Jesus, you're a dumbshit. (That's just a statement of opinion. But an honest one.)

I told you before I'm not going to tell you why you're wrong. But here's another hint you don't deserve: I don't dispute your Equation 1, and never have (in a hypothetical ideal context, that is). You're just applying it in a way that doesn't actually apply.

I admit that it took me a while to figure that out when originally presented with this idea (which was a few years ago now). But I did, and I'm no physicist. However, there are physicists (like Joe Postma, for example) who might be happy to explain it to you if, that is, you don't piss him off (or haven't already pissed him off) with your adolescent, antisocial behavior.

And no, your ad-hominem explanation of why you won't confront the actual engineer who made the argument won't wash. First, it *is* ad-hominem... not in the context of your scientific argument, but in the context of why you refuse to make your argument to the proper parties. So no, I did not "misuse" the phrase ad hominem. It was part of your argument, so it applies. Not to mention that it's just plain bullshit anyway.

Go ahead, keep making a fool of yourself. I'm happy to let you do it.

And even if they weren't, a lot of things get censored in the process that never should be. Censorship, even by accident, is Not Okay.

Nuclear power requires uninterrupted police powers for tens of thousands of years to control nuclear waste.

Anything that stays active for ten thousand years is either not dangerous or fuel. The exact same power that damages your tissues will just as happily turn a steam turbine for you.

Lots of things kill birds, and actually wind turbines are pretty low on the scale. Even nuclear plants kill more by some estimates:

Yes, obviously it takes a retarded bird to be hit by an easily visible object moving at a perfectly regular path. That doesn't stop people from protesting wind power on behalf of birds, though. And the thing is, they aren't necessarily wrong: while it takes spectacular bad luck for a bird to die from an encounter with a windmill, it also takes a ridiculous amounts of windmills to replace a single nuclear plant.

Of course, there's always the possibility of not having a single large turbine, but a tower full of small turbines. That would not only make them bird-safe, but also allow them to run right up to and including hurricane winds, unlike a single large one (due to stress to bearings because windspeed varies across the area).

Thanks California. Human impact of using coal fired plants? Nope, think of the children has been replaced by "think of the birds".

It's not California. It's everywhere. Anything whatsoever has some impact, thus enviromental groups oppose it. Even damn wind turbines have been opposed on the grounds that they might chop up birds.

None of which means we shouldn't think about how this effect could be mitigated or prevented (maybe use optic fibers rather than open space to transport and concentrate light? Put a glass roof on the whole thing?) but no matter what, there's going to be some negative ones.

The soviet government was unable to keep the lie going. The USA government does not have that problem: They are funded by biased taxation and trade agreements, a monopoly on many forms of intellectual property, a monopoly on 'world police' duties, and sale of most of the international currency. When all that fails, they simply invent 1/3rd of their federal revenue from thin air.

The US government is hardly synonymous with capitalism. Whether that's a good or bad thing I won't get into, but it's entirely possible that US might survive the fall of capitalism and recover. However, should this not be the case, it doesn't matter how much money it can print for itself. Money only has value within a functioning economic system; all the money in the world can't buy anything is no one is selling.

All the people provide is disposable labour and babies for future labour markets.

And they're starting to admit that, too. Once you consciously admit that the promises offered by some Power that Be are lies, it no longer has any power to compel your loyalty. It might try coercion, but as the Soviet coup demonstrated, that's a desperate gambit that has low chances of working, even if the people who make up the army still stay under its spell.

In short, capitalism is going to fall for failing the same test it judges people by: can you deliver? And it could had avoided its fate by showing mercy for those who can't. There is irony in that. But the stupid thing is that it already got a stay of execution back when communism first arose by becoming lighter and softer with unemployment benefits and keynesian stimulus economics, and is really only dying due to abandoning those - and could still repent a second time, it's just bloody unlikely to.

Why are you discussing someone's tweets here in a blatantly off-topic manner here on Slashdot? Oh, right... because you continue to claim it's me. Though that doesn't make it any less off-topic.

After visiting those links, I think to native speakers of English it's pretty clear: "unsettled" is wordplay on the phrase "settled science".

But since you bring MY name up, I will repeat this: I DO NOT dispute that humans have contributed to an increase in CO2 concentration. How much of an increase is due to human activity is not known. The only thing *I* dispute (as opposed to someone else) is whether said increase in CO2 is a significant cause of "global warming". I have stated this to you repeatedly, yet you keep trying to claim otherwise. That's called denial.

But I should not even have replied to you at all, since your comment was, after all, entirely off-topic.

or, more practically, make sure your phone password turns on immediately after the phone is put to sleep, rather than there being a 5 min delay.

What would that accomplish, other than getting your phone "dropped"? Or maybe you just get tased until you voluntarily give the password. Or maybe you just get shot for assaulting the officers. That seems to happen a lot in the US.

Let's be honest here: does anyone really believe their rights will be respected by the law enforcement?

It depends entirely on the state.

There is an intent clause in the law. The "surveillance" has to be for the purpose of seeing onto my property, or the goings on there, specifically.

Note that this does not give a pass to mass photography by drones or helicopters, either, since then the intent would still be surveillance.

Uh... yeah. How about 40 years ago?

Granted, those wheels were not exposed to as much rock, but they drove 2 passengers much farther than Curiosity has gone, at a far higher rate of speed. The astronauts even hotdogged it a little bit. No damage whatever.

GP was correct: it was a questionable design decision from the beginning. Somebody made a bad choice.

Please show me the gun that's being used.

This delusional refusal to acknowledge that anything but outright violence could ever be coercive is the acid that's quickly dissolving whatever credibility capitalism still has left and exposing the grinning skull of feudalism beneath the mask of prosperity. I wonder what economic system will replace it, once people finally get tired of having structural flaws treated as unchangeable laws of nature or blamed on their victim's personal weaknesses?

The current climate is just like that which preceded the collapse of the Soviet Union: the prevailing myths are so much out of sync with reality people are running out of willing suspension of disbelief and losing their faith. No one believes anymore that hard work will be repaid with anything but layoffs, or that business success comes with a superior product rather than gaming the system, or that the rules are the same for everyone. The system has already lost its beating heart of credible mythology that can organize behaviour, it's just a matter of time before the necrosis of anarchy spreads everywhere.

Did I miss the part where the human race had a miraculous breakthrough in fusion technology?

Does it matter? Fusion is still nuclear power, so even if we had a working reactor right now we couldn't use it.

How do they work?

Oh, right..

You're arguing against Tokamak fusion. But what about, say, HiPER? Looks to me to be a much more comercializeable approach, yet it's still "mainstream" fusion, just a slight variant on inertial confinement ala NIF to make it much smaller / cheaper / easier to have a high repeat rate (smaller compression pulse + heating pulse rather than a NIF-style super-massive compression pulse). The only really unstudied physics aspect is how the heating pulse will interact with the highly compressed matter; NIF and pals have pretty much worked out the details of how laser compression works out. Beyond this, pretty much everything else is just engineering challenges for commercialization, such as high repeat rate lasers, high-rate hohlraum injection and targeting, etc.

I've often thought (different topic) about how one can get half or more of fusion's advantages via fission if you change the game around a bit. Fusion is promoted on being passively safe (it's very hard to keep the reaction *going*, it really wants to stop at all times), it leads to abundant fuel supplies, and there's little radioactive waste (no long-term waste). But what about subcritical fission reactors? Aka, a natural uranium or thorium fuel target being bombarded with a spallation neutron source. Without the spallation neutrons, there's just not enough neutrons for the reaction, so the second the beam gets shut off, the reactor shuts down, regardless of what else is going on. It'd be a fast reactor, aka a breeder, aka, your available fuel supplies increase by orders of magnitude. And your long-term waste would be much, much less in a well-designed reactor. Spallation neutron sources have long been proposed as a way to eliminate long-lived nuclear waste by transmuting it into shorter-lived elements.