borism

Let's be serious here. Net effect of QE is 0.

yes. it's much more ingenious than iPad 2 if you think about it.

In fact this thing made me consider for a second that maybe I should get an iPad.

I have invested in public companies for 10 years now and all I got were SEC filings...

then lets make everybody safe technically. it's hard, but doable. if everyone ran tor and 10% of users ran tor relay, that should be a hell to track, no?

How the nuclear accident will turn out to be is anyones guess right now though.

uh, okay. then you might want to update your blog before there are 1000s of unemployed web developers building their lifestyle web apps for eternal target of 10k/month.

hotel chains won't be sitting idly while few geeks eat their market.

oh and btw, isn't eBay kinda dead thanks to Craigslist?

so this 10k/month figure is averaged from how many years?

Denmark and Norway - no nuclear.

Sweden - 45% nuclear.

Finland - 30% nuclear.

2002:

Scandinavia and the Baltic countries had the cleanest air in Europe this summer while Greece, France and Italy faced the worst smog levels, said the European Environment Agency (EEA).

http://www.am.gov.lv/en/?id=574

And BTW, I am fully in favor of replacing coal plants with nuclear.

yes. but why do you think that is? people aren't afraid of nuclear for no reason. While it isn't magic, it isn't exactly trivial either, even for experts.

Could you explain to me how the hell fuel in Reactor 4 storage pond at Fukushima 1 went critical?

as I argued in other thread about the original numbers, what matters aren't direct deaths attributed to one or the other energy source.

what matters (to me at least) is how different energy sources affect our quality of life. I suspect nuclear isn't the worst offender here, but it isn't all butterflies and roses either.

For the record: I am responsible nuclear fission proponent.

indeed. who cares about them...

Hotspots seem to be unaffected by plate movements - plate moves but hotspot remains in place. That's how Hawaiian island chain has formed, actually.

via BBC

Japanese people don't seem to be informed much better than we were when the cloud from Chernobyl passed over us (Baltic states). It took workers at Swedish nuclear plants (and today USS Ronald Reagan personnel near the Japanese coast) to notify the World that something bad was happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_coal_mines_in_the_Unite...

I'm just saying that of all energy sources we have today the wind energy has the least negative impact on our lives.

at what cost? and by cost I don't mean market cost. surely cost of electricity in Japan didn't account for nuclear meltdown possibility, thus far.

of course nuclear is still better than coal, which requires huge open pit mines and produces incredible amounts of dust, radioactivity of which is greater than all nucleotides released from nuclear power plants as far as I understand.

So we need to have responsible, transparent and safe nuclear power, and IAEA is the only organisation that tries to ensure that on a global level, IMHO.

what is the most important factor to me is the quality of life provided by different energy sources.

personally wind is the big winner there for me.

Full disclosure: I like sailing.