I understand waste. I also understand that the amount of waste produced compared to the amount of energy produced is very small. Yes, there are always going to be some problems, but strictly speaking for the US, the amount of energy produced so far versus the amount of negative incidents is very acceptable for me. Especially considering the only real alternative being used enough to power large cities is coal, which is far worse for the environment and your health than nuclear energy will ever be. So you can rant all you want about the few incidents there have been, but it doesn't really amount to much, and by being anti-nuclear power in the US you are effectively being pro-coal.
If any of it was true, why did he make up a fictitious CTO from a company to report any of it? Sorry, but his actions alone are enough to discount all of his work outright. Fraudulently passing yourself off as someone else is a quick ticket to the end of your career in journalism.
Yes, it would be such a terrible thing for Apple to concede a tiny amount of control over to the user so they can use their own device how they want to. Bravo for them taking such a high road on this one. Give me a break. This is just yet another case of Apple dictating what you can and can't do with their products, and changing the rules after the fact. So certain adult apps or okay this week, but next week the app you paid for may not work anymore. Oh, and there are no clear established reasons for yanking an app except "Apple does not think this is appropriate". And they already got your money, so you are just SOL. Nice policy.
Radium is a completely 100% natural element, as is Thorium. (All man does is enrich it.) Guess what kind of energy the sun runs on? Hint: it isn't coal, and solar energy is what it produces. Without nuclear fusion, there would be no solar power for anybody to collect.
If you truly want to avoid using coal or nuclear power, have fun in the dark. Because unless you are living off the grid already, you are most likely using power from one or the other right now. (Unless your computer runs on God's own methane.)
Ok, I get it. You don't understand how scientific opinions work. Duly noted.
I am not saying the figures I linked are correct. I am saying that these are OPINIONS, and not FACTS. I really hope you at least realize the difference between the two. The fact that there is a difference should be enough to make it clear. Unless you actually think that the figures I linked to are flat out lies, which if you are claiming your figures are facts, may well be true.
Chernobyl? So you are taking the very worst nuclear example (a reactor of that type could never have been built anywhere but Russia)and holding it up as an example? What about the hundreds of other nuclear plants that have been running for over 40 years that have not had any significant problems?? Three Mile Island is about the worst incident in the US you can point to, and that only resulted in like 20 curies worth of radiation being released. I can guarantee you that coal mining, production, and burning for fuel has caused far significant more health problems than nuclear energy has. Ever hear of "coal miners lung" before?
All you have proved is that two different scientists have two different opinions. Guess what? If you asked scientists three and four about their opinions, you would then have four different opinions. Because that is what they are - opinions. You may think yours is more accurate, but that doesn't matter to me or to the world's uranium supply. And all of this is moot as I pointed out multiple times earlier, becasue uranium is not the world's only fissionable material. Not only that, but they are talking about our CURRENT SUPPLY. There is literally tons of uranium out there - it just isn't as cheap to procure at this moment as the supply we already have was. New technology could change that any day.
Who would have ever imagined that someone with "solar" right in his nickname would have a biased opinion towards nuclear energy production??
It isn't just raw costs, it is also other factors. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest power sources available, polluting far less than coal burners do.
No, it is just the difference in figuring out rate of usage, and estimating current supplies. If you asked 10 scientists this same question, you would have 10 different answers. So I would say that we have between 70 - 230 years worth of uranium left. But uranium isn't the only thing we can use for production of nuclear energy, so it is at best a moot point.
That estimate is also using only current reactor technology (which is basically from the 1950s and 1960s). Making more efficient reactors is inevitable. From the end of the article I linked -
Fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.
The Nuclear Energy Agency disagrees with those numbers. They say there is at least a 230 year supply. And that isn't even taking into account any increases in efficiency (most of the US nuclear plants were built using 1960s technology, newer plants being built today are more efficient), finding undiscovered resources, etc. into the equation.
Then we use Thorium, or one of the other "iums" that are abundant on this planet. Although, we do have a 238 year supply at current consumption and efficiency rates of uranium alone. After that, we can extract uranium from seawater, the Earth's crust, and sedimentary rocks. The only reason we are not doing this now is that it is expensive, and well, we already have a 238 year supply.
As an Apple app store consumer I will say that these business and productivity apps are basically unwanted spam to me. They make the app store less appealing to use since they clutter the place up. They make it really hard for me to find my boobie apps.
Correct, I was not. The socialization aspect of school was important to myself and my parents, so we decided that I would go and interact with my peers. I don't regret it for a second. Your parents job is already to teach you what they know - if you ever want to know more than your parents do, then home schooling may not be the best choice.
"Why's that guy stealing on the tv?" and you explain that stealing is wrong and he'll eventually be punished for it. If you weren't there, the kid might think it's okay to steal.
The most ironic thing about this lesson though, is that it was taught using pirated cable being watched without paying for it.
You don't have any idea if it is XP that is faster, or some other hardware/software component. If you really want to test it properly, you need to have 2 hardware platforms that are identical - not an Intel and an AMD system - have the same software on each, and run actual benchmarks that give you hard data, not just "mine seems faster than my brother's". Anything else is just opinions and anecdotal trivia.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand waste. I also understand that the amount of waste produced compared to the amount of energy produced is very small. Yes, there are always going to be some problems, but strictly speaking for the US, the amount of energy produced so far versus the amount of negative incidents is very acceptable for me. Especially considering the only real alternative being used enough to power large cities is coal, which is far worse for the environment and your health than nuclear energy will ever be. So you can rant all you want about the few incidents there have been, but it doesn't really amount to much, and by being anti-nuclear power in the US you are effectively being pro-coal.
If any of it was true, why did he make up a fictitious CTO from a company to report any of it? Sorry, but his actions alone are enough to discount all of his work outright. Fraudulently passing yourself off as someone else is a quick ticket to the end of your career in journalism.
Yep, enriched uranium from weapons would work nicely. Although generally it works the other way around.
Yes, it would be such a terrible thing for Apple to concede a tiny amount of control over to the user so they can use their own device how they want to. Bravo for them taking such a high road on this one. Give me a break. This is just yet another case of Apple dictating what you can and can't do with their products, and changing the rules after the fact. So certain adult apps or okay this week, but next week the app you paid for may not work anymore. Oh, and there are no clear established reasons for yanking an app except "Apple does not think this is appropriate". And they already got your money, so you are just SOL. Nice policy.
Radium is a completely 100% natural element, as is Thorium. (All man does is enrich it.) Guess what kind of energy the sun runs on? Hint: it isn't coal, and solar energy is what it produces. Without nuclear fusion, there would be no solar power for anybody to collect.
If you truly want to avoid using coal or nuclear power, have fun in the dark. Because unless you are living off the grid already, you are most likely using power from one or the other right now. (Unless your computer runs on God's own methane.)
It all depends on what you want to produce.
You are desperately grasping at straws now, and ignoring every other question I have raised that you *know* makes your argument look silly.
Ok, I get it. You don't understand how scientific opinions work. Duly noted.
I am not saying the figures I linked are correct. I am saying that these are OPINIONS, and not FACTS. I really hope you at least realize the difference between the two. The fact that there is a difference should be enough to make it clear. Unless you actually think that the figures I linked to are flat out lies, which if you are claiming your figures are facts, may well be true.
Chernobyl? So you are taking the very worst nuclear example (a reactor of that type could never have been built anywhere but Russia)and holding it up as an example? What about the hundreds of other nuclear plants that have been running for over 40 years that have not had any significant problems?? Three Mile Island is about the worst incident in the US you can point to, and that only resulted in like 20 curies worth of radiation being released. I can guarantee you that coal mining, production, and burning for fuel has caused far significant more health problems than nuclear energy has. Ever hear of "coal miners lung" before?
All you have proved is that two different scientists have two different opinions. Guess what? If you asked scientists three and four about their opinions, you would then have four different opinions. Because that is what they are - opinions. You may think yours is more accurate, but that doesn't matter to me or to the world's uranium supply. And all of this is moot as I pointed out multiple times earlier, becasue uranium is not the world's only fissionable material. Not only that, but they are talking about our CURRENT SUPPLY. There is literally tons of uranium out there - it just isn't as cheap to procure at this moment as the supply we already have was. New technology could change that any day.
Who would have ever imagined that someone with "solar" right in his nickname would have a biased opinion towards nuclear energy production??
It isn't just raw costs, it is also other factors. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest power sources available, polluting far less than coal burners do.
That estimate is also using only current reactor technology (which is basically from the 1950s and 1960s). Making more efficient reactors is inevitable. From the end of the article I linked -
Fuel-recycling fast-breeder reactors, which generate more fuel than they consume, would use less than 1 percent of the uranium needed for current LWRs. Breeder reactors could match today's nuclear output for 30,000 years using only the NEA-estimated supplies.
The Nuclear Energy Agency disagrees with those numbers. They say there is at least a 230 year supply. And that isn't even taking into account any increases in efficiency (most of the US nuclear plants were built using 1960s technology, newer plants being built today are more efficient), finding undiscovered resources, etc. into the equation.
What happens when the uranium runs out?
Then we use Thorium, or one of the other "iums" that are abundant on this planet. Although, we do have a 238 year supply at current consumption and efficiency rates of uranium alone. After that, we can extract uranium from seawater, the Earth's crust, and sedimentary rocks. The only reason we are not doing this now is that it is expensive, and well, we already have a 238 year supply.
As an Apple app store consumer I will say that these business and productivity apps are basically unwanted spam to me. They make the app store less appealing to use since they clutter the place up. They make it really hard for me to find my boobie apps.
Now, go on the Linux Kernel Mailing List and suggest that the Linux kernel maintain a consistent binary API and see what happens...
I would, but I can't seem to get my damn wireless card working.
Nobody ever said anything about mushrooms being plants, so not sure what you are talking about. A nice cup of hemlock tea would also go with the meal.
Yes, becasue everybody knows that all poisons are man-made, and nothing nature ever produces could ever hurt us.
P.S. Go outside and pick some mushrooms and eat them. See what happens.
Correct, I was not. The socialization aspect of school was important to myself and my parents, so we decided that I would go and interact with my peers. I don't regret it for a second. Your parents job is already to teach you what they know - if you ever want to know more than your parents do, then home schooling may not be the best choice.
It is just different drugs, that is all. Now they are raiding mommy and daddy's prescriptions instead of buying street drugs.
not all kids are automatically predisposed to drug experimentation
Ah, I see you were home schooled. Try getting out to the public (or even private) schools sometime. You will re-think your statement.
"Why's that guy stealing on the tv?" and you explain that stealing is wrong and he'll eventually be punished for it. If you weren't there, the kid might think it's okay to steal.
The most ironic thing about this lesson though, is that it was taught using pirated cable being watched without paying for it.
I am the Judge Judy and executioner.
Blowing someone's head off who is inside your home is legal pretty much everywhere in Texas
There, fixed it for you.
You don't have any idea if it is XP that is faster, or some other hardware/software component. If you really want to test it properly, you need to have 2 hardware platforms that are identical - not an Intel and an AMD system - have the same software on each, and run actual benchmarks that give you hard data, not just "mine seems faster than my brother's". Anything else is just opinions and anecdotal trivia.