You are not logged in.
jee, no mention of prometheus in State of the Union. lets hope for a separate announcement, maybe after iraq and north korea are resolved.
this might give nasa a chance to develop something that they can unveil to the public for the announcement.
Yeah, he did do well in addressing the concerns about oil and iraq.
but no prometheus, too much religious banter.
yes, it was a good speech, but it was a bit overloaded with weapons and light on much else. taxes and weapons. the power part and the fuel cell part were good, and iraq, ill give you that.
he should stop using "evil" "god" and "soul" in his speeches. foreign leaders hate that.
hahah, you obviously dont know how our government works.
There should be regulations, like there should be on any mining of any potentially dangerous material. Perhaps the nuclear stockpile could be centrally located and guarded, and siphoned off to regions who need it. Maybe the stockpile could be kept in regional locations, and distributed from there.
Nuclearspace, we should post that fusion drive article over here! That's equally impressive.
I wonder if we could sythetically produce some of these nuclear fuels, as we can recycle fission fuels.
its funny how we've tested bombs that have hundreds of kilotons of nuclear force, and yet the american southwest still exists.
also, yes, you would always want multiple suppliers, but that doesnt mean you would have to mine 20 kg a day to process 3.2 kg a day. and that 3.2 kg a day is unrelated to density-thats the amount of uranium it would take to produce 1,000 MW of power daily, and the 10,000 ton figure is the coal it would take to produce an equivalent amount of power. its physics, man, not fallacies.
Um, thanks, but ive taken macro and micro. and i have two parents who are doctorates of economics with the full set of economics books. having read the wealth of nations, i think i have a pretty good idea of supply and demand.
however, supply and demand does not apply. when you are dealing with a car, it does, because you cant drive many cars at once. however, if you are given more electricity, you can use more electricity, with no boundaries. if you are given cheaper costs, and more supply, you use more.
supply and demand is mostly for physical products, like cars or computers. however, there are certain goods, like food, oil, or electricity that are called giffen goods, where supply and demand have no real influence.
but you still havent touched that there is no real pandora's box here. what is the difficulty in mining uranium? most of the pollution in power systems is the burning of the fuel, which doesnt apply to uranium. so your point really doesnt hold water.
Ok, how many of these are applicable to sophmores in high school and how do i go about getting information for these? also, how many are still open to admission?
actually, it does. the wealthiest 1% is where the special interest money comes from. and with something like a tax cut, you can pass it off as helping everybody, so you gain votes, while really only helping your campaign donors.
speaking of special interests. dont you find it odd that the only energy lobby represented happens to be the company that used fraudulent accounting, and dick cheney happened to be on the board of directors, and dick cheney happened to sell his stock before they were caught? Now, why cant we see the transcripts of the meetings? What does he have to hide?
right after he explains why we are letting north korea slip and giving them financial aid, when they openly defied the world, stepped out of a treaty, and started nuclear weapons production.
Um first of all, our president is responsible for matters of economic importance, not the concert for new york.
second, our energy policy should be ruled on by more than one company. looks like bias to me.
third, going to war over a few empty shells vs. rebuilding the economic capital of the world--lets see. i would rebuild NYC.
fourth, lets look at the stock market for what it is. its gambling. there is no security-just look at enron or the internet.
and i thought we had already established that due to the electoral system, and the jact that gore won the popular vote, obviously, not everybodys vote is equal.
Dude, we're talking about some empty shells. This isn't massive armament. I've worked on some more potent materials. A pellet gun can do more damage than empty shells.
Perjury may be a conservative's excuse for war, or impeachment, but to use it as such is ridiculous. War is not something that should be treated so lightly. We are going to kill people over a few empty shells? Please, that's terrible. If we found a real weapon, maybe. But I don't want Americans or Iraqis dying over some empty shells, especially considering our diplomatic options of Hussein's removal.
We really shouldnt be pushing for a war on Iraq now. I don't see any reason why we can't give the inspectors until March for more results. Then, if we find something big, it justifies our cause. But now? We have a few empty shells.
I hope he announces Prometheus, but I kind of don't. If the war generates negative response, I am afraid any other issues will as well. Oh well, we'll just have to see.
The problem is a few empty warheads are not justification to go to war. and all ive seen from bush is that he wants to go to war.
its almost like the boy that cried wolf. even if he is right in the end, his posturing up to this point has cooled off the credibility of his message.
I prefer win 2k to any other os....just easier to work with, imho.
Im no web site admin-but couldnt you use an external hard drive, back up the web site data to it, then put it on your linux system, and transfer the data over on to that system? Wouldnt take more than a day or two.
Oh please. Uranium is easily contained in its natural form. Theres no pandoras box.
Your analysis of the capitalist system doesnt hold. That approach would be inefficient and too costly. You dont mine what you dont need, because you incur costs on the stuff you dont use (containment, physical costs, etc.) If your scenario were the case, oil wouldnt exist anymore.
With things like breeder reactors, a small supply would be reusable many times. So a smart businessman would open a few mines and lightly mine them, saving up the resources, but controlling them.
You are too cynical.
josh, if we used breeder reactors we would have to mine that much less.
also, mining 3.2 kg of uranium for each day is a lot less than mining 10,000 tons of coal.
mining should be regulated...possibly even automated to minimize "contamination." we are fully able to program robots to mine uranium, so this is fully feasible, and would be a good solution.
our climate has been much hotter and much cooler. i think our goal should be to figure out how to modify climates, not just on mars or other planets, but here, on earth. we need to be able to avert the next ice age, and the next jungle age, if we are to survive as a species.
sure, its "altering the ecosystem" but these "eco-protectors" forget that we are a species, which means that we must be sure of our survival. after all, what should we care about the earth's health if we arent here to enjoy it?
im all for being ecologically responsible, but not the point where it threatens us as a species. if we can keep the living conditions on earth to human-friendly levels, its a good thing.
Chimpanzees would then be intelligent. So would baboons, and a number of other primates.
if youre looking for something, you better damn well know what youre looking for. ET can be intelligent to the nth degree, yet me may not be able to understand it due to different languages, communication methods, etc.
Actually probability is a hard fact of math. It may not carry in small experiments (say rolling a dice twice), but on the grand scale, probability is a solid fact of mathematics.
i get what youre saying...but i dont really agree with it. my view is that if you cant conclusively say youre right, it usually means that there is another possibility. When I meet ET, i will let you know!
No, its not. We can obviously say that a european assuming that his was the only landmass was wrong.
We have no data proving we are the only intelligent species. In fact, there is sketchy evidence that we might not be (the WOW! message). To put our head in the sand and say we are the only ones does not make it a fact, it just makes us ignorant of our surroundings.
At one time, people thought the planets were gods, or that the universe revolved around earth. both of these are completely false-yet they could not be proven false at the time. this does not make them facts.
the scientific model involves experimentation. SETI is an open-ended experiment, and we cannot judge its results until it is complete.
There are many coincidences on earth, that could easily be explained factoring in intervention from aliens. now, this does not make them true, but if more evidence is gathered, coincidental evidence can be pieced together to form a coherent picture.
to say that we are the only intelligent species is guessing as well. we have no definitive data that says we are, so it is conjecture to say that we are. it would be like saying europe is the only landmass because you cant cross the ocean to see north america.
do we even know that the lizards wouldnt have become more intelligent given time? I would say we really dont. We cant judge based on todays lizards-they lost their dominance, and possibly, their chance at intelligence.
Another thing. A single substance evolved into so many different creatures (from viruses to humans), how do we know that even that orginal DNA or RNA molecule could not evolve into many, many more creatures? We have 30,000 genes...imagine what kinds of possibilities there are if we were to alter, say 5,000 or 10,000. Im not saying we should, im just trying to communicate a point.
But I would have to disagree with you on the math clark. I cant imagine that 1 star out of trillions could be the only one to foster life. it just, in my opinion, is impossible.