part they self- censor. They are no longer centered on providing news- they are centered on selling advertisements. They don't have enough excess income to fund high minded pursuits any more and haven't for a long time.
A substantial portion of articles and even videos are corporate produced press releases handed to the news organizations as free content.
We don't need 1000 reporters thanks to the internet. We need about 5.
So instead of compensating 1000 reporters 4,000,000 dollars- we need to compensate 5 about 200,000 to 400,000 dollars.
However, any number of reporters may decide to compete for those 5 slots- and so there is a race for the bottom on who will take the least money.
We don't have a market for reporters in every city now.
The major difference this time is that we will find a viable, inexpensive replacement for over 90% of humanity. There literally be nothing they can do that a machine or computer can't do better.
The timing is tricky tho. The Tsunami risk was raised two years ago and didn't get traction.
Yes... it is inherently more dangerous than fighting a fire.
The fires are out now. The big refinery that caught on fire is no longer burning.
People walking through the area are not being given fatal doses of heat or smoke inhalation.
Nuclear power has a place. It may not be in the hands of "for profit" companies.
But "profit" is also "power". So if you get a group who's power depends on nuclear plants, then they start making warped decisions a swell.
The tsunami risk was raised a couple years ago and ignored. Wasn't likely enough or risk was overblown or something like that.
We are dealing with VERY high impact negatives. Playing russian roulette with a gun with 2,000 chambers. You could click it every day for 7 years until you shot yourself-- but at the end you'd be dead. Until you died, it would seem very low risk.
Read their personal blogs. They already know they are dead now. They are now going in shifts lengths designed to kill them in a few months to a year instead of a few weeks.
But right now you can pay about $8 and watch a huge selection of programs. Then pay $8 to Hulu Plus and get most of the rest. Finally pay $79 a year to Amazon and watch almost all of the rest (including a bunch of near first run movies).
There is no "correct" price for anything. There is what people ask for and what people pay.
In a normal market, pricing drops closer to the cost of production. If you could make a show and personally profit at $100,000, you'd probably do so but coming at it from making $1 per user in the past, you'd probably feel "$1 per user is fair" rather than a fixed amount.
So new entertainment is going to be priced much cheaper than traditional entertainment until the traditional model collapses.
Eventually, most TV shows, movies, songs, and games will be available for a very low subscription price (probably under $40 a month in current day prices). But the *new* shiny games will sell at a premium for a while each time.
I think 16 or 12 hours a day would be more reasonable (so 150% to 200% of your number).
But otherwise, it seems reasonable.
As lots of users use 250gb each, it should drive increases in the monthly bandwidth.
250gb is kinda low-- 500gb would probably be more reasonable (until we figure out new uses).
I can see sneakernets coming into existence around some things like distribution downloads. (each person downloads something and then passes blu-ray disks around).
On an inflation basis, energy costs have tripled every 30 years (so power that costs 15c kw/h now cost 5c kw/h back in the 80's). Unfortunately solar systems only last 20 to 25 years (tho some are starting to say 30 years and offer 25 year warranties). And the inverters last less (7-10 years). Batteries last even less.
Say you are paying $1200 a year for power now (I know a lot of folks who pay more). And that you can cut that by half ($600).
So your potential savings over 20 years would be about $12,000 dollars if power didn't become more expensive. Now remember-- saved money is not taxable.
So if you save $600, it's like increasing your income by $1000. To get a taxable investment income of $1000 a year, you currently need about $25000.
No conclusions-- but solar power is actually a lot closer than people think.
Compared with putting money into the stock market- it's a sure thing. And if power does get more expensive- you are golden.
They can't accept a rational discussion on the subject which kinda supports your point.
To be fair, they are probably used to dealing with extremists from the other side and are having a hard time winding down the counterspin they normally need to keep going.
It's a real challenge around MANY issues these days. It's harder to tell the truth about anything these days.
We need to treat nuclear power as the gravely dangerous beast it is and always assume something is going to go wrong. That doesn't mean ban it. But it does say, don't ignore billion to one risks with extremely negative impact.
I'm not opposed to nuclear energy.
I think this accident will result in improvements.
But...
We are dealing with extremely improbable events with extremely negative consequences.
You should at least read and browse this site-- it's not "enviro wackos" or greenpeace.
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/index.html
"Officially" still only 31 dead but estimates of 300,000 actual deaths. A 60x120 mile plot of two countries which won't be inhabitable for 600 years.
So instead of going all "rah rah" and how wonderful nuclear energy is, you need to keep in mind that it's like raising a chimpanzee as a pet. They seem cute until they rip your arms off.
Whenever oil goes above 90 dollars a barrel alternative energy starts coming online and people change their habits to reduce consumption.
That ultimately collapses the price which kills the alternative energy and allows people to revert to squandering.
If we ever reach a point where oil has a true floor of 90 dollars a gallon, then the other energy forms will come on line and then get cheaper. Solar power ultimately going to be cheaper where it is suitable.
That makes battery rare materials the pinch point. I wonder how effectively solar power can be used to create hydrocarbons. I am interested in the recent bacteria creating hydrocarbons too.
I think nuclear power is a good option- and i think that this experience will feed into future reactors.
They had the elements for a good SF solution.
Forcefields...
Discover they don't stop things flying slow.
Biplanes and parachutes carry the bombs past the forcefields.
As it was... pretty stupid.
Stamp collecting will not stop.
Putting a little ink on paper and selling it for 50 cents is too easy.
There are many stamps sold which are never used. Just like those special quarters
When are we going to get rid of the echos of the 1920's and just treat data as data.
Then I guess there will be a "data" tax instead of a gazillion weird phone taxes.
Easily solved by the odometer reading at your biannual inspection.
The gas tax at 22 mpg works out to be $160 per 10,000 miles driven.
A more rational tax would be based on vehicle weight and annual mileage.
LED bulbs now effectively replace 40 watt bulbs and have an estimated 50x lifespan for 30x the price (before energy savings).
Energy usage by a good LED bulb (8 watts) is so small you can leave them on and not worry about them.
I'd apply it to investment income as well as salary income.
Likewise, I'd cut social security payments if your income (from any/all sources) exceeded the current national average income (that would cut my benefits too right now). The logic is that social security is insurance against poverty. If you are making $50k or more, then you don't need it.
If you later are bankrupted, then it will be there waiting for you.
Good point on the arbitrary cutoff point. However- prior to that period, we had a 90% tax rate and higher taxes on investment income.
I want to restrict the size of wealth so that we have many wealthy people who are somewhat richer than the rest wrestling over control of government. Its not good for the country to have a few hundred families and fewer corporations with so much power.
There's been an enormous wealth transfer (about 700 billion) from the bottom 50% up to the top 2%. (and really the top .5%). That's not healthy for society. At some point, things will get violent. Nothing seems to be reigning in the unlimited greed of the wealthy at this point and they've captured the government. I'd at least like things to be stable until I kick off from old age. I can't see how people will stand for 25 more years like the last 25.
People are just miserable all the time. And it just keeps getting worse.
I agree.
If you can't get a job, how do you pay a plumber?
Hysterical and lead me to robot chicken which was great fun.
However, it still made the same point.
Jar Jar provokes a reaction. The only other character who provoked a reaction in the last 3 movies was Palpatine. I have to credit the actor for that.
Darth Maul didn't even say a single word. When blocked from fighting by an invisible wall, both of them just sat down and didn't say a damn thing to each other. I didn't care about any of the characters. They were just ciphers.
I don't like Jar Jar-- but I recognize at least I *FELT* something when he was on the screen. He wasn't a cipher.
That's because for close to 17 years, we've constantly seen the worst case.
And the people at the top seem to be getting more grasping, greedy, and callous.
Your scenario isn't playing out.
Instead the companies do automate jobs, lay off employees, offshore jobs, and give huge salaries, bonuses, and benefits to a few dozen employees while working the remaining employees long hours due to fear they'll be laid off.
Kevin,
I'm sure you are familiar with "Time and a Half for overtime".
This law (now over 70 years old) was created for the express purpose of making it cheaper to hire two workers instead of working one worker to death. Back then most people were hourly. There were fewer "exempt" positions and they were typically highly compensated.
Today...
Because of secondary costs, time and a half is not the incentive it used to be (there is a lot more overhead per employee- about 50% of their salary from benefits) and there are many "exempt" positions which are really not "exempt". The people do not have substantial control over their working conditions and hours- they are really hourly employees.
We are in a worker shortage now- it was artificially created long ago. Prior to that, people worked saturdays and they worked 10+ hours per day. If productivity has gotten so high that we can't maintain employment and it's gotten so easy to abuse the "exempt" status, then it's time to tighten things up.
Put overtime in place for salary workers. And put everyone on a 4 day week. A 4 day week is almost as productive as a 5 day week so it might not be enough but it's a start.
They had human dexterity robots who could pick random parts from bins faster than humans and could toss cell phones in the air and catch them two years ago.
Automated warehouse workers are already here.
Automated forklifts are being tested now.
Those two changes alone could cut employment by my corporation by 25% in the space of 5 years.