111–120 of 194 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They won't get after you because of one paper. Please, do it for the betterment of mankind :).
It's not worth it. The terrorists won.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense to anyone, but this link should be deleted. You may not like the system, but HN isn't the place to protest IP laws with civil disobedience. A lot of YC companies have their own IP they'd like to protect I'm sure.
Not all IP laws are equivalent. Also, civil disobedience has been known to work in the past.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The B-2 Bomber is child's play compared to the F-35's 1 Trillion USD program [1], but the comparison to the LHC's pricetag really puts things in prespective. 1: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-lockheed-fighte...
Or even better failed military projects, such as the $25+ billion spent on a spy satellite project before it was killed in 2002. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Reconnaissance_Office...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not worth it. The terrorists won.
By terrorists you mean those illusionary guys that the politicians use as the boogie man, to beat down the rationality of ordinary people by provoking fear, so they are legally allowed to do virtually anything without nobody to stop them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not worth it. The terrorists won.
By terrorists you mean those illusionary guys that the politicians use as the boogie man, to beat down the rationality of ordinary people by provoking fear, so they are legally allowed to do virtually anything without nobody to stop them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An old article on exactly that which I found interesting http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e... To sum it up "Free energy" buys us about 300-400 years of growth before thermodynamics kicks our ass.
Fortunately, if we had a lot more cheap energy we could probably get to space pretty easily too. So a lot of the growth wouldn't be happening on this planet.
> led NIF's critics to label the facility an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars > government shifted NIF away from its fusion goals to focus on its other mission: simulating the conditions inside nuclear weapons I think right there lies the problem with our world. People take up more issue with a multi-billion dollar research facility for science than one for military applications. If we spent a small fraction of the…
The cost of the B-2 Bomber program has cost as much as ~5 Large Hadron Colliders. B-2 bomber program cost 44.75 billion[1] LHC cost ~7.5 Billion Euro ~9billion USD.[2] [1] http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost
This is the kind of thing that makes me really wanna ragequit on human nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't protesting the law with civil disobedience, it is breaking the law because the direct expected value of breaking the law (people having access to this specific paper) is greater then the expected cost of breaking the law (~0).
Are you a psychopath? In what world does personal expected value versus expected cost of breaking the law ever become a good way to make moral decisions? If you have the chance to get a promotion by killing your boss but have near zero chance of being caught due to some circumstance, would you kill your boss? What the fuck.
In what world does personal expected value versus expected cost of breaking the law ever become a good way to make moral decisions?
There are at least two counterarguments to this.
1) The law is written for precisely this reason. Most people do live by a cost vs benefit mindset, and the penalties of laws are generally tuned until people stop committing the crime. I wouldn't want to live in a world where the penalty for murder was only a week in prison.
2) Anyone who uses the law as a way to guide their own moral compass probably isn't very moral, because throughout history every society has had laws which are later agreed to be evil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think fusion power plants are going to be that much cheaper to run than current nuclear power plants. Fuel costs are a small part of the operating costs of a nuclear plant (16% to 28%) and the capex costs probably won't be that different (e.g. they will still be based on heating water to create steam to power turbines to turn generators). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plan...
I totally agree with you, but now I'm wondering what the upside to fusion is over fission, besides being a great science landmark. No radioactive inputs or outputs?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power#Waste_management
A lot safer too!