Forgot your password?

If Fusion Is the Answer, We Need To Do It Quickly 305

Posted by Soulskill
from the taming-a-small-star dept.
Lasrick writes: Yale's Jason Parisi makes a compelling case for fusion power, and explains why fusion is cleaner, safer, and doesn't provide opportunities for nuclear smuggling and proliferation. The only downside will be the transition period, when there are both fission and fusion plants available and the small amount of "booster" elements (tritium and deuterium) found in fusion power could provide would-be proliferators what they need to boost the yield of fission bombs: "The period during which both fission and fusion plants coexist could be dangerous, however. Just a few grams of deuterium and tritium are needed to increase the yield of a fission bomb, in a process known as 'boosting.'" Details about current research into fusion power and an exploration of relative costs make fusion power seem like the answer to a civilization trying to get away from fossil fuels.

+ - What You Must Know About the Products->

Submitted by morganjlbv
morganjlbv (3609555) writes "Be as detailed as possible when advertising a product. Studies show that profuse explanations are needed by substantial percentages of the citizenry about the advantages of these products they may be thinking of buying to be able to be convinced. If customers truly consider the marketing, they'll be much more willing to buy the product. Researchers have found that many people will trust a web site with several paragraphs of info about a product over a website that's very succinct."
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:I live in Montana. I'm looking forward to it. (Score 0) 389

by Alaska Jack (#47420915) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis


I have no dog in this fight -- I wouldn't know Watt from Adam. I'm only commenting because I'm curious -- you do realize, right, then when people talk about how the science gets drowned out by immature idiots spouting partisan garbage, that they're talking about people like you? Right?

lllll AJ

Comment: I don't believe a word of it. Here's why. (Score 1) 364

by Alaska Jack (#47420863) Attached to: The Pentagon's $399 Billion Plane To Nowhere

If there's one thing the big Obamacare debates on Slashdot taught me, it's that the government CAN be trusted to faithfully and competently handle giant, complex projects. The government exists outside your petty notions of supply and demand. I am sure -- SURE -- that these problems must be imaginary.

lllll AJ

Comment: I, simply, don't believe it. (Score 1) 265

by Alaska Jack (#47327987) Attached to: Tech Workforce Diversity At Facebook Similar To Google And Yahoo

My entire life, I've been told diversity is a critical component of success -- building a robust and varied environment out of people from a range of different experiences, etc.

Now you're telling me that two of the most successful companies on the entire planet are, in fact, super homogeneous?

Yeah, right. This flies in the face of everything I was indoctrinated to believe.

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:Not so fast, cowboy ... (Score 1) 723

by Alaska Jack (#46718045) Attached to: Can the ObamaCare Enrollment Numbers Be Believed?

Good point. It was also a little surreal to have the SC rule that the mandate was, in effect, a tax, when the official position of the administration -- i.e., the ones pushing the law in the first place -- was that it was NOT a tax.

See here, for just one of many examples:

"The White House argued on Friday that the individual mandate at the heart of Obamacare is a penalty, not a tax, contradicting the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling a day earlier upholding the historic health care law. " --

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:in other words... (Score 1) 341

by Alaska Jack (#45902379) Attached to: The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

You don't understand.

*I* was going to refer the the "fireman first" principle -- I just didn't think I needed to.

The fireman-first principle (Or Washington Monument syndrome) is a *conservative/libertarian* argument, not a progressive one. Notice how it is attributed to National Review? It basically states that when taxpayers express a wish to scale back the size or scope of government, politicians often fight to preserve it by threatening to cut, not areas that are wasteful or inessential, but essential or highly visible government services -- like firemen.

That this principle exists does not mean that National Review doesn't think the size or scope of government should be restrained. It doesn't mean "Oh well, politicians will threaten to cut the police force, so we should just keep feeding the beast." As even a moment's thought would make obvious, I would have thought.

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:Cranky for a military takeover, are we? (Score 1) 341

by Alaska Jack (#45901557) Attached to: The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

1. As demonlapin points out, you don't understand how tax brackets work.

2. Tax experts have pointed out, literally hundreds of times, that the attacks against Romney's income tax rate were politically motivated sound-bites meant to outrage people like you, who don't understand how taxes work. Here are just a couple of links:

It took me ten seconds to google "Romney tax myths"

3. Your source includes no claim or evidence that Romney "cheats on [his] taxes." The ones who decide whether or not a person is "cheating on his taxes" is the IRS. To my knowledge, the IRS has never accused or indicted Romney of tax fraud. Please tell us all how you know otherwise.

lllll AJ

Comment: Re:in other words... (Score 2, Insightful) 341

by Alaska Jack (#45901437) Attached to: The Quiet Fury of Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

"Blindly "tightening the purse strings" leads to those parts of government that are good and useful to be sacrificed first, while the partisan and corrupt parts better defend themselves and their budgets. So, instead of a progressive nation of healthy, happy, nutritionally fed, employed, well educated citizens in a nation focused on freedom, scientific and technological advancement, we have become the secretive spymasters and bullies of the world, looking for the next war to line the pockets of the oligarchs, while the bigoted, ignorant masses fight from paycheck to paycheck, if they can find a job, until they die from easily preventable disease, if they survive the worst infant mortality rate of any first world nation."

There's no evidence for this, and a moment's thought will reveal that it flies in the face of common sense and historical evidence. As the federal government has grown, it has steadily expanded its scope far beyond what the framers seem to have intended... and it's consumed more money to do so.

"The worst infant mortality" part just shows your bias. It's been shown time and time again that this claim is misleading. (In a nutshell, it's because the US counts nearly every pregnancy, even those where the fetus is for various reasons given very little chance of survival. Other countries "write off" these problematic pregnancies and births. This is how Cuba, for example, claims to have a lower IM rate that the US, which is preposterous given the level of care available there.)

"Instead of demanding that the money be taken away, we should be demanding that the places where the money is being mis-spent be stopped"


lllll AJ

The flow chart is a most thoroughly oversold piece of program documentation. -- Frederick Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month"