I'm using this article to respond to every dogmatic environmentalist I've ever met. I'm sure there's some of them behind the headline, because I've met them virtually every time I've participated in any sort of environmental debate. They are -very- frustrating. Might the article be wrong and quoting a reasonable person out of context? Sure, anything's possible. But given my experience with hardcore enviro people, I doubt it.
Acting like the attitude that anything dealing with nuclear power is by default bad doesn't exist is a little disingenuous. It's kept the US virtually nuke-plant free for decades now.
Some cultures value education, some cultures value wealth, some cultures value physical prowess. Americans value fame, and to a lesser extent, wealth. So it's not really surprising that kids are dropping out of school left & right. Why should they? American society as a whole does not reward intelligence or education.
> I don't think that most people consider MMOs to be social in a meaningful way.
just another example of how most people don't know what they're talking about, IMHO. It's certainly nontraditional, but that don't mean it's not social.
> Another thing, one of the great virtues of many forms of renewable energy, is that production of energy is distributed. There are many social benefits of not having the government/corporations holding all the strings, in my opinion.
That's certainly a valid critisism, and it's one of several reasons that I'm glad governments, as opposed to corporations, are financing it. I don't really want to have an Enron holding patents on efficient fusion reactors. It's my fervent hope that such a broad coalition funding it will result in an open process. We'll see, I suppose.
> In a world of limited resources (time/money), does it not make sense to prioritise effort to yield the best results per unit of investment?
again, false dichotomy. I refer you to my post above.
> For what it's worth, I think it probably _is_ reasonable to invest in fusion power. But having said that, other forms of renewable energy are _massively_ underfunded
these two discussions are disjoint.
And yes, a working, efficient fusion reactor IS a silver energy bullet. Cheap, abundant clean energy changes the face of the world in the same way that fire and the printed word did.
> The big question is which is a better investment.
I think that's a false dichotomy, much like the "we're spending that every 2 months in Iraq" argument. There's no reason you can't have both. As noted in several places above, 12bn over 10 years spread across half the worlds population is essentially nothing.
> the total NSF funding for CS research in the US is of the order of $500mln per year and has been flat for years now.
Yes, theoretical computer science funding should definitely be on par with fusion research. Because, you know, compiler research needs those giant byte cyclotrons to smash the register stack to investigate the strange behavior of the smallest known information unit, the elusive "bit." Why, each infomagnet costs over 200k, and they'll need at least 32 of them.
> after running the reactor for 20-40 years, you have a radioactive shell.
Do you have a source for that 20-40 year figure? I see it bandied around occasionally, and I have a hard time believing the useful service life of a goddamn fusion reactor is only 20 years. My -car- has a longer service life than that.
Firstly, it's 12bn over 10 years. Secondly, it's combined funding from the United States, the European Union, China, India, Russia, Japan and South Korea. So yeah, spread out over 10 years and half the worlds population it IS a trivial amount.
Secondly, yes it's high risk. But unlike solar it's not research that is likely to be undertaken by industry.
Sorry, I'm a little bitter. I have found a lot of 'environmental advocates' to be just as dogmatic as any religious zealot. Facts that don't buttress their position simply do not matter for many of them. If you're a reasonable environmentalist who can acknowledge that people need to eat and consume energy for non-essential items and drive cars sometimes and have the occasional child, then that post was not directed at you.
Environmental activists, who generally oppose nuclear power, have argued that the project is too costly and would divert attention from current efforts to fight global warming.
Shut up you fucking hippies, get a haircut.
Seriously, this -is- an effort to fight global warming, and if you weren't so dogmatically opposed to anything involving OMG ATOMS!! you'd see that.
the message here is clear: going out and boozing it up with strangers in a bar is better than playing games with your friends. That O'Reilly - he's always pushing traditional american family values.
O'Reilly went on to complain that kids today were rude, listened to awful "music" that doesn't even have good lyrics, and often dressed in an inappropriate manner. He then exhorted the youth of America to "get off my damn lawn, you punks."
Sony Corp.'s "Sixaxis" controller for the PS3 also has an accelerometer. The six axises the name refers to are the three dimensions of space, plus three axises of spin. The company hasn't revealed who makes the chip.
Axises?? How can you mispluralize one of the most entertaining plurals around? Axes, dammit.
> I have yet to come across a PC component that would make me ship it back or return it because of any faults,
Lucky you! Eventually statistics will catch up with you.
I'm actually pretty happy to not have to build another system. I don't really have it in me anymore to keep up with what ram timings work with what cpu and motherboard and what the optimal configuration is and lord knows what all. You can find plenty of places that will build you a good system from actual name-brand parts for very little over what you'd spend assembling it yourself. If I never have to wash thermal grease out of my pants again, I'll be happy.
> Drug development is generally not publically funded.
not directly. But since Medicare is legally barred from negotiating bulk prices on drugs, unlike everywhere else in the world, the US populace in general is subsidizing drug company profits to some degree.
Slashdot Mirror
would you say talking on the phone is a social activity?
> The meaning of the sentence is the same.
What?! No it's not. Compare:
"That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind."
By 'a man,' he is referring to himself, an individual. This is a fantastic quote and perfectly suits the moment.
with:
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
This is awkward, because used this way, 'man' is a synonym for mankind. Everyone knew what he meant though.
I'm using this article to respond to every dogmatic environmentalist I've ever met. I'm sure there's some of them behind the headline, because I've met them virtually every time I've participated in any sort of environmental debate. They are -very- frustrating. Might the article be wrong and quoting a reasonable person out of context? Sure, anything's possible. But given my experience with hardcore enviro people, I doubt it.
Acting like the attitude that anything dealing with nuclear power is by default bad doesn't exist is a little disingenuous. It's kept the US virtually nuke-plant free for decades now.
Some cultures value education, some cultures value wealth, some cultures value physical prowess. Americans value fame, and to a lesser extent, wealth. So it's not really surprising that kids are dropping out of school left & right. Why should they? American society as a whole does not reward intelligence or education.
> I don't think that most people consider MMOs to be social in a meaningful way.
just another example of how most people don't know what they're talking about, IMHO. It's certainly nontraditional, but that don't mean it's not social.
> Another thing, one of the great virtues of many forms of renewable energy, is that production of energy is distributed. There are many social benefits of not having the government/corporations holding all the strings, in my opinion.
That's certainly a valid critisism, and it's one of several reasons that I'm glad governments, as opposed to corporations, are financing it. I don't really want to have an Enron holding patents on efficient fusion reactors. It's my fervent hope that such a broad coalition funding it will result in an open process. We'll see, I suppose.
> In a world of limited resources (time/money), does it not make sense to prioritise effort to yield the best results per unit of investment?
again, false dichotomy. I refer you to my post above.
> For what it's worth, I think it probably _is_ reasonable to invest in fusion power. But having said that, other forms of renewable energy are _massively_ underfunded
these two discussions are disjoint.
And yes, a working, efficient fusion reactor IS a silver energy bullet. Cheap, abundant clean energy changes the face of the world in the same way that fire and the printed word did.
> The big question is which is a better investment.
I think that's a false dichotomy, much like the "we're spending that every 2 months in Iraq" argument. There's no reason you can't have both. As noted in several places above, 12bn over 10 years spread across half the worlds population is essentially nothing.
> the total NSF funding for CS research in the US is of the order of $500mln per year and has been flat for years now.
Yes, theoretical computer science funding should definitely be on par with fusion research. Because, you know, compiler research needs those giant byte cyclotrons to smash the register stack to investigate the strange behavior of the smallest known information unit, the elusive "bit." Why, each infomagnet costs over 200k, and they'll need at least 32 of them.
> after running the reactor for 20-40 years, you have a radioactive shell.
Do you have a source for that 20-40 year figure? I see it bandied around occasionally, and I have a hard time believing the useful service life of a goddamn fusion reactor is only 20 years. My -car- has a longer service life than that.
I apologize to you and your three pro-nike hippie friends, then.
Firstly, it's 12bn over 10 years. Secondly, it's combined funding from the United States, the European Union, China, India, Russia, Japan and South Korea. So yeah, spread out over 10 years and half the worlds population it IS a trivial amount.
Secondly, yes it's high risk. But unlike solar it's not research that is likely to be undertaken by industry.
Sorry, I'm a little bitter. I have found a lot of 'environmental advocates' to be just as dogmatic as any religious zealot. Facts that don't buttress their position simply do not matter for many of them. If you're a reasonable environmentalist who can acknowledge that people need to eat and consume energy for non-essential items and drive cars sometimes and have the occasional child, then that post was not directed at you.
Shut up you fucking hippies, get a haircut.
Seriously, this -is- an effort to fight global warming, and if you weren't so dogmatically opposed to anything involving OMG ATOMS!! you'd see that.
well, you have to admit that it'd sure go far in explaining a few things.
the message here is clear: going out and boozing it up with strangers in a bar is better than playing games with your friends. That O'Reilly - he's always pushing traditional american family values.
O'Reilly went on to complain that kids today were rude, listened to awful "music" that doesn't even have good lyrics, and often dressed in an inappropriate manner. He then exhorted the youth of America to "get off my damn lawn, you punks."
let's see here.
> Look around you at most of the people you may work with in IT. How many of them are social creatures, going out and partying on weekends etc?
ok.
> Gamers, especially hardcore MMO players, are notorious for spending days if not weeks doing little more than playing their games.
I hope you see the contradiction here. MMOs are nothing BUT social events.
Axises?? How can you mispluralize one of the most entertaining plurals around? Axes, dammit.
NOT PAYED, sheesh.
> Then I'm your opposite
circle of life.
> I have yet to come across a PC component that would make me ship it back or return it because of any faults,
Lucky you! Eventually statistics will catch up with you.
I'm actually pretty happy to not have to build another system. I don't really have it in me anymore to keep up with what ram timings work with what cpu and motherboard and what the optimal configuration is and lord knows what all. You can find plenty of places that will build you a good system from actual name-brand parts for very little over what you'd spend assembling it yourself. If I never have to wash thermal grease out of my pants again, I'll be happy.
ok, thanks for keeping us up-to-date on the games you're not playing. If you don't play any other games, be sure to let us know!
> Drug development is generally not publically funded.
not directly. But since Medicare is legally barred from negotiating bulk prices on drugs, unlike everywhere else in the world, the US populace in general is subsidizing drug company profits to some degree.
So let me get this straight:
When the government fails, it's because the Free Market isn't allowed to work.
When a private company fails, it's because the Free Market is working.
Is that right?