It's amazing how "publish or you're fired" can change your mindset.
It's amazing how "publish in Nature or you are a looser" can be used as an excuse for not getting anything done.
Look, if you are not publishing regularly (by which I mean a comfortable quantity, not 50 papers a year), you don't even know how to publish. You don't know how to write stuff up. You are not interacting with people on the frontlines of research. You don't know how to deal with editors and referees and stuff. Actually, you probably don't even know what you are doing, because you are not getting feedback neither from peers nor from yourself (because writing stuff up leads to insights you won't have otherwise). Ergo, highly unlikely you will publish in Nature nor anywhere else at all.
I know of labs where unfortunate students and post docs get stuck that only publish when they've got something Nature worthy. They have lots of publishable output, they just don't publish it. You can easily bounce back from that by... publishing.
If you have publishable results but don't publish regularly, I'd wager your mindset is such that you won't ever publish at all. The thing with waiting for something of Nature stature is that this is just a delusion. It certainly won't happen by not publishing in "lesser" journals.
If you're going multiple years without producing any publications you're not contributing to the scientific community and need to reexamine the way you do science.
Most likely, you should call it a day. Very, very few people ever come back from yearlong productivity breaks.
Liquids on the other hand... It only takes 200 ml of a binary liquid explosive to blow a hole big enough to down the plane, and you're allowed five times that.
Yes, but would that be feasible? AFAIR, those hardcore liquid mix explosives are more likely to go off during mixing hurting the terrorist rather horribly, but probably nobody else (links on Schneier's blog).
One thing that was noted in the article is that a lot of the power companies HAD sufficient retirement funds, but a large portion of the value of their funds were wiped out in the economic crash of 2008. They mentioned one reactor's retirement fund crashing from $592m to somewhere north of 200m and even now not breaking 300m.
Oh, the poor, poor things. Fortunately there is the government, who will step in and pay for decommissioning now with tax money. If we also privatize schooling and kill off social security, there will be enough money to spare for a tax cut. This way, the owners of these companies can find solace by buying some extra sports cars.
Thus, it's the economic turbulence weathering the vulnerable investments made on the retirement funds. This is not too far from a bunch of seniors who just had their retirement income wiped out, continuing to work after retirement to make up for the shortfall in their supposedly secure retirement funds.
Yes, shit happens, that's life. Instead of bitching around we should all pray and be thankful. Its good to know that the safe decommissioning of these reactors was linked to something as reliable as the stock market. Well, it failed, but only a small minded person would see in this type of strategy anything but genius.
And why did the Norwegian Government accept the system, if it was this buggy?
That's anyones guess, but if it goes like everywhere else, the guys that were contracted for this work wore the nicest suits and made their clients feel visionary. The guys that knew their IT kept behaving improperly and had suits that didn't really fit them well. Also, they talked all the time of risks and danger. So it was a no-brainer, quite literally.
To the mods: while aggressive, the parent post is correct and accurate. Do you think modding people down who tell the truth, plain and simple, is appropriate?
Government has no vested interest in getting a good deal and because of that it pretty much asks for being milked dry.
Why is that? Just because you say so? What is that "government" you are talking about?
Government officials have a natural tendency, like anybody else, of trying to do a job they can be proud of. There are many reasons why they don't manage (just look at the Jefferson County disaster). But lack of interest in good results by officials is currently not the most important one.
I nearly thought you were serious, until you started complaining about C++'s garbage collector...
Well, the thing is that this is typical C++ brain damage. If you criticize that there is no garbage collector, you get some bullshit involving std::shared_ptr. I mantain that most C++ programmers think that that rotten POS is actually a garbage collector. If you then say, well, whatever, "C++ has a rotten POS of a garbage collector", then, of course, it turns out C++ has no garbage collector. Go figure.
I've written big apps in C++ and can tell you: C++ SUCKS!! It's a piece of shit language with a very crappy garbage collector, a baroque, undecidable syntax, no end of karma, and a community that revels in BDSM programming. With an emphasis on the M.
Exactly that's also why trains and not planes are such a success in the States.
Well, in Europe, most long-distance train tickets are much more expensive than the comparable flight. I would take that as a strong indication that planes are in fact cheaper overall than trains. I don't really know why, though.
And if you use it, USE IT PROPERLY, bake in the encryption into your software so it becomes fiendishly difficult to crack (it will never be impossible.)
Better yet, bake some important core logic into the USB stick. This way, even if the encryption is discovered, the contents of the USB stick remain relevant.
Sure, given enough resources, someone will hack around that too, but it will be harder.
It's depressing, sure, but I've read it twice and didn't find it particularly hard going either time
Well, it is written in fairly straightforward English, and it is always clear what happens, etc. I just constantly kept wondering why I should put up with all the awfulness. It is not as if it is an ingenious dissecting of the subtleties of something. Instead, I found it rather blunt all around, almost as if it were written in all caps. At some point I decided that I could as well just read something else.
I like his writings, but I somehow didn't see how I would benefit from reading 1984, except being able to get all the references.
Your phraseology suggests that you have not, in fact read 1984. Don't worry - this is something that you have in common with most people who quote it.
That's true. It is also a pretty hard book to read. I started and put it down at some point because I found it awful. Years later I read a text by Asimov saying that, while interesting, it is not very good as a work of fiction. I was relieved, I must say.
(I am trying to remember where Asimov wrote that, so yes, citation needed and pending).
The next reactors to be built widely will probably those that burn nuclear waste. That is, "partitioning and transmutation". It seems (although it doesn't say in that article) that you can burn nuclear waste in a way that produces excess energy. Since you need an accelerator to keep the reaction going, you have automatic shutdown in case of loss of mains power.
The point of heavy lifting is that, once you have it, you can resort to cheap methods for everything else. 10,000 tons is a moderately large container ship (an Emma Maersk weights up to 400,000 tons when loaded) but still quite big, and most importantly, sturdy. If your target weight is 10kt, you could really put enough shielding (using standard materials) around a big enough living area plus enough engine, fuel, and assorted gear to not get bored nor fried. All with existing tech. And since it is with existing tech, it would also be doable with reasonable amounts of money.
This is not to say that I do not welcome current efforts to research and explore our solar system and beyond. "We" are doing a pretty good job using probes and stuff, and it's probably the best approach for now. Here I agree with you completely. I am not saying that we should put a 10kt ship up there, because I know full well that this is not reasonable with/existing/ tech.
But if we had heavy lifting tech... then we could build space ships, robotic or not, without having to care so much about weight, it all would be a hell of a lot easier. Also, if had we heavy lifting engines, landing on mars would be a lot easier too. Radiation? No problem, just pack enough shielding. Etc. That's why I think that a powerful engine is the most important thing we need. And it must be a lot more powerful than what we have now.
Nah. None of this is practical, mainly because everything has to be planed in advance for it to work, or needs tech that is even harder than heavy lifting. If you have a big fat ship, you can pack enough resources (people and gear) of the kind available today to solve most problems as they crop up. It would also be a lot easier to make sure the resources don't get spoiled (bored or damaged) on the way to wherever. If we could lift 10,000 tons to LEO easily, we'd already had a space station around Jupiter, 2001 style. And who know what else.
We need big fat ships. And for that we need an engine capable of heavy lifting. Without the latter, we get small undertooled robotic probes, and since decent AI is not at hand either, they are pretty stupid, tragically undertooled robotic probes.
To put it another way, if we needed to leave the planet in a hurry, Mars is utterly impractical.
Actually, if we needed to leave the planet in a hurry, there is nothing practical nowadays, nor are we about to build anything practical, either. Not even for a handful of "us".
On the other hand, if industry can be persuaded to work out how to knock the kinks out of ground to LEO travel
iiuc the one mayor "kink" is the hell of a push you need to get up there. There is literally nothing in sight that may solve that. The successes of Space X etc. are in fact confirmation that we are stuck with the totally inadequate chemical rockets. Nuclear rockets are not better in this regard.
I have the theory that once we are able to lift an object a couple of thousand of tons (!) up there, the rest is a lot easier. But neither industry nor anybody else has an idea for a practical way to lift, say, a 10,000 ton ship up to LEO at once and reasonably cheaply. But that would be my minimum guesstimate of what you need to have something up there you can call a Proper Ship. Tin cans just don't cut it.
What, +5 insightful? Who the hell is getting the mod points these days?
The metrics of these audits will probably be carefully tailored. Make no mistake, this is not a true audit, it's a carefully choreographed public relations stunt in response to protests to save face.
This is an entirely baseless claim, originating in a black and white (well, mostly black) view of the world that is plain stupid in its absoluteness. This is not insightful, but a defeatist, pathologically negative attitude.
The audit will probably not be the best possible one could do, but it is quite unlikely that it will not have some real positive effect.
Only a moron would think that conservative or liberal has anything to do with it.
The data speaks by itself. It is conservatives who want the draconian law and order stuff everywhere in the world. Just open your eyes. It is irresponsible to pretend otherwise and censor those who point out this inconvenient fact.
Precisely!:-) That's not a GC. I'm tempted to say something about what happens to a GC when it is subjected to the horrors of mordor, but I think I'll refrain.
Actually, C++ has it since C++11... but with typed arguments of course:
C++ closures are what happens to a beautiful abstraction after it goes through mordor. It becomes an orkish, vile thing more fit to hurt the user and confuse him than to achieve something of good and beauty.
Slashdot Mirror
It's amazing how "publish in Nature or you are a looser" can be used as an excuse for not getting anything done.
Look, if you are not publishing regularly (by which I mean a comfortable quantity, not 50 papers a year), you don't even know how to publish. You don't know how to write stuff up. You are not interacting with people on the frontlines of research. You don't know how to deal with editors and referees and stuff. Actually, you probably don't even know what you are doing, because you are not getting feedback neither from peers nor from yourself (because writing stuff up leads to insights you won't have otherwise). Ergo, highly unlikely you will publish in Nature nor anywhere else at all.
If you have publishable results but don't publish regularly, I'd wager your mindset is such that you won't ever publish at all. The thing with waiting for something of Nature stature is that this is just a delusion. It certainly won't happen by not publishing in "lesser" journals.
Most likely, you should call it a day. Very, very few people ever come back from yearlong productivity breaks.
Yes, but would that be feasible? AFAIR, those hardcore liquid mix explosives are more likely to go off during mixing hurting the terrorist rather horribly, but probably nobody else (links on Schneier's blog).
Oh, the poor, poor things. Fortunately there is the government, who will step in and pay for decommissioning now with tax money. If we also privatize schooling and kill off social security, there will be enough money to spare for a tax cut. This way, the owners of these companies can find solace by buying some extra sports cars.
Yes, shit happens, that's life. Instead of bitching around we should all pray and be thankful. Its good to know that the safe decommissioning of these reactors was linked to something as reliable as the stock market. Well, it failed, but only a small minded person would see in this type of strategy anything but genius.
That's anyones guess, but if it goes like everywhere else, the guys that were contracted for this work wore the nicest suits and made their clients feel visionary. The guys that knew their IT kept behaving improperly and had suits that didn't really fit them well. Also, they talked all the time of risks and danger. So it was a no-brainer, quite literally.
To the mods: while aggressive, the parent post is correct and accurate. Do you think modding people down who tell the truth, plain and simple, is appropriate?
The "moving target" argument was a real howler.
And bonus levels! Don't miss the pong faq!
Why is that? Just because you say so? What is that "government" you are talking about?
Government officials have a natural tendency, like anybody else, of trying to do a job they can be proud of. There are many reasons why they don't manage (just look at the Jefferson County disaster). But lack of interest in good results by officials is currently not the most important one.
Well, the thing is that this is typical C++ brain damage. If you criticize that there is no garbage collector, you get some bullshit involving std::shared_ptr. I mantain that most C++ programmers think that that rotten POS is actually a garbage collector. If you then say, well, whatever, "C++ has a rotten POS of a garbage collector", then, of course, it turns out C++ has no garbage collector. Go figure.
Brain damage all around.
Hey you,
I've written big apps in C++ and can tell you: C++ SUCKS!! It's a piece of shit language with a very crappy garbage collector, a baroque, undecidable syntax, no end of karma, and a community that revels in BDSM programming. With an emphasis on the M.
So there.
Well, in Europe, most long-distance train tickets are much more expensive than the comparable flight. I would take that as a strong indication that planes are in fact cheaper overall than trains. I don't really know why, though.
Better yet, bake some important core logic into the USB stick. This way, even if the encryption is discovered, the contents of the USB stick remain relevant.
Sure, given enough resources, someone will hack around that too, but it will be harder.
Well, it is written in fairly straightforward English, and it is always clear what happens, etc. I just constantly kept wondering why I should put up with all the awfulness. It is not as if it is an ingenious dissecting of the subtleties of something. Instead, I found it rather blunt all around, almost as if it were written in all caps. At some point I decided that I could as well just read something else.
I like his writings, but I somehow didn't see how I would benefit from reading 1984, except being able to get all the references.
That's true. It is also a pretty hard book to read. I started and put it down at some point because I found it awful. Years later I read a text by Asimov saying that, while interesting, it is not very good as a work of fiction. I was relieved, I must say.
(I am trying to remember where Asimov wrote that, so yes, citation needed and pending).
The next reactors to be built widely will probably those that burn nuclear waste. That is, "partitioning and transmutation". It seems (although it doesn't say in that article) that you can burn nuclear waste in a way that produces excess energy. Since you need an accelerator to keep the reaction going, you have automatic shutdown in case of loss of mains power.
The point of heavy lifting is that, once you have it, you can resort to cheap methods for everything else. 10,000 tons is a moderately large container ship (an Emma Maersk weights up to 400,000 tons when loaded) but still quite big, and most importantly, sturdy. If your target weight is 10kt, you could really put enough shielding (using standard materials) around a big enough living area plus enough engine, fuel, and assorted gear to not get bored nor fried. All with existing tech. And since it is with existing tech, it would also be doable with reasonable amounts of money.
This is not to say that I do not welcome current efforts to research and explore our solar system and beyond. "We" are doing a pretty good job using probes and stuff, and it's probably the best approach for now. Here I agree with you completely. I am not saying that we should put a 10kt ship up there, because I know full well that this is not reasonable with /existing/ tech.
But if we had heavy lifting tech... then we could build space ships, robotic or not, without having to care so much about weight, it all would be a hell of a lot easier. Also, if had we heavy lifting engines, landing on mars would be a lot easier too. Radiation? No problem, just pack enough shielding. Etc. That's why I think that a powerful engine is the most important thing we need. And it must be a lot more powerful than what we have now.
Nah. None of this is practical, mainly because everything has to be planed in advance for it to work, or needs tech that is even harder than heavy lifting. If you have a big fat ship, you can pack enough resources (people and gear) of the kind available today to solve most problems as they crop up. It would also be a lot easier to make sure the resources don't get spoiled (bored or damaged) on the way to wherever. If we could lift 10,000 tons to LEO easily, we'd already had a space station around Jupiter, 2001 style. And who know what else.
We need big fat ships. And for that we need an engine capable of heavy lifting. Without the latter, we get small undertooled robotic probes, and since decent AI is not at hand either, they are pretty stupid, tragically undertooled robotic probes.
Actually, if we needed to leave the planet in a hurry, there is nothing practical nowadays, nor are we about to build anything practical, either. Not even for a handful of "us".
iiuc the one mayor "kink" is the hell of a push you need to get up there. There is literally nothing in sight that may solve that. The successes of Space X etc. are in fact confirmation that we are stuck with the totally inadequate chemical rockets. Nuclear rockets are not better in this regard.
I have the theory that once we are able to lift an object a couple of thousand of tons (!) up there, the rest is a lot easier. But neither industry nor anybody else has an idea for a practical way to lift, say, a 10,000 ton ship up to LEO at once and reasonably cheaply. But that would be my minimum guesstimate of what you need to have something up there you can call a Proper Ship. Tin cans just don't cut it.
What, +5 insightful? Who the hell is getting the mod points these days?
This is an entirely baseless claim, originating in a black and white (well, mostly black) view of the world that is plain stupid in its absoluteness. This is not insightful, but a defeatist, pathologically negative attitude.
The audit will probably not be the best possible one could do, but it is quite unlikely that it will not have some real positive effect.
The data speaks by itself. It is conservatives who want the draconian law and order stuff everywhere in the world. Just open your eyes. It is irresponsible to pretend otherwise and censor those who point out this inconvenient fact.
FTFY
That's a lovely and very interesting point. Do you have a reference with actual numbers?
Precisely! :-) That's not a GC. I'm tempted to say something about what happens to a GC when it is subjected to the horrors of mordor, but I think I'll refrain.
C++ closures are what happens to a beautiful abstraction after it goes through mordor. It becomes an orkish, vile thing more fit to hurt the user and confuse him than to achieve something of good and beauty.
I mean, where's your GC?