There isn't any USSR, however Russia is still a nuclear power and there is many other nuclear power countries: China, USA, Pakistan, India, North Korea, France and possibly Iran at least. Not having this in your arsenal is to rely on someone else in the event of a nuclear war, even if the probability for such an event is low. In some sense, you put your soveignty in the hands of someone else in that case. That's the reason why UK will not throw away its nuclear arsenal.
Also, having more than one country in the NATO having such an arsenal is also a major argument against anyone who would like to start an nuclear conflict thinking suffice to neutralize and target only the one with nuclear warheads.
You can do the math yourself with a little search. Here is the 2012 report from the International Energy Agency, you have the numbers for year 2010 breakdown by energy production source. World Energy Outlook 2012, (IEA), current report is accessible for a fee.
For example, solar power from PV panels is 32 TWh, solar power by concentrating solar rays is 2 TWh, wind is 342 TWh, Hydro is 3 431 TWh (page 216). Nuclear is 2 756 TWh, fossil fuels is 14 446 TWh (page 182). Note: This is only the usage for electrical power generation, since other usages of fossil fuels are responsible for air pollution you should take this into account when using pollution numbers.
There is no such constant in physics like the speed of the electron. The speed of the electron depends on the medium it is travelling into as well as the force applied to it. That's why the electron's speed is not the same in an old CRT monitor than in the LEP (Large Electron-Positron Collider, the ancestor of the LHC in Geneva).
Your reasoning is false. Most AI algorithms are having a high level of parallelism which make them less susceptible to the single CPU physical limit. You can achieve incredible performance improvement on GPU and other parallel architectures.
Well, clearly moving mainframe people to OS/2 development wouldn't have been a so great idea. The mainframe segment was much more profitable than the PC segment where the profit margin are so thin IBM decided to sell the whole division to Lenovo. The money is elsewhere.
And do not forget memory management has to be reinvented because there was IP rights on the MVS algorithms IBM wasn't willing to transfer to OS/2. In these old times, the PC market and mid-range market were perceived as a threat by the big mainframe guys at IBM which were still the guys at the top in the hierachy. The technical side is just the lesser part of this problem.
It is pain in the ass these kind of articles are babbling about pizza, elevator and all this irrelevant stuff about the personality of the interviewer and the interviewee. Go straigth to the facts of interest and cut down this article from 7 pages to only 1.
It's like the author is trying to write the first chapter of a novel he hopes Hollywood will buy for the next blockbuster. Give us the facts, we can wait for the movie.
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford