Yes, and you don't have to mine uranium at all, it just magically appears in the fuel elements. Not.
1 kilogram of natural uranium ore results in as much energy production as 14,000 kilograms of coal. That means you could reduce the number of workers by a factor of 10,000 at least. Assuming accidents scale at the same rate, you would have 2 deaths per year instead of 20,000. These numbers reflect the fuel-usage in modern reactors; reactors capable of fuel-reprocessing would reduce the fuel usage - and, therefore, the death toll - even further.
Uranium mining is much worse than coal mining because of radon, radioactive dust and contaminated water.
Irrelevant. Please examine the above quoted figures. Even if uranium mining causes accidents/death at a 100-to-1 ratio compared to coal, the annual 20,000 worker death rate would be reduced to 200. Even a 1000-to-1 ratio would result in an annual reduction of 18,000 deaths. Given the 5,000 deaths previously attributed to Chernobyl, we can conclude that nuclear power caused as many deaths in 60 years as could be saved in just 3 months if we eliminate coal as a source of energy. Over the course of 60 years, human stupidity and fear of The Atom has lead to 1,000,000+ deaths which could otherwise have been avoided.
And since uranium is not quite a common element you've got to go through a lot of rock to extract a bit of uranium.
It's common enough in sea water that, for all intents and purposes, we'll never run out. Current seawater-extraction methods aren't viable for large-scale use, but they work, and they produce uranium at prices which are low enough to be viable given the current market value. It goes without saying that sewater-extraction carries far lower risk than coal miners face on a daily basis. However, even if seawater extraction turns out to be unworkable for industrial use, I'm not overly concerned about the difficulty in extracting uranium from soil; as I've shown above, the numbers clearly aren't on your side.
The problem is they are saying "Chernobyl killed a million people so we must have no nukes!" which is setting themselves up for the (insane) reply, "No, it only killed 5000 people so nukes are OK."
Coal mining alone kills 20,000+ people every year, never mind the deaths caused by other factors. I don't see what's insane about pointing out that 5,000 deaths over the 60+ years we've been building nuclear powerpleants is no big deal. I think it's insane to latch on to a number without bothering to look at what kind of harm is caused by the alternatives. Even if we had a chernobyl every 20 years, it would still cause less death than conventional methods.
It's interesting to see so many comments here which express a huge amount of narrow thinking (non-competitive sissy couch syndrome).
I'm totally with you! Maybe, as an encore, Germany could switch their entire food industry over to producing caviar. I'm sure that it would take a lot of getting used to, and might cuase some problems along the way, but it would be an ambitous project and the road to ending the meat-grains-and-dairy status quo being enforced by monopolistic Big Farmers. Perhaps you will fail, but then you can proudly say you tried! After all, some idiot once said "I chose to think, not because it is easy, but because it is hard!".
Think you could pick a more partisan source next time? I like to get my information from the most biased websites I can find, and that one doesn't quite make the cut. Maybe if they had a big hammer and sickle on the front page, and talked about the overthrowing of the proletariat through free energy for all....
Anyway, Germany already has some of the highest energy prices in Europe, and that's even with the government already subsidizing "renewable" energy. Unfortunately, they've recently decided to cut some of those subsidies, so the average price of electricity is expected to shoot up nicely over the next year. I can't WAIT to see the prices when they reach the kind of "renewable energy" levels you're talking about. I admit I'll be experiencing more than a little schadenfreude while watching Germans chose between keeping the lights on or keeping the fridge running.
As a German I think it's the perfect time to ditch the nuclear power and finally invest some of the billions of moneys that the electric cooperations taking and come up with a sustainable and green energy source.
See, this, right here, is why anyone with a halfway-useful education immediately laughs at the green movement. You honestly seem to think that tossing a few billion dollars at a bunch of scientists will result in some magical doohickey which produces limitless energy with no environmental impact or risk to the public. Technology doesn't work that way. Improvements don't scale that way. You may as well suggest prayer; it's just as likely to produce the desired result.
Everyone has known that the nuclear power plants have a limited lifetime. But what was the solution: just extend the lifetime.
No, the solution is to build new, safer, more efficient, more powerful nuclear plants. Relying on 50 year old designs is almost as retarded as deciding to ditch nuclear entirely.
Or what would happen to Julian Assange if he ever set foot on US soil? Pretty much the same thing as this guy, I bet -- a quick arrest, and a certainty that any trial would be far from fair.
What you don't really notice is vertical gain/loss...
You can notice vertical gain/loss quite easily. Go on a military flight some time. Even the transport pilots fly like they're in a goddamn fighter-jet. When you suddenly find yourself crushed into your seat by 2 or 3 times your normal weight, you'll know you're climbing. When you find that you're suddenly coughing up your balls, you'll know that you're descending.
without looking out the window I doubt I could distinguish between a climb and a stall - if you have a water bottle in your seat pocket it'll look exactly the same.
The way to distinguish them is that the 'climb' isn't followed by shaking and a sudden uncontrolled plummet towards the ground, whereas a stall will be unless the pilot reacts in time to correct it. There are other indicators, too, but upward movement followed by free-fall is a rather clear sign that you've just come out of a stall.
Yes, that was all during the 50s and 60s, when America was competing hard against the Soviets. In case you haven't noticed, military aerospace technology hit a brick wall in the 70s-80s, and there haven't been any real big improvements since then except for stealth (which is mainly 80s).
You're smoking crack. The F-22 is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else available today, and the F-35 either outmatches or can go toe-to-toe with any fighter except the F-22. The Osprey is a FANTASTIC aircraft which has absolutely zero competitors at the moment - no surprise considering what a bitch it was to develop in the first place. Drone technology is almost exclusively a US endeavor, although the Israelis have made some strong contributions, too. And who has better satellites than the yanks?
More to the point, I didn't mention the word "military" at all - I was speaking about Aerospace in general. The only company in the world that can compete with American civilian widebody aircraft is Airbus. The light-commercial side of the industry is, likewise, dominated by American companies. When it comes to space-launch capabilities, US companies are well in the lead. Pretty much any industry you look at, the US is either in the lead or near the top. You could argue about where exactly they rank in any given category, but it's completely idiotic to claim that there's been some magical transformation which has suddenly put the US at the bottom of every industry. The only thing that the US isn't good at is making "cheap shit"; but that's why they outsource the manufacture of such a high percentage of consumer goods.
Seriously, I hate to come across as an America-Fanboi, but if you honestly believe that "Americans just got fat and lazy and instead of developing new technologies, decided to spend all their time selling each other crappy houses" then you're either ignorant or a bigot. Either way, your assessment has absolutely no merit.
It is also true that this computer must be as reliable as you would like your phone line to be while running Windows. This is not unheard of, but it is not a risk I was willing to take...
Be honest: you're just trolling with that comment.
There is also the TCO matter. Running a general-purpose computer 24/7 will require more energy than the Ooma device.
Quite true. It only makes sense if you've already got some kind of device running 24/7, as I do. I don't personally use the "Magic Jack" - I have a file/media server running Solaris which also acts as my router and VOIP gateway. But I did set it up for a friend, who has a media server running Windows Home Server. If you already have a device which runs 24/7 - or close to it - then the upfront cost for installing such a solution is far lower than the "Ooma".
Also, it's worth mentioning that there are plenty of VOIP routers on the market which cost less than the Ooma, conserve less power when you consider that they serve two functions, and are far more configurable.
Plus, with a small amount of work, you can disconnect existing phone wiring from the phone company, or use an extra secondary line of wiring, and get it all over a house, like with POTS.
You can do the same with a "magic-jack". All you need is an old computer, or a cheap netbook, or one of those mini "bare bones" computers, and you're good to go.
The only time America did anything great technically is when they were competing with the Soviets.
Yeah, that whole intertubes thing, personal computers, mobile telephony, the global positioning system, constantly being at the forefornt of aerospace technology... all of that stuff is just mediocre.
Every IPv6 article is littered with, 'it will never be used, ISPs would rather self-destruct while enlarging their NATs than adopt IPv6, or that IPv4 addresses will just increase in price and will be traded"
You're responding to something I never said. "Never be used" and "impossible" are two completely different things.
64-bit CPU? '640K will be enough for everyone' anybody?.
You're still responding to something I never said. And you've managed to go off-topic, on a topic which you yourself started. Good job!
I think that this bashing is just unfair to skylon. I can't say that I am sure that it will work, but it should be tried.
Great! In that case, you go ahead and sink your life-savings into their company as an investor; I'll remain skeptical.
You do know that 'concept' airplanes, complete with control surfaces and with reasonable aerodynamics theory did exist 'on paper' long before Wright brothers brought that concept to reality.
I know that 'concept' airplanes "complete with control surfaces and with reasonable aerodynamics theory" existed in reality long before the Wright Brothers went flying. They were called gliders, and the first one was built 50 years before the Wright Brothers took flight.
and yet, then many did laugh about that nothing heavier that air could ever fly
If anyone ever said such a thing, they would have been laughed at by anyone with an even remotely functional brain. Birds existed long before the Wright Brothers went flying, so we've always known that heaver-than-air flight is possible. We just weren't sure how to do it.
Do you notice the exact same situation now. people now laugh and say that only multistage rockets could fly and spaceplanes can't ever reach orbit, because they are too heavy.
Ah, I see the problem. You're confused about what's being discussed here. Let me explain: nobody is saying that SSTO flight is impossible - they're saying it's difficult, and that this particular design sucks.
"It probably won't work' it ok, but 'It never will work' isn't OK. Thats what was said about all technologies that do work now.
No, that's what was said about all the ideas which never worked (and that number is FAR higher than all the technology we currently have). It may have been said about some of the technologies which we have now, but I don't recall anyone saying "IPv6? That'll never work!", or "64 bit CPU? That'll never work!".
Except all the data consistently shows no correlation between increased EM exposure from consumer electronics and an increase in cancer rates or any other health effects. At the very least you need to show consistent correlations in order to get rational people concerned - then we might start thinking about looking for a causative link. Until then, you're just panicking the nimrods.
Doesn't the US declaration of independence say something about all men being equal, and not about "all people who happen to be US citizens" being equal?
So what you're saying is that the NSA shouldn't spy on foreign men, but it's perfectly ok for them to spy on women?
Sexist bastard.
Concern about this simply don't seem to enter the public debate at all. It seems to be a non-issue.
I find that... uncomfortable.
The reason it isn't discussed is because the need for it is obvious to most of. The agencies of my country have all sorts of legal means to operate within our borders. They do not, however, have the ability to operate in the same manner within your country. Since their ability to enforce our laws and/or carry out investigations outside of our borders is severly hampered, we give them other abilities which they are forbidden from using in our own nation.
Now, if you can convince your government to allow the CIA and NSA to operate freely within your borders in order to enforce US law, I'm sure that the Americans would be more than happy to stop tapping your calls. I'm just not sure that's an exchange which your fellow countrymen would be willing to make.
There are some things government can do. This is not one of them.
"The Government" doesn't really do anything well - individual organizations within the government do. Take NASA for example - arguably one of the best organizations in the world when it comes to pure science research, and a disaster when it comes to the manned space program. Why? Because when it comes to the basic science, the government basically just shoves some money at them and then lets them get on with it, whereas with high-visibility projects like the shuttle every dickhead with an opinion wants to have some input on how it's going to be designed/built/run.
If we're going to have a "Fact Agency", then it needs to be composed of academics, scientists, engineers, etc, and the government needs to provide funding and then get the fuck out of the way. While I'm tempted to suggest that some oversight be included, any such oversight would simply open up a hole for lobbyists and politicians to force their way through. Design the organization so that it's run by individuals who are at the head of their fields, make it so they can only comment on their respective fields, and replace them on a regular basis. You should end up with very little crony-ism and corruption from the non-government side of things. Better yet, create two such agencies, completely independent of each-other and with equal funding, so that anyone looking to subvert one would have to do the same with the other.
I don't generally agree with Clinton on much, but I think this is an excellent idea... as long as it's implemented properly. Sadly, I suspect that any such agency would likely be corrupted before it even got off the ground, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible, or that it's not worth trying. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and you don't have to mine uranium at all, it just magically appears in the fuel elements. Not.
1 kilogram of natural uranium ore results in as much energy production as 14,000 kilograms of coal. That means you could reduce the number of workers by a factor of 10,000 at least. Assuming accidents scale at the same rate, you would have 2 deaths per year instead of 20,000. These numbers reflect the fuel-usage in modern reactors; reactors capable of fuel-reprocessing would reduce the fuel usage - and, therefore, the death toll - even further.
Uranium mining is much worse than coal mining because of radon, radioactive dust and contaminated water.
Irrelevant. Please examine the above quoted figures. Even if uranium mining causes accidents/death at a 100-to-1 ratio compared to coal, the annual 20,000 worker death rate would be reduced to 200. Even a 1000-to-1 ratio would result in an annual reduction of 18,000 deaths. Given the 5,000 deaths previously attributed to Chernobyl, we can conclude that nuclear power caused as many deaths in 60 years as could be saved in just 3 months if we eliminate coal as a source of energy. Over the course of 60 years, human stupidity and fear of The Atom has lead to 1,000,000+ deaths which could otherwise have been avoided.
And since uranium is not quite a common element you've got to go through a lot of rock to extract a bit of uranium.
It's common enough in sea water that, for all intents and purposes, we'll never run out. Current seawater-extraction methods aren't viable for large-scale use, but they work, and they produce uranium at prices which are low enough to be viable given the current market value. It goes without saying that sewater-extraction carries far lower risk than coal miners face on a daily basis. However, even if seawater extraction turns out to be unworkable for industrial use, I'm not overly concerned about the difficulty in extracting uranium from soil; as I've shown above, the numbers clearly aren't on your side.
The problem is they are saying "Chernobyl killed a million people so we must have no nukes!" which is setting themselves up for the (insane) reply, "No, it only killed 5000 people so nukes are OK."
Coal mining alone kills 20,000+ people every year, never mind the deaths caused by other factors. I don't see what's insane about pointing out that 5,000 deaths over the 60+ years we've been building nuclear powerpleants is no big deal. I think it's insane to latch on to a number without bothering to look at what kind of harm is caused by the alternatives. Even if we had a chernobyl every 20 years, it would still cause less death than conventional methods.
It's interesting to see so many comments here which express a huge amount of narrow thinking (non-competitive sissy couch syndrome).
I'm totally with you! Maybe, as an encore, Germany could switch their entire food industry over to producing caviar. I'm sure that it would take a lot of getting used to, and might cuase some problems along the way, but it would be an ambitous project and the road to ending the meat-grains-and-dairy status quo being enforced by monopolistic Big Farmers. Perhaps you will fail, but then you can proudly say you tried! After all, some idiot once said "I chose to think, not because it is easy, but because it is hard!".
Think you could pick a more partisan source next time? I like to get my information from the most biased websites I can find, and that one doesn't quite make the cut. Maybe if they had a big hammer and sickle on the front page, and talked about the overthrowing of the proletariat through free energy for all ....
Anyway, Germany already has some of the highest energy prices in Europe, and that's even with the government already subsidizing "renewable" energy. Unfortunately, they've recently decided to cut some of those subsidies, so the average price of electricity is expected to shoot up nicely over the next year. I can't WAIT to see the prices when they reach the kind of "renewable energy" levels you're talking about. I admit I'll be experiencing more than a little schadenfreude while watching Germans chose between keeping the lights on or keeping the fridge running.
As a German I think it's the perfect time to ditch the nuclear power and finally invest some of the billions of moneys that the electric cooperations taking and come up with a sustainable and green energy source.
See, this, right here, is why anyone with a halfway-useful education immediately laughs at the green movement. You honestly seem to think that tossing a few billion dollars at a bunch of scientists will result in some magical doohickey which produces limitless energy with no environmental impact or risk to the public. Technology doesn't work that way. Improvements don't scale that way. You may as well suggest prayer; it's just as likely to produce the desired result.
Everyone has known that the nuclear power plants have a limited lifetime. But what was the solution: just extend the lifetime.
No, the solution is to build new, safer, more efficient, more powerful nuclear plants. Relying on 50 year old designs is almost as retarded as deciding to ditch nuclear entirely.
Whatever you've been smoking, it's GOT to be illegal ...
Or what would happen to Julian Assange if he ever set foot on US soil? Pretty much the same thing as this guy, I bet -- a quick arrest, and a certainty that any trial would be far from fair.
Paranoia is a poor substitute for information.
What you don't really notice is vertical gain/loss ...
You can notice vertical gain/loss quite easily. Go on a military flight some time. Even the transport pilots fly like they're in a goddamn fighter-jet. When you suddenly find yourself crushed into your seat by 2 or 3 times your normal weight, you'll know you're climbing. When you find that you're suddenly coughing up your balls, you'll know that you're descending.
without looking out the window I doubt I could distinguish between a climb and a stall - if you have a water bottle in your seat pocket it'll look exactly the same.
The way to distinguish them is that the 'climb' isn't followed by shaking and a sudden uncontrolled plummet towards the ground, whereas a stall will be unless the pilot reacts in time to correct it. There are other indicators, too, but upward movement followed by free-fall is a rather clear sign that you've just come out of a stall.
Naw, Hitchens is just really, really hung over.
Yes, that was all during the 50s and 60s, when America was competing hard against the Soviets. In case you haven't noticed, military aerospace technology hit a brick wall in the 70s-80s, and there haven't been any real big improvements since then except for stealth (which is mainly 80s).
You're smoking crack. The F-22 is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else available today, and the F-35 either outmatches or can go toe-to-toe with any fighter except the F-22. The Osprey is a FANTASTIC aircraft which has absolutely zero competitors at the moment - no surprise considering what a bitch it was to develop in the first place. Drone technology is almost exclusively a US endeavor, although the Israelis have made some strong contributions, too. And who has better satellites than the yanks?
More to the point, I didn't mention the word "military" at all - I was speaking about Aerospace in general. The only company in the world that can compete with American civilian widebody aircraft is Airbus. The light-commercial side of the industry is, likewise, dominated by American companies. When it comes to space-launch capabilities, US companies are well in the lead. Pretty much any industry you look at, the US is either in the lead or near the top. You could argue about where exactly they rank in any given category, but it's completely idiotic to claim that there's been some magical transformation which has suddenly put the US at the bottom of every industry. The only thing that the US isn't good at is making "cheap shit"; but that's why they outsource the manufacture of such a high percentage of consumer goods.
Seriously, I hate to come across as an America-Fanboi, but if you honestly believe that "Americans just got fat and lazy and instead of developing new technologies, decided to spend all their time selling each other crappy houses" then you're either ignorant or a bigot. Either way, your assessment has absolutely no merit.
It is also true that this computer must be as reliable as you would like your phone line to be while running Windows. This is not unheard of, but it is not a risk I was willing to take...
Be honest: you're just trolling with that comment.
There is also the TCO matter. Running a general-purpose computer 24/7 will require more energy than the Ooma device.
Quite true. It only makes sense if you've already got some kind of device running 24/7, as I do. I don't personally use the "Magic Jack" - I have a file/media server running Solaris which also acts as my router and VOIP gateway. But I did set it up for a friend, who has a media server running Windows Home Server. If you already have a device which runs 24/7 - or close to it - then the upfront cost for installing such a solution is far lower than the "Ooma".
Also, it's worth mentioning that there are plenty of VOIP routers on the market which cost less than the Ooma, conserve less power when you consider that they serve two functions, and are far more configurable.
Care to state it?
Yes. He's making the Chopra Fallacy. And if that's not an 'official' fallacy, it should be.
Plus, with a small amount of work, you can disconnect existing phone wiring from the phone company, or use an extra secondary line of wiring, and get it all over a house, like with POTS.
You can do the same with a "magic-jack". All you need is an old computer, or a cheap netbook, or one of those mini "bare bones" computers, and you're good to go.
The only time America did anything great technically is when they were competing with the Soviets.
Yeah, that whole intertubes thing, personal computers, mobile telephony, the global positioning system, constantly being at the forefornt of aerospace technology ... all of that stuff is just mediocre.
Every IPv6 article is littered with, 'it will never be used, ISPs would rather self-destruct while enlarging their NATs than adopt IPv6, or that IPv4 addresses will just increase in price and will be traded"
You're responding to something I never said. "Never be used" and "impossible" are two completely different things.
64-bit CPU? '640K will be enough for everyone' anybody?.
You're still responding to something I never said. And you've managed to go off-topic, on a topic which you yourself started. Good job!
I think that this bashing is just unfair to skylon. I can't say that I am sure that it will work, but it should be tried.
Great! In that case, you go ahead and sink your life-savings into their company as an investor; I'll remain skeptical.
You do know that 'concept' airplanes, complete with control surfaces and with reasonable aerodynamics theory did exist 'on paper' long before Wright brothers brought that concept to reality.
I know that 'concept' airplanes "complete with control surfaces and with reasonable aerodynamics theory" existed in reality long before the Wright Brothers went flying. They were called gliders, and the first one was built 50 years before the Wright Brothers took flight.
and yet, then many did laugh about that nothing heavier that air could ever fly
If anyone ever said such a thing, they would have been laughed at by anyone with an even remotely functional brain. Birds existed long before the Wright Brothers went flying, so we've always known that heaver-than-air flight is possible. We just weren't sure how to do it.
Do you notice the exact same situation now. people now laugh and say that only multistage rockets could fly and spaceplanes can't ever reach orbit, because they are too heavy.
Ah, I see the problem. You're confused about what's being discussed here. Let me explain: nobody is saying that SSTO flight is impossible - they're saying it's difficult, and that this particular design sucks.
"It probably won't work' it ok, but 'It never will work' isn't OK. Thats what was said about all technologies that do work now.
No, that's what was said about all the ideas which never worked (and that number is FAR higher than all the technology we currently have). It may have been said about some of the technologies which we have now, but I don't recall anyone saying "IPv6? That'll never work!", or "64 bit CPU? That'll never work!".
Ah yes; assassination: the tried and true method for conflict resolution. What could possibly go wrong?
Headquarters of the local Atheist group would be even better.
Except all the data consistently shows no correlation between increased EM exposure from consumer electronics and an increase in cancer rates or any other health effects. At the very least you need to show consistent correlations in order to get rational people concerned - then we might start thinking about looking for a causative link. Until then, you're just panicking the nimrods.
i cant believe morons like you still exist.
Hilarious :) You clearly don't live in the same universe as the rest of us.
Doesn't the US declaration of independence say something about all men being equal, and not about "all people who happen to be US citizens" being equal?
So what you're saying is that the NSA shouldn't spy on foreign men, but it's perfectly ok for them to spy on women?
Sexist bastard.
Concern about this simply don't seem to enter the public debate at all. It seems to be a non-issue.
I find that ... uncomfortable.
The reason it isn't discussed is because the need for it is obvious to most of. The agencies of my country have all sorts of legal means to operate within our borders. They do not, however, have the ability to operate in the same manner within your country. Since their ability to enforce our laws and/or carry out investigations outside of our borders is severly hampered, we give them other abilities which they are forbidden from using in our own nation.
Now, if you can convince your government to allow the CIA and NSA to operate freely within your borders in order to enforce US law, I'm sure that the Americans would be more than happy to stop tapping your calls. I'm just not sure that's an exchange which your fellow countrymen would be willing to make.
Right, because the Muslim nations had such an easy time subsuming the European nations during the Crusades.
While a "truly pluralist society" may be difficult to turn as a whole, it is infinitely easier to turn than a Christian theocracy would be.
It's either that or they plan to sneak their armies across the border and invade.
Replace "armies" with "platoon" and your comment might actually make sense ...
I think it's a way of dumping more of that Maple syrup that they have been trying to foist off on the US for years.
If you don't love bacon covered in maple syrup, you're not human.
There are some things government can do. This is not one of them.
"The Government" doesn't really do anything well - individual organizations within the government do. Take NASA for example - arguably one of the best organizations in the world when it comes to pure science research, and a disaster when it comes to the manned space program. Why? Because when it comes to the basic science, the government basically just shoves some money at them and then lets them get on with it, whereas with high-visibility projects like the shuttle every dickhead with an opinion wants to have some input on how it's going to be designed/built/run.
If we're going to have a "Fact Agency", then it needs to be composed of academics, scientists, engineers, etc, and the government needs to provide funding and then get the fuck out of the way. While I'm tempted to suggest that some oversight be included, any such oversight would simply open up a hole for lobbyists and politicians to force their way through. Design the organization so that it's run by individuals who are at the head of their fields, make it so they can only comment on their respective fields, and replace them on a regular basis. You should end up with very little crony-ism and corruption from the non-government side of things. Better yet, create two such agencies, completely independent of each-other and with equal funding, so that anyone looking to subvert one would have to do the same with the other.
I don't generally agree with Clinton on much, but I think this is an excellent idea ... as long as it's implemented properly. Sadly, I suspect that any such agency would likely be corrupted before it even got off the ground, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible, or that it's not worth trying. I'd like to be pleasantly surprised.