Slashdot Mirror

I don't know if there are some safe nuclear plants. I don't know if we can reliably make safe nuclear plants. What I do know is that the same people keep repeatedly telling us that "nuclear power is safe" and then we keep having major failures which prove it isn't.

Nuclear is the safest power generation technology man has invented. Safer than coal, safer than oil, safer than hydro, safer than solar, and safer than wind. In the U.S. in particular, wind power has killed more people (13+) than nuclear despite supplying only a tiny fraction of the power that nuclear does.

These major failures you keep hearing about are "major" only due to much higher level of caution with which we treat nuclear power, and the high level of press coverage it receives. It's the same reason people are hyper-sensitive to plane crashes, even though cars are nearly 10x more dangerous.

If you think nuclear power is too dangerous to use, then you should immediately stop doing the following activities:

- Using hot water (2x as dangerous as nuclear power)
- Climbing ladders (4x as dangerous as nuclear power)
- Sleeping on a bed (5x as dangerous as nuclear power)
- Taking a bath (15x as dangerous as nuclear power)
- Riding the train (20x as dangerous as nuclear power)
- Riding a car (1250x as dangerous as nuclear power)

I don't need to understand the engineering issues to understand that there is no way to trust the pro-nuclear lobby to actually deal with those issues. Fission based power (and yes; you are right fusion is a different case) needs to be severely limited until we are sure that the people proposing it are much much more trustworthy.

I weep for the future of humanity. People like you are going to damn us to continue using coal, whose emissions kill an estimated 100,000 people worldwide every year. All because you're irrationally afraid of a technology which has killed just a few thousand people in ~60 years.

Have some Diversity (and a bird) :

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/assets/wanting_a_meal.jpg [flatrock.org.nz]

"I really hate babies"

Birds like them:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/odds_and_oddities/assets/wanting_a_meal.jpg

As the Y Chromosome is a genetic dead zone filled with genes that don't do anything. The overwhelming majority of these changes are probably useless mutations that have no effect on the host organism and therefore didn't get bred out as harmful in the same way a mutation on the X chromosome would most likely kill the organism in which it expresses.

Think about it, we are 2 percent different genetically from chimpanzees, which accounts for the what we see as dramatic differences between our species, but this study found 20-plus percent genetic differences between our Y chromosome and our closest ancestor. Men are not 20-plus percent different from women as we are 2 percent different from chimpanzees.

The word "evolution" has nothing to do with this study. There is no natural selection involved, only random mutations amassing on a chromosome that is mostly empty space anyways.

Or you can always disguise factories and docks as residential suburbs - but they say that wouldn't work now, as sensors are more advanced:

California becomes a giant movie set

Douglas Aircraft factories

Fake street

Factory close up

Or you can always disguise factories and docks as residential suburbs - but they say that wouldn't work now, as sensors are more advanced:

California becomes a giant movie set

Douglas Aircraft factories

Fake street

Factory close up

Or you can always disguise factories and docks as residential suburbs - but they say that wouldn't work now, as sensors are more advanced:

California becomes a giant movie set

Douglas Aircraft factories

Fake street

Factory close up

Or you can always disguise factories and docks as residential suburbs - but they say that wouldn't work now, as sensors are more advanced:

California becomes a giant movie set

Douglas Aircraft factories

Fake street

Factory close up

I only need one map to tell me why the US doesn't have a more significant national rail system, and it has nothing to do with emissions (sorry for the poor quality, it's the best I could find).

Everquest is already there.

whoopsie.. that link should be

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/animation/assets/and _one_more.jpg

Is there an eye doctor in the house?
---
I'm a neurologist, not an ophthalmologist, but perhaps I can help...

Amblyopia is a defect in the processing of visual spatial information that affects the visual pathways in the brain NOT the eye. It is developmental in that there is some problem in an eye from an early age that prevents proper binocular vision, for example a congenital cataract, or a problem aligning the two eyes, i.e,. weak muscles or strabismus.

What is thought to happen is that the brain's visual pathways, deprived of binocular input, do not form properly. Children, up to about the age of 9 are at risk for this, because this is when the brain areas are forming. You cannot develop amblyopia after this (approx) age. So if something happened to one normal adult eye even for a long time in a person without amblyopia, then the eye was fixed, there would again be normal binocular vision.

Conversely, if a kid develops amblyopia, then by the time they are an adult it is too late to fix it. Perhaps one can train the eyes to fuse better, but the problem in the brain's visual pathways will not improve.

The treatment of amblyopia is to try to get the visual system to combine information from both eyes, and particularly to work the "lazy" eye. The earlier this can be started, the better.
I agree that until the technique is published in a peer reviewed journal it should be suspect (I don't know if it is).
The treatment, in principle, should be useful no matter what the cause, BUT the problem causing the bad eye must be fixed first. Since the technique treats the brain and not the eye, it would not be at all useful for treating nearsightedness, farsightedness, astigmatism, etc. Those problems are treated glasses, etc. Strabismus or weak eye muscles, is one cause of amblyopia.
----
I wonder if I could just give them a little VR workout every now and then to beef them up...
---

Well, do you really want muscular bulgy eyes?
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/animation/assets/and _one_more.jpg/

Lest you forget how serious the accident at Chernobyl was, read this account of one of the few survivors, a nuclear engineer on duty when reactor number 4 exploded.

you're the kind of person who needs to be stuck right in the middle of the guts and gore to fight for your life, as you crouch in tears and wet your pants, so you can see how "petty" war is.

One of the questions on Chemistry.com asks how long your index finger is compared to your ring finger. What's the significance of that?
We are measuring how much testosterone you were exposed to in the womb. There is new data that shows that the brain is patterned before birth. The length of the finger can give some clues as to how assertive they might be.

Sorry, I didn't know Venik from Adam. Here's some other links about the passive radar angle.

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/flying/f117a_nightha wks.htm

http://www.flymig.com/forum/posts/1108102615.htm

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

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-47020_Passi ve_Radar_System.html

People who have these sorts of arguments never seem to have very nice pets. ;) Regardless of what a crusty old book written by some long-dead people has to say about our relationship to the animal kingdom, simple observation of non-humans would reveal the following obvious truths:

1) Animals seem to love
2) Animals seem to miss
3) Animals play, animals cry, animals laugh
4) Animals have saved humans on countless occasions without being "ordered" to
5) Animals pair-bond, or what we refer to as "marry". 90% of all bird species are monogamous, which is quite astonishing considering they supposedly descended from the dinosaurs!
6) And last but certainly not least, animals engage in all sorts of sexual behaviors, not all of which produce offspring. If you enjoy oral sex, as probably 95% of your human brethren do, you're enjoying without procreating. And most of the time it's done in the context of a loving relationship. I suppose hell is a small price to pay. ;)

I don't think that spiritual development (which I also believe in) is somehow mutually exclusive or incongruous with "everything our evolving beings have learned along the way so far while they were still animal-like and not spiritually-aware". To me this is like saying that since we've built up the skyscraper to the great view on the 300th floor, we might as well remove floors 1-100 since we've gone "beyond" those and don't need them anymore. Everything has ALWAYS built on what came before, but has never totally eclipsed it. Cars did not completely replace horse-drawn carriages, calculators did not replace understanding math. Corporations did not replace mom-and-pop stores, and money did not completely replace bartering. Computers did not replace, well, everything (as some of us geeks would have preferred ;) )

So basically, go fly a kite, open your eyes and stop listening to dogma for a minute and THINK FOR YOURSELF, as we're not as different from the animals as some ancient power-grabbing pontificators who had no extensive experience with animals (or science for that matter) would indicate.

On a somewhat unrelated note, Jesus never dictated any sort of religious hierarchy. In fact, I'm pretty sure he was all about tearing those down. Otherwise "The System" wouldn't have been so interested in getting rid of him. And here we are again, with a religious hierarchy trying to dictate its views to us within the sheeps' clothing of the Republican party. Where's Jesus when you need him to f*** some sh** up? ;) /former-altar-boy-now-lapsed-catholic

There's nothing wrong with looking like this guy or even this guy

There's nothing wrong with looking like this guy or even this guy

The specific reason for women to excel in certain professions is that the society has been forcing them all their life to do things and then take professions that are socially acceptable for women.

Actually, females have genetically-mediated low IQs (a deficit of 5.55 SD15 IQ points)...
http://www.google.com/search?q=nyborg+helmuth+lynn +jensen+iq+girls+allik

. ...and genetically-mediated poor spatial abilities...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=6515 0

. ...in addition to genetically-mediated feminine interests and outlooks:
http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/society_culture/the_ inevitability_of_patriarchy.htm

This is the inevitable result of Google management using old and busted, Old Economy measures like P/E or EPS to judge when to go with an IPO. Don't they know that Clicks per Million (CPM) or Eyeballs per Million (EPM) are the new hotness?!?

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to leave for a First Tuesday party; I don't want to settle for just reading about it on SFGirl afterwards.

Fat people make less than thin. Better looking people make more money than uglier ones. More educated/bright people make more money, etc, etc.

This groundbreaking study on height being correlated with salary does not suprise me. For men it is seen that height is "more attractive" (see above). Interesting thing is that more attractive people are seen as brighter and more "one of us", even if the sexes are the same. No, men don't typically say "My thats a good looking guy!", but they do behave more positively towards better looking men.

(Williams makes some very small turbojet engines, famously for use in cruise missiles)

If I remember correctly, the Jetpack was a very Buck Rogers-looking device, with considerably greater endurance than the Bell Rocketbelt. Unlike the Rocketbelt with its' flight time of ~30 seconds (depending on which model you get your hands on); the Jetpack had a flight time of about 7 minutes, and featured a helmet shaker that would get your attention when you were about to run out of fuel.

(I want to say the Smithsonian display claimed a flight time of 30 minutes...)

So there's the problem... we can easily build an engine -- turbofan or rocket -- that'll lift itself, some fuel, and a person -- it just can't lift very much fuel, and these engines (or rockets) are thirsty!!

I can't seem to find much mention of the Jetpack on the Air & Space site, so here's what I can find:

• www.flying-contraptions.com
  • "The WASP (Williams Aerial Survey Platform) had a jet engine on the bottom; a single occupant essentially stood on the fuel tank. Williams International, in Walled Lake, Michigan, makes little fanjet engines for cruise missiles, which were ideal for one-man jet belts. Bell worked with them on a jet belt with 7-minute endurance, which first flew on 7 April 1969. Later Williams developed the WASP, later renamed the "X-JET", which looked like a pilot standing in a garbage can. The 600-pound turbofan was mounted in front of the pilot, and the WASP could stay airborne for 30 minutes, reach speeds of 60 mph, and land in a four-square-foot area. It is unknown where the project stands today. It was a contract with the Army Tank Automotive Command. "

• Smithsonian Air & Space Museum page about the Bell Rocketbelt
  • "However, despite the belt's apparent popularity, it turned out to be a commercial failure, mainly due to its limited use because of its short duration use. The Army's higher priority of missile development also contributed toward the loss of Army interest. The Army, and also Marine Corps which had considered the belt, did not adopt it and Bell no longer became sought its further development. In January, 1970, a license to sell and manufacture the Bell Jet Belt was granted by Bell Aerospace Textron to Williams International (formerly Williams Research Corp.) of Walled Lake, Michigan. Williams went onto to develop an improved, longer-duration jet-powered version of the belt."

• Page mostly about the Bell Rocketbelt, but attributes a turbojet-based belt to them as well

• This site seems to confirm my "30 minute flight time" recollection -- but the quote is "...an endurance of up to 26 minutes was anticipated", which would seem to say it was never achieved.

• Here's another (similar) picture, but the site it links to is a 404.