CIA’s “Facebook” Program Dramatically Cut Agency’s Costs

Good thing this is a joke…right? I mean, the CIA would never even think of something as underhanded as this. The Air Force, however…?

What’s behind our conflicted feelings on nukes?

We don’t know anything about nuclear power other than it was used to obliterate two cities at the end of World War II. At least, that’s the feeling I get from most people when they speak of nuclear power. A lot of people apparently think that an accident can happen which can cause a power plant to detonate in a giant thermonuclear (a lot of people also seem to think that atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are the same thing but that’s just splitting hairs) fireball. I wonder if they think that a nuclear power core is simply a slowly exploding bomb under nominal control?

Nuclear energy hits all our hot buttons when we judge how risky something is: It’s invisible. It’s out of our control. It’s manmade, high-tech and hard to understand. It’s imposed on us, instead of something we choose. It’s associated with major catastrophes, not small problems. And if something goes wrong, it can cause cancer – an illness we fear far more than a bigger killer like heart disease.

Thirty years ago, before the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, Slovic took four groups of people and asked them to rate 30 risks. Two groups – the League of Women Voters and college students – put nuclear power as the biggest risk, ahead of things that are deadlier, such as cars, handguns and cigarettes. Business club members ranked nuclear power as the eighth risk out of 30. Risk experts put it at 20.

The only fear that Slovic has seen as comparable in his studies to nuclear power is terrorism. Read more…

IMHO, nuclear power is certainly dangerous…but so is fire. There is no such thing as a safe open fire. Fire burns, period. As long as you watch what you put near it, you are relatively safe. Give fire a chance to escape the boundaries you impose on it though, and you have a neighborhood eating, people killing monster. Nuclear power is relatively safe if precautions are made and followed. You can’t cut corners with it and expect to remain dominant over it. Nobody thinks of it that way. The general consensus seems to be that it’s too dangerous to use and that’s that.

An interesting fact is that coal is not completely safe either. One mistake mining and coal can erupt into a horrible explosion or even make an area uninhabitable for safety reasons. Even grain storage and flour production aren’t completely safe, but that doesn’t matter.

Nuclear power scares people more than anything else. I truly believe that the fear is due solely to those first two bombs. The devastation is seen and then the thinking process includes everything nuclear in the same pot: all dangerous. Carbon monoxide is dangerous too, and odorless, and colorless, and will kill if too much is inhaled…but it doesn’t last very long. Radiation lingers but, with proper planning and care, can be handled. Is it safe to allow people who only want to make the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time possible to build and run them? Probably not…but the military is not known for its friendliness towards civilians.

Would you pay $845K for this hybrid Porsche?

Porsche 918 Spyder

Let me say right now that I do like Porsche. I prefer the squat, wide look of the old whale tail and the really wide tires, but the new GT3 and GT2 are good looking vehicles. Gas mileage is great for a supercar, but a hybrid would not only increase mileage (and get tree-huggers off your back) but also allow extra range in case you’re forgetful in filling the tank.

The 918 Spyder has 718 horsepower on tap and a fuel economy of more than 78 mpg based on the European combined driving cycle. The design is derived from the Carrera GT as well as the Porsche 917 and RS Spyder race cars. The production version of this two-seater, based on a carbon fiber monocoque, features a manual roof system with removable roof panels that can be stowed in the front luggage compartment.

The V-8 engine has a displacement exceeding 4.0-liters and output of more than 500 horsepower. The mid-engine power unit is based on the racing engine of the successful Porsche RS Spyder and is matched to a seven-speed Porsche-Doppelkupplungsgetriebe (PDK) dual clutch transmission.

This powerplant is complemented by two electric motors–one each on the front and rear axle–with a joint mechanical output of at least 218 horsepower. This configuration offers a variable all-wheel drive system with independent control of the propulsion force on both axles. Read more…

As to whether or not I would shell out that kind of money…well, sorry, I wouldn’t. It doesn’t look like a Porsche to me; it looks like somebody took an old Jaguar XJ220, cut the roof off, made a few minor cosmetic changes, and slapped Porsche badges on it. That’s not to say that the XJ220 isn’t a beautiful car…on the contrary, it certainly is. It’s just that if I’m spending almost $1 million for a Porsche, I want a Porsche…not another car with Porsche badges (Porsche 924 anyone?) on it. Given a choice, I would save a little (twice) more and buy a Bugatti Veyron. Yes, it’s more expensive and has horrible gas mileage but wow!