I thought the biggest roadblock to adopting fusion energy was that it doesn't work? (I'd like to be positive and add "yet" to that sentence, but still.)
You just described the whole problem with fusion power more concisely than I though possible. Basically, it is an enviable goal, and looks completely theoretically feasible, but we just haven't worked out how to do it yet. We're working on it, and we're not far enough along yet to even know exactly what route to take, but we should get there eventually. Being far from a goal and not knowing how much time or money it will take can only stifle progress, so it is in the public interest to subsidize fusion research however we can so we keep making progress. Just because you aren't somewhere yet doesn't mean you shouldn't go.
Please post again after completing 6th grade earth science. Thank you.
I know this guy is posting as AC, but he doesn't deserve the -1 moderation and condescending remarks. Thermal pollution as a contributing factor to global warming is real, and in my opinion not discussed enough.
But when considering thermal pollution levels, you must also acknowledge that the shift to favoring thermal pollution would be more than balanced by the decrease in other types of pollution that contribute directly or indirectly to global warming. That is the ultimate point of current fusion - a lesser overall negative impact on our environment (and that means it has to be cheap, of course). Not only are we already generating direct thermal pollution, we are compounding that with our poor management of carbon, plus our brutal extraction methods, highly radioactive waste we still don't really know how to dispose of, etc. etc.
Practical fusion could quickly eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels, more quickly than other alternative methods of power generation are proliferating, anyway. It seems like we should be able to achieve sustainable reactions someday, but how far off that is I have no idea, and no one can say what the lag time between that and widespread implementation might be. However, the goal seems realistic and worthwhile. We need some supporting technical breakthroughs, which could come in quick succession or could take quite a while, but we basically know how to do it, and it would be a huge upgrade. The thermal pollution of fusion-based power generation is not a remotely legitimate reason not to pursue it, thus you're probably not going to read much about it.
You would think they would prefer coke for eponymity.
Yeah, and even though I have heard and uttered their name enough times to know how to pronounce it, when I read it my first thought is still "crotch." Not just because their name is sometimes mispronounced to rhyme with crotch, which is undeniably hilarious (on a seventh grade level), but also because I think of them as being miserable, crotchety old turds who are as undesirable as a smelly old, gross crotch, and listening to them is one level worse than being kicked in the crotch.
But they did leave out another good distro that is also frequently used in live mode, Kali - my favorite distro for, um, "penetration testing." Yeah, "testing," that's what we use it for...
"Which Religion is Best?"
No. Please explain. (Or, even better, don't.)
That is very funny of them to say, since I'm not sure how that makes Arch itself a "better" distro than the competition (and since Ubuntu and Debian help apply to many many distros) though something to remember when you get tired of Arch and switch to Ubuntu or Mint. That said, the Mint forums have been an excellent resource for me. If I have a problem or can't figure something out, I first Google it, then Google it with "Ubuntu" as a search term, then if necessary I can ask a question in the Mint forums and generally have it answered within 24 hours. I have precisely zero intention of switching to Arch, but maybe I'll try their wikis and docs next time I have a problem.