Ah, now it becomes clear. I'm sorry your parents are not properly looking after you and letting you loose on the internet without adult supervision. When you grow up hopefully you'll become mature enough to realize that your parents can't be responsible for you for your entire life and that at some point you have to grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

Indeed even by the time you reach ten you'll probably be able figure out the massive logical hole in your argument that parents should be responsible for their kids for life which is simply that even your parents had parents. Hence, if we accept your argument the first humans to evolve would be responsible for the entire human race and everyone else can just sit back and relax and never have to worry about taking responsibility for anything ever again.

Given your logical reasoning skills I'd also suggest that you stop trying to tell people what they really believe or think, unless it is something like "wow, this person is nuts": you'll probably come across as telepathic if you tell them they are thinking that.

I expect that you can convince them that LFTR is safer than our current reactors but that is not the same as convincing them that it is safe enough to build. If you want to do that they best way to do it would be to sell them cheaper electricity. They are unlikely to be able to sensibly judge the risk but at least this way they see that they are benefiting from having a plant nearby.

However there is still the issue of nuclear waste. Both LFTR and fusion still generate it but the advantage of fusion is that it is a one-generation problem not a 10-100,000 year issue. The lighter nuclei activated by neutron radiation from fusion reactors have far shorter half lives than the heavy nuclear fragments left by thorium fission. LFTR might reduce the volume but not to zero and it will be with us for a VERY long time.

No they don't work well. They encourage companies to only invest money in developing new drugs which are profitable for them. This means diseases which predominantly affect first world countries and which effect enough people to make it worth their while. They then hold us ransom by charging exorbitant prices for these drugs which, in same cases people need to survive. This is not a model which works: healthcare costs are sent spiralling upwards and new uses for old drugs, less common diseases and tropical diseases, like ebola, are all generally ignored. This is not a model which works in the best interests of society.

In that case nobody should ever have kids. You have no idea exactly how they will turn out: in extreme cases they can even have Tourette's syndrome which might cause them involuntarily to insult someone. Should the parent of such a child be liable for that? They would not be if they themselves had the condition!

What your propose is frankly insane, grossly unfair and will result in society endlessly suing itself. You sue the parents of the teenager who had a car accident, who then sue the government for agreeing that their offspring was allowed to drive, who then ban teenagers driving and in turn get sued by teenagers who have to lose their jobs due to a lack of public transit etc. etc. Hmmm....you aren't a lawyer without kids are you by any chance?

A parent's responsibility to their kids is to bring them up to be able to know right from wrong, how to behave and to correct them when they misbehave. It is not our responsibility to prevent them from ever misbehaving, indeed you cannot control a human being to the extent that they commit no wrong nor should you even try. Liability is typically limited to what you can control: car manufacturers are not liable for every injury in a car accident because they ultimately failed to make a car which kept the occupants safe under conditions outside their control. The same should apply to parents and kids...unless you want all cars fitted with a speed limiter set to 20 km/h covered with metre thick padding inside and out.

If you are going to make me liable for something then I has to be something under my control. Short of tying my kids up in chains and never letting them do anything there is no way for me do absolutely guarantee that they will never do anything which causes liability. Not only would I refuse to do that it would be illegal and society does not want parents to do that: kids have to learn to control their own behaviour and that means giving them the freedom to do things wrong.

Parents have to be responsible but not necessarily liable. If we are taking reasonable measures to supervise our kids online including giving them guidance on how to behave as well as punishing them when they do not then I believe we have fulfilled our responsibility as parents and should not be held liable if one of them disobeys us and libels someone while we are not watching.

On the other hand if parents completely ignores their kids, provide no guidance or consequences then by all means find them negligent and hence liable through their act of negligence...but making parents automatically liable for their kids actions under all circumstances is unfair and encourages poor parenting since if means that you can't risk letting them fail. Indeed the only way to be sure would be to ban them from access the net: does society really want that?

True but there is lots of methane on e.g. Titan that did not come from the local lifeforms. Carbon is commonly produced by the nuclear furnace in the heart of stars and readily combines with the abundance of hydrogen produced by the Big Bang to form methane: no life is required.

No not over a 30A ring but the point you made was that it would melt the domestic feed of 100A which is not correct. However, assuming it was properly connected to the 100A input, it does not leave much spare capacity for anything else. So no cooking, heating or even putting on the kettle.

Mean electrical power is voltage times current when using the RMS values for AC: 100A*220V = 22kW...sounds to me like you have enough power for 20kW.

There could be such a thing as a 100kW battery: it would be a battery which can provide a power of 100kW. Not all batteries can do this since they have an internal resistance which either prevents this power from being achieved or will cause them to overheat and explode/catch fire even if it is. Indeed, assuming that this battery can carry a decent amount of energy, it is very likely that you could make a 100kW battery from it since it charges so quickly it must have a very low internal resistance.

Ironically there is no such thing as a 100kW/hr battery though...

I think that this is probably the truth of it. Edison's "genius" was that he assembled a team of engineers and scientists to create the first company which relied on innovation. I doubt we will ever really know exactly how much Edison himself actually contributed to the inventions his company created but I suspect that it is probably quite a bit less than we think.

Actually, and sadly, you are wrong and that is part of the reason why it may end up being replaced.

Actually even that is not true: Swan did it first, before Edison and some believe that Edison went as far to falsify evidence in the US court case to prevent him losing there. The sole reason that Edison is remembered is because he made a lot of money. Edison's contributions to light bulbs are like Bill Gates' contributions to Operating Systems: he marketed a popular early version of the invention.

Joking aside I'd estimate it as about as much experience as the GP has with particle physics i.e. close to none. Particle physics is concerned with fundamental particles not with condensed matter states that might behave consistently with a theoretical prediction of how a Majorana fermion would behave. The fact that they dress this up as particle physics is rather sad: condensed matter physics is just as interesting!

Einstein's Nobel prize was for the photo-electric effect and not for GR. Einstein could easily have received 4 Nobel prizes: for SR, GR, Photo-electric and his explanation of Brownian motion. This is why he is recognized as a genius, more so than those who actually have won multiple Nobels.

No, because of logical deduction and reasoning based on the preponderance of evidence which the universe provides (indeed the great thing about science is that you don't have to take my word for it - go out, look at the evidence and use your own intelligence). The fact that you are unable to accept this means that you clearly do not really understand logic and reasoning. Since these are large components of what most people call intelligence it calls this into question as well despite of what an IQ test may say.