Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:google has no choice, like many others before t (Score 1) 110

that counts as right wing in my book

So what? Why should I care about your "book"?

I could not give a crap about the Gmail example, but the fact is that "libertarianism" in the US is just a front, funded by the likes of the Koch brothers (and others) and designed to facilitate a tax regime friendly to the richest 1% of the population. If that does not count as right wing I do not know what does.

You're right. You don't know what right wing is. Or facts for that matter. Libertarianism has been kicking around in the US since at least the end of the Second World War, long before the Koch brothers might have been a factor. It's never been a front for the rich. The ideology was developed long ago. Your "fact" is fraudulent.

Second, right wing vaguely means conservative/reactionary and someone who values social stability well over change. Libertarians are aggressive liberal on issues of personal freedom and economics even if that threatens social stability and other conservative notions. In those areas, they tend to be to the left of most leftists (aside from anarchists).

Comment: Re:But what is "nuclear waste" ? (Score 1) 421

by khallow (#46756987) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Everyone seems to forget that half of the entire fucking nuclear power station is also "waste" - it's radioactive and damned fucking hard to get rid of.

You don't need to immediately get rid of it. Just leave it in place until it's no longer radioactive waste. And it's low grade waste too. There's a reason for the lack of drama.

Comment: Re:google has no choice, like many others before t (Score 1) 110

Well, I see you haven't established that the Koch brothers are actually right wing. And libertarianism != right wing (just one of the many ideologies that can't easily be shoehorned into a single sliding scale).

However, I can read the title and I know what Night Trap is, and I know that it has nothing to do with Gmail.

Which is why it was given as an example. It's a totally different example of the principle which doesn't involve Gmail at all by design.

My issue with your Gmail example is that Figueroa did not "want to ban it."

Destroying the business model is a classic political means for banning something. It's done all the time with adult video and sex product stores. The local government can zone the area so that the only place you can build such a store is well out of the way. As a result you get a lot less customers because your business is hard to get to. If that difference between a convenient and inconvenient location is enough to make the business unprofitable, then you destroyed the business's model.

Comment: Re:Stop Now (Score 1) 172

by khallow (#46745605) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

But the point is that these structures are essentially _tents_

And my point is that these are essentially status projects. Well, the NASA one is a reused status project. Spending a lot more money than you have to is part of the project.

The same goes for pyramid shaped objects. Nobody builds a cheap pyramid just because even though it'd be relatively easy to do with a few earthmovers and other massive construction equipment. It's, for example, a place of worship, monument to your life, and/or a giant casino. Using historical examples for price estimates would give some amusing claims. "You would need 10,000 slaves to build a pyramid."

For example, I believe an inflatable structure of the appropriate scale with a medium vacuum in the center and properly anchored to the ground (or perhaps rather the inside of an abandoned open copper mine) could be had for low tens of millions of dollars (the inflatable components of the outer shell would be moderately over-pressurized cone-shaped wedges which would need to resist one atmosphere of pressure and wind loading with appropriate factor of safety). That includes building of smaller structures to get the many design issues worked out. That's not quite good enough a vacuum, but it's getting there.

High low Earth orbit in space has a similar density and composition to what a Farnsworth fusor would use, so you could just build a bare fusor in space, say 600 km up and use atmosphere (which would be mostly hydrogen and helium isotopes) at that point and see what happens. I haven't given it much thought past that point, the interactions with higher atomic weight atoms, Earth's magnetic or gravity fields, or the lower Van Allen belt might render it useless for most proper fusion research. But I think you could do such a thing for under a billion dollars today - even with today's high launch costs.

Comment: Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (Score 1) 421

by khallow (#46745479) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Oh and GPP probably meant whenever reasonably possible.

That will probably be the excuse for the AI program that ends the world in order to produce hamburgers a little faster.

And it's always possible that he didn't mean it that way. I have seen the occasional bit of magic thinking where someone believes something is so good that it should be optimized at the expense of everything else and it is only after being confronted with the logical consequences of that statement that they decide they really mean "reasonable".

Comment: Re:Nope. (Score 1) 421

by khallow (#46743077) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Unless we just really have no problem with every X years some spot on earth becomes uninhabitable for the next 50,000 years...

If X is big (like say greater than 50,000 years, for example), then it's not that big a deal. Chernobyl and Fukushima won't be considered uninhabitable for that long.

Plus, you can always put another nuclear plant in that spot.

Comment: Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (Score 1) 421

by khallow (#46743041) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Try to reduce your daily energy usage whenever possible.

I would suggest doing a modest cost/benefit analysis first. Energy usage reduction is not that valuable for most people outside of a few big things. And who's going to consider the more ludicrous optimizations like changing your sex to male just so they can save a little energy usage?

Comment: Re:Renewables (Score 1) 421

by khallow (#46742975) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

The long and short of it..we're buggered.

It's not much of a buggering to be honest. I'm more concerned about poverty, overpopulation, and desertification. Some of these can be made worse through extreme global warming, but they are major problems, bigger than global warming even in the complete absence of global warming.

Comment: Re:Stop Now (Score 1) 172

by khallow (#46742647) Attached to: Cost Skyrockets For United States' Share of ITER Fusion Project

No, but that doesn't magically make the development costs cheaper than a well-understood consumer machine of which literally billions have been mass-produced.

A prototype would only be a portion of the development costs. The private world would foot most of the bill, assuming that economically viable fusion reactors were demonstrated.

The millenium dome is 52 meters high on the inside and cost a more than a billion dollars and it's basically a giant tent. NASA's Space Power Facility is more the sort of thing you would need for a giant Farnsworth fusor. It's still only about forty meters high. I can't find exact costs for it, but I can guaranty it wasn't cheap and it's only a small fraction of the scale you're talking about.

These are prestige projects. They wouldn't build them, if the design were cheap. Another example, is the Khan Shatyr Entertainment Center in Astana, Kazakhstan. It's a 150m high tent structure which supposedly cost $400 million to produce.

This is what they're already building. I personally think it would be great if they could find the budget for a few different approaches.

This brings up an important point. The primary purpose of ITER is to immunize 34 national governments against accusations that they aren't doing publicly funded fusion research. That's the primary reason there's only one big approach rather than several different approaches.

NASA above is notorious for doing singleton missions in identifiable niches (like one Mars rover at a time, one space station at a time, or one space telescope at a time). That's because having one such thing is a great selling point for a US congresscritter, but having two or more is no more valuable. They don't even need to do very much (which is a serious current problem with the International Space Station).

There won't be a "few different approaches" unless someone in power has an actual interest in the research rather than the prestige of the research. For example, the US military has at least two different fusion research projects going because they want nuclear explosion data (for the National Ignition Laboratory) and a fusion power plant for naval ships (Polywell).

This also explains why air conditioning in Afghanistan can pull in a lot more money than fusion research. Losing a war is very dangerous to a political establishment. Ineffective fusion power research, that goes nowhere for decades, is not threatening.

Comment: Re:magical scenario where (Score 1) 719

by khallow (#46738437) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Are You Apocalypse-Useful?

Rather a far cry from generating 10A at a regulated 120 VAC @ 60Hz, sport.

Which isn't that hard either given all the junk that would be lying around.

Silly boy, from where do you intend to mine your lead and synthesize your sulfuric acid? Lead acid batteries do have a lifespan.

Used lead acid batteries.

"Just Say No." - Nancy Reagan "No." - Ronald Reagan