And on the seventh day, man created UNICS. But UNICS was lonely, for it had no one to ping, and so Man took some Code from UNICS and made The UNIX time Sharing system, on november 3, 1971. And they begat Version 2, and version 2 begat version 3 and version 3 begat version 4 and version 4 begat Version 5, PWB, and MERT, and from then on it was a roman orgy of code crossing over, really not something you would want your childrent to look at, in fact your V-Chip enabled, censorware running computer should be melting right about no......
Thank you for the nice list of public proxy servers. Their IP's will now be banned.
Sincerely,
The Chinese Government
Worth every penny im sure
on
Tito In Space
·
· Score: 1
If I had $20 million lying around in a pile at home, First id roll around in it giggling with glee. Then after that got boring, Id spend it just like Tito did. Its the only surefire way to open the solar system, private investment with government backing.
I am completely aware of this, take the statement in context with the rest of the post. Yes its funny, but its also a statemtnt against the type of arguments junk scientists tend to use.
Re:Joe can't find a job (in USA)
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 2
Its nice to see that Joe supports ending poverty in third world nations. Which is a better way to end poverty, giving poor people money or giving poor people jobs? Even low paying sweatshop labor is better than no job at all. Eventually the labor pool begins to dry up and wages begin to rise. This happened in Europe in the 1900's and america in the 20's and 40's. It just like starting to work only for a whole country. you start off working at a crappy mcdonalds job and work your way up to the high paying software or engineering job. You have to start at the bottom to get to the top, unless you were born rich.
you dont put your material in barrels and hope it stays there, you encase it in solid glass. that way even as it breaks up the material is still encapsulated. Also most subduction zones are a couple hundred miles off coastlines, and under alot of salt water. You arent going to be drilling there for groundwater any time soon.
Actually the center of the sun, where the fusion is taking place, is 2-3 million degrees K, the surface of the sun is a mere 6000K. If fusion happened at 6000k we would have had fusion generators all over the place by now. Getting something to 2 million K is alot harder than 6000, and containing it is even worse.
Then someone pointed out that it would take millions of years
for them to be sucked down (moving at maybe a foot per year, and you want it to sink several hundred miles).
This unfortunately doesn't look practical.
Right, but during the time its being sucked into the molten part, its trapped under a large amount of rock, which makes a good radiation shield. Moving at a foot a year, itll be 20 feet underground in maybe 30-40 years, and thats plenty of shielding. Yes it takes a million years to be spread into the magma layer, but during that time its in a place where it cant harm humans. The trick would be to put the waste right where the crust is subducting, you dont want to wait 30 years for the waste to start moving underground if you accidentally place it 30 feet away.
Youre right, but even with alot of medium lifetime elements sitting around, were still in a better position than we are now with stuff thats going to be around for a million years. Ultimately i think some sort of crustal sequestration method would be the best, send the radioactive particles into a fault where thell be sucked into the earth. Most of the earths internal heat is already due to radioactive decay, so we wouldnt be doing any harm there. An alternative trick of course is to find something to do with it so that its no longer waste, perhaps the heat generated by the decay is intense enough to power a small turbine while its cooling off. or maybe it can be used in a manufacturing process, who knows. Waste is an illusion, any waste product is simly the input product for another process. Uranium after all is the waste product of supernovas.
Re:The reactor casing is also a problem
on
Fission in a Box
·
· Score: 2
Youre right, more research needs to be done into coatings that would help prevent contamination. Certain elements can absorb neutrons without themselves becoming radioative, and coating reactor vessels and the like would help to reduce, although not eliminate, this type of problem. Regardless, Coal power plants release more radioctive particles into the atmosphere every year than chernobyl did. Humans are resiliant creatures, weve evolved to take some radiation and keep on ticking.
Granted, i dont see homes being powered by their own nuclear power plants anytime soon. Your statements about waste however, are incorrect. There is a solution to the nuclear waste problem, burn it. I dont mean with fire, i mean in a reactor. so called nuclear "waste" is waste because it can no longer be used by a conventional nuclear pwer plant. There are power plant designs that would use fuel rods until all of the fissionable material is used. Look on google for the Advanced Liquid Metal reactor. Fuel is recycled until all the uranium and plutonium has fissioned into lesser elements, some with half lives of days, rather than millions of years. The main obstacle to this technology is of course pollitical.
Did you know that the sun is made of hydrogen, the same explosive fuel that downed the hindenburg? Not only that, but the sun is a gian nuclear furnace, where hydrogen is turned into helium, at a temperature of MILLIONS of degrees! The sun puts out 10^23 watts of RADIATION every second! Do you really want something so dangerous powering our homes and schools, places where our CHILDREN could be? I say down with solar power. The last thing we need is RADIATION collectors on every roof. Think of it, actually collecting RADIATION in your own home. Personally I prefer safe, clean COAL power. We must not embrace new technologies solely
because they are new, but rather because they improve our quality of life. Coal power has been doing that for over a century.
Actually freenet is designed to reduce the effectiveness of traffic analysis. Popular sites and files get mirrored. The more popular a file is, the more it gets mirrored. This means that traffic to and from your freenet box should remain about constant or increase and decrease slowly over time. For example, if you had a freenet page and it was posted on slashdot, thousands of mirrors would be spawned around the world as traffic spiked. The best anyone could do would be to tell that you were running freenet, they couldnt associate the page with you since mirrors would be everywhere. As the slashdot effect dropped off, the mirrors would dissapear. in fact, the remaining sites might not even be on your computer.
By definition, a spy does not wear military uniform, and does not travel in vehicles with
military insignia. So, no, the P-3 is NOT a spy plane.
yet it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and has the dna of a duck, but its not a duck, ok.
The frontal area of a scramjet is much higher than the frontal area of a comparably powered chemical
rocket. Wave drag is a bitch, and it's the factor that will continue to kill air-breathing high speed flight for the
forseeable future. The engine is also much heavier than the oxidizer that a regular rocket would use. Remember,
you still need a conventional rocket to get this thing up to the point where it can light up...
What do you mean by "frontal area" are you referring to the leading edge? the leading edge of a scramjet is comparable to that of a rocket. Or do you mean the cross sectional area? if so, then yes, the cross section is higher, but this is needed in order for the engine to work.(it has to take in air) Ultimately the fact that air is flowing thorugh part of the cross section tends to reduce wave drag. Your goal is to get to a point higher in the atmosphere where wave drag isnt as much of a problem. A scramjet engine is essentially a box open at both ends. A very specially shaped box, but a box nonetheless. Oxidizer needs to be held in a tank. a tank is also like a box but closed at both ends. Which is heavier, an empty box open at both ends, or a box full of luquid closed at both ends? If you have a hydrogen powered scramjet, you save 8/9 of the wight simply because in a H-O2 reaction, oxygen wighs 8 times more than the hydrogen. You're right, you do need a conventional rocket to get up to speed, and yes this does cut down on the weight savings, but there is still a significant savings.
He said whilst ripping a CD in iTunes. Apple is getting really with it. granted, they have problems, closed hardware etc. But they definitely get it when it comes to choice and freedom in software. iTunes is a great mp3 player. not as good sounding as soundjam with the realizer plugin, but as far as ease of use and ease of finding songs i want to play, its got no competition. See how MS is playign catchup by bundling a half assed mp3 player into XP. (btw, XP is actualy an emoticon of somone in extreme disgust. turn it on its side and look for awhile, youll see it)
Doubtful. Supersonic jets bring loud engines and louder sonic booms. This means that such a jet will only be able
to fly out of a handful of airports, limiting the number of planes that will be sold, which limits the price of seats
to the social elite.
What most people dont realize is that at the speeds were talking about (mach 7-10) you can do a nice suborbital hop. This means you thrust to say mach 8 in the atmosphere on a trajectory that will bring you out of the atmosphere. No air means no mach wave which means no sonic boom (contrary to TV and movies, theres no sound in space) The minimum speed for reaching outer space is a bit more than mach 3. its a simple 1/2v^2=gh calculation. of course, youll come straight back down again if youre going this slow, but you will exit the atmosphere. mach 7-10 allows you to gain altitude and speed along the ground. you wont orbit, but youll go quite a ways. Regardless of this, there is still a market for transatlantic and especially transpacific high speed flights. If, and its a big if, you can keep the costs about the same or a little more than conventional planes. If youve ever had to endure a 10 hour flight across the pacific, im sure youd be willing to pay quite a bit more to do it in 2 hours.
1.) Spy planes. And I mean real spy planes, not the glorified P-3 Orion that the press has been quick to call a "spy
plane" recently.:)
2.) Rapid response time. Sure, it may be an engineering problem of figuring out how to shoot at people or drop
bombs on the, but it might be worth it for the 3-4 hour response time to hit just about anybody in the world.
1: The P-3 Orion is a plane. Its mission is to spy on people, which is what it was doing at the time of the accident. How is this not a real "spy plane" Its a plane that spys isnt it?
2: youre right, allegedly people in area 51 have been working on the "45 minutes to anywhere" bomber, who knows if thats accurate.
Wouldn't this be useful as the first stage of a two-stage system?
Actually you could just watch PBS, they show alot of brit shows (because the british have culture) I was watching the other day and some show had a shower sex scene and they showed everythign above the waist. On govt funded TV no less.
Which is exatly why mac OS X is so revolutionary. Its got an easy to use GUI for those who are less computer enlightened, and its got the BSD command line for the hackers out there. The best of both worlds.
make available for inclusion on
publicly accessible areas of the Service
Thats key. It only pertains to publicly available content. Microsofts does not. Its a key distinction. It means if you send a top secret buisness plan to somone through hotmail, microsoft can snag it and use it if they want. They dont even have to let you know they took it. All of a sudden theyve "innovated" some new and exciting thing that used to be yours. According to the yahoo TOS, yahoo cant do that because mail is not a publily available forum.
Right, macs wont solve the problem, but neither will switching to linux, since quite a bit of commercial software, that companies use, isnt available for linux. It isnt available for macs either, but there is a bit more avalable for mac than for linux. Thats a crappy argument, but its one youll find buisness types more than willing to make. The answer is: Is there software available that will do an equivalent job with an equivalent amount of ease. the answer to that is no, for one simple reason. Learning something new is never as easy as doing something you already know. You can have the easiest user interface in the world, but if its in any way different from the one you use now, people wont want to switch to it, because theyre comfortable with what they have. Linux geeks are always worried about code fragmentation and whatnot, a bigger problem is interface fragmentation. What happens when the interfaces of different flavors become sufficiently different that it requires a learning curve to switch versions? The linux community will begin to become fragmented, and Mac vs Win debates will begin to spring up all over the place, they are starting to already, and that will ultimately hurt the community.
Actually, Apple would be a valid alternative as well, and probably more compatable with the software your company runs. After all, as a fortune 200 company, I assume you use office, which does not run on linux. The Mac OS has basically no liscence. If you buy the hardware from apple, the software cost is included, and they dont mess around with any liscencing issues. Of course, no one would ever go for changing all your computers to apple, because people are biased against it. Not unlike linux....
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you for the nice list of public proxy servers. Their IP's will now be banned.
Sincerely,
The Chinese Government
I am completely aware of this, take the statement in context with the rest of the post. Yes its funny, but its also a statemtnt against the type of arguments junk scientists tend to use.
Right, but during the time its being sucked into the molten part, its trapped under a large amount of rock, which makes a good radiation shield. Moving at a foot a year, itll be 20 feet underground in maybe 30-40 years, and thats plenty of shielding. Yes it takes a million years to be spread into the magma layer, but during that time its in a place where it cant harm humans. The trick would be to put the waste right where the crust is subducting, you dont want to wait 30 years for the waste to start moving underground if you accidentally place it 30 feet away.
EOM
yet it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and has the dna of a duck, but its not a duck, ok.
The frontal area of a scramjet is much higher than the frontal area of a comparably powered chemical rocket. Wave drag is a bitch, and it's the factor that will continue to kill air-breathing high speed flight for the forseeable future. The engine is also much heavier than the oxidizer that a regular rocket would use. Remember, you still need a conventional rocket to get this thing up to the point where it can light up...
What do you mean by "frontal area" are you referring to the leading edge? the leading edge of a scramjet is comparable to that of a rocket. Or do you mean the cross sectional area? if so, then yes, the cross section is higher, but this is needed in order for the engine to work.(it has to take in air) Ultimately the fact that air is flowing thorugh part of the cross section tends to reduce wave drag. Your goal is to get to a point higher in the atmosphere where wave drag isnt as much of a problem. A scramjet engine is essentially a box open at both ends. A very specially shaped box, but a box nonetheless. Oxidizer needs to be held in a tank. a tank is also like a box but closed at both ends. Which is heavier, an empty box open at both ends, or a box full of luquid closed at both ends? If you have a hydrogen powered scramjet, you save 8/9 of the wight simply because in a H-O2 reaction, oxygen wighs 8 times more than the hydrogen. You're right, you do need a conventional rocket to get up to speed, and yes this does cut down on the weight savings, but there is still a significant savings.
What most people dont realize is that at the speeds were talking about (mach 7-10) you can do a nice suborbital hop. This means you thrust to say mach 8 in the atmosphere on a trajectory that will bring you out of the atmosphere. No air means no mach wave which means no sonic boom (contrary to TV and movies, theres no sound in space) The minimum speed for reaching outer space is a bit more than mach 3. its a simple 1/2v^2=gh calculation. of course, youll come straight back down again if youre going this slow, but you will exit the atmosphere. mach 7-10 allows you to gain altitude and speed along the ground. you wont orbit, but youll go quite a ways. Regardless of this, there is still a market for transatlantic and especially transpacific high speed flights. If, and its a big if, you can keep the costs about the same or a little more than conventional planes. If youve ever had to endure a 10 hour flight across the pacific, im sure youd be willing to pay quite a bit more to do it in 2 hours.
1.) Spy planes. And I mean real spy planes, not the glorified P-3 Orion that the press has been quick to call a "spy plane" recently. :)
2.) Rapid response time. Sure, it may be an engineering problem of figuring out how to shoot at people or drop
bombs on the, but it might be worth it for the 3-4 hour response time to hit just about anybody in the world.
1: The P-3 Orion is a plane. Its mission is to spy on people, which is what it was doing at the time of the accident. How is this not a real "spy plane" Its a plane that spys isnt it?
2: youre right, allegedly people in area 51 have been working on the "45 minutes to anywhere" bomber, who knows if thats accurate.
Wouldn't this be useful as the first stage of a two-stage system?
Hellz yeah!
oh my, your particle accelerator is so big...
Thats key. It only pertains to publicly available content. Microsofts does not. Its a key distinction. It means if you send a top secret buisness plan to somone through hotmail, microsoft can snag it and use it if they want. They dont even have to let you know they took it. All of a sudden theyve "innovated" some new and exciting thing that used to be yours. According to the yahoo TOS, yahoo cant do that because mail is not a publily available forum.