If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Humans Invent)   Scientists reveal nuclear fusion may well be our main source of energy in 100 years   (humansinvent.com) divider line 79
    More: Interesting, energy development  
•       •       •

2944 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Sep 2012 at 12:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



79 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-24 12:24:37 PM  
yawn
another crappy link from this crappy website??
why???
 
2012-09-24 12:28:29 PM  
Can we find an article from a crappier website with a bit less substance?
 
2012-09-24 12:29:21 PM  
We will have jet packs and our dogs will play poker when we're at work.
 
2012-09-24 12:34:29 PM  
Technically isn't that true already? I mean, the Sun and all...
 
2012-09-24 12:36:27 PM  
You know, when I was a kid back in the 1970's, it was predicted that nuclear fusion would be what powers us today. We still have yet to produce fusion reactions on a large enough scale to produce any kind of useful power. I think the best achievement so far has been power output around 70% of input, obviously a losing proposition.

It's harder than we initially thought it was.
 
2012-09-24 12:45:02 PM  
Thanks Captain Farking Obvious. I'm sure that "article" would have been very informative to a third grader in science class.
 
2012-09-24 12:51:38 PM  
We'll get all of our power by nuclear fusion in 100 years? Pssh, I get 100% of my electricity from fusion power today. Spent a part of my weekend cleaning and cooling off my modular, nuclear fusion energy collectors.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-09-24 12:58:22 PM  
Shouldn't fusion power be available by 2050? We'll have Microwave as a stop gap by what, 2030 or something?
 
2012-09-24 12:58:45 PM  
All over it
 
2012-09-24 01:00:49 PM  

dittybopper: You know, when I was a kid back in the 1970's, it was predicted that nuclear fusion would be what powers us today. We still have yet to produce fusion reactions on a large enough scale to produce any kind of useful power. I think the best achievement so far has been power output around 70% of input, obviously a losing proposition.

It's harder than we initially thought it was.


That's nothing, back in the '50s they thought fission power would be too cheap to meter. Even with real technology, the reality never matches the dream.
 
2012-09-24 01:00:59 PM  
Let's try that again:

3.bp.blogspot.com 

All over it

/damn premature Add button
//I swear, baby, this never happens
 
2012-09-24 01:01:41 PM  

MrSteve007: We'll get all of our power by nuclear fusion in 100 years? Pssh, I get 100% of my electricity from fusion power today. Spent a part of my weekend cleaning and cooling off my modular, nuclear fusion energy collectors.


It took me a minute to see your roof. I thought you made the world's most expensive slip-and-slide first.
 
2012-09-24 01:06:10 PM  
What happens to this:

a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net

during times like this:

www.csc.cs.colorado.edu

/A very real issue in my neck of the woods.
 
2012-09-24 01:08:47 PM  
Who gives a damn how the Morlocks are going to run things.
 
2012-09-24 01:11:58 PM  

dittybopper: What happens to this:

[a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x539]

during times like this:

[www.csc.cs.colorado.edu image 360x240]? 

/A very real issue in my neck of the woods.


Solar power is useful and good, but you can't have everyone everywhere using all the time. This is mostly for reasons similar to what you pointed out. There is also a concern with base load issues in using solar (or wind) at large scale due to natural fluctuations in the ability of those systems to collect energy/generate power. The best option is to have at least some of the base load supplied using stable sources, such as what traditional power plants like coal, nuclear, etc... provide with some level of hybridization from these "green" sources. Fusion power, once they finally get it up and running, looks like it will be the best replacement (in terms of long term fuel supply and environmental impact) for future generations.
 
2012-09-24 01:12:57 PM  

dittybopper: What happens to this:

[a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x539]

during times like this:

[www.csc.cs.colorado.edu image 360x240]? 

/A very real issue in my neck of the woods.


Clean it, I guess.
 
2012-09-24 01:13:07 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: dittybopper: What happens to this:

[a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x539]

during times like this:

[www.csc.cs.colorado.edu image 360x240]? 

/A very real issue in my neck of the woods.

Solar power is useful and good, but you can't have everyone everywhere using all the time. This is mostly for reasons similar to what you pointed out. There is also a concern with base load issues in using solar (or wind) at large scale due to natural fluctuations in the ability of those systems to collect energy/generate power. The best option is to have at least some of the base load supplied using stable sources, such as what traditional power plants like coal, nuclear, etc... provide with some level of hybridization from these "green" sources. Fusion power, once they finally get it up and running, looks like it will be the best replacement (in terms of long term fuel supply and environmental impact)* for future generations.


*replacement for those traditional stable plants

FTFM.
 
2012-09-24 01:18:43 PM  

dittybopper: You know, when I was a kid back in the 1970's, it was predicted that nuclear fusion would be what powers us today. We still have yet to produce fusion reactions on a large enough scale to produce any kind of useful power. I think the best achievement so far has been power output around 70% of input, obviously a losing proposition.

It's harder than we initially thought it was.


I think the existing large-scale project in Europe may have briefly showed evidence of power gains, but it isn't a hard/confirmed measurement. There are a lot of challenges but the projects on developing it as a viable power-source seem to be making steady progress.

dittybopper: /A very real issue in my neck of the woods.


Mine too. But solar output in the winter is actually quite high, and snow tends to melt and slide off your roof (and solar panels) pretty quickly once you get those nice, bright, sunny winter days.

Personally I think we should be building things like Thorium reactors. More abundant than Uranium and has waaay fewer problems with waste and safety (like meltdowns), if you aren't using it in a light-water based reactor.
 
2012-09-24 01:26:05 PM  

bsharitt: Can we find an article from a crappier website with a bit less substance?


No kidding. Who are these scientists who "revealed" this opinion? The only quote from the article is from an electrical engineer who specializes in communications technology. As far as I can tell, all of the participants of the workshop it's citing are Sharp employees ("Sharp is 100 years old this month so Humans Invent decided to challenge five of its brightest minds to foretell"). Sharp isn't known for its expertise in fusion. They're known more for plasma TVs than plasma physics.
 
2012-09-24 01:37:16 PM  

entropic_existence: I think the existing large-scale project in Europe may have briefly showed evidence of power gains, but it isn't a hard/confirmed measurement. There are a lot of challenges but the projects on developing it as a viable power-source seem to be making steady progress.


Lots of engineering and materials challenges to actually generate usable electricity, even if you get your ball of plasma to fuse over unity. It's still going to be a steam turbine driving a generator, so getting that water to boil is where the rubber hits the road.
 
2012-09-24 01:40:50 PM  
Oh good, a site where I have to disable their scripts because they don't like that I disable their cookies.
 
2012-09-24 01:49:15 PM  
I was talking to my daughter's boyfriend, who interned with a cold fusion researcher this summer. He said he expected to see feasible cold fusion within the next three years. I asked why and he said "Until recently all the labs working on cold fusion have been very open about what they're doing and sharing their research. All of a sudden, everyone is very closed-mouthed and secretive. It's as though they are on the brink of something patentable and money-making." I asked if his lab was close to a breakthrough and he said:

"---."
 
2012-09-24 01:49:50 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: dittybopper: What happens to this:

[a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x539]

during times like this:

[www.csc.cs.colorado.edu image 360x240]? 

/A very real issue in my neck of the woods.

Clean it, I guess.


Ever been two stories up on a slick, snow covered pitched roof?

Me neither, and I want to keep it that way.
 
2012-09-24 01:52:21 PM  

clambam: I was talking to my daughter's boyfriend, who interned with a cold fusion researcher this summer. He said he expected to see feasible cold fusion within the next three years. I asked why and he said "Until recently all the labs working on cold fusion have been very open about what they're doing and sharing their research. All of a sudden, everyone is very closed-mouthed and secretive. It's as though they are on the brink of something patentable and money-making." I asked if his lab was close to a breakthrough and he said:

"---."


He actually sent the Morse character for the Russian letter 'Ч'?

/Haven't heard that one since dittybopper school.
 
2012-09-24 01:55:06 PM  
I'm more interested in storing the power rather than generating it, where solar power is concerned. Ditto for fusion, and old-fashioned fission.

Besides, why spend all that time on fusion when a network of breeder and CANDU reactors and form a highly sustainable nuclear-centipede of fissile material? Oh, yeah, weapons-grade plutonium, o noes!
 
2012-09-24 02:01:25 PM  

entropic_existence: dittybopper: /A very real issue in my neck of the woods.

Mine too. But solar output in the winter is actually quite high, and snow tends to melt and slide off your roof (and solar panels) pretty quickly once you get those nice, bright, sunny winter days.


For panels with edges with lips, this is how they'll usually look:
thumbs.dreamstime.com

For panels like mine (laminated glass on the front and back without a lip, they shed snow nicely:
www.silicon-energy.com 
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

Somewhere, they have a photo of an install in Minnesota (where the Silicon Energy panels are manufactured) of a PV awning that shed about 8 inches of overnight snow by 10am.

They're pretty strong too:
sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net

Even when shot with .22 & .223 at 30 ft:
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net 
To these modern panels, adverse weather (snow, hail, etc.) is nothing.
 
2012-09-24 02:01:27 PM  

MrSteve007: We'll get all of our power by nuclear fusion in 100 years? Pssh, I get 100% of my electricity from fusion power today. Spent a part of my weekend cleaning and cooling off my modular, nuclear fusion energy collectors.


Hoser.
 
2012-09-24 02:03:27 PM  

dittybopper: You know, when I was a kid back in the 1970's, it was predicted that nuclear fusion would be what powers us today. We still have yet to produce fusion reactions on a large enough scale to produce any kind of useful power. I think the best achievement so far has been power output around 70% of input, obviously a losing proposition.

It's harder than we initially thought it was.


Nah, fusion power is merely always ten years in the future.
On the other hand, cold fusion power is always only three years in the future.

/waiting for cramped fusion.
 
2012-09-24 02:11:09 PM  

dittybopper: Quantum Apostrophe: dittybopper: What happens to this:

[a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net image 850x539]

during times like this:

[www.csc.cs.colorado.edu image 360x240]? 

/A very real issue in my neck of the woods.

Clean it, I guess.

Ever been two stories up on a slick, snow covered pitched roof?

Me neither, and I want to keep it that way.


You'd just fall onto nice fluffy snow.

I kid, I kid.

MrSteve007: entropic_existence: dittybopper: /A very real issue in my neck of the woods.

Mine too. But solar output in the winter is actually quite high, and snow tends to melt and slide off your roof (and solar panels) pretty quickly once you get those nice, bright, sunny winter days.

For panels with edges with lips, this is how they'll usually look:
[thumbs.dreamstime.com image 400x268]

For panels like mine (laminated glass on the front and back without a lip, they shed snow nicely:
[www.silicon-energy.com image 850x637] 
[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 343x369]

Somewhere, they have a photo of an install in Minnesota (where the Silicon Energy panels are manufactured) of a PV awning that shed about 8 inches of overnight snow by 10am.

They're pretty strong too:
[sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net image 720x480]

Even when shot with .22 & .223 at 30 ft:
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 612x206] 
To these modern panels, adverse weather (snow, hail, etc.) is nothing.


Impressive. If I ever decide to buy real estate, like my parent's house, I'd be looking into PV roof stuff. Maybe geothermal. My parents still have an oil furnace.
 
2012-09-24 02:13:32 PM  
They're pretty strong too:

Even when shot with .22 & .223 at 30 ft:

What about when I bombard them with this:

i46.tinypic.com

A tin can full of cement, weighing 2 lbs, and screaming down at 300+ fps has considerably more energy than a poodle-shooter like the .223.
 
2012-09-24 02:15:22 PM  

dittybopper: You know, when I was a kid back in the 1970's, it was predicted that nuclear fusion would be what powers us today. We still have yet to produce fusion reactions on a large enough scale to produce any kind of useful power. I think the best achievement so far has been power output around 70% of input, obviously a losing proposition.

It's harder than we initially thought it was.


And fuel cell or hydrogen burning cars. Just about every President from Nixon on forward kept saying we would develope and market an affordable hydrogen based car. I don't recall Obama saying it but he probably has.
 
2012-09-24 02:16:31 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Impressive. If I ever decide to buy real estate, like my parent's house, I'd be looking into PV roof stuff. Maybe geothermal. My parents still have an oil furnace.


In complete honesty, I'd love to go at least partially solar, especially a system that charges a battery. I just know I'm not going to be able to put one up for a while, because other issues are more pressing.
 
2012-09-24 02:32:29 PM  

dittybopper: Quantum Apostrophe: Impressive. If I ever decide to buy real estate, like my parent's house, I'd be looking into PV roof stuff. Maybe geothermal. My parents still have an oil furnace.

In complete honesty, I'd love to go at least partially solar, especially a system that charges a battery. I just know I'm not going to be able to put one up for a while, because other issues are more pressing.


My parents' house was built in 1948. Either it's way overbuilt so the roof will hold, but there are some areas in the house where I can see less than stellar building materials. I assume there will be a lot of wasted money in the form of inspections and certificates. It's not just a pure hardware thing. Where would the batteries go? How do you pass the wiring? What kind of wiring? How do you hook up the power to the rest of the house wiring?

Extra fun is that the place is wired with one of these

static.zoovy.com

so there's an extra level of panels and wiring. PLUS the house is wired half with no ground (2 prong outlets), and half with ground.

Hmm, the more I think about it, the more it's a nightmare.
 
2012-09-24 02:32:39 PM  

Steve Zodiac: And fuel cell or hydrogen burning cars. Just about every President from Nixon on forward kept saying we would develope and market an affordable hydrogen based car. I don't recall Obama saying it but he probably has.


There's little point anymore. Plug-in EVs are more efficient and the battery technology is improving faster than the cost of fuel cell vehicle production is declining.

Both, to be really effective, will require significant infrastructure change. I'd much rather see a change in favor of plug-in EVs. If I could have a car that really did reliably go 100 miles on a charge, was capable of driving safely on the highway and you didn't have to worry about not having access to a charging station if you parked it more than 50 miles from home, I'd be all over an EV.
 
2012-09-24 02:36:30 PM  

Steve Zodiac: Just about every President from Nixon on forward kept saying we would develope and market an affordable hydrogen based car


That was just a code word for "more nuclear power plants". Hydrogen is not a fuel, it has to be manufactured. It's a losing proposition from all points of view. Availability, infrastructure, energy density and materials. Why add extra inefficient steps to create a battery?
 
2012-09-24 02:39:23 PM  
Coincidentally I was just looking at the June issue of Scientific American today. It has an article about ITER in it. Not real positive. IMHO it is going to be a lot easier to find a cheap and effective means to store solar and wind energy than it is to build a cost effective fusion reactor. And I agree with Nurglitch, breeder reactors, like LFTR, can make use of the "waste" from conventional reactors and eliminate the waste problem. It will be interesting to see where China goes with nuclear power in the next decade or so.
 
2012-09-24 02:40:57 PM  
www.moonbase99.it

Will we be driving DeLoreans as well?
 
2012-09-24 02:44:37 PM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Steve Zodiac: And fuel cell or hydrogen burning cars. Just about every President from Nixon on forward kept saying we would develope and market an affordable hydrogen based car. I don't recall Obama saying it but he probably has.

There's little point anymore. Plug-in EVs are more efficient and the battery technology is improving faster than the cost of fuel cell vehicle production is declining.

Both, to be really effective, will require significant infrastructure change. I'd much rather see a change in favor of plug-in EVs. If I could have a car that really did reliably go 100 miles on a charge, was capable of driving safely on the highway and you didn't have to worry about not having access to a charging station if you parked it more than 50 miles from home, I'd be all over an EV.


There is one thing that liquid or gaseous fueled vehicles will always have an advantage over pure battery powered cars: Recharge time.

Currently, I can "recharge" my conventional car fully to give me 300+ miles range in roughly 5 minutes from wheel stop to wheel start.

I could put up with a general purpose vehicle that had 100 or 150 mile range with a 5 minute "recharge" time. I can't do it if the recharge time to 80% capacity is 30 minutes for a quick charge.

That's not to say I think we should continue using petroleum products. I think the future is electric vehicles powered by fuel cells. An efficient fuel cell that uses a liquid instead of gases would be perfect: You could simply convert the current billions of dollars of installed infrastructure (gas stations) to handle the new liquid, if necessary. New seals and hose materials, perhaps, but not necessarily. Quick "recharge" times, no emissions, the torque and maintenance advantages of an electric car, no need for brand-new infrastructure, and the possibility to take long trips without having to wait hours to continue your journey.
 
2012-09-24 02:46:28 PM  

rwfan: Coincidentally I was just looking at the June issue of Scientific American today. It has an article about ITER in it. Not real positive.


I did a little paper on fusion a few years back. Peeling back the hype revealed the monstrous complexity and materials-intensive nature of DEMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO

DEMO is the real goal. ITER is just the demo. DEMO is not the demo. DEMO is the real thing built from the demo of ITER. Or something.

I have reservations about General Fusion, but at least they elegantly side-step the whole containment/heat jacket thing, they're one and the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Fusion
 
2012-09-24 02:48:35 PM  

dittybopper: That's not to say I think we should continue using petroleum products. I think the future is electric vehicles powered by fuel cells


Or given enough electricity, synthetic gasoline. No changes needed. Well, except to our entire social structure built on cheap energy and suburbs, but we weren't going to power that society with solar cells anyhow...
 
2012-09-24 03:17:46 PM  

bsharitt: Can we find an article from a crappier website with a bit less substance?


CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

www.verybestsites.com
 
2012-09-24 03:21:13 PM  
I'd like to believe you, subby, but I was aurally assaulted the second that web page loaded and I had to close it to keep my brain from melting.
 
2012-09-24 03:21:44 PM  
The fundamental thing with nuclear fusion is that you're taking relatively abundant elements - isotopes of hydrogen which you can make from sea water - and you're colliding them together to make huge amounts of energy. What you're left over with is essentially non-toxic and non-radioactive.

So it's like Play-Doh, except not radioactive.
 
2012-09-24 03:27:20 PM  
I like the PV panels that MrSteve007 showed, and living here in Florida, I'm more concerned with how they're attached to my roof than the PV panels themselves since we don't get much hail, but when a hurricane hits, I'm worried that my PV panels would end up 2 counties away...
 
2012-09-24 03:29:17 PM  
Scientists reveal nuclear fusion may well be our main source of energy in 100 years

FTFSubby

If they can't make fusion work, they can run a treadmill. Or burn. *clenched fist of villany*
 
2012-09-24 03:52:41 PM  

semiotix: The fundamental thing with nuclear fusion is that you're taking relatively abundant elements - isotopes of hydrogen which you can make from sea water - and you're colliding them together to make huge amounts of energy. What you're left over with is essentially non-toxic and non-radioactive.


Is that a quotation from the article? DNRTFA because I determined previously that website blows and should be avoided. If their "experts" are so stupid as to make the claim that fusion is "non-radioactive" we should ban that site from the geek tab.
 
2012-09-24 03:54:02 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Lots of engineering and materials challenges to actually generate usable electricity, even if you get your ball of plasma to fuse over unity. It's still going to be a steam turbine driving a generator, so getting that water to boil is where the rubber hits the road.


Yes, but it doesn't seem like it is either impossible or unrealistic given the fairly steady level of advancement done so far. Unfortunately virtually all funding has been focused on one-type of containment method. There are other promising avenues that have received virtually no attention. Just like the nuclear industry seems overly focused on a pretty narrow range of fission reactors where others may be much safer and economically viable long-term.

MrSteve007: For panels with edges with lips, this is how they'll usually look


Yeah, I didn't think about the lips on lots of the installs. Thanks for sharing!

Steve Zodiac: And fuel cell or hydrogen burning cars. Just about every President from Nixon on forward kept saying we would develope and market an affordable hydrogen based car. I don't recall Obama saying it but he probably has.


The big expense is really in infrastructure changes instead of the technology itself. Until those mass market effects kick in though both the technology and the infrastructure costs remain prohibitive.

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Both, to be really effective, will require significant infrastructure change. I'd much rather see a change in favor of plug-in EVs. If I could have a car that really did reliably go 100 miles on a charge, was capable of driving safely on the highway and you didn't have to worry about not having access to a charging station if you parked it more than 50 miles from home, I'd be all over an EV.


I'd be all over an EV too... if I didn't live in Canada. The problem is we still haven't figured out cold-weather battery performance very well. Of course I do like systems like the Chevy Volt, where you always have the option of a gasoline engine that powers the battery, which runs the wheels more efficiently than a typical combustion engine does even with the step in the middle. (Ignoring the whole catching on fire problem the volt has had)

Quantum Apostrophe: That was just a code word for "more nuclear power plants". Hydrogen is not a fuel, it has to be manufactured. It's a losing proposition from all points of view. Availability, infrastructure, energy density and materials. Why add extra inefficient steps to create a battery?


All fuel is manufactured. Technically making liquid hydrogen and gasoline are different, but the fact that both need to be either produced or refined in some fashion is largely equivalent. And they both take power input in order to do that conversion. They just have different cost/benefit curves.

Hydrogen is nice that it already fits in some of the infrastructure ideas we have about how cars and fuelling should work. But it isn't ideal and it probably will never take over. We are far more likely to switch over to all electric. It makes more sense anyway in terms of having one integrated system for powering "stuff", be it home electronics or cars.

Quantum Apostrophe: Or given enough electricity, synthetic gasoline. No changes needed. Well, except to our entire social structure built on cheap energy and suburbs, but we weren't going to power that society with solar cells anyhow...


Population density is key. Cities are far more efficient than suburban sprawl in pretty much every way imaginable. Of course I love rural areas, having grown up in the country, but suburban sprawl isn't the country and people need to stop pretending like it is. Suburbanites and their obscene commutes so they can have a detached home and an eighth of an acre of grass (or less) are probably the worst part of the whole energy equation right now.
 
2012-09-24 04:04:28 PM  

entropic_existence: Ignoring the whole catching on fire problem the volt has had


You can ignore it because that problem never actually existed.

The examples were crashed NHTSA test vehicles that had been idled for hours (and in some cases weeks) and leaked coolant after the batteries were punctured. There was never an issue with a production Volt catching fire in service as a result of that "defect".

Gasoline cars now catch fire when various parts of them are punctured, that's just the risk you take when you have to rely on flammable or explosive fuels to create energy.
 
2012-09-24 04:24:00 PM  

rwfan: Is that a quotation from the article? DNRTFA because I determined previously that website blows and should be avoided. If their "experts" are so stupid as to make the claim that fusion is "non-radioactive" we should ban that site from the geek tab.


It is a quote from the website. But actually, that's not really wrong. They just mean that the fusion reactors we're most likely to build will yield products that aren't radioactive. Tritium, which would be one of the reactants unless we get that 3He Moon-mining thing going, is middlingly radioactive (half-life ~12y).

There's radiation involved, of course, some of which would be pretty bad for you if you were standing right there when something went wrong--e.g., neutron radiation. (You might also suffer mild burns from the zillion-degree plasma as it escaped.) But what they mean is that the fusion power plant isn't going to slowly become steeped in a hundred different bizarre radionucleides like any given fission reactor eventually does.
 
2012-09-24 04:35:55 PM  
...although, yes, there can be neutron activation of the reactor materials themselves depending on what kind of hypothetical reaction you're going for, which may have been what you meant. But for practical purposes, that's still a different animal than "we are guaranteed at the end of the day to have a big stinky pile of plutonium slag delicately spiced with cobalt and strontium."

/I contain multitudes
 
Displayed 50 of 79 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report