marcgcombi

These trends come and go, like the tides. Remember that I said this: the IBM bean counters will publish a study in a couple of years that shows that it is massively expensive to maintain on-premise work sites for knowledge workers.... and they will kick everyone out, again. LOL Lemmings

Pretty much, only liberal progressive "brigade" holes like this....

Everyone don your aluminum foil hat... lol

Bump to Robotbeat. Fission reactor designs, with many clever advances in safety, have never been tested because of the lack of support from U.S. DoE. Pilot-scale reactors are expensive, but would really help to advance our working knowledge of these new technologies. Overall, nuclear fission has gotten a bad wrap.

As for the cost of storage, that was worked out 20-30 years ago via the Yuca Mountain facility. If one of the local managers hadn't shifted to a "organic-based storage medium', that was not pre-approved for that application, the fire wouldn't have happened and everything would be fine.

This would explain the poor code quality that often comes from off-shoring.

And of course, USAFacts' interpretation of the responsibilities of government are right out of the liberal progressive manifesto... but I think that is the way the data need to be reported, because there is no Constitutional anchor-point for 2/3rds of what the US Federal Gov't actually does.

Being Digital by Nicolas Negreponte. Published just before the massive Internet boom and got me rev'ed up about the potential for technology to enhance the lives of humans.

The key challenge is that the government has so grossly distorted the market, on multiple dimensions, that the actual levers within the pharma vertical are opaque to all but the most embedded incumbents. (economists refer to these as hidden externalities).

These market-distortions have all but eliminated the natural cost-competition that one would observe in other sectors, such as commodities or manufacturing. The best thing the government can do is back off completely and make those pharma companies REALLY sharpen their pencils.

For those of you who believe MORE regulation is the way out, that's called "trying to dig your way out of a hole" or "repeating the same nonsense and expecting a different outcome." Please challenge your beliefs.

Aren't the incentives in place to encourage exploration and improve supplies and supply stability? I suppose that you're correct, to some degree. However, in the end, the equation is pretty simple when (cost of production + profit) > (the cost of an equivalent product, already in the market) then people will engage in that particular commerce. It's no more complicated than that.

"Externalities" cannot be deposited into a bank account and used to meet payroll and expenses. Throwing around high-minded economic-speak forward the argument for nor against this project. It's just a red herring, IMHO

Smart move because there is not economic incentive for most "green energy" projects. Apologies to my liberal friends, but until you go full-Marxist in the first world countries, market-cost will always win. Game on!