Typo; it should say "aneutronic".
Typo; it should say "aneutronic".
Dear reader, I quit reading this document as soon as I saw convicted fraudster and scam artist Andrea Rossi cited by it unironically -- as you should as well.
Hot fusion is also going nowhere until anuetronic fusion becomes practical (pro tip: it's quite a bit harder to do) because the fast neutrons eventually destroy every known material used as the plasma-facing "first" wall. That's something the ITER fanboys are not telling you (for obvious reasons).
The only possible advantage is that they are lightest when they require the most power - take-off.
This is patently false, as maximum landing weight for all commercial aircraft is lower than maximum takeoff weight. Next time don't post about things you obviously known nothing about!
Podkletnov is a well-known crackpot and scam artists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Mod parent down for promoting crank pseudoscience!
I don't know how a true liberal would stand for such an encroachment
This is a perfect example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
I am very much against judging others on traits beyond their control or that they were literally born into. Race, gender, a degree of financial means, a degree of physical health, sexual orientation. Those things are either entirely beyond the control of the individual or are initial conditions that can be very, very difficult to change.
On the other hand, I do not see a problem judging someone based on the choices that they've made, the company they keep, or their behavior, as all of those are, to a large extent, within the control of the individual.
I'm going to dispute this. Unless one takes a religious stance or assumes panpsychism, the choices we make are ultimately direct consequences of the physical laws of the universe. It's all luck, including the mind you're born with and all the factors that influence it thereafter. Whether you take a deterministic interpretation of QM (Bohmian mechanics, some flavors of many-worlds, Mohrhoff's interpretation) or a stochastic one (most everything else), there's no choice that doesn't result directly from what-happened-before plus possible quantum non-determinism thrown in (and a random roll of the quantum dice is not free will in any sense whatsoever). And you claim to assign real moral responsibility for choices that are only yours in an illusory way?
Surveys show less than 14% of philosophers believe in free will in the classic sense. Unforunately, many of the rest have fallen for the slight-of-hand called compatibilism (a sort of "free will" without actual free choice) in order to avoid the inescapable conclusion that, as a result of physicalism, moral responsibility cannot be assigned (the arguments against compatibilism come from many directions, but the most robust ones are from physics).
This isn't just an academic discussion; the consequences are tremendous. Belief in free will is one of the leading causes of social and economic inequality, because those who have been lucky with the choices nature made for us, yet believe they were our own, blame the less lucky ones instead of realizing they simply lost the roll of the dice (or were predetermined to end up that way, if you're a determinist). That prevents making sufficient effort to correct said inequality. This is all covered in great detail in James B. Miles book The Free Will Delusion (which is confusingly of the same name as an equally good work by the well-known neuroscientist Sam Harris) and related papers he's published. Of course, this is Slashdot and tl;dr applies, so here's a quick video overview: http://www.europeanceo.com/vid...
A good supervisor can step on your toes without messing up your shine.