i hear so many 'claims' about how wind , solar, etc etc are all primed to take off and fix the power problem.

The fact we are still building nuclear reactors that run ( an extraordinarily low ) chance of causing HUGE casualties and making land uninhabitable for LIFETIMES , is unconscionable, if those claims are true.

Does anyone have any hard facts on the cost of electricity coming from solar or wind vs the same from Nuclear? Are the reasons primarily economic , or is their physics problems also preventing the use of other means to generate power?

aka , why are we building these instead of solar and wind farms?

I'm not trolling here, i'd really love some serious answers by someone who knows more about it then me.

Is there such a thing?
Can you name a news outlet that isn't easily identified with a specific political agenda.
Fox ( way right).
CBS/NBC/CNN (mostly-left)
PBS ( way left)

what else is there, most internet sources don't eve PRETEND to not be biased.

Does anyone even believe in objective journalism in anything more then theory anymore?

Three nice things about them:

1) They are usually harvested from the entity translated too so less problem with rejection ( is this the case here the article didn't say).
2) The have been proven to work and use in many other places.
3) No one has any moral objections to them.

So many good reasons to not even worry about fetal stem cells , but no one ever bothers to talk about that.

That is why we have labor laws, OSHA, unions, and minimum wage act.
The odd thing is , it we consider it wrong for us ( american workers) to be treated that way , but think nothing of expecting people in other countries to have that problem. This is a lot of what made off shoring economical in the first place. We should either require importers follow american style worker safety and EPA regulations or repeal our own. ( personally i favor the former as I'd rather not work in a country where the latter has happened).

?? what are they stealing?
What property , that belongs to another person have they taken?
What right to money , that belongs to another person have they taken?
They are creating Knock-offs( like has and is done for just about every product in the market, for most of human history) .
Sometimes their imitations sell better.

The whole , you are stealing if you violate copyright, is about half wrong headed as well.
Violating copyright is stealing under the second not the first question. It would cease to be stealing if the laws were changed.
It is certainly stealing , to violate the social contract and betray people trust, by not giving them money they are owed under the law.
However, that is bounded by changes in the law. How can you be stealing something from someone by not giving them money they have no legal
and therefore no reasonable, right to expect you to give to them?

The idea of 'intellectual property' is an artificial construct, created because information can have monetary value, but because it is artificial , it is like a virtual object.
it only exists in so much as the 'legal' code causes it too.

if i copy work that was written by Beethoven and change it by adding elect guitars and record it with digital drums.
Have I stolen something from him?

You can't steel what isn't there to steel.

that could be easily fixed by requiring that shareholders actually take an interest in the companies they fund making a law requiring that a purchased stock may not be resold for at least 5 years, should just about do it.

Patents holders should be required to show yearly the amount of dollars invested in developing technology tied to the patent.
If that level drops to zero for 3 year, the patent expires. If the company can be shown to be not actively using ( aka for making money) a patient then it can also be revoked by a court.

Same with copyright, if the holder is not keeping the work published and available for purchase at no more then 200% of the normal market value for similar products , then copyright should expire.

Both are about making money , and if money isn't being made they should be let go.

Also, the parent's complain would be benefited if there was something like a 'interface' copyright. that could be filed for.

So far that i know.
Rabbits were accidentally introduced into Australia by farmers ( having no predators) they thumped like rabbits.
cats were introduced to to control the rabbits , but like native birds better.
dogs were introduced to try and control the cats ( dingo's prefer kangaroo though).
not sure how the invasive toad species that are all over got there.
i think people still go out with bats and gulf clubs to kill rabbits ( they should export the meat , but i believe right now burn it)

Why would an elephant eat the tough grass first , why not the sweet tender native stuff and leave the tough grass alone until all the tender sweet stuff is gone?

well, there were a lot of comments about , and talk about, getting the private sector involved.
My point was , either this is a government doing this, with tax payer support, because the public believes it is valuable as science, or it isn't going to happen. All the talk about incentive, and space colonization/ tourism is pretty much just day dreaming , because the cost / benefit will not likely EVER be there.

As an efficient use of tax payer money I think building a living working sea colony might be a good first step in pushing our technology the direction it would have to go to make colonization of stellar bodies possible.

i was once told ( never did verify it) that as many as 40% of the people in the world do not have sufficient IQ to understand the advanced Calculus like deferential equations. If that is the case then what percentage of the population can understand Quantum Mechanics.
Or worse yet, is it possible that fully understanding Quantum Mechanics is beyond the IQ of even the most intelligent human being?
If so , how would we know?

i was once told ( never did verify it) that as many as 40% of the people in the world do not have sufficient IQ to understand the advanced Calculus like deferential equations. If that is the case then what percentage of the population can understand Quantum Mechanics.
Or worse yet, is it possible that fully understanding Quantum Mechanics is beyond the IQ of even the most intelligent human being?
If so , how would we know?

Should Android be more efficient, and every app it runs. OF COARSE. There is not such thing as efficient enough, but Google has to decide if it is worth
their money right now.

Should the network provide stop wining because their network is running up against the physics of
allowing too users on it and just fix the problem. Probably.

Sorry, but don't take on more subscribers then you can service. And if their are devices that you don't like their affect feel free to ban them.
If that doesn't make you money , that's called business. It's balance. Either provide what people want , or go out of business.

I think of many good pure science reasons to establish colonies on the moon and beyond.
But can you make a case for profitability, beyond , perhaps driving innovation.
Tourism is unlikely to cut it , unless the cost can be brought WAY down and the same for any kind of materials, manufacturing or mining. The further away from the mood you go the worse that cost of transport becomes.

Why not drive innovation by colonizing the sea or the antarctica, both of which seem more useful and within our reach at this point.

This old joke i first heart from the Dean of Chemistry at a Midwestern university.

meaning of degrees:

B.S. == Bull Sh@!T
M.S. == More Sh@!T
PHD == Piled Higher & Deeper.