In fact, if you venture outside during the day you can see the one we already have installed and (mostly uneventfully) supply most of earth's energy requirements...
Maybe you should stop turning it off for half of every fucking day...
Well technically he's right. If Europe starts to experience 1,000 degree temperatures, those cores will have a tough time getting cooled down. Not sure anyone will care, but, you know...
Bingo. There's a reason the Saudis have been building massive half-empty cities and working on building a tourism industry. They know the oil revenue won't last forever and they're doing everything they can to ensure their prosperity after the decline. This is not a new thing.
Heh. Yeah, wanting to have more control over the company and not have to worry about short-sellers publishing bullshit about his products... totally unhinged. Your psychoanalysis of him is every bit as intelligent and insightful as your critiques of his company have been.
Well if you can figure out a way to reduce regulations on nuclear power without the cost cutting resulting in corner cutting and eventually a catastrophe then please share.
It's not an either or situation; even if we reduce regulation to the point that we have one fukushima-scale disaster every decade it would still be better than the amount of harm we're causing with fossil fuels. This is a case of selective risk aversion; you would rather have more cumulative harm caused on a daily basis than have one really big disaster every generation or so. It's stupid.
Luckily we don't even need to lower regulation that much though; there are plenty of things which could be done to massively reduce all the regulatory and legal hurdles without compromising safety.
Nuclear power is heavily regulated because it's really f***ing dangerous if you aren't watching it very carefully. The problem with fission reactors is that even the safest designs we know of require considerable oversight and regular expensive maintenance by very imperfect humans.
This is simply not true. The safest designs we have all default to a failsafe mode which requires no human intervention whatsoever. We just haven't been building any of those. The ones which ARE currently being built aren't quite as safe, but still orders of magnitude safer than the designs we've successfully been operating for 5+ decades.
Not to mention the waste problem, the nuclear weapons problems, the insurance problems, etc. Nuclear has some great benefits but it has some serious problems too which cannot be easily dismissed.
Waste is a solved problem which is again only being held up due to idiotic bickering and bungling by bureaucrats. Yucca mountain was designated in 1987. It took 15 goddamn years for the government to finally approve it, only for Obama to shitcan it another 9 years later. We are now at the 21 year mark - that's 2 DECADES that we could have been safely storing waste - all derailed thanks to politics.
On top of that, existing "waste" can be used as fuel for new generation reactors. You don't even have to move it to yucca; you can literally build a new reactor at the same site as an existing one, do an in-situ decommissioning of the existing reactor, and start feeding the waste into the new reactor. Instead of wasting money moving and buying it you get free fuel for decades.
Weapons have no relevance to reactors, and insurance is a non-issue. If you think either of them is some big impediment you'll have to explain why.
The "entire development cost" is the know-how that has been accumulated from tax funded expenses by NASA over decades. Discounting that is so plain stupid it hurts.
No, including it would be absolutely idiotic given that spacex spent $350 million when NASA by their own estimation would have spent $3 billion to accomplish the same damn thing. Why stop at just including the cost of the original rocket programs? Let's include ALL technological development since the time man first developed fire. That makes just as much sense as your asinine suggestion.
Saying "Musk and his few men built Space-X from nothing" is like saying "Robert Goddard built the American space industry" totally ignoring the fact that the US had no usable rockets until it plucked the best of the Nazi rocket engineering and brought it to America.
Nobody is saying spacex was "built from nothing"; that's a figment of your overactive and deeply misdirected imagination. I also love the "hurr durr Nazi scientists" complaint; you (and so many others like you) are so butthurt about the success of the American space program that you'll grasp at any straw to try and downplay it.
But then Americans love to ignore the facts and live in the propaganda world that their media create for them.
Simpletons love to tell themselves how much more informed they are than "Americans". I guess your ego needs something to make up for your obvious lack of intelligence and rational thought. You probably even believe it... but everyone else sees right through you.
Nuclear isn't the answer. It was promised to be too cheap to meter, instead it is the most costly to generate.
Translation: we've spent decades demonizing and regulating nuclear to the point where it's too expensive to generate. We've made sure it can't be the answer.
The direction doesn't matter much, for the USA is still a bigger "carbon pig" per capita than those countries
Let's test this theory. We will both get in a car, and drive towards a wall. I'll do 100, you do 50. Then when we are 500 metres away I'll decelerate at 10m/s while you accelerate as 10 m/s. See what happens.
The entire development cost of the Falcon 9 has been around $350 million, whereas NASA estimated that developing a similar rocket would have cost them over $3 billion. NASA funded development dues to the obvious potential for cost savings over their existing launch providers. How the fuck you think this is socialism rather than capitalism... that's just mind boggling.
This is another case where the UK's watchdog agency has made things better for the average consumer.
What's better about it? You still get the same shitty connection, but with a new name, like "Superfast 2" which tells you nothing at all about it. Or, even if the name actually still describes expected speeds, it still only has to cover 50% of costumers during peak times so it's a coin toss over whether your service matches the advertised speed.
I'm failing to see the "better" in any of that. I suspect that whatever benefit you think you're seeing is either nonexistent in practice, or negligible are best.
Gaming laptops can use well over 100W. The power supply for mine provides 190. I'm sure it doesn't utilise every last watt but under heavy load I expect it's probably drawing 160+.
If you're susceptible to that level of paranoia you should probably wear a full-body tinfoil suit, just in case someone put a tiny listening device on your clothes.
What to do if they put a listening device on your tinfoil suit... you'll have to figure that one out on your own.
That's silly. The reason you don't have "free" education is the same as the reason you don't have "free" healthcare. As for the "affordable" part... that's complicated, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with the military.
There's a few to be sure. How many people in the military learn IT, medical, or are pilots? Very few (and that's the few I was referring to). The rest are infantry grunts.
You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the "combat arms" put together (infantry, armoured, artillery, etc) make up only about 20% of the US military. The other 80% are your "very few".
However, the recruiter could not guarantee that I would "get" what I "picked", so I declined any further engagement and did not sign up for the Army. This was the only stumbling block I had. Is what the below posters are saying accurate? How does it work when you want to a particular "job" (I think they call it MOS?).
Jobs are offered based on availability and aptitude. You should have at least tried; what he was saying was that you could try for a specific job, but if your testing showed you didn't have the aptitude for it you wouldn't get it, or if there weren't any positions open then they wouldn't be able to offer you a spot. That doesn't mean you would be stuck having to do something else though; if you go through the selection process and they're unable to offer you the position you want, you can always decline.
It's different when there is a draft on - typically draftees are all put through basic training first and then assigned an MOS later. But during peacetime you're offered a specific MOS before you sign on the dotted line.
How many aircraft mechanics are there compared to grunts trained to shoot people, or drive a truck? I'm sure it was great for you, but for the majority it's not a great career path.
I started off as a "grunt trained to shoot people" because it seemed like the most interesting thing when I was 18. After a number of years I got tired of it and switched trades. There's always mobility within the military for those with talent and interest. During my career in the military I ended up doing three completely different types of jobs, two of them technical and with direct applicability in the civilian sector. But even just being a grunt taught me important values, and all sorts of useful skills.
It may not be a great career path for some, but those people are likely the type who, absent a military career, would end up running a deep-fryer their whole lives.
Slashdot Mirror
We want to a build a wall? You mean like the one the East Germans had?
You're comparing West Germany and East Germany to the USA and Mexico?
Rockefeller Republican my ass.
In fact, if you venture outside during the day you can see the one we already have installed and (mostly uneventfully) supply most of earth's energy requirements...
Maybe you should stop turning it off for half of every fucking day ...
FTFY.
Well technically he's right. If Europe starts to experience 1,000 degree temperatures, those cores will have a tough time getting cooled down. Not sure anyone will care, but, you know ...
You probably should have read the next two words, instead of just stopping at "4.9".
All of that moral outrage plus $1.50 might buy you a coffee. Just don't go to Starbucks.
Same thing in this case.
Bingo. There's a reason the Saudis have been building massive half-empty cities and working on building a tourism industry. They know the oil revenue won't last forever and they're doing everything they can to ensure their prosperity after the decline. This is not a new thing.
Heh. Yeah, wanting to have more control over the company and not have to worry about short-sellers publishing bullshit about his products ... totally unhinged. Your psychoanalysis of him is every bit as intelligent and insightful as your critiques of his company have been.
You make them sound like a gang. Once you're in, the only way out is in a body bag.
That's assuming the freed up funds would be put into "free education", which is such a ridiculous assumption that it's not really worth discussing.
Well if you can figure out a way to reduce regulations on nuclear power without the cost cutting resulting in corner cutting and eventually a catastrophe then please share.
It's not an either or situation; even if we reduce regulation to the point that we have one fukushima-scale disaster every decade it would still be better than the amount of harm we're causing with fossil fuels. This is a case of selective risk aversion; you would rather have more cumulative harm caused on a daily basis than have one really big disaster every generation or so. It's stupid.
Luckily we don't even need to lower regulation that much though; there are plenty of things which could be done to massively reduce all the regulatory and legal hurdles without compromising safety.
Nuclear power is heavily regulated because it's really f***ing dangerous if you aren't watching it very carefully. The problem with fission reactors is that even the safest designs we know of require considerable oversight and regular expensive maintenance by very imperfect humans.
This is simply not true. The safest designs we have all default to a failsafe mode which requires no human intervention whatsoever. We just haven't been building any of those. The ones which ARE currently being built aren't quite as safe, but still orders of magnitude safer than the designs we've successfully been operating for 5+ decades.
Not to mention the waste problem, the nuclear weapons problems, the insurance problems, etc. Nuclear has some great benefits but it has some serious problems too which cannot be easily dismissed.
Waste is a solved problem which is again only being held up due to idiotic bickering and bungling by bureaucrats. Yucca mountain was designated in 1987. It took 15 goddamn years for the government to finally approve it, only for Obama to shitcan it another 9 years later. We are now at the 21 year mark - that's 2 DECADES that we could have been safely storing waste - all derailed thanks to politics.
On top of that, existing "waste" can be used as fuel for new generation reactors. You don't even have to move it to yucca; you can literally build a new reactor at the same site as an existing one, do an in-situ decommissioning of the existing reactor, and start feeding the waste into the new reactor. Instead of wasting money moving and buying it you get free fuel for decades.
Weapons have no relevance to reactors, and insurance is a non-issue. If you think either of them is some big impediment you'll have to explain why.
Any more complaints?
The "entire development cost" is the know-how that has been accumulated from tax funded expenses by NASA over decades. Discounting that is so plain stupid it hurts.
No, including it would be absolutely idiotic given that spacex spent $350 million when NASA by their own estimation would have spent $3 billion to accomplish the same damn thing. Why stop at just including the cost of the original rocket programs? Let's include ALL technological development since the time man first developed fire. That makes just as much sense as your asinine suggestion.
Saying "Musk and his few men built Space-X from nothing" is like saying "Robert Goddard built the American space industry" totally ignoring the fact that the US had no usable rockets until it plucked the best of the Nazi rocket engineering and brought it to America.
Nobody is saying spacex was "built from nothing"; that's a figment of your overactive and deeply misdirected imagination. I also love the "hurr durr Nazi scientists" complaint; you (and so many others like you) are so butthurt about the success of the American space program that you'll grasp at any straw to try and downplay it.
But then Americans love to ignore the facts and live in the propaganda world that their media create for them.
Simpletons love to tell themselves how much more informed they are than "Americans". I guess your ego needs something to make up for your obvious lack of intelligence and rational thought. You probably even believe it ... but everyone else sees right through you.
Nuclear isn't the answer. It was promised to be too cheap to meter, instead it is the most costly to generate.
Translation: we've spent decades demonizing and regulating nuclear to the point where it's too expensive to generate. We've made sure it can't be the answer.
Well done guys. The planet thanks you.
The direction doesn't matter much, for the USA is still a bigger "carbon pig" per capita than those countries
Let's test this theory. We will both get in a car, and drive towards a wall. I'll do 100, you do 50. Then when we are 500 metres away I'll decelerate at 10m/s while you accelerate as 10 m/s. See what happens.
Not sure about China and India but the USA is not exactly clean with respect to the EU. We have doubled our coals sales to various EU nations.
So the US is dirty because they sell the EU the stuff which they pollute with?
Cute. What's that make the EU?
The entire development cost of the Falcon 9 has been around $350 million, whereas NASA estimated that developing a similar rocket would have cost them over $3 billion. NASA funded development dues to the obvious potential for cost savings over their existing launch providers. How the fuck you think this is socialism rather than capitalism ... that's just mind boggling.
This is another case where the UK's watchdog agency has made things better for the average consumer.
What's better about it? You still get the same shitty connection, but with a new name, like "Superfast 2" which tells you nothing at all about it. Or, even if the name actually still describes expected speeds, it still only has to cover 50% of costumers during peak times so it's a coin toss over whether your service matches the advertised speed.
I'm failing to see the "better" in any of that. I suspect that whatever benefit you think you're seeing is either nonexistent in practice, or negligible are best.
Gaming laptops can use well over 100W. The power supply for mine provides 190. I'm sure it doesn't utilise every last watt but under heavy load I expect it's probably drawing 160+.
If you're susceptible to that level of paranoia you should probably wear a full-body tinfoil suit, just in case someone put a tiny listening device on your clothes.
What to do if they put a listening device on your tinfoil suit ... you'll have to figure that one out on your own.
That's silly. The reason you don't have "free" education is the same as the reason you don't have "free" healthcare. As for the "affordable" part ... that's complicated, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with the military.
There's a few to be sure. How many people in the military learn IT, medical, or are pilots? Very few (and that's the few I was referring to). The rest are infantry grunts.
You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the "combat arms" put together (infantry, armoured, artillery, etc) make up only about 20% of the US military. The other 80% are your "very few".
However, the recruiter could not guarantee that I would "get" what I "picked", so I declined any further engagement and did not sign up for the Army. This was the only stumbling block I had. Is what the below posters are saying accurate? How does it work when you want to a particular "job" (I think they call it MOS?).
Jobs are offered based on availability and aptitude. You should have at least tried; what he was saying was that you could try for a specific job, but if your testing showed you didn't have the aptitude for it you wouldn't get it, or if there weren't any positions open then they wouldn't be able to offer you a spot. That doesn't mean you would be stuck having to do something else though; if you go through the selection process and they're unable to offer you the position you want, you can always decline.
It's different when there is a draft on - typically draftees are all put through basic training first and then assigned an MOS later. But during peacetime you're offered a specific MOS before you sign on the dotted line.
How many aircraft mechanics are there compared to grunts trained to shoot people, or drive a truck? I'm sure it was great for you, but for the majority it's not a great career path.
I started off as a "grunt trained to shoot people" because it seemed like the most interesting thing when I was 18. After a number of years I got tired of it and switched trades. There's always mobility within the military for those with talent and interest. During my career in the military I ended up doing three completely different types of jobs, two of them technical and with direct applicability in the civilian sector. But even just being a grunt taught me important values, and all sorts of useful skills.
It may not be a great career path for some, but those people are likely the type who, absent a military career, would end up running a deep-fryer their whole lives.
Because your words sound kinda nutty.