npts2020

Also, the configuration required for slow vs instant energy release but if one has the materiel and know-how to build one they can almost certainly build the other.

How does raising minimum wage increase the amount of money in circulation? Seems to me all it does is redistribute toward the creators, more of the wealth created. I should have clarified that money used to buy real goods rather than buying investments type of circulation. Buying back shares of stock doesn't create jobs, people being able to go out for a movie and dinner does.

As evidenced by what? The scientists doing this for over a decade now seem to think it is fairly accurate and their results correspond well with statistics collected via other methods. How significant? Also, keep in mind that urine in the street ends up in the sewage, anyway. WRT the OP it makes sense the the more money in circulation, the more jobs will be created.

Not exactly. It is done by testing sewage effluence. Drug usage can be inferred from the percentages of certain chemicals contained therein.

Probably because the model or artist's paramour showed up when they were doing something besides painting.

Cat litter is a pretty good absorbent and can be powderized if desired. It is used industrially for many things, including sopping up oil spills and radioactive liquids.

Ya, but it's probably better than calling your town "Artificial Stimulation".

This will only be possible when resources are routinely used for the common good rather than individual enrichment.

Sure but one has to assume none of that is "moral". Capitalist philosophy says it is perfectly moral to take advantage of others so long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.

Disadvantage 1; seems to me a laser would cauterize the grass as it cuts so no fresh mowed grass smell. 2; could be a fire hazard. 3; few fields are flat enough.

One way would be to measure participation in a given activity but it seems any method will be imprecise because you are trying to quantify a subjective human judgment.

I'm sure it is possible but so long as the system is based on money rather than tangible things, those with the money are unlikely to ever allow it to happen. Some work has to be hard, there aren't enough machines in the world with the skill sets to do all of it.

I don't recall ever claiming the market to be "free". AFAIK such a thing has never existed but fact of the matter is the market is less free in no small part because of abuses of that freedom.

Depends on what is meant by "short term". To drosophila a human lifetime is an extremely long time. To the universe, all of human existence is very short period.

Most people are nice but the "market" seems to reward those who are least moral the most. Besides, once you introduce anything like "ethics" or "morals" into the market, it is no longer "free". It is regulated by those morals and ethics.

If humans universally had the same morals a free market with morals would be a given. However, not everyone agrees on what is "moral" (indeed, some seem to see nothing as moral) which will certainly IMO lead to a market free from morals and full of abuses of all kinds.

Sure. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I had always thought the difference in fragments was in size of mass not charge and that in fission it was mass lost not charge. That is why you don't get a useful electric current directly from fission. I could see a magnetic field, atomic filter or some similar scheme possibly causing an electric current to be produced, as the OP seems be asking, but the catch (as usual) will be in getting more energy out than you put into the process.

Well, in a world where "might makes right" and there always seems to be a military ready to invade a neighbor or even some country far away it seems unlikely in practice before humans become extinct. It seems to me it would require adopting a universal set of rules for all nations and all peoples, something I don't see the ruling class in most places ever allowing to happen.

Why is that? Wouldn't the highly ionized negative particles have just as highly ionized counterparts with positive charge?

Even more unfortunately, it isn't because it couldn't be done. Locally would be harder, IMO. No, even though I have been in some supposedly tough neighborhoods all over the world and been threatened on more than one occasion (although it has been a while). Apparently, I am pretty good at convincing a potential adversary that there will be no benefit for being so.

I feel much safer when no weapons are around.

$$$$$, same as virtually everything supplied to the military. What is the point of having airplanes costing hundreds of millions of dollars to be used in the kind of war we haven't been involved with for longer than most of us have been alive?

Of course they are ionized temporarily. What is the net charge of all the fragments?

One of the problems is that fission occurs much better (in uranium, anyway) with thermal (slow) neutrons but those fissions make fast (high momentum) neutrons. The hydrogen in water is very efficient at slowing those neutrons down by absorbing some of their energy causing the water to heat up enough to make steam for running a turbine to turn a generator for making electricity. If one or more of those steps can be eliminated, you may have something worthwhile. The sticking point comes in channeling exploded atoms with virtually no net charge into an electrical current and finding materials that will hold up to nuclear bombardment, like swansont points out above. It's all about turning atomic kinetic energy, which almost always exhibits itself as heat, into a usable form of energy.