You are wrong. The alternative is not cole, but of course never-ending energy sources like sun, wind, water etc. - many of those technologies are still in a very early stage because lots of government money was put into nuclear power - for only one single reason: to produce nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are the only stupid reason why we will leave many unsolvable nuclear waste problems to our children - because of psychotic war-fetishists and primitive anti-social whoriticians.
Luckily the discussions are already won around the globe: renewable energy is the future, no matter how retarded any government will be that US citizens choose to lead "their country".
Of course old school lobbyists that have siphoned billions of dollars selling a failed and plain stupid technology will not just disappear, they will do everything to keep their positions selling their old ideas as "new and clean" and will be an extremely annoying obstacle to human progress for a long time, unfortunately.
But every initiative from these old greedy hateful minority will produce an even stronger impulse of reaction by the open-minded and peace-loving young people that are working hard to establish renewable energy systems around the world.
The time of the anti-social egoist-monkey has gone in most parts of the world.
Nuclear weapon production is not helped by civilian reactors, with the one exception of low-burnup Magnox and CANDU. The all-in cost of nuclear is below that of solar and wind.
It is totally inhuman and not acceptable to spend such an enormous amount of money for these primitive war technologies.
We have many people on this planet still suffering from problems that could be solved with a fraction of that money.
Please do not support these destructive projects with your work. You can make a change!
From my own experience I can tell you that you will have a much better life avoiding to work for these neanderthal-minded war prophets.
Many people working in war industries are getting very, very ill, physically and psychically, because it is against your human desire for harmony to make yourself part of a giant killing machine.
It is 1.5 trillions over 80 years of lifetime of F-35, including research, production and maintenance of around 3k jets. 18 billions per year is not big price for backbone of national security.
If one of the first outing (disputed according to the article) is bombing in the Middle East, is this really giving security. Seems more like continuing a failed strategy that ensures a significant population wishes harm on the US and its allies.
Middle East is messy, and I am not going to judge this.. I am just saying that 1.5 trillions over 80 years is not large amount of money and would not solve any of global problems.
The problem is it's closer to $100B a year the first decade, acquisition costs are are going to be the big part of it and hey are frontloaded. $800-$900 Billion over a decade is a stupendous amount of money.
Secondly, how can an un-necessary plane be a "backbone"? The nuclear triad is our backbone. The F-22 is more capable than the F-35 in most measures. The F-35 can't dogfight, can't ground support, and is too expensive to be a good fighter bomber.
The reality is it's going to cost less than $1.5T, because it's going to get canceled after three or four hundred planes, and our cost per unit is going to be extraordinary.
Nuclear triad is defense against 3 countries in the world who can realistically hit USA (Russia, China, somebody else). F-35 will project power to the rest 193 countries and hostile organizations. There is a little way nuclear weapon could help USA to fight ISIS or Al Kaida. F-22 is very niche product. Less than 200 jets is too little to support USA's global ambitions, and they can't be air-carrier stationed, and project power across the globe. It is not clear if dogfight is the thing in the modern world. Also F-35 may be good for ground support, future will show.
Did you just say we need a $1.5 trillion dollar fighter to fight goat herders? ISIS doesn't have an air force.
We literally have zero need to protect power across the globe. Our presence in the middle east is extremely costly and counterproductive to our security. And without the F-35 we project power great with a navy bigger than the entire rest of world combined. We have 12 carriers, mostly 100k tons, and Russia/China combined have two 50,000 ton carriers.
And the F-35 is guaranteed to be terrible at close air support. No F-35 pilot is going to slowly loiter their supersonic within visual range of their targets and without doing that they can't see exactly what they are shooting. Their gun only has 4 seconds of ammunition, the A-10 can fire much more powerful rounds for nearly 30 seconds. The F-35s gun won't even be operational for another 2-3 years.
If we need to fire miesiles from stand off distances drones already do it much cheaper. The F-35 is like the he german navy trying to load up on battleships instead of carriers before WW2, an expensive and easily avoided mistake.
> Did you just say we need a $1.5 trillion dollar fighter to fight goat herders? ISIS doesn't have an air force.
ISIS potentially can have/get manpads, and MANPADS can have big advancements in foreseeable future.
Also US can face contested environment in operations similar to Kosovo war, operations in Libya, Iraq, Panama, where local army had more advanced SAMs in possession with needs to suppress them.
> We literally have zero need to protect power across the globe. Our presence in the middle east is extremely costly and counterproductive to our security.
This is question of policy, and is a mess for me. I am not going to speculate about this.
> And the F-35 is guaranteed to be terrible at close air support. No F-35 pilot is going to slowly loiter their supersonic within visual range of their targets and without doing that they can't see exactly what they are shooting.
The main weapon for ground support planned to be SDB2. Also optics/targeting system is presumably much more advanced on F-35 comparing to A-10.
The SDB2 costs quarter million a pop, and the F-35 is still 5 years away from being able to field one. If used in standoff mode the F-35 is a poor choice, not only can drones deliver the SBD2, B1 can carry more than 20x more of them and loiter far longer. If used in the other modes the A-10 could be adapted to carry twice as many, deliver them just as effectively and with its huge big gun and ability to safely loiter close offers a much better follow up punch.
Suppose we stop throwing trillions at war machinery. Am not certain that any particular technology, or even social expenditures, would ever enable "love and peace".
Probably just 10% of the annual DoD budget bent towards education of girls and women and for free global birth control would stop our insane population growth. Slow growth is the only hope for the planet. Do not see how not funding weapons without the global education of females will fix anything. The root cause is not too many weapons systems, it is too many people.
You seem to be very confused and your cynical words offer an insight into a state of mind I would call 'disturbed' at least.
It might be interesting for you to learn that the biggest problems we have today on this planet are produced by countries that are not "over-populated".
Also it seems logical that people believing in that "too-many-people"-ideology (that is actively spread by many military neanderthalers btw) should use their freedom to give a good example of how to solve that problem by killing themselves, not others.
Almost everything Mr. Gatez does is wrong and became a big problem for humanity - Windows, his investments in GMOs and atomic power and US pharma companies that are blackmailing poor countries - with this piece the most important thing he does: justify tax on work as something good. Sure, a few percent of taxes are used for public wealth (good thing!), but the biggest part nowadays is extracted and transformed into profits for rich individuals and companies.
As democratic control of how taxes are used seems to be of no interest for the public, the system that was built for more participation is transformed into a profit-extracting machine for international criminal organizations.
But maybe the robot tax idea can trigger a general discussion about what should be taxed and what not. Please add the book by Mr. Hudson to these discussions.
Please develop a different, self-degrading material - we already have too many plastic material in the ocean and it is a major problem - you certainly did read about it, this is commonly known nowadays. I wonder how anybody would build a new business on the idea of flooding the world with even more poison.
The material we use, PLA, is actually biodegradable! It would take a while naturally, but can be done easily with industrial equipment. We also recycle all of our scrap material back into filament :)
Conclusion: "bio" plastics are not better in any way.
Especially PLA from genetically modified corn is not a good solution, sorry.
To reduce the amount of harm you are doing to the planet with that mass production facility should build a safe recycling chain for your customers until you find some less destructive way to make money.
To the HN techno-blinded crowd: downvoting these facts does not produce a better health for your children.
Growing up and becoming an adult also means being able to take responsibility for the future. But, yeah, Trump on, Amerrica!
It isn't possible, in most cases, to trust open source software either. Have you verified that the binaries on your phone were indeed built from the source you can read on github or wherever?
Which fully open-source phone platform do you have in mind? I'm not aware of any.
On desktop and servers, however, it certainly is possible (and not-too-impractical) to verify binary blobs against known PGP signatures. See Debian's reproducible builds, for instance.
Please support the idea of building a better planet for our children and do not buy laptops where you can not replace the battery - managers in companies that build these kind of products have to learn that they are acting against human interests and need to change their way of thinking.
Of course this applies to all Laptops where you can not change battery.
Ok, that makes it much better - I had the impression that the battery is soldered or fixed in a more anti-hackable way, but just a few srews are ok! Hopefully they keep that design!
Nonsense. If you dispose your ewaste properly (which is in general the law) a builtin battery will get recycled or disposed of just the same as one that is replaceable.
You seem to believe that "ewaste" is something that can be "properly disposed" - you have no clue about reality or you are a marketing guy that wants to spread his lies. Maybe you are just naive and really believe the things big companies are telling you - a good follower!
Oh. I thought there was something particular about removable batteries. It wasn't clear to me at all that planned obsolescence is what you were referring to.
RT has no real workflow, more a set of tools that you might apply somehow, GUI reflects that, seems unorganized. DT seems to have more advanced algorithms and tools.
Both are excellent. Does not hurt to have both in your toolbelt.
RT has more controls for finetuning (some of which is very necessary for Fujifilm RAF files still) while DT has never crashed on me. CLUT support is nice, I play with it when I happen to develop from raw data.
I should probably participate in DT's tracker and try to get the few shortcomings fixed... that should do for a new year's resolution: more participation in OS communities. :)
I just tried out the new version. While I suspect the older ones also had the options there but now I confirmed that the demosaic controls in DT are as good as in RT.
The pixel readout is frankly poor on both apps: false color here and there. Probably both apps use the same library behind the scenes. On RT I can crank up the demosaic algorithms to reduce the effect. DT has no similar filter available.
DT also used to not do a good job on lens corrections (I have an X100T). Perhaps this new version does better since there was a mention in the changelog about lens data.
The best pictures are still the SOOC JPEGs -- too bad if I want to adjust the shadows or highlights.
