Well, it says that the projected increase is 8% for next year... wouldn't that be a sign of people wanting these thingamalings?

I gather all trees know how to use ample sunlight to survive and reproduce, the 'selection' happens when the daily/weekly/monthly dose of photons gets quite low.
So, no, I don't think it' s pure coincidence. Loosing the leafs may have more to do with freezing temperatures and no phosynthesis anyway.

Could you, please, also tell us what are the error bars in climate statistics between 1998-2005, and whether that allows us to define any trewns at all?
Also, could you try to make the same claim starting,say, from 1997, or 1999, just to show if your claim has any robustsness.
Or, perhpas, if you were just cherry picking and misusing the data... you wouldn't do that, would you?

No, no, no...

Money creates jobs, somehow. If we just pour enough of it to business, the business will eventually hire everybody. Forget all that pesky demand stuff, the ideology of greed and oppression presented as economic theory bypasses all the middlemen and makes it simple.

Magic hand, baby, magic hand.

If the whole point of the competition is to provide affordable services/products, but the competitions can't do those, what's the point of being pro-competition?

If the community can provide it, let them. The ISPs can still compete with speed, quality and added services if they want to. And being commercial, they're sure to be able to beat the social(ist) services hands down, without this kind of government regulation...

Oddly enough climate change is something that comes out of the physics models when you put in what we understand of the climate. It has nothing to do with correlation, it's pure mechanical causation. As it happens, the observations do confirm the model.

And it also happens, that the exact same people who were arguing against CFC -> Ozone hole causation and smoking -> lung cancer causation started arguing against climate change. They obviously can fool some of the people all of the time.

Oh, and the actual mechanism of how smoking causes lung cancer was partly revealed a few year back, but is still not completely understood.

The old article somehow forgot to mention, or emphasize, that coal burning power plants don't exactly emit the fly ash, but nowadays capture 99% of it.

The problems begin when it's not reused but stored in a badly designed landfill and leaks into the groundwater. After all, the things that form the fly ash are the things that are not coal, but impurites from the rock surrounding the original coal ore. So they're pretty much as radioactive as the very ground you're walking on.

Coal power has many problems, but radioactive waste is not one of them.

Both South Africa and China licenced 50's German design, that had commercialy failed miserably in the 1980's (when it run out of subsidies). South Africa spent 12 years and 1 billion dollars before finally dropping it last year as completely unfeasible.

China planned originally have their's running last year, but the current target is 2013, if ever.

Pebble Bed Reactors are uncontrollable, and run at much higher temperatures than 'regular' LWRs. They have to be cooled by gas, and hope that no oxygen gets into the reactor running several hundred degrees over the autoignition temperature of the graphite moderator.

BBMR is not modern design, nor is it a viable design: even if all issues were solved and it could produce above the 10 MW of the only working PBMR ever made, it would never produce more than 100 MW per unit, so it would be around 10 times more expensive that current nuclear constructions. Remember, it's not the running of reactor that costs, but comissioning and decomissioning -- Germans estimate it takes 100 years to decomission the only working one!

It was not, repeat not, 9 at Fukushima. I can't find the power dissipation map anywhere, but with (bad) luck it was somewhere sixish (?).
Nowdays TEPCO is probably saying that the tsunami was ove 30 meters high when it hit the pwoer plant, with way it has been raising since the catastrophe...
But the main point is, that after the earthquake and tsunami, the damn energy generators were running for over an hour. So they were not damaged by the events. They failed on their own! Like huge diesel engines that have been neglected for a long time -- they start, in short order burn trough their piston rings and die.
Everything happened because a power plant was left without power! That's what nuclear engineers call safe nowadays?

Come on, guys, fezz up: if a reactor is left without cooling for any* reason for a relatively short time (years, if we look at the spent fuel rods), it will be a bad thing. Any kind of reactor. They are not 'safe', and never will be. Admit that, and we can start discussing the future of nuclear power.

Like the pebble bed fiasco, or the travelling wave wet dream.

Btw, did you know what the quake-tsunami double blow did to Japan's wind power farms? Nothing. They're now madly milling electricity out of the thin air to cover all the nuclear that disappeared from the grid...

But now, according to this judge, Apple is not infringing, so there's nothing for the Apple to license, and thus nothing for Nokia to demand as payment!
And here we were thinking it was obvious Apple was using technology covered by Nokia's patents, it was just a question of fair licensing fees...

That's pretty close to the best explanation I've read so far (and that was about ten years ago!). The very basic explanation for Islamism (and the terrorism it generates) was that the terrorists (at the time) were almost always first generation middle class. Newborn political citizens living in countries where the only allowed political forum was (and is) religious fundamentalism. Also living in countries where society is, should we say, in dire need of rebuilding to get rid of poverty, stupidity, exploitation, illiteracy, you name it.

Or something like that. It was long time ago.

Or perhaps because they do understand it? Compared to wind energy, the initial cost are twice as much, operating costs thrice as much and fuel costs infinitely more. And that was 6 years ago, wind has come down since, while nuclear remains the energy of the future...
Oh, and besides high costs and 8-12 years of construction time, nuclear energy has to deal with safety, waste and proliferation. Somehow it's just not what investors are looking for right now.

Seriously, though, patent has a good change of cutting back the advancement in form of limiting further use, study and development. And profit is a symptom of resources not being used optimally.
In other words, you advocate both artificial limits to and wastage of resources as beneficial to mankind?

"Bad thing" was not my intention.

Perhaps I should have added that to me it looks like they're doing the right way. I sorta figured that claiming it as 'mere' "government job" and then providing their good plan would be enough for people with a sense of irony. In any case it didn't see that anti-libertarian knee jerk aggression coming -- I really don't think libertarianism is worth any attention at all. It's a prime example of dead-on-arrival ideology.