Optical fibre amplifiers use a length of erbium-doped glass as the amplification medium. They were invented in the 80s and are used around the world. An external source excites the erbium and as the signal to be amplified comes in it stimulates emission. The result is a signal coming out brighter than the one that went in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_amplifier

Of course, it'd be daft to use one in this application as while they do amplify, it's not like they're >100% efficient.

I think future generations would prefer we left them a mountain or two full of radioactive waste than an entire planet catastrophically altered by global warming.

Or your enemy removing yours. Either way it seems the only way to peace is tyranny.

Greenpeace are a bunch of nutjobs and the more base generation goes nuclear the better, but it's not totally greenhouse-gas-emission free. Mining the ore and enriching it generates GHG. The many, many tonnes of concrete that go into building the plants (~200 cubic metres per MW) generate GHG. Sure, it's the total GHG/kWh is less than just about any other technology, but it's not nothing.

I certainly hope they're a wee bit more complicated than that. Can you imagine the power factor problem we'd have if we replaced all streetlights with LED ones that just use a bridge and large capacitor?

Electrolytic capacitors are one obvious place cost can be cut.

There are a couple of topologies that are applicable. Most computer powersuuplies are (I think) single-switch forward converters. The topologies with more switches provide better performance, but more switches means more expensive transistors.

Higher frequency switching generally provides more stable output, but requires "faster" transistors and transistor drivers, which again, are more expensive than "slower" ones.

I think Sony feels that's exactly what the PS3 is.

*Everything I've seen points to him personally supporting this policy.

You've stated this a number of times but I don't buy it. He may be Labor, but he's right wing and socially conservative. He's a headkicker - a politician who is in it for the politics and not to represent the will of his electorate. He's so religious he earned himself the nickname "the altar boy."

The policy for the mandatory clean feed was written and put in place after he was given the portfolio. Everything I've seen points What evidence do you have to support your claim?

If Little Johnny is to be remembered for anything it was his ability to sniff and exploit popular opinion. He was a canny bastard and that's why he lasted as long as he did.

Australia went Labor because we hate politicians and we get eventually sick of whatever party is in charge and vote in the other guys. The two parties are so similar that the issues at each election are just window-dressing.

The coalition also spent millions on internet censorship, the "technical colleges programme" and a range of allowances like the baby bonus.

If you wanted something different you should have voted for the Greens.

That doesn't quite follow because the list isn't the actual content being censored, but the addresses to the content. I can view the list and be satisfied (or not) that it's not being used for political censorship without actually viewing any illegal content - or, I could if it weren't a crime as it currently is.

That's a really bad idea. If the petition is shown to be open to fraud, it becomes much weaker. Those who are being petitioned may feel that it doesn't represent the will of a significant number of Australians, just a couple of crackpots who can write a script to register a thousand email addresses and sign the petition.

All of the protests are on December 13th, including the one in Brisbane (assuming by the fact you link a Brisbane newspaper that that's where you are) Details can be found at http://stopthecleanfeed.com/

That's because the US federal election system is a first-past-the-post system, which is deeply flawed in this way. The Australian system uses preferential voting, meaning a vote for a minor or single-issue party (Like the newly-formed Australian Sex Party which opposes this censorship as a core platform issue) is not a wasted vote.

One of the important goals of protesting is to get many people to take notice of the issue who otherwise wouldn't. If nobody pays attention to the issue it's not going to affect how they vote. With a colourful protest splashed across the evening news more people are going to want to vote the bums out sooner.

(And seriously, you self-censored the word "bums"? Harden the fuck up, mate)