Flex is the future

Bruce Eckel writes that Java has lost it's edge. In particular, he sites the very old problem that Java applets never capitalized on the promise of rich internet applications (RIAs). Instead of embracing AJAX (in fact he rejects it based on his disdain for Javascript), he is recommending Flash/Flex. It appears he is now working for Adobe (literally, he says "Full disclosure: I’m in the process of working out a consulting contract with Adobe, to help them teach people about Flex. But long before this, I became convinced that Flash, and Flex in particular, was the best solution for the user-interface problem, and I began writing this article long before Adobe expressed interest in my assistance.") I also find it funny that he rejects Javascript, but is embracing ActionScript (on which Flash is based) when they are both derived from EMCAScript.

Should we trade carbon emissions for nuclear waste?

This commentary suggests that nuclear power is the answer to the IPCC's report on global warming. That the U.S. should lead by investing in nuclear power plant construction as a bridge from our carbon-based energy economy to future uses of renewable-based energy. Should we simply trade our carbon emissions with dangerous nuclear waste? Have we really learned any lesson if we continue to pollute our environment? Only this time instead of greenhouse gases we will be producing waste that lasts thousands of years without any form of safe disposal. Yucca Mountain is not the answer for disposal. It's suggested the issue of disposal can simply be overcome by showing a political will to resolve "not in my back yard" complaints. Is Mr. McNeil suggesting that he'd be happy to host a nuclear waste disposal site in his backyard? Until physics research brings about a truly safe method of disposal, we as humans are being irresponsible to our future generations by generating this nuclear waste.

The economics of the argument are not convincing either. It is suggested that nuclear technology is available in the short-term, while renewable energy would take more long-term investment. When costs for a new plant run from $3 to $4 billion and time for construction is 7-12 years, this seems like neither a cost effective, nor a timely solution. Wouldn't this money and effort be better spent on truly renewable energy research? Or perhaps investment needs to be made in nuclear physics research that can lead to safe disposal methods?