Wait. . . we are trying to limit global warming by 2 Celsius over the next 85 years. 50 Celsius over 400 years is over 10 Celsius over that same period. Something seems amiss. . .

Worse, your link points to energy PRODUCTION reaching that level in 400 years. TWICE the energy amount produced by nuclear power is lost as heat, so we would reach that point much earlier than 400 years (not to forget that only a portion of solar energy falling on Earth is absorbed).

There has got to be a better answer out there somewhere . . .

Agreed. Where is your arithmetic supporting that nuclear power contributed to this 2014 "reduction" in any meaningful way?

It seems you are the one who is coming to a conclusion without any arithmetic. . .

Ah, and a new Slashdot meme is born!

*Some positive energy/global warming related article is posted that does not explicitly attribute nuclear power*
Some grumpy ./er grumbles: "but,but,but. . . NUCLEAR!"

Well, they would need to know they exist, first. . . If such a law ever passed, it would be trivial to make detecting such cameras near impossible. . .

Correct. However, Orwell did not anticipate that the general public would be the ones to have the majority of networked cameras that they could use to keep tabs on the government. I have cameras installed at my home, but I am not just going to share with anyone unconditionally. A string of events would have to occur first before I would even consider sharing specific footage with the local police. I believe anyone else (including in the UK) shelling out their own money would be inclined to do the same (else risk their own footage being used against themselves).

So, in short, yes, everything will be recorded just like Orwell's predicted. However, the economic tendency is for everyone to have a piece of the footage pie and be able to choose when and with whom they share it with.

That data mining required you to wade through shit, but this is ridiculous. . .

You get the awesomeness of dataframes in an awesome language with an awesome community (that's 3 awesomes!). Use the Python Notebook tutorials and go do awesome things . . .

I could use a new head.

At least, when it comes to Tokyo.

Let's invade the moon!

OK, now I think you are just being stubborn. . . You are doing yourself a disservice. Think about this for a while:

1) We were keeping all other factors constant and only changing mortgage period.
2) In this scenario, mortgage period only impacts monthly payments of principle.
3) Prepayments are payments of principle above and beyond what is determined by the mortgage period.
4) Accordingly, you want your required principle payments as low as possible because you can also prepay to turn your mortgage period into any mortgage period shorter than your originally contracted period. For instance, I could get a 60 year mortgage and pay it off in 30 years by prepaying every month (it would look identical to a 30 year mortgage)

I hope human life is extended just so that you live long enough to understand this concept.

Here is a more simple explanation. You have two choices:
A. You are forced to pay monthly principle payments of $1000
B. You are forced to pay monthly principle payments of $500 but can also prepay another $500, if you want (depending on alternative investment opportunities).

Option B. allows me to choose between both options, every month. If I choose option A, I am stuck with option A every month. Consequently, a rational person would choose the longest mortgage period possible because they could artificially create ANY shorter mortgage period option through prepayments.

Seems like if you are in the desert, the cost of water is a bigger issue than the environmentalists. . .

Sure, until you start considering technologies like NGCC, NGCT, PV, and wind. Might be related to why, in the U.S., that is where the major investment in power is going. . .

Please note my:

Assuming income is the same in both situations, if I am not earning higher than 3% on my investments, then why am I not paying off my mortgage with my surplus monthly net cashflow (which is higher in the second scenario)? If I am earning higher than 3% on my investments then I am earning a spread and making easy money, like a bank (I am earning a higher interest rate than I am being charged).

Twice the mortgage period length gives me twice as long an opportunity to take advantage of advantageous investments when they are above 3% (earn a spread), so, all else equal, I am better off financially.

Repeat after me: Evaporation and boiling are not the same thing