Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Reactors As Art
Hemos recommends the coverage over at Wired of a project to digitize nuclear reactor art. "Not all nuclear reactors are built alike. Power plant designs can vary in their fuels, coolants, and configurations, a fact beautifully illustrated by a series of reactor wall charts originally published in issues of Nuclear Engineering International during the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, the charts have been lovingly collected by Ronald Knief, a nuclear engineer at Sandia National Laboratory. Recently, he completed his collection... and began to digitize the drawings. The first eight out of more than 100 have now been permanently archived online... 'This is not a CAD/CAM-type thing,' Knief said. 'This really is art.'"
Where is SNPP?
There are a lot of ways to correct factual errors that don't involve telling the other person to shut up.
You made a comment which was entirely composed of factual errors on slashdot, and now you're upset that people are picking it apart and suggesting that you shut your piehole until something useful might come out of it? You must be new here.
Your post had a lot of excellent points, but then you crapped all over it with an ad homid attack.
Holy shit, werewolf attack! I wouldn't stand for that either.
Your comment is amateurish at best, and your followup whinge is pathetic. But if you're a whiner in training, I guess it works. Next time, take a deep breath and count to ten before you reply. If "it's just not worth it", don't click submit. You may, however, find it cleansing to write the comments even when you don't submit them; I know I do. It's what you do afterwards that counts; I suggest ^W
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
In fact just make sure you take a look at which countries have nukes before you comment on this again.
There are a lot of ways to correct factual errors that don't involve telling the other person to shut up.
He didn't tell you to shut up, he told you to do your research before you comment.
Your post had a lot of excellent points, but then you crapped all over it with an ad homid attack.
This isn't an ad hominem attack. Attacking your argument on the basis that it's factually incorrect isn't personal. It's not like he called you a hypersensitive, touchy bitch and then used that to deride your argument.
Also -- wikipedia? Seriously?
It's not really hard to back up the info found there on this subject, and it's a convenient first line for the information.
Virg