AM LAW: SUMMER ASSOCIATE HIRING DOWN 44 PERCENT OVER 2009 Forum

[JohnBoy]

Plus, we all know the future of energy is nuclear... Regardless, have fun heating your water in pipes...

Spoken like a truly clueless American.

Yes, nuclear has a bright future, but so does solar thermal.

"Nuclear Giant Areva Predicts Solar Thermal Boom"
Dr. Joseph Romm, editor of ClimateProgress.org and author of "Straight Up," was acting assistant secretary of energy in 1997.
http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/20 ... d-by-2020/

This article discusses the larger-scale potential, which is prolly gonna have a better shot at creating BigLaw jobs than the relatively puny scale stuff I was discussing, which will prolly create more local positions.

HAHA, you know absolutely nothing about thermodynamics and/or science in general. Just because one guy predicts the possibility of a solar boom does not mean it is the end all be all for creating energy. I'm talking about capturing the energy of our solar system/universe. You're talking small scale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale


Practical application of nuclear technology-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_battery
More on future applications-
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/05/hyperi ... clear.html
Just look at the title of the link if you don't want to read it all.

Your article is pure speculation about future forecasts and one company seeking alternative sources. You are a retard if you feel that is concrete proof to think nuclear power is dying.

I must add, solar may have an immediate future...but is not the end solution.

[Sell Manilla]

...have fun heating your water in pipes...

Yes, nuclear has a bright future, but so does solar thermal.

...You are a retard if you feel that is concrete proof to think nuclear power is dying.

Also, nuclear waste... although I suppose at some point we'll prolly start sending it out into space.

[Edit]:

Your article is pure speculation about future forecasts and one company seeking alternative sources.

Are you serious? Did you read the article???

[MrKappus]

...have fun heating your water in pipes...

Yes, nuclear has a bright future, but so does solar thermal.

...You are a retard if you feel that is concrete proof to think nuclear power is dying.

Also, nuclear waste... although I suppose at some point we'll prolly start sending it out into space.

I'm pretty sure attaching hundreds of thousands of gallons of rocket fuel to nuclear material and lighting said fuel is something we will NOT be doing.

[Sell Manilla]

I'm pretty sure attaching hundreds of thousands of gallons of rocket fuel to nuclear material and lighting said fuel is something we will NOT be doing.

Good call. I was trying to be less combative.
So yeah... radioactive waste then...

[JohnBoy]

Also, nuclear waste... although I suppose at some point we'll prolly start sending it out into space.

How inefficient do you think the first combustible engines were? How efficient do you think they are today? We have a new technology that will continually be improved. As we find new fissile materials all of your current conceptions will change.

http://www.rexresearch.com/nucell/nucell.htm

Resonant Nuclear Battery- Unlike conventional nuclear generating devices, the power cell does not rely on a nuclear reaction or chemical process and does not produce radioactive waste products.

Or something that is available now
http://issuu.com/edit_international/doc ... generation

Something I have noticed on this site is the lack of foresight on this board.

[Sell Manilla]

^ Alright, I'll assume without reading those that nuclear waste could be a non-issue. I never said Nuclear Energy was leaving us. I was simply offering one example of a major growth industry that you belittled.

[Bildungsroman]

...have fun heating your water in pipes...

Yes, nuclear has a bright future, but so does solar thermal.

...You are a retard if you feel that is concrete proof to think nuclear power is dying.

Also, nuclear waste... although I suppose at some point we'll prolly start sending it out into space.

I'm pretty sure attaching hundreds of thousands of gallons of rocket fuel to nuclear material and lighting said fuel is something we will NOT be doing.

Five words: Laser power beaming space elevator.

[MrKappus]

Nuclear's a band-aid. Maybe it's a band-aid that stays on for a hundred years, but it's still a band-aid. Here are its problems:
(1) Requires massive capital outlays for infrastructure that decays rapidly
(2) Is completely "safe," according to the industry, and yet no one wants plants w/in 100 miles of where they live
(3) Creates highly toxic by-products that can be stored safely, but only at considerable cost (e.g., dry cask)
(4) Is NOT sustainable, no matter what people say, because it uses something in limited supply

Also, to any doofus who thinks one needs a PhD to make public policy arguments: get over yourself.

[Anonymous User]

Five words: Laser power beaming space elevator.

Beam me up Scotty?

[MrKappus]

Five words: Laser power beaming space elevator.

Personally, I'm in favor of attaching the spent fuel rods to unicorns and having them fly it out of Earth's atmosphere.

[Bildungsroman]

Five words: Laser power beaming space elevator.

Personally, I'm in favor of attaching the spent fuel rods to unicorns and having them fly it out of Earth's atmosphere.

As long as the unicorns are properly shielded.

From space radiation.

[MrKappus]

Five words: Laser power beaming space elevator.

Personally, I'm in favor of attaching the spent fuel rods to unicorns and having them fly it out of Earth's atmosphere.

As long as the unicorns are properly shielded.

From space radiation.

Psh...the unicorns' magic somatic cells are impervious to radioactivity. No shields needed.

[Sell Manilla]

Five words: Laser power beaming space elevator.

Personally, I'm in favor of attaching the spent fuel rods to unicorns and having them fly it out of Earth's atmosphere.

Flippant afterthought........ oooooh the regret.


@JohnBoy: after remaining baffled by your characterization of the article I posted, I went back & read my posting, & realized that your response was perfectly rational if you only read my post without clicking the link. If you click the link & read the full article, your characterization of it becomes inaccurate ("one man's speculation", "one company seeking alternative sources"). I am doing you a favor by not quoting your entire response here: might wanna read the article & edit your response for posterity.

[JohnBoy]

Nuclear's a band-aid. Maybe it's a band-aid that stays on for a hundred years, but it's still a band-aid. Here are its problems:
(1) Requires massive capital outlays for infrastructure that decays rapidly
(2) Is completely "safe," according to the industry, and yet no one wants plants w/in 100 miles of where they live
(3) Creates highly toxic by-products that can be stored safely, but only at considerable cost (e.g., dry cask)
(4) Is NOT sustainable, no matter what people say, because it uses something in limited supply

Also, to any doofus who thinks one needs a PhD to make public policy arguments: get over yourself.

You have lost all credibility. It is not sustainable, because it uses "something" in limited supply. You obviously have no clue about nuclear fission/fusion...at all. Fusion uses elements like hydrogen...only the single most abundant element in the universe making up 3/4ths of all matter.

For reference 3, again..look to combustible engines for an understanding and potential evolution of nuclear power. As combustible engines gained efficiency as we researched it, so will nuclear power.

2 says absolutely nothing about nuclear power, other than the average person doesn't understand much about it.

1, any significant change is going to cost money...they say solar power is insanely expensive http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/s ... y-or-price

You don't know anything about the future capacity for nuclear power. Again, think of the sun as a giant nuclear reactor because that is exactly what it is. Is the sun a 100 year band-aid?

[MrKappus]

Nuclear's a band-aid. Maybe it's a band-aid that stays on for a hundred years, but it's still a band-aid. Here are its problems:
(1) Requires massive capital outlays for infrastructure that decays rapidly
(2) Is completely "safe," according to the industry, and yet no one wants plants w/in 100 miles of where they live
(3) Creates highly toxic by-products that can be stored safely, but only at considerable cost (e.g., dry cask)
(4) Is NOT sustainable, no matter what people say, because it uses something in limited supply

Also, to any doofus who thinks one needs a PhD to make public policy arguments: get over yourself.

You have lost all credibility. It is not sustainable, because it uses "something" in limited supply. You obviously have no clue about nuclear fission/fusion...at all. Fusion uses elements like hydrogen...only the single most abundant element in the universe making up 3/4ths of all matter.

For reference 3, again..look to combustible engines for an understanding and potential evolution of nuclear power. As combustible engines gained efficiency as we researched it, so will nuclear power.

2 says absolutely nothing about nuclear power, other than the average person doesn't understand much about it.

1, any significant change is going to cost money...they say solar power is insanely expensive http://www.businessinsider.com/2009/2/s ... y-or-price

You don't know anything about the future capacity for nuclear power. Again, think of the sun as a giant nuclear reactor because that is exactly what it is. Is the sun a 100 year band-aid?

You're a really short, stocky guy, aren't you? You've got this online Napoleon complex that is completely hysterical.

[JohnBoy]

You continuing to be wrong does not surprise me the slightest. I'm 6'2, 175 pounds.

[JohnBoy]

Goodnight man, read up on nuclear power in the 21st century so you can get rid of the outdated shit you remember from middle school.

[MrKappus]

You continuing to be wrong does not surprise me the slightest. I'm 6'2, 175 pounds.

5'2" and still hysterical.

P.S. You bashed my #2, but since we all can't be megalomaniac military and physics geniuses like you, I'll give you a short lesson in democracy: politicians make policy, voters elect politicians, and they don't elect politicians that put nuke plants next to their houses. So you better keep up your online nuclear education campaign. I'm almost convinced! Haha bon soir.

[JohnBoy]

My parting gift: Redefining Napoleon complex

Napoleon was one of the greatest military commanders in history. But he has also been portrayed as a power-hungry conqueror. He denied being such a conqueror. He argued that he had tried to build a federation of free peoples in a Europe united under a liberal government. He did intend, though, to achieve this goal by concentrating power in his own hands. However, in the states he created, Napoleon granted constitutions, introduced law codes, abolished feudalism, created efficient governments, and fostered education, science, literature, and the arts.

[clintonius]

My parting gift: Redefining Napoleon complex

Napoleon was one of the greatest military commanders in history. But he has also been portrayed as a power-hungry conqueror. He denied being such a conqueror. He argued that he had tried to build a federation of free peoples in a Europe united under a liberal government. He did intend, though, to achieve this goal by concentrating power in his own hands. However, in the states he created, Napoleon granted constitutions, introduced law codes, abolished feudalism, created efficient governments, and fostered education, science, literature, and the arts.

Also, George W was just spreading democracy.

[romothesavior]

How the hell did this thread turn into a discussion on nuclear power and Napoleon?

[270910]

How the hell did this thread turn into a discussion on nuclear power and Napoleon?

Welcome to TLS!

[JohnBoy]

Also, George W was just spreading democracy.

Hah, good one..brought a smile to my morning.

I pulled that from some online bio. Obviously it's biased, but I haven't studied enough about Napoleon to correctly analyze it.

[JohnBoy]

How the hell did this thread turn into a discussion on nuclear power and Napoleon?

Transition is simple. The discussion was about the decline of summer associate hiring.

Someone posted the doom and gloom message of nothing ever returning to normal.

I brought up the understanding of economic cycles and shift to new sectors and bubbles (dot-com for example)

Doom countered with not been able to foresee such potential growth areas.

Another pointed to green technologies and a change in the way we gather energy. More specifically, how solar would be the next craze.

I was just pointing to several facts on why I thought nuclear technologies would win out in the long term. In the midst of back and fourth bickering the phrase "small...Napoleon complex" surfaced.

[Sell Manilla]

...how solar would be the next craze.

I said nothing of a craze. I gave clear evidence for how solar thermal technology will probably be a significant growth industry over the coming decades, & how that may create demand for new JD jobs.