Sorry, meant JET, not ITER (fucktard that I am).

The article states that the ITER experiments are powered by 2 500 MW flywheels. Unfortunately it doesn't state how much of that or over what period of time were used.

I don't know that the powers-that-be see any existing power generation as a real long-term solution, at least in the United States, which is a big part of the nuclear power problem here. Fission (as deployed in the US) as a primary power source would require investment in more ecologically-sound rather than least-cost methods of uranium procurement, as well as a move away from light-water reactors that produce so much waste product or a way to re-use that waste as part of other power-producing methods.
Given public opinion here and the necessity of pandering to both public opinion and the short-term goals of those who would finance this research, I don't think $100 billion US over the next 5 or 10 years is going to be spent on improving fission. I too think fission is actually the answer, but I think the work to make it mainstream, reliable, and efficient (in terms of waste product) needed to start 40 years ago as an industry. I don't see it happening today, though - people look to renewable as a way to get something that looks free or low-cost.
Given the choice of wasting money on a another pie-in-the-sky "free power for everyone" power generation method, or in figuring out ways of storing and distributing intermittent power from less-than-optimal methods, I think the latter is the best we can hope for.

I remember a similar level of breathless excitement about fusion in the early '80s, and I'm sure there was breathless excitement before then.
Fusion as an everyday power source sidesteps a lot of issues that need to be overcome, not just the fact that no existing reactor produces a net gain. I think many current projects are looking into isotopes as fuel sources, which might prove viability but isn't exactly going to make limitless power for "virtuall free". Last I checked, deuterium and/or tritium weren't exactly just lying about in massive ready-to-use quantities. Then there's neutron emission/poisoning (I don't think aneutronic fusion is a property of using isotope fuels but I could be wrong), containment, cooling, etc. and I know I'm barely touching the surface.
I read a research paper (probably arXiv so YMMV) that I can't find at the moment where the researchers were convinced that fusion was a product of quantum tunneling, and not of massive amounts of pressure or energy being dumped in. I'm paraphrasing and also not a scientist so I might be mis-remembering or just plain wrong but the gist was that if, even with all of the energetic hydrogen in the sun's core, fusion only took place because of tunneling then hydrogen (non-isotopic) fusion as a real power source is fucked as a power source.

Solar and wind have definitely benefitted from continual investment and research over the past 20 years, and I think fission would as well (I can't think of a way that governing bodies can get together to figure out how to allow the secure development of modern breeders, but they would solve all but the actinide hole for nuclear waste).

If the fucktons of money and thought being spent on fusion were directed to solar, wind, and other renewables, as well as fission, the world as a whole would be better positioned to hold the line on climate change.

Of course, as long as people with clout continue to have a 10-20 year sense of responsibility, that's not going to happen, and 2100 is looking to be a shit year for humanity.

to take over the job of cleaning my cat's litterbox / changing the litter.

Thumbs up in lieu of mod points.

If we can get these billionaires to pack up all of their shit and their friends and families and head off into space in their space arks, I think everyone else who remained would be better off.
Just tell them we'll all be following along on the next ark while they sail off like the Golgafrincham hairdressers, telephone sanitizers, and middle managers.

I guess this is "Web 3.0", where every thing that was a free service distrubted among many systems has become either a freemium or information-harvesting service siloed by one fucking provider.

Jesus, I feel like I'm agreeing with RMS. Not a position I ever thought I'd be in.

Aside from Service Pack 4 (released in 2005), can someone point out what security updates for Windows 2000 have been released after that? I'm not talking about the application frameworks like .NET; I mean security updates for exploits in the base OS.

There will be no updates to older hardware to invalidate your use of 10.6; you may not be able to purchase a new Mac and run 10.6 on it, but if you have an existing machine, you will be able to use it until it dies. I have a 2009 Mac Mini that I use as a desktop still running 10.6 just fine; Apple's done nothing to hamper that in any way. For a more extreme example, I gave away a 2000 iMac G5 running 10.5 and Office 2004 for Mac to my girlfriend's dad, and to this day it still runs 10.5 and Office just fine and it's still his only computer. There may be pressure to upgrade your OS as application support falls out from newer versions, but there's nothing that prevents older software from running on older Macs.