It’s going away on the scale of billions of years. Personally, I think it’s much better to use it for space exploration than unusually expensive electrical power.
Now if was even vaguely cost competitive with battery backed up wind and solar then that’s a reasonable argument, but until then I just don’t see the point.
With seawater extraction and breeders there's enough uranium to power the entire world many times over for hundreds of millions of years. Thus, just like the fusion fuel in the sun, uranium fission fuel is effectively as renewable as it gets.
I do not think it is fraud to print the Apple iPhone X US-version 64GB Black code on a box that does in fact contain an Apple iPhone X US-version 64GB Black
Trademarking your UPC would not work, as someone reselling your product is protected by the first-sale doctrine. If I buy a bottle of Pepsi(tm), I can use Pepsi's trademarks when selling that bottle to someone else.
The first-sale doctrine indeed allows people to retail stuff they just bought. But in the case of Amazon, I’d almost say that the first-sale doctrine, followed to its natural conclusion, should better be called the “Man in the Middle doctrine”—that it would be perfectly fine and legal to
1. buy an iPhone from Apple,
2. install a wiretap into it,
3. repackage it as if it were a Brand New In Box iPhone,
4. and send it to Amazon to dump into their regular BNIB iPhone SKU bin.
That seems nonsensical, right? Maybe trademark won’t work, but something should be preventing that. Maybe Amazon would have to do it themselves—marking certain SKU as “allocated” to particular sellers, and voiding the SKU claim of any other seller who sends them said product, instead slapping a replacement UPC code on that product giving it a namespaced SKU particular to that seller.
To me, this would be like one of the key guidelines of journalism: if you can’t verify a claim from a source, you shouldn’t use that claim, but only mention that claim. I.e., Apple sells iPhones, but everyone else can only sell “iPhones.” They claim that they’re iPhones, but Amazon certainly doesn’t have a way to verify that they’re the exact iPhones Apple sells, so they can’t remove those quotation marks (or bin them in the same bin as Apple iPhones.)
I would note that this is already partially done, in that Amazon warehouses do bin products with a given UPC code as a different SKU if they come in marked as “used.” All I’m suggesting here is a business rule that would change the definition of “used” used by the inventory system to include any secondary-market resale of the product—regardless of the condition of the product—if the product is anything that could be either cloned profitably or tampered with to some useful end.
I'm not an expert in this, but i think the first-sale doctrine only applies if the phone is in similar condition as the new ones you get from apple (or if it's used, you say that it's used, etc). The seller of the wiretapped phone would probably not be protected.
if you have tons of proof about a murder, it's almost certain to fall under one of the exceptions to the doctrine. e.g, if law enforcement would have discovered the evidence anyway, it is not excluded.
there's plenty of people who think defending a criminal at all is ethically dubious. Depriving criminal defendants of the most effective defense by applying social pressure to their attorneys is not a good road to walk down.
why? I do think there is a historical case, but what about freedom of expression makes it harder to build bridges, and is there a way to build bridges anyway?
Just look at the political back and forth about new terminals at Heathrow. The public inquiries, consultations and local election battles have been going on for decades. Hardly an infrastructure project goes by without it being challenged in court by environmental and local interest groups. Democratic governments also have to publish detailed budgets and face electoral pressure on spending priorities. More infrastructure equals fewer hospital beds is a powerful political argument, it might be answerable but at least it has to be addressed.
The Three Gorges Dam wiped out 13 cities, 140 towns and 1350 villages and dislocated 1.24 million residents. There were probably protests, but how would you know and what do you think happened to the protesters? Here in Britain we're having a permanent crisis building one more airport terminal.
Autocratic regimes are completely opaque in their finances and budgetary priorities and care more about publicly visible results, of which flagship infrastructure projects are a prominent part.
I'm not sure freedom of expression is the main component; freedom from being rounded up into re-education camps or having everything you possess taken from you for the greater good if I say frog and you don't jump fast enough.
When you have such a complete monopoly on force and authority, you can tell people to build bridges or else; hell, you can chase crackpot economic development ideas that starve tens of millions of your own people to death if you want.
I don't know whether this is feasible at the temperature gradients created by data centers, but it's not prohibited by physics. If there are chemical species in the water that are stable at 24 C and not 19 C, the fish can harvest these for chemical energy after they have traveled the ten meters.
This is probably more relevant at temperature gradients greater than 5C, but it's thermodynamically possible.
