No kidding. I doubt that I'm the only one who had blisters on his hands from trying to beat level D-4. I think I spent about 400 lives on that level! But once I beat it I did the happy dance!
Did you also throw away the Lord of the Rings books after the Tom Bombadil section?
BG2 is like the LotR in that it has silly parts. But those parts in no way trivialize the epic nature of the story. You should try BG or BG2. Perhaps warm up by playing Planescape: Torment. If you like Planescape: Torment, then you will probably love BG and BG2.
USS Enterprise was commissioned in 1960 and is scheduled for decommissioning in 2013. So far its been in service almost 46 years. I see no reason why these ships won't last for 50 years. Even submarines last 30 years (and some SSBNs are under consideration to be extended to 50 years).
I remember that quest. It was especially fun as a dark side character. The double cross that you could execute at the end was brilliant! It almost made up for the times that I felt that I should have had the option to force choke an annoying NPC.
I would agree with you if I hadn't played Planescape:Torment. Both are brilliant games but I think Planescape:Torment has the best RPG plotline I have ever seen. BG2 is a close 2nd in my opinion.
I have another question: why violence (think FPS) is one of the most popular form of entertainment?
Easy, it's because most people have short attention spans and it is easy to program violence into games. The interaction to reward time is very short for a FPS; hence, it is popular with gamers who have short attention spans. Not everyone has a short attention span and there is a small market for those gamers (certain RPGs and most adventure games). I would say most CRPGs are in the middle ground. They have small short term rewards but also large long term rewards. Violence is part of most games because it is the easiest method to get those gamer awards (like drug hits). It also obviates any need for a plot! You really don't need to explain to a gamer why he is out in the middle of the woods fighting trolls or why he needs to kill the terrorists behind the building over there.
The real problem is in taking the obvious steps you've suggested and roll them out more generally. THIS may well be the biggest security advantage of Linux/Unix/*bsd, not their low market share. They have cultures which begin with lesser access
Exactly. The culture is the key, not how the distributions assign permissions. The distributions are only mirroring the system operators. I started learning systems administration with VMS and UNIX in the mid 90s. Fortunately the culture wasn't corrupted and user permissions were still stressed. For this reason, even my NT or later boxes have operated under similar constraints.
This isn't a Windows issue (the permissions assignment, I mean). For the most part, software companies respected the delegation of authority in Windows NT. It was only when Windows 2000 was released that a program assumed you were the Administrator, for the most part. Windows 2000 is no weaker than a UNIX system as far as delegation of user's rights are concerned, just more obfuscated. The fact that programs assume you are the Administrator has more to do with the training of the Administrators than the capabilities of Windows.
Unfortunately, sometimes cultures leak across to each other. I am not really confident that I can say that a Linux or UNIX distribution won't assume you are root in 5 years. A decent sysadmin will be able to adapt anyways.
and then go to the Windows Update site. If you need to do filebrowsing as a superuser use the same command, but then type "c:" in the address box.
There is almost nothing that you can't do with runas. Additionally, XP makes it easier for most programs with "Run As" being a left-click item. While there are some programs that you need to log in to install (itunes was one for me), and there are some minor config issues to get certain applications to work (the ones that assume you are an Administrator). Nonetheless, I haven't used the Administrator account for normal user operations for about 7 years.
Okay, 1 in a million. So a 1 ghz machine should be prone to 1,000 errors a second. We've just invented the next generation of Microsoft FUD - "Its not our software - its yur hardware."
That's only the case if the same machine had 999,999,000 human-caused errors per second (I'm not going to do the conversion of microprocessor commands to frequency though I will note that 1 GHz will rarely equal 1 G-ops or G-flops though even those designations are misleading). If you have a billion errors a second and 0.0001% of those errors are truely hardware caused, I think it might be a wise idea to start with the software and human caused bugs first.
Or just shut off Microsoft Bob. But in that case there really was only one human caused error!
Right. Humans do. It is always wise to remember that. If your computer 'makes' a mistake, it is highly likely you operated it beyond its tolerances or programmed it incorrectly.
There is the one in a million chance that a cosmic ray or some 'uncatchable' impurity in the silicon refining process made your computer do something crazy, but then again I'd respond that that is still usually a human error. Noone forces programmers *not* to validate their data (though I do have to note that if you use hardware processes to validate the data that have something in common with the initial compiling of the data, you might have an issue). Anyways, it's not likely that a cosmic ray is going to flip a couple bits making your refund from $1200 to -$2,400,000,000,000.37.
Shouldn't they ship it with the latest version at least
If Dell gives updated versions of Firefox with their online updates (Dell does have its own online updates, doesn't it?) there should be no problems. The fact that Firefox is already installed is signficant because when the average Joe hears someone talk about how great Firefox is, he is more likely to use it if it is already installed. And if Dell takes care of periodic updates, there should be no problems keeping the average Joe happy with it.
One minor point, but it bears repeating: as long as the most common plugins are taken care of without user interaction, the user will probably be happy with the Firefox application. If the user gets a new install of Firefox and the most common plugins have not been configured, he or she is likely to use IE. Hopefully Dell takes care of this. This is a make or break issue with end-user software acceptability.
So you can buy a gun three years before you are allowed to buy alcohol? That makes a lot of sense....
Which one? The age limit for alcohol? I agree.
An adult is an adult. End of story. I've saw several people get busted down in rank and fined for drinking underage when I was in the Navy. While they were qualified to drive a submarine, direct airplanes, and stand nuclear watches, they were not 'qualified' to have a beer after work. Because it was the 'law.'
As far as purchasing guns as an adult, I see no problem. If you see a problem, then obviously you don't think they are adults.
As for violating quantum theory, now you're being silly. We have yet to extend QM to macroscopic objects, so the uncertainty principle doesn't really apply when talking about cars. Yes, every particle that makes up the car is governed by QM, but no-one would seriously start talking about its wavefunction.
You are wrong here. QM does apply to macroscopic objects. It's called the correspondence principle. For a macroscopic object, QM will give the same results as classical physics.
Certainly the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale series should work. The single player of either of those is better than the main campaign in NWN
As much as I absolutely love the Baldur's Gate series, you had better have a seriously long roadtrip to be able to complete that game. Like across the country. Twice.
A shorter RPG that doesn't require the intense character control effort (part of why BG is fun, but also why it my be unwieldly for a roadtrip) would be Knights of the Old Republic. I would also recommend Planescape: Torment as it isn't as long or as complex as any part of the Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale series. I should note that my opinion is very biased, because I think Planescape: Torment is the best CRPG since The Bard's Tale.
As far as I'm concerned, the Game Boy Advance versions of the Super Mario brothers games are the perfect travel games. They don't require a large time commitment and are infinitely replayable.
But when I get bored of those I usually play a Metroid game or a Zelda game.
A massively in-depth RPG would seem to me to be a poor travel game. They require too much time and memory (your memory) to be able to jump in whenever you wanted.
Gamma radiation is very high energy (and short wavelength) EM radiation. Neutrons are...neutrons. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei, and Beta radiation is positron radiation. That's about it for the types of radioactive decay radiation [sic].
A sheet of paper is sufficient to block alpha particles. A thin sheet of wood will effectively block beta radiation. Lead works well for neutrons, and a LOT of lead is required for gamma radiation.
Beta radiation is high energy electrons or positrons. In beta minus decay (from a nuclear conversion of a neutron to a proton), an electron and an electron-antineutrino are emitted. In beta plus decay (from a nuclear conversion of a proton to a neutron), a positron and a electron-neutrino are emitted.
Lead does not work well as a shield against neutrons. Being that neutrons have no net charge, they do not interact very strongly electrically (though they do have a very small electrical and magnetic moment due to the fact that they are composed of quarks). Hence, they will pass right through lead without a problem. Only very light nuclei will allow them to bounce off losing a significant amount of kinetic energy. This is why most nuclear reactors are moderated with water--it is hydrogen rich (a light nuclei) and is more effective at stopping neutrons. If you want to know more information, read the neutron moderation section of the DOE's reactor theory technical standard (V1) (warning: large PDF).
Is there anything tough enough to sheild against these particle emissions?
Depends on what it is. For alpha and beta particles, generally a couple pieces of paper will be an effective shield (since the particles are charged, they interact electrically--the alpha more so than the electron). For neutrons, a highly hydrogenated substance, such as water or polycarbonate, will be effective slowing down neutrons to thermal energies. It depends on the energy of the initial neutron, but typically you need only a few feet. You can then easily capture the neutrons in the end with a boronated substance. For gamma rays, any substance that is very dense will do since it will give the incident photon more chances to react. Each time the photons interact with a electrons (or occasionally, a nucleus), Compton scattering occurs and the re-emitted photons (now a spherical wavefront) now have a lower frequency. Given a thick enough dense substance, such as lead, very few high energy gamma rays will sneak through.
In general, only neutron and gamma radiation is significant for radiation workers or equipement because alphas and betas are so easy to shield.
You hit an important point. The first thing I did when I got my IBM laptop a few years back was to backup the install files and wipe the system. IBM used a restore partition (stupid, stupid!) and only gave you the Windows (or whatever) install CDs if you requested them. Fortunately I have other CDs from which I could install Windows and Linux (anhilating the restore partition). I could easily see a case where a newbie was trying to install Linux on the same system anhilating Windows and having no way to restore.
Anyways, any geek knows that the first thing you do when you get a new computer is to wipe the hard drives. If there is software on any of my systems, only I installed it. I have a right to know what programs are running in the background.
I am a proponent of HUGE tax increases on gasoline. Push it up to the $6 level. People won't stop driving until it really hurts to do it.
I used to think the same thing. If gas prices rise enough, it will force the market to use biodiesel. But the short term effect on our economy would be devastating. The economy of the US depends on shipping goods across the country cheaply. An increase in gas prices would cause an increase in prices on almost every product that you buy from food to electronics.
Instead of being reactionary and attacking gasoline because it is the most visible CO2 emitter (to the public), we should be looking at items that we can reduce that will have less economic impact, like the main source of electricity production in the US: coal. By scaling up the percentage of power that nuclear power accounts for and reducing coal usage, we could have a significant effect on our CO2 output. Then when technologies like fuel cells (PEM is applicable for cars) or biodiesel production become economical, we can cut out the gasoline part of our energy use.
But it is already probably too late for a response to global warming that only involves reducing output of CO2 emission. The only real solution is to 'remove' the CO2 from the atmosphere that we have added. This could be done by making stockpiles of biodiesel, increasing the biomass of the planet (forests, algea, etc.), using some types of fuel cells that burn CO2 (yes, they exist), or by forcefully precipitating it out using electrical power sources that don't emit CO2 (like nuclear power). This means that we as humans have to take over the heat cycle of the planet, which is a risky proposition to say the least. If the cycle of warming right now is due to increased solar output (like what doomed Skylab), then it is logical to believe that the solar output may decrease someday. Do we emit CO2 during cold periods and suck it up during hot periods? Is there a negative feedback cycle that we don't know about? And what do we do with the methane gas hydrates (and what part of the cycles do they play)?
The last point I would make is that perhaps we had better take the statements of professional environmentalists with a grain of salt. Some of these people are hyping global warming at the same time demonizing the only source of power that could reduce its magnitude: nuclear power. Is it possible that they might just be anti-technology? I certainly think so. While global warming is probably real, I don't think we should be taking policy advice from people who certainly do not have their priorities even remotely straight. Sane people can develop a plan to combat global warming that does not require the world to reduce our technology to the level of cavemen.
Aside on biodiesel: I am a big fan of biodiesel because countries that have huge tracts of decent farmland will become the main suppliers. Instead of building palaces for Saudi princes, we would have jobs for more American farmers. The only problem right now is the cost. Hopefully an economy of scale will develop that will make it feasable. On a plus side, biodiesel releases no net CO2.
Strictly speaking a motor is a mechanical device that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. Its converse is the generator which converts mechanical energy into electrical energy.
An engine is a mechanical device that manipulates a thermodynamic variable (temperature, volume, pressure, or density) to result in an output of mechanical energy via a thermodynamic process. Hence, Brayton cycle engine, Rankine cycle engine, Otto cycle engine, etc.
The efficiency of a motor is expected to be above 90%. The efficiency of an engine is expected to be below 40% (except some really exceptional Brayton cycle engines or some really extreme circumstances).
I was responding to "Could someone please explain the terms of this form to the less physics enlightened of us?" I did that and I explicitly stated that m was the rest mass (I don't like writing m_0 unless I have to). I'm not sure why you think that I believe the formula was wrong.
The relativistic total energy is the sum of the rest energy of a particle and its kinetic energy. The formula for total energy is: E = (mc^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
This can be made more intuitive if we note that momentum is defined as p = mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Therefore, if v = 0, E = mc^2. In these equations, m is the rest mass of an object, v is the velocity of the object observed from your reference frame. Both the object and you cannot be accelerating (inertial reference frames--this also means no rotating, which is accelaration in physics). If you want to deal with acceleration there are much more complicated equations in general relativity.
You said: "Add in the fact that the world's uranium supply is just as finite as oil, and is quickly being exhausted."
I would not put a lot of stock in what current exploration studies have said about uranium. While these studies may be accurate about oil, we have to remember that oil is a carbon based process only in the very surface of the earth. The uranium studies are looking only in the same places as they would look for any valuable metal or substance. But uranium is not oil. Uranium is dispersed throughout the Earth, not just in the upper crust. It is dissolved in the oceans and exists in the lower parts of the crust as well.
If we believe that we are running out of uranium we are falling into the trap of ignoring the effect that technology will have on exploration studies and on mining. Just because we can only dig about a mile into the crust doesn't mean that future technologies won't allow us to dig much deeper and explore much farther.
Would you believe a study that says that we have mined 90% of the gold on the planet? It would be ridiculous! If I recall correctly, uranium is about as rare as silver.
I was a Navy Nuke and just got out after 6 years. Your first step will be going to boot camp where you get to play with ridiculously stupid people for about 10 weeks. The key to boot camp is that they are unofficially evaluating people to see if they will follow their orders even if there are better alternatives available. Those who are able to follow stupid orders will pass. Just remember, that's the point of boot camp. When you signed up you probably had a preferred rating (EM, ET, or MM). This doesn't mean that you will get the rating that you want. The assignment is fairly random, with a very slight bias to the smarter people to qualify as EMs or ETs. But don't take this to mean that MMs are stupid. Remember, the bias is very small.
After boot camp you will go to Naval Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC) in Charleston, SC. You will be assigned to your rate's school (which was basically randomly selected in boot camp). This will last up to 6 months. The purpose of this school is to train you in your rate and (more importantly) show you the standards of education that will be required to pass Nuclear Power School and other future Navy nuclear schools. Most people find it very challenging, saying that it puts their previous experience in college to shame. There is no question that it is a steep learning curve (and it will continue to get steeper). A significant amount of effort is required, but there is a lot of help available to succeed. I estimate that I only saw about 25% of my class fail out.
After your rating's 'A' School you will go to Nuclear Power School. There is typically a delay from about 2-8 weeks (though it may take longer if you have issues on getting a security clearance). Here you will learn the theory on how a Naval nuclear power plant operates. This is typically considered the hardest enlisted school in the US armed forces. 80 hour works weeks (of study) are not uncommon. From what I saw, about 10-20% failed out during this school. Still, there is a lot of help available, and the Navy is trying to make everyone succeed. They are only trying to weed out people who after they try their hardest still cannot meet the standards. Your study habits in 'A' school are essential to pass^H^H^H^Hsurviving this school.
Then you go to a nuclear reactor prototype unit (2 in NY, and 2 in SC). This 6 month school is the practical counterpart for Nuclear Power School. Expect about 60 hour work weeks. It is much more laid back, but all of the requirements for passing are no longer put on passing tests in the classroom, but instead put on getting interviews from instructors and operators on different topics. Instead of the standard essay question that you will be used to in NPS, you will instead have to answer by showing it on a blackboard with an oral interview. It is a much higher standard for learning. You will now need to memorize procedures and schematics of equipment. You will have to be able to tell how a nuclear reactor works from the bottom up (regardless of rate) and how you are required to operate it. Additionally, you will stand a supervised watchs and perform supervised maintenance (on a real nuclear reactor). At the end of this school you will have a final written exam (comprehensive) and a final oral board. The memorization portion of this part of the nuclear pipeline is easy for some people and hard for others. I estimate that about 25% fail out in this school. If you pass this school you are now certified to be able to learn how a nuclear power plant operates on your ship (it's not over yet!).
At your ship (you can volunteer for submarines or be assigned to a carrier), you will start learning how your ships nuclear reactor works. It will be similar to your prototype experience, except that you will qualify one watch at a time, and you will have to spend your time learning when you are not working or standing watch. For some, this can mean that you have even worse hours than you had in NPS or prototype. But the stre
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, it was significantly harder,
No kidding. I doubt that I'm the only one who had blisters on his hands from trying to beat level D-4. I think I spent about 400 lives on that level! But once I beat it I did the happy dance!
Did you also throw away the Lord of the Rings books after the Tom Bombadil section?
BG2 is like the LotR in that it has silly parts. But those parts in no way trivialize the epic nature of the story. You should try BG or BG2. Perhaps warm up by playing Planescape: Torment. If you like Planescape: Torment, then you will probably love BG and BG2.
Also remember:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, watch it! I'm huge!"
Minsc is the best CRPG character ever!
USS Enterprise was commissioned in 1960 and is scheduled for decommissioning in 2013. So far its been in service almost 46 years. I see no reason why these ships won't last for 50 years. Even submarines last 30 years (and some SSBNs are under consideration to be extended to 50 years).
I remember that quest. It was especially fun as a dark side character. The double cross that you could execute at the end was brilliant! It almost made up for the times that I felt that I should have had the option to force choke an annoying NPC.
I would agree with you if I hadn't played Planescape:Torment. Both are brilliant games but I think Planescape:Torment has the best RPG plotline I have ever seen. BG2 is a close 2nd in my opinion.
I have another question: why violence (think FPS) is one of the most popular form of entertainment?
Easy, it's because most people have short attention spans and it is easy to program violence into games. The interaction to reward time is very short for a FPS; hence, it is popular with gamers who have short attention spans. Not everyone has a short attention span and there is a small market for those gamers (certain RPGs and most adventure games). I would say most CRPGs are in the middle ground. They have small short term rewards but also large long term rewards. Violence is part of most games because it is the easiest method to get those gamer awards (like drug hits). It also obviates any need for a plot! You really don't need to explain to a gamer why he is out in the middle of the woods fighting trolls or why he needs to kill the terrorists behind the building over there.
The real problem is in taking the obvious steps you've suggested and roll them out more generally. THIS may well be the biggest security advantage of Linux/Unix/*bsd, not their low market share. They have cultures which begin with lesser access
Exactly. The culture is the key, not how the distributions assign permissions. The distributions are only mirroring the system operators. I started learning systems administration with VMS and UNIX in the mid 90s. Fortunately the culture wasn't corrupted and user permissions were still stressed. For this reason, even my NT or later boxes have operated under similar constraints.
This isn't a Windows issue (the permissions assignment, I mean). For the most part, software companies respected the delegation of authority in Windows NT. It was only when Windows 2000 was released that a program assumed you were the Administrator, for the most part. Windows 2000 is no weaker than a UNIX system as far as delegation of user's rights are concerned, just more obfuscated. The fact that programs assume you are the Administrator has more to do with the training of the Administrators than the capabilities of Windows.
Unfortunately, sometimes cultures leak across to each other. I am not really confident that I can say that a Linux or UNIX distribution won't assume you are root in 5 years. A decent sysadmin will be able to adapt anyways.
Use
/user:root_user "Whatever command goes here"
/user:root_user cmd
/user:root_user "C:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe"
runas
Note: 'root_user' is whatever you have renamed your 'Administrator' account. You have renamed your 'Administrator' account, right?
If you need a command prompt use
runas
If you need IE for a Windows update use
runas
and then go to the Windows Update site. If you need to do filebrowsing as a superuser use the same command, but then type "c:" in the address box.
There is almost nothing that you can't do with runas. Additionally, XP makes it easier for most programs with "Run As" being a left-click item. While there are some programs that you need to log in to install (itunes was one for me), and there are some minor config issues to get certain applications to work (the ones that assume you are an Administrator). Nonetheless, I haven't used the Administrator account for normal user operations for about 7 years.
Okay, 1 in a million. So a 1 ghz machine should be prone to 1,000 errors a second. We've just invented the next generation of Microsoft FUD - "Its not our software - its yur hardware."
That's only the case if the same machine had 999,999,000 human-caused errors per second (I'm not going to do the conversion of microprocessor commands to frequency though I will note that 1 GHz will rarely equal 1 G-ops or G-flops though even those designations are misleading). If you have a billion errors a second and 0.0001% of those errors are truely hardware caused, I think it might be a wise idea to start with the software and human caused bugs first.
Or just shut off Microsoft Bob. But in that case there really was only one human caused error!
Computers don't make mistakes, right?
Right. Humans do. It is always wise to remember that. If your computer 'makes' a mistake, it is highly likely you operated it beyond its tolerances or programmed it incorrectly.
There is the one in a million chance that a cosmic ray or some 'uncatchable' impurity in the silicon refining process made your computer do something crazy, but then again I'd respond that that is still usually a human error. Noone forces programmers *not* to validate their data (though I do have to note that if you use hardware processes to validate the data that have something in common with the initial compiling of the data, you might have an issue). Anyways, it's not likely that a cosmic ray is going to flip a couple bits making your refund from $1200 to -$2,400,000,000,000.37.
Shouldn't they ship it with the latest version at least
If Dell gives updated versions of Firefox with their online updates (Dell does have its own online updates, doesn't it?) there should be no problems. The fact that Firefox is already installed is signficant because when the average Joe hears someone talk about how great Firefox is, he is more likely to use it if it is already installed. And if Dell takes care of periodic updates, there should be no problems keeping the average Joe happy with it.
One minor point, but it bears repeating: as long as the most common plugins are taken care of without user interaction, the user will probably be happy with the Firefox application. If the user gets a new install of Firefox and the most common plugins have not been configured, he or she is likely to use IE. Hopefully Dell takes care of this. This is a make or break issue with end-user software acceptability.
So you can buy a gun three years before you are allowed to buy alcohol? That makes a lot of sense....
Which one? The age limit for alcohol? I agree.
An adult is an adult. End of story. I've saw several people get busted down in rank and fined for drinking underage when I was in the Navy. While they were qualified to drive a submarine, direct airplanes, and stand nuclear watches, they were not 'qualified' to have a beer after work. Because it was the 'law.'
As far as purchasing guns as an adult, I see no problem. If you see a problem, then obviously you don't think they are adults.
As for violating quantum theory, now you're being silly. We have yet to extend QM to macroscopic objects, so the uncertainty principle doesn't really apply when talking about cars. Yes, every particle that makes up the car is governed by QM, but no-one would seriously start talking about its wavefunction.
You are wrong here. QM does apply to macroscopic objects. It's called the correspondence principle. For a macroscopic object, QM will give the same results as classical physics.
Certainly the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale series should work. The single player of either of those is better than the main campaign in NWN
As much as I absolutely love the Baldur's Gate series, you had better have a seriously long roadtrip to be able to complete that game. Like across the country. Twice.
A shorter RPG that doesn't require the intense character control effort (part of why BG is fun, but also why it my be unwieldly for a roadtrip) would be Knights of the Old Republic. I would also recommend Planescape: Torment as it isn't as long or as complex as any part of the Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale series. I should note that my opinion is very biased, because I think Planescape: Torment is the best CRPG since The Bard's Tale.
As far as I'm concerned, the Game Boy Advance versions of the Super Mario brothers games are the perfect travel games. They don't require a large time commitment and are infinitely replayable.
But when I get bored of those I usually play a Metroid game or a Zelda game.
A massively in-depth RPG would seem to me to be a poor travel game. They require too much time and memory (your memory) to be able to jump in whenever you wanted.
Gamma radiation is very high energy (and short wavelength) EM radiation. Neutrons are...neutrons. Alpha particles are Helium nuclei, and Beta radiation is positron radiation. That's about it for the types of radioactive decay radiation [sic].
A sheet of paper is sufficient to block alpha particles. A thin sheet of wood will effectively block beta radiation. Lead works well for neutrons, and a LOT of lead is required for gamma radiation.
Beta radiation is high energy electrons or positrons. In beta minus decay (from a nuclear conversion of a neutron to a proton), an electron and an electron-antineutrino are emitted. In beta plus decay (from a nuclear conversion of a proton to a neutron), a positron and a electron-neutrino are emitted.
Lead does not work well as a shield against neutrons. Being that neutrons have no net charge, they do not interact very strongly electrically (though they do have a very small electrical and magnetic moment due to the fact that they are composed of quarks). Hence, they will pass right through lead without a problem. Only very light nuclei will allow them to bounce off losing a significant amount of kinetic energy. This is why most nuclear reactors are moderated with water--it is hydrogen rich (a light nuclei) and is more effective at stopping neutrons. If you want to know more information, read the neutron moderation section of the DOE's reactor theory technical standard (V1) (warning: large PDF).
Is there anything tough enough to sheild against these particle emissions?
Depends on what it is. For alpha and beta particles, generally a couple pieces of paper will be an effective shield (since the particles are charged, they interact electrically--the alpha more so than the electron). For neutrons, a highly hydrogenated substance, such as water or polycarbonate, will be effective slowing down neutrons to thermal energies. It depends on the energy of the initial neutron, but typically you need only a few feet. You can then easily capture the neutrons in the end with a boronated substance. For gamma rays, any substance that is very dense will do since it will give the incident photon more chances to react. Each time the photons interact with a electrons (or occasionally, a nucleus), Compton scattering occurs and the re-emitted photons (now a spherical wavefront) now have a lower frequency. Given a thick enough dense substance, such as lead, very few high energy gamma rays will sneak through.
In general, only neutron and gamma radiation is significant for radiation workers or equipement because alphas and betas are so easy to shield.
You hit an important point. The first thing I did when I got my IBM laptop a few years back was to backup the install files and wipe the system. IBM used a restore partition (stupid, stupid!) and only gave you the Windows (or whatever) install CDs if you requested them. Fortunately I have other CDs from which I could install Windows and Linux (anhilating the restore partition). I could easily see a case where a newbie was trying to install Linux on the same system anhilating Windows and having no way to restore.
Anyways, any geek knows that the first thing you do when you get a new computer is to wipe the hard drives. If there is software on any of my systems, only I installed it. I have a right to know what programs are running in the background.
I am a proponent of HUGE tax increases on gasoline. Push it up to the $6 level. People won't stop driving until it really hurts to do it.
I used to think the same thing. If gas prices rise enough, it will force the market to use biodiesel. But the short term effect on our economy would be devastating. The economy of the US depends on shipping goods across the country cheaply. An increase in gas prices would cause an increase in prices on almost every product that you buy from food to electronics.
Instead of being reactionary and attacking gasoline because it is the most visible CO2 emitter (to the public), we should be looking at items that we can reduce that will have less economic impact, like the main source of electricity production in the US: coal. By scaling up the percentage of power that nuclear power accounts for and reducing coal usage, we could have a significant effect on our CO2 output. Then when technologies like fuel cells (PEM is applicable for cars) or biodiesel production become economical, we can cut out the gasoline part of our energy use.
But it is already probably too late for a response to global warming that only involves reducing output of CO2 emission. The only real solution is to 'remove' the CO2 from the atmosphere that we have added. This could be done by making stockpiles of biodiesel, increasing the biomass of the planet (forests, algea, etc.), using some types of fuel cells that burn CO2 (yes, they exist), or by forcefully precipitating it out using electrical power sources that don't emit CO2 (like nuclear power). This means that we as humans have to take over the heat cycle of the planet, which is a risky proposition to say the least. If the cycle of warming right now is due to increased solar output (like what doomed Skylab), then it is logical to believe that the solar output may decrease someday. Do we emit CO2 during cold periods and suck it up during hot periods? Is there a negative feedback cycle that we don't know about? And what do we do with the methane gas hydrates (and what part of the cycles do they play)?
The last point I would make is that perhaps we had better take the statements of professional environmentalists with a grain of salt. Some of these people are hyping global warming at the same time demonizing the only source of power that could reduce its magnitude: nuclear power. Is it possible that they might just be anti-technology? I certainly think so. While global warming is probably real, I don't think we should be taking policy advice from people who certainly do not have their priorities even remotely straight. Sane people can develop a plan to combat global warming that does not require the world to reduce our technology to the level of cavemen.
Aside on biodiesel: I am a big fan of biodiesel because countries that have huge tracts of decent farmland will become the main suppliers. Instead of building palaces for Saudi princes, we would have jobs for more American farmers. The only problem right now is the cost. Hopefully an economy of scale will develop that will make it feasable. On a plus side, biodiesel releases no net CO2.
Strictly speaking a motor is a mechanical device that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. Its converse is the generator which converts mechanical energy into electrical energy.
An engine is a mechanical device that manipulates a thermodynamic variable (temperature, volume, pressure, or density) to result in an output of mechanical energy via a thermodynamic process. Hence, Brayton cycle engine, Rankine cycle engine, Otto cycle engine, etc.
The efficiency of a motor is expected to be above 90%. The efficiency of an engine is expected to be below 40% (except some really exceptional Brayton cycle engines or some really extreme circumstances).
I was responding to "Could someone please explain the terms of this form to the less physics enlightened of us?" I did that and I explicitly stated that m was the rest mass (I don't like writing m_0 unless I have to). I'm not sure why you think that I believe the formula was wrong.
The relativistic total energy is the sum of the rest energy of a particle and its kinetic energy. The formula for total energy is:
E = (mc^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
This can be made more intuitive if we note that momentum is defined as
p = mv/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
Hence
E^2 - p^2c^2 = m^2c^4 (remember than 1-v^2/c^2 = (c^2-v^2)/c^2 ).
Therefore, if v = 0, E = mc^2. In these equations, m is the rest mass of an object, v is the velocity of the object observed from your reference frame. Both the object and you cannot be accelerating (inertial reference frames--this also means no rotating, which is accelaration in physics). If you want to deal with acceleration there are much more complicated equations in general relativity.
You said: "Add in the fact that the world's uranium supply is just as finite as oil, and is quickly being exhausted."
I would not put a lot of stock in what current exploration studies have said about uranium. While these studies may be accurate about oil, we have to remember that oil is a carbon based process only in the very surface of the earth. The uranium studies are looking only in the same places as they would look for any valuable metal or substance. But uranium is not oil. Uranium is dispersed throughout the Earth, not just in the upper crust. It is dissolved in the oceans and exists in the lower parts of the crust as well.
If we believe that we are running out of uranium we are falling into the trap of ignoring the effect that technology will have on exploration studies and on mining. Just because we can only dig about a mile into the crust doesn't mean that future technologies won't allow us to dig much deeper and explore much farther.
Would you believe a study that says that we have mined 90% of the gold on the planet? It would be ridiculous! If I recall correctly, uranium is about as rare as silver.
I was a Navy Nuke and just got out after 6 years. Your first step will be going to boot camp where you get to play with ridiculously stupid people for about 10 weeks. The key to boot camp is that they are unofficially evaluating people to see if they will follow their orders even if there are better alternatives available. Those who are able to follow stupid orders will pass. Just remember, that's the point of boot camp. When you signed up you probably had a preferred rating (EM, ET, or MM). This doesn't mean that you will get the rating that you want. The assignment is fairly random, with a very slight bias to the smarter people to qualify as EMs or ETs. But don't take this to mean that MMs are stupid. Remember, the bias is very small.
After boot camp you will go to Naval Nuclear Power Training Command (NNPTC) in Charleston, SC. You will be assigned to your rate's school (which was basically randomly selected in boot camp). This will last up to 6 months. The purpose of this school is to train you in your rate and (more importantly) show you the standards of education that will be required to pass Nuclear Power School and other future Navy nuclear schools. Most people find it very challenging, saying that it puts their previous experience in college to shame. There is no question that it is a steep learning curve (and it will continue to get steeper). A significant amount of effort is required, but there is a lot of help available to succeed. I estimate that I only saw about 25% of my class fail out.
After your rating's 'A' School you will go to Nuclear Power School. There is typically a delay from about 2-8 weeks (though it may take longer if you have issues on getting a security clearance). Here you will learn the theory on how a Naval nuclear power plant operates. This is typically considered the hardest enlisted school in the US armed forces. 80 hour works weeks (of study) are not uncommon. From what I saw, about 10-20% failed out during this school. Still, there is a lot of help available, and the Navy is trying to make everyone succeed. They are only trying to weed out people who after they try their hardest still cannot meet the standards. Your study habits in 'A' school are essential to pass^H^H^H^Hsurviving this school.
Then you go to a nuclear reactor prototype unit (2 in NY, and 2 in SC). This 6 month school is the practical counterpart for Nuclear Power School. Expect about 60 hour work weeks. It is much more laid back, but all of the requirements for passing are no longer put on passing tests in the classroom, but instead put on getting interviews from instructors and operators on different topics. Instead of the standard essay question that you will be used to in NPS, you will instead have to answer by showing it on a blackboard with an oral interview. It is a much higher standard for learning. You will now need to memorize procedures and schematics of equipment. You will have to be able to tell how a nuclear reactor works from the bottom up (regardless of rate) and how you are required to operate it. Additionally, you will stand a supervised watchs and perform supervised maintenance (on a real nuclear reactor). At the end of this school you will have a final written exam (comprehensive) and a final oral board. The memorization portion of this part of the nuclear pipeline is easy for some people and hard for others. I estimate that about 25% fail out in this school. If you pass this school you are now certified to be able to learn how a nuclear power plant operates on your ship (it's not over yet!).
At your ship (you can volunteer for submarines or be assigned to a carrier), you will start learning how your ships nuclear reactor works. It will be similar to your prototype experience, except that you will qualify one watch at a time, and you will have to spend your time learning when you are not working or standing watch. For some, this can mean that you have even worse hours than you had in NPS or prototype. But the stre