As for [0]: A strong point at first glance, I will have to look further into it. The details to 1) where the data comes from 2) what gets counted a deaths from which technology will be very important.
Also, think about this: Imagine there was a machine which was constantly running and with probability p=1/10^20 destroys earth, checked once a day, destroys earth. This machine might run for centuries without causing a single casualty. Is this machine not dangerous? Would you want it running even if there are better and cheaper alternatives without the risk?
This is just molten salt reactors all over again. They have disastrous security problems. Basically the salt eats away metal parts of the reactor, the graphite moderators are flammable and large parts of the reactor become radioactive because they catch neutrons which makes repair, maintenance and deconstruction almost impossible.
(edit:)
I forgot about loss of fuel solubility events and the unsolved problem of tritium retention.
(edit:)
It's interesting how the english wikipedia pages miss all the details on the failed projects in this field.
In this case it's really easy. Nuclear fission is
1) not a solution. Uranium is finite and breeders don't work reliably due to fundamental design problems.
2) outrageously dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years
3) more expensive than solar and wind (see article)
There are no working reactors (not even tested designs) that harness the potential of thorium. Experimental plants have had serious problems (edit:)and low power generation from thorium (see for example THTR-300 in germany; beware of the english wikipedia page, it is incomplete).
So... come up with a safe design for a thorium reactor? (Edit2:) Until then, you might as well say fusion. Anyway, none of this is a reason to keep classic LWRs going.
You are correct that this is a complex problem.
Nobody suggests 1) moving to 50/50 PV/Wind 2) immeadiately.
It needs to be a very diverse Mix that slowly and steadily grows, making it unlikely to hit your 1% case and giving us time to adjust to fluctuating power generation.
And it leaves a lot of room for clever engineering ideas and distribution. It also presents the opportunity for the people to gain back control over power generation and storage. Huge electrical companies might be unecessary :)
RTFA. PV and Wind are cheaper than nuclear. So you can have what you want (no more people dying from coal pollution) without the immense risks of nuclear (The article makes very weak point about these being irrelevant. They are not.)
1) Cryonics is mostly a pseudoscientific money making scheme. "In theory it could work" (maybe) if we get around a lot of huge hurdles. Calling it the best idea we have is just an opinion.
2) Explain to me what a frozen mind is. Explain to me how a mind can be frozen, present evidence. Present evidence that the mind is present and intact in a frozen brain. Explain how the mind can be restored, present evidence.
3) That is not the definition (even if it was, my point would still be valid), it is an obvious ruse to get around a problem with he whole concept of freezing and reviving people that is obvious to anyone who has ever eaten frozen broccoli. Also "reprogramming viruses -> nanotech that can do everything": Non sequitur.
4) Again, you are just asserting things. You are making a positive claim and you need to present evidence.
5) I understand that you claimed that before. But you are just pulling that out of the air without evidence or even a good explanation or any reasoning.
6) I have a canvas with the original painting of the mona lisa that was made before the one we can now see at the museum. You're lucky! I would like to sell it to you! Please note that you can not see the painting at the moment because it has been preserved by a sophisticated technique called "meh". So the canvas might look empty at the moment but future nanotechnology will be able to restore it. Interested?
This is not a throwaway account, I just lack creativity at inventing usernames.
It's amazing how you can tell that I am "threatened", "unsettled" and "struggling" with "navigating the adult world" from a single line of text. I also fail to see how screaming "Sexist!" at something as irrelevant as the gender/sex of characters in video games demonstrates intelligence or strength of character.
Let me point you to someone explaining her obvious dishonesty: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_O1R7Zq9EI
Back to navigating the adult world (sounds like a porn store),
Silly Boy
will likely require some form of basic molecular nanotech,
Wild assertion.
and this same technology can in principle convert dirt to habitats on Earth and in space.
Wild speculation.
To sum it up - you have nothing.
Asserting "OH the tech we will have by then will magically fix it and we will live in space" is not a solution. It's not relevant to you and me anyway because we will likely not be able to backup and restore minds during our lifetime.
Additionally, bodies frozen today will NEVER be revived because the body and brain are utterly damaged in the process (http://www.skepdic.com/cryonics.html).
And from then on, are we going to keep people from having children or are we going to let massive overpopulation happen?
Where to recover the stored minds to?
That said, in my oppinion a big part of what makes life worthwhile IS that it is finite.
[I am working with the assumption that by "backup and recovery plan for people" essentially you are talking about making people immortal by backing up their mind before the body dies and somehow keeping it working, e.g. recovering it to a different body.]
Yeah... my grandfather told me these kind of lawsuits were the reason all producers of swings and hammocks went out of business long ago.
Gotta miss the old days.
The article fails to mention how much product is in the bag you get (weight) and it's kcal/day ratio. The bag looks really small in the picture...
Also, think about how much you will hate the flavor after a while. Anyone who ever bought cherry flavored protein powder by mistake will know what I'm talking about. Have fun forcing the stuff down your throat the 10th or 20th time. I going to eat my steak an laugh at you.
That said I would be really interested to use the product on expeditions IF it provides a significant advantage.
So - how is this superior to a load of sugar(s), whey protein and a micronutrients supplement?
Exactly. Filtering out this pre-known email is even trivial.
And in a world where AIs write stories (http://narrativescience.com) I'm pretty sure the nsa does a lot more than filtering for keywords.
while i find some of the comments are very objectionable, these kind of militant anti men pseudo-feminists like femfreq who do not want equal rights but oppression of men get on my nerves a lot too.
Wow. What happened to critical thinking and scientific scrutiny?
> It's actually hydro that can screw you really hard when it fails
Seems like you forgot about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disast... www.google.com/search?q=chernobyl+children&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=orPCUZTFEqm44ATtkIGIBQ&biw=1350&bih=628&sei=qbPCUeHCBKmE4gTn7IG4DQ
Take a good look at those childrens faces.
As for [0]: A strong point at first glance, I will have to look further into it. The details to 1) where the data comes from 2) what gets counted a deaths from which technology will be very important. Also, think about this: Imagine there was a machine which was constantly running and with probability p=1/10^20 destroys earth, checked once a day, destroys earth. This machine might run for centuries without causing a single casualty. Is this machine not dangerous? Would you want it running even if there are better and cheaper alternatives without the risk?