Taxes are never fair... well anyway we're living in a democracy and the next government may well undo all the work of the previous government. That's how it goes ... there's so much wasted effort but still it's one of the best systems around. I'm overall pretty happy to live in a democracy: because despite all the lying, the false promises and the bureaucracy, citizens are still taken care of pretty decently and are not suppressed and squeezed
It's a tax... who cares. The governments need money, they tax everything and everyone. And governments lie about everything to everyone when it suits their purpose, that's nothing new either so who cares what they say, most of it is bullshit anyway.
You know what happens when everyone got nukes? 99 of them won't do anything, they're scared. And 1 of them thinks nukes only damage the enemy while he's invulnerable and he goes for a first strike, and blows up a whole region. Decades later, another crazy ass dictator shows up and blows up another region. Decades later another one, and so on, until there's nothing left. Such power at your fingertips, it just takes one moment of insanity (for example drug-induced, or alzhe
Well... currently there are not nuclear reactors everywhere... they are expensive and they are built usually with the express intent of making nuclear weapons. It's a choice that a country has to make and it's sometimes an expensive and difficult choice. If we would build cheap reactors everywhere, it won't be a choice anymore, but an additonal option and that makes it so much easier to cross the line... you've to make sure that cannot happen. Well... I du
[quote who="Cykur" reply="691" id="3404007"]There really isn't any additional risk with a waste processing reactor, not anymore than already exists..[/quote] I dunno... I don't want to troll you, it just looks to much like a breeder reactor to me. Are you absolutely sure it's not a breeder reactor? Because it looks to me like you can put anything you want into such a reactor and it'll produce all possible isotopes. This means that if you put "waste" in it,
I wouldn't want them to run on waste! Currently the waste (plutonium) is buried safely underground, or deep in the ocean - whereever one can not touch it and abuse it. As soon as such waste products are handled and brought above ground, you START introducing problems. It is brought near habitable areas, it's concentrated, transported... and if that's done globally, there's a risk of abuse. What happens if plutonium is stolen by a bunch of terrorists and mixed with
Ok, it looked like a breeder reactor because it can breed the complete spectrum of isotopes... from uranium to plutonium to... very short-live waste. That's the idea behind a breeder. http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/02/28/u-s-china-molten-salt-nuclear-adviser-among-vets-joining-transatomic-board/ It seems like it's more
You're probably refering to breeder reactors. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/are_fast-breeder_reactors_a_nuclear_power_panacea/2557/ It says (among other things): "Fast reactors can be run in different ways, either to destroy plutonium, to maximise energy production, or to produce new plutonium." I wouldn't like breeder reactors everywhere on the world that are usin
I suppose you got it from here. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/#.Ulul7538I-U It mentions that consumption is 68,000 tons/year. The reserves are enough for about 80 years of production. However, only a small percentage of the total energy production is supplied by nuclear reactors, therefore those res
There aren't that many uranium deposits. If everyone switched to nuclear power, uranium would be depleted pretty quickly. There's also a problem with nuclear weapons ... the risk that some crazy dictator gets his hands on a stockpile of nuclear weapons increases if every nation on earth has a lot of nuclear power plants. Perhaps thorium-based nuclear power plants could be an alternative. http://
It was only net positive in a very narrow way. It didn't include the waste power of the laser beams. It's like shoving the dirt under the carpet and telling everyone how neat and tidy your house is.
The weight of CO2 is about 3 times the weight of carbon. I don't know where you get that total weight of carbon from, but I suppose you're referring to the total Carbon content of the entire earth. Most of that carbon is locked up in the earth's crust and probably won't reach the surface. While our contribution seems so insignificant with respect to the entire (static) carbon of the earth, it is particularly significant for the dynamic part of the carbon cycl
[quote who="petrossa" reply="662" id="3403596"]In this light, everything we spent to 'help' poverty there will actually cause poverty with us.[/quote] I intend to spend such money to clean up the mess we're creating, and to prevent an even bigger mess. It is in our own countries' interest, it's not for some far-away people, it's for our own future generations. [quote who="Frogboy" reply="651" id="3403462"]What % of current global war
This article shows measurements about contribution of CO2 from volcanoes. All volcanoes on earth produce 0.2 billion tonnes of CO2. Humans produce about 30 billion tonnes of CO2 every year. http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html We humans are pretty awesome. By ourselves we're nothing, but together we dominate the world! If you compare
This article depicts a particularly gloomy future/past. Read the chapter on " The Emergence of the Canfield Ocean ". It's pretty interesting and scary. http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/a-deadly-climb-from-glaciation-to-hothouse-why-the-permian-triassic-extinction-is-pertinent-t
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="627" id="3403335"]So are you saying you don't own a car at all? It sounds like you're saying you still own a car. If so, I assume it's electric? Which one is it?[/quote] I own a dirty old Mercedes... it's totally not clean. When I bought it 4 years ago I thought... what the heck, it's a cool car and I haven't owned a car most of my life, I have some polluting to catch up to :) That kind of dumb reasoning that most people do. But
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="621" id="3403285"]Great! Share with us pics of your electric car and solar array. [/quote] I don't have those things! I'm living in an apartment. But I did move closer to work, so I can go to work by bike instead of by car. It is much more relaxing than driving on congested roads and highways. I hardly use the car anymore. But I did buy some land with trees a while back... it's useless for anything but despite that, I like havi
[quote who="Kantok" reply="609" id="3403186"]No, I'm not. Plain old resedential solar panels have increased in efficiency dramatically in just the last 5 years, while also getting smaller. And that's just crappy old residential solar panels, never mind cutting edge solar power sources like Brad has mentioned elsewhere in this thread. You really think that we're going to be on carbon derivative fuels forever? Or is that just a convenient way to increase the immediacy of the suppose
[quote who="petrossa" reply="607" id="3403178"]Since we're off topic anyway the whole hoax being dead and all, where exactly did you learn math? At 7 billion 80% live on 2$ or less. If you want to 'spread the wealth' that means everyone will live on a subsistence level not counting projected population growth. You can pay your 'fair share' if you want, i realizing that this is an unsurmountable problem (equal to the USA ever paying it's debt) rather keep it myself and
[quote who="Kantok" reply="585" id="3402847"]Nothing in the IPCC report convinces me that this problem is so catastrophic and so immediate that we can't wait for natural technological progression to solve it for us. I see no need to upend the world economy and crush developing nations hopes for prosperity for a problem that will start being solved with no extra effort over the next few decades.[/quote] That's a major assumption, you're *assuming* that technology will solve
[quote who="Kantok" reply="578" id="3402762"]All for a "coming catastrophe" that no one can put a number on, no one can put a timeline on, no one can say what percentage of the catastrophe is actually caused by man and no one can say that we can actually have some measurable impact on improving the problem, if it exists. [/quote] Sure you can. A 2ppm/year increase in CO2 is a slow-moving trainwreck like no other. The only real question is, do you want to pay for averting
[quote who="Kantok" reply="508" id="3402546"]It's ludicrous because we're decades away from having real, viable alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Once those alternatives are cost effective they will overtake carbon fuel as the source of fuel and your feared 2ppm/year goes away. [/quote] How do you know that... that's some big assumption you are making here. Digging up coal will always be cheaper than making complex things like solar panels, because coal has a ver
[quote who="Kantok" reply="467" id="3402310"]This is cute. The "scientific" side of the debate is arguing about how things are going to be 1000 years from now. Take any point in human history, look at that points predictions for what humanity would look like in 1000 years and see how reliable anything "in a 1000 years" looks. Ludicrous. [/quote] Why is this ludicrous... people don't care, so they'll keep on pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. At 2pp
Try disabling schockwave/FLASH in IE. It can slow down your IE enormously, even on a high-end computer. Disable as many addons as you can. Also disable automatic startup of any programs that start automatically when window starts, like Steam, Openoffice etc. Those programs slow down your startup quite a bit.
Sins Forums