You're being intellectually dishonest. Your figures ignore the fact that nuclear is producing far more MW at the current time. So the $/MWh is a false analysis, even if true. If the energy produced by solar, wind and nuclear was at parady, THEN you compare the $/MWh cost, you will immediately see that nuclear is MANY TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE. Also, FWIW, solar/wind, no appreciable waste costs that go on and on forever and ever and ever (effectively)! You can lie to sell, lie to screw, lie to save your skin, but please don't be a liar just to make a thin point that is readily proved irrellivent.

um... you're forgetting the other 6 decades of insane spendatures and no return on investment, as well as the plant build subsidies, and the plant operating subsidies, and the plant waste subsidies... all the people that spent money on nuclear education... all the money spent paying retirements for these nuclear workers, all the lawsuits... you are barely scraping the surface with the Manhattan Project, which, by itself, was an amazing blue light special bargain considering all the nazi tech we got for almost free, and the savings of no land war in Japan. The bomb, as much as I hate it, was a great investment. Nuclear energy is the dog, not killing people with nukes. If its just business, killing people with nukes is a good buy, just don't go overboard with your inventory.

Oh, you have me shaking. Well, I guess we DO need nuclear then! ---- logical fallacy, much?

systemd is ... what... 35 TIMES LARGER THAN sysvinit. So, specifically, the junk code I am refering to is that, exactly. wtf... 35 times increase in bloat... is systemd 35 times better? Does it save you 35 times the time that sysvinit costs you? This increase in code does not justifiy what it can do. Its a big big warning sign. But... I guess if you're lazy, its worth it.

Regardless of your source, which in no way supports your claim, your comment is provably false. Quite, quite, quite the opposite. Every one of the 100+ commercial plants the US built cost the US at least $50-100M each. That's just one of the costs that were never, and never will be returned. And that is a tiny cost compared to what was spent prior to the first commercial plant being commissioned. Its obscene money that has been spent on nuclear... so much its not easy to get your head around it. You could say we'd have no national debt, but a rather handsome national surplus, had we not spent that money. If not for nuclear power... we'd all be a lot richer.

Its a rather thin thread that nuclear is hanging on, if it is merely the demands for energy that have you sold on it. If the demand is there, the demand will pay for energy no matter what its cost. We don't need to bow down to the "demands for energy" like its an enemy we need to placate somehow. Fuck energy demands, seriously. Energy is not food... is not air... is not anything that the human race needs. I know this because there was no stored energy of any capacity less than 100 years ago, and for hundreds of thousands of years this "demands for energy" was an unanswered cry.

I'm not saying we need to go back 100 years and do without power at all... I'm saying that "demands for energy," as some rationale that we need nuclear power, is bullshit. Its like demand for anything at all, such as gold. The higher the demand, the higher the price. The market does not need nuclear power. There is no demand for nuclear energy... its just a demand for energy, and its not that big of a deal.

Billions? BILLIONS? I do not think you know what that word means. The US has likely invested close to half a trillion in nuclear energy development. Whatever change accidently slipped out of Uncle Sam's pockets and into solar R&D is, in comparison, quite nothing at all. Also, had the US invested just 5% of what they spent on nuclear energy development since the 1950s on solar, we wouldn't even be arguing. Solar would be crazy cheap! And nuclear, still where its at... competitive with coal, (not beating the crap of the cost of coal, but just competing with it) until you see the its hardly even the tip of the iceberg of the cost.

Nuclear energy is a dog. A very very expensive dog with toxic crap. It has an extremely high initial cost of building a power plant, as well as the continuing forever cost of maintaing the waste. It's been this way since the start, so its amazing that with nearly 70 years of this crazy money being thrown at nuclear that we keep doing it. And it keeps biting the finest nuclear engineers and architects in the ass. I'm not afraid of radiation. I'm not even afraid of the mountain of toxic waste we have piled up for our children's children's children's great great great grandchilden. What bothers me is it is a poor investment. The money we already invested got it only so cheap... so it is clear we screwed up. We needed fuel for bombs, or thought we did, and we went nuts building these things... 110 plus military and resarch plants... and 1 plant would have provided all the bomb fuel we'd ever need... and we're stuck with this dirty, outrageously expensive power. And yet I'm arguing with someone that likely belives nuclear energy is some kind of solution, still, at the expense of investing that money in cleaner energy technologies. I imagine you just like nuclear power, irrationally with no compelling reason, probably like gun people just like guns... you don't need a gun, more a danger to yourself than any criminal that wants to hurt you or rob you, but they're neat. We don't need nuclear, but we have this really expensive infrastructure and all these workers trained... heck... lets just keep going down that road until we're bankrupt and living in waste!

They have no problem with continuning to do what they've been doing since they started.... just pile it up on location. There is no commercial nuclear power plant in the US that isn't also a rather large unregulated depository of nuclear waste.

A single breeder reactor would eventually process all the US nuclear waste. So it is a good idea, but lets not go crazy and build 50 when we only need one, because its not as though its a free lunch and there is no waste. The waste is more compact... its just another bandaid, and brushes aside the core problem with temporary reprieve. We need to stop using nuclear fission reactors in the next 100 years, and completely switch to other cleaner energy technologies. It is reckless to keep investing on a global scale in such an outrageously expensive and potential massively dangerous energy source. No one can build these things without massive government subsidies. Compare that to other energy technologies that do not need massive government subsidies to exist. Then ask yourself why we are beating ourselves up just to spend more on energy and have the permanent waste problem remain.

Yucca Mt. was a political construct from start to finish, and was NEVER a serious consideration by those in power. What left the US at a crossroads was about 20 years ago when every temporary nuclear storage facility in the US was at capacity, and nothing was done about other than this Yucca Mt. fiction.

I think the solution to the energy crisis is never going to be solved with more nuke plants (though that may help reduce the waste problem... but with more deadly longer, more concentrated waste), but with laws that require every new structure built, residential, commercial, industrial, to create and provide a certain percentage of its own power cleanly.

One of the problems is that the nuclear industry is large and powerful. There are a lot of people employed there that would be happy to continue living in the lie that nuclear energy is cheap and clean and have waste buried everywhere as long as they can keep their career. Its ludicrous. We have myriad energy solutions now... and in fact most are at parity with the cost of nuclear power (if you're honest about it, and include government R&D and subsidies in the cost).

With the aging reactors we now have, I think we can expect another nuclear incident, perhaps not Fukishima scale, probably 3 Mile Island scale, but terrifying nonetheless to residents local to incident.

Seems clear that we've lost Debian, an operating system, to developers of a mere application, "desktop." Why do we even need operating systems? A desktop is all anyone needs... just run your servers on that!

I'd like to know what the point of DivX is... in 2014. There was a war between the patent encumbered DivX and its OSS rival, XviD... XviD won, but manufacturers didn't notice. Now we have the mp4v and h.264 (x264) codecies... DivX/XviD is inferior, as is its 20 year old favorite wrapper, avi. I have been noticing, finally, that XviD is ever so slowly being replaced with mp4/mp4 and mp4/mkv. There is some rivalry now between mp4/mkv/mp4 and wmv9/wmv... but 264/mp4 has been adopted by the Internet, so I can only assume the momentum in wmv9 is purely a Microsoft fiction, that no one really uses it by choice. Anyway, my crappy point is no one cares about a DivX logo on anything anymore... SRLY.

That depends how much scotch its in.

You're fooling yourself. No one is safe from researchers.

If I drive an entirely rebuilt-from-new-materials last month classic 1967-9 muscle car, I suppose you'll say I'm driving a 21st century automobile. I could be wrong, but I think all the computers sold commercially today and for the forseeable future are in fact 20th century computers, regardless of the date of manufacture. A computer built in 1914 is not necessarily a 20th century computer, and your point is, in fact, irrelevant. But the links are cool, thx.