Because salt water can cause a salt build up on the fuel rods, making them much harder to cool and making meltdown more likely. Or does that not jive with your evil corporation narrative?
The entire complex was being shut down in just a few months, why would they spend all the extra money trying to save the reactors if they were going to be decommissioned anyway?
I have a question. How do people who maintain proxy lists determine who to send the list out to? Basically, what stops the Iranian gov't from signing up to receive the weekly list and then quickly blocking the entries on the list?
No, we don't have to do this at all. Our society today is no more dangerous than society 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago. The only difference is that we hear about every violent act that takes place across the country and across the world. There is less violent crime today than there was during the '40s and '50s, but in the '40s and '50s you didn't have the 24 hour news channels or constant internet access telling you about it, and telling you that you should be worried, and telling you that there were 2 more violent crimes this year than last year (despite the fact that it is statistically insignificant or even against their argument on a per capita basis).
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut. Would you take benefits away from people on a fixed income, who were promised and rely on that income and those benefits to make it through the month? Would you cut spending on military and defense? Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway? Cut funding for sciences and eduction? NASA?
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
Indeed, I don't really have any problem with the Tax as much as I do with the meter. Just make it self reported on your taxes (just like almost everything is is actually self reported on your taxes) and if someone get's audited make it one of the things they check. When people realize that lying is equivalent to tax fraud, with all the penalties and fines associated, I don't think too many people are going to try and cheat (at least, no more than cheat on their taxes in other ways).
There are lots and lots of phases of matter, the 3 (or maybe 4 depending on your teacher) that you learned about in elementary science classes are just the most common.
Grey goo isn't much of a threat anyway, if it were fire would have done the job a long time ago. There isn't enough energy that is easily obtained (especially by a machine in the nano size range) to go around tearing apart the component molecules on any random object and reassembling them into more copies. And even if there were enough energy, similar machines that tear apart the component molecules but don't reassemble them are always going to be an order of magnitude more efficient, meaning all you need is a ready supply of such machines to spray all over the grey goo.
Re:So is there a way to revert to the old layout y
on
Firefox 4, A Day Later
·
· Score: 1
Yet? There always was, and it's 2 mouse clicks away. Right click almost anywhere on any toolbar and uncheck tabs on top.
And honestly, I don't understand what all the hate about tabs on top is about. It saves real estate by moving the tabs to the otherwise unused titlebar, and it actually does more accurately communicate what the URL bar refers to if you think about it (with tabs on bottom, the URL bar is logically attached to the current tab but visually is not). If you go back and watch some of the videos the FF team put out when they were still debating this decision I think you'll see that they put quite a lot of thought into it. At the very least you'll realize that they knew some percentage of users were going to hate it so they made it easy to roll back to the old layout.
OP implied that he gave the address of a nearby home, most likely a fire number based on his description (so called because it was designed to be easy for the fire department to find you). They really aren't that hard to understand, there's no excuse for a dispatcher not being able to use one to find an address in an area he or she knows at all.
Energy density of H2: 39,000 Wh/kg (actually lower because this doesn't include an oxidizer. Energy density of Fission of U-235: 25,000,000,000 (of course lower, because you need support machinery)
Pretty clear we aren't quite at the limits of our energy sources using today's launch technologies.
Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
Perhaps it isn't a failure of the agency, they do, after all, get their funding and many of their mission statements from congress. But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".
Not more real, but certainly more exciting. The fact that a 50 year old concept is more exciting than a new space vehicle says a lot about the failures of the space program. If funding had continued just a few years longer we might have seen simple thermal nuclear rockets like NERVA fly. Even the simplest nuclear rockets would have been almost an order of magnitude more effective than chemical rockets, and the preliminary tests were 100% successful. The fact that no one has even broached the subject since says a lot about the public's fears of anything nuclear.
Re:Does it still have the AwfulBar?
on
Firefox 4 Released!
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Those of us who already organized our data get these unhelpful, resource hogging "features" that we can't disable.
Except, of course, for the fact that you can disable the Awesome Bar. Options -> Privacy -> Locations Bar -> "When using the location bar suggest": Options are History, Bookmarks, Bookmarks and History, and Nothing. Personally, I hate getting bombarded with every site that I've visited in the past 6 months when I type something into the location bar, so I have mine set to bookmarks only. But hey, you obviously disagree with that sentiment, so you could set it to just history or nothing if you prefer.
The PS3's DRM was unbroken for half a decade. Now, part of the reason it was so successful was because enthusiasts had access to many features they wanted via the OtherOS functionality, but the fact remains that there was virtually zero piracy of PS3 games for the first 5 years of it's life cycle. Even today with much of the DRM defeated, Piracy rates are still next to zero. Now compare that to the average nerdy college dorm room with a hacked XBox playing downloaded copies of everything from the latest AAA titles to old Atari games (though I suppose you could always play old games via emulators in Linux on the PS3).
Cowboys and Aliens is pulp, as long as it's aware that it's pulp and sticks to over the top action while at the same time not taking itself seriously you can still have a very enjoyable movie.
Agreed, while I admit that it is a polarizing movie I just don't understand the other side of the isle. I found it funny, interesting, and exciting. I think the mockumentary opening puts a lot of people off the movie before it really gets rolling. Some people miss the point of it, even though the point is being driven home with a freakin sledge hammer.
The thing I don't get is that it should be easy for Hollywood to put pulp sci-fi on the big screen. There's a whole subgenre that used to be one of the most popular parts of science fiction which is essentially exactly the big budget, over the top action that they crave for a summer blockbuster. Instead of using that source material, they insist on taking the mostly highly cherished, highest quality, most in-depth and artistic sci-fi they can find and massacre it to fit the summer blockbuster formula.
I have a theory that any theory which allows for time travel will be proven wrong. For example, general relativity allows for time travel, but requires negative mass-energy. We're know general relativity is mostly right, so negative mass-energy, being the larger assumption, is probably wrong.
The idea is not to blast debris out of the sky. The idea is to change the orbit ever so slightly using photon pressure. The laser is fired as the object comes over the horizon until the object is at the zenith. This has two effects. The obvious, since the laser is only fired until the object is at zenith it pushes against the object's orbital motion, effectively lowering it's orbital velocity. Less obvious, it pushes the satellite 'up' away from the earth. Since you aren't actually increasing orbital velocity all that this does is increase the eccentricity of the orbit. The two effects combined cause the sattelite's Perigee to be close enough to the atmosphere of the Earth that drag does the rest and de-orbits the debris.
All with a relatively low power, and now focused laser beam.
Slashdot Mirror
Because salt water can cause a salt build up on the fuel rods, making them much harder to cool and making meltdown more likely. Or does that not jive with your evil corporation narrative?
The entire complex was being shut down in just a few months, why would they spend all the extra money trying to save the reactors if they were going to be decommissioned anyway?
I have a question. How do people who maintain proxy lists determine who to send the list out to? Basically, what stops the Iranian gov't from signing up to receive the weekly list and then quickly blocking the entries on the list?
No, we don't have to do this at all. Our society today is no more dangerous than society 10, 20, 50, or 100 years ago. The only difference is that we hear about every violent act that takes place across the country and across the world. There is less violent crime today than there was during the '40s and '50s, but in the '40s and '50s you didn't have the 24 hour news channels or constant internet access telling you about it, and telling you that you should be worried, and telling you that there were 2 more violent crimes this year than last year (despite the fact that it is statistically insignificant or even against their argument on a per capita basis).
Let me start by saying, flat out, that I'm not trying to troll or start a war here, but what exactly would you have them cut?
It's a fact that most fiscal conservatives, when asked what they would have the government cut can't name a single program to cut that is both A) large enough to have an impact, and B) not political suicide to cut. Would you take benefits away from people on a fixed income, who were promised and rely on that income and those benefits to make it through the month? Would you cut spending on military and defense? Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway? Cut funding for sciences and eduction? NASA?
It's very easy to say "we should be spending less". It's a lot harder to identify areas to be cut that will make a difference and that people aren't so passionate about that the cuts won't be reversed in 4 years or less.
Indeed, I don't really have any problem with the Tax as much as I do with the meter. Just make it self reported on your taxes (just like almost everything is is actually self reported on your taxes) and if someone get's audited make it one of the things they check. When people realize that lying is equivalent to tax fraud, with all the penalties and fines associated, I don't think too many people are going to try and cheat (at least, no more than cheat on their taxes in other ways).
There are lots and lots of phases of matter, the 3 (or maybe 4 depending on your teacher) that you learned about in elementary science classes are just the most common.
Grey goo isn't much of a threat anyway, if it were fire would have done the job a long time ago. There isn't enough energy that is easily obtained (especially by a machine in the nano size range) to go around tearing apart the component molecules on any random object and reassembling them into more copies. And even if there were enough energy, similar machines that tear apart the component molecules but don't reassemble them are always going to be an order of magnitude more efficient, meaning all you need is a ready supply of such machines to spray all over the grey goo.
Yet? There always was, and it's 2 mouse clicks away. Right click almost anywhere on any toolbar and uncheck tabs on top.
And honestly, I don't understand what all the hate about tabs on top is about. It saves real estate by moving the tabs to the otherwise unused titlebar, and it actually does more accurately communicate what the URL bar refers to if you think about it (with tabs on bottom, the URL bar is logically attached to the current tab but visually is not). If you go back and watch some of the videos the FF team put out when they were still debating this decision I think you'll see that they put quite a lot of thought into it. At the very least you'll realize that they knew some percentage of users were going to hate it so they made it easy to roll back to the old layout.
OP implied that he gave the address of a nearby home, most likely a fire number based on his description (so called because it was designed to be easy for the fire department to find you). They really aren't that hard to understand, there's no excuse for a dispatcher not being able to use one to find an address in an area he or she knows at all.
Energy density of H2: 39,000 Wh/kg (actually lower because this doesn't include an oxidizer.
Energy density of Fission of U-235: 25,000,000,000 (of course lower, because you need support machinery)
Pretty clear we aren't quite at the limits of our energy sources using today's launch technologies.
Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
Perhaps it isn't a failure of the agency, they do, after all, get their funding and many of their mission statements from congress. But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".
Speech recognition just isn't that good,
It is if you're only looking for a few banned words and you don't care about what the false positive rate is.
As much as I hate to quote a Will Smith comedy about aliens:
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals."
Or, to quote a better source:
"The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its dumbest member divided by the number of mobsters."
Sometimes governments and corporations are little more than large, organized mobs,
Not more real, but certainly more exciting. The fact that a 50 year old concept is more exciting than a new space vehicle says a lot about the failures of the space program. If funding had continued just a few years longer we might have seen simple thermal nuclear rockets like NERVA fly. Even the simplest nuclear rockets would have been almost an order of magnitude more effective than chemical rockets, and the preliminary tests were 100% successful. The fact that no one has even broached the subject since says a lot about the public's fears of anything nuclear.
Those of us who already organized our data get these unhelpful, resource hogging "features" that we can't disable.
Except, of course, for the fact that you can disable the Awesome Bar. Options -> Privacy -> Locations Bar -> "When using the location bar suggest": Options are History, Bookmarks, Bookmarks and History, and Nothing. Personally, I hate getting bombarded with every site that I've visited in the past 6 months when I type something into the location bar, so I have mine set to bookmarks only. But hey, you obviously disagree with that sentiment, so you could set it to just history or nothing if you prefer.
The PS3's DRM was unbroken for half a decade. Now, part of the reason it was so successful was because enthusiasts had access to many features they wanted via the OtherOS functionality, but the fact remains that there was virtually zero piracy of PS3 games for the first 5 years of it's life cycle. Even today with much of the DRM defeated, Piracy rates are still next to zero. Now compare that to the average nerdy college dorm room with a hacked XBox playing downloaded copies of everything from the latest AAA titles to old Atari games (though I suppose you could always play old games via emulators in Linux on the PS3).
Cowboys and Aliens is pulp, as long as it's aware that it's pulp and sticks to over the top action while at the same time not taking itself seriously you can still have a very enjoyable movie.
Agreed, while I admit that it is a polarizing movie I just don't understand the other side of the isle. I found it funny, interesting, and exciting. I think the mockumentary opening puts a lot of people off the movie before it really gets rolling. Some people miss the point of it, even though the point is being driven home with a freakin sledge hammer.
The thing I don't get is that it should be easy for Hollywood to put pulp sci-fi on the big screen. There's a whole subgenre that used to be one of the most popular parts of science fiction which is essentially exactly the big budget, over the top action that they crave for a summer blockbuster. Instead of using that source material, they insist on taking the mostly highly cherished, highest quality, most in-depth and artistic sci-fi they can find and massacre it to fit the summer blockbuster formula.
I have a theory that any theory which allows for time travel will be proven wrong. For example, general relativity allows for time travel, but requires negative mass-energy. We're know general relativity is mostly right, so negative mass-energy, being the larger assumption, is probably wrong.
The idea is not to blast debris out of the sky. The idea is to change the orbit ever so slightly using photon pressure. The laser is fired as the object comes over the horizon until the object is at the zenith. This has two effects. The obvious, since the laser is only fired until the object is at zenith it pushes against the object's orbital motion, effectively lowering it's orbital velocity. Less obvious, it pushes the satellite 'up' away from the earth. Since you aren't actually increasing orbital velocity all that this does is increase the eccentricity of the orbit. The two effects combined cause the sattelite's Perigee to be close enough to the atmosphere of the Earth that drag does the rest and de-orbits the debris.
All with a relatively low power, and now focused laser beam.
In any event, I don't think "But he's doing it too!" has ever been considered a valid legal defense.
North Korea (do they have internet?)
Most of them are lucky to have electricity, let alone internet.
http://www.atr.org/userfiles/korea-by-night.jpg
By that logic half the words in the average English speaker's vocabulary aren't "English words".