-
Surely this is an argument based on Economics, not on Maths?
The side that can implement : "the best kill-ratio per dollar" will surely "win".
Frex, if one side implements Laser Missile Killer Guns,
with low cost per gun, per "shot", per man-hour $,
then it can just keep on shooting down whatever appears in the skies, oceans, wherever.
One doesn't need a very big "bullet", or "mortar", to bring down a giant missile.
And they don't have to be very accurate "bullets" or "mortars".
One can launch a veritable "wall of metal" at any air missile (like the Phalanx Gun does)
see: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-laser-phalanx-03783/
Similarly underwater.
What do others think ?
There are pious canons that Green Warriors take as unquestionable dogma, in regard to Nuclear Energy.
Firstly, nuclear opponents state that nuclear energy is “... more expensive than conventional or alternative power sources...”
Fortunately, in The Age, 28/04/2005, there appears an article by Lesley KEMENY containing favourable quantitative costings of nuclear power versus other sources – including waste disposal & decommissioning, see http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Going-nuclear-its-the-new-green/2005/04/27/1114462096097.html
The companion opinion article on 28/04/05, by Peter GARRETT, was starkly revealed as only that - unjustified opinion.
Secondly it is asserted that there are no adequate technologies “... in place to safely quarantine radioactive waste...”
This is abysmal luddite ignorance, and for better information, one should now consult the ABC news article on-line at: http://www.abc.net.au/ news/newsitems/200504/sl 346616.htm
Also see: http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_03.asp.
These internet articles report on 25-year old Australian SYNROC technology, invented by Ted RINGWOOD, which more than matches any safety requirement for disposing nuclear waste. This technology can store the entire world’s current annual nuclear waste in a small 20metre cube, unharvestable by terrorists, buried underneath any stable Australian geology, (a mere nothing) for eons. A portable or permanent SYNROC plant set beside every reactor can immobiise its waste into a deep rock-steady mass, avoiding the necessity to transport any unstable waste overland or water.
Thirdly, there is raised the spectre of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These were mainly political disasters, not so much as technical ones. The Luddites of this world should remember that - “The cure for BAD technology is not NO technology, but BETTER technology”. No one is going back to living in caves as some kind of halcyon rebirth! Even greenies need electricity and computers and transport to distribute their views. Yes, recyclable energy is environmentally attractive, but it can’t be developed quickly enough to cure the crises which confront our energy hungry populations. Only nuclear technology can get there in time, and one better nuclear technology is the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), which can be explored at: http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/topics/article 04.html This reactor is intrinsically stable, and cannot “go critical” - any loss of moderator gas just causes the nuclear fires to snuff out like a candle.
Fourthly, in terms of “the risk of terrorists attacking reactors”, such reactors can be buried deep underground, to minimise nuclear leakage from any militant attack. Though one notes that every kind of above ground power plant is equally vulnerable to attack, it is granted that radio-active isotopes need special protection against dispersal.
Fifthly, other letter writers have expressed concern about “Nuclear Mining” – a separate topic to nuclear energy to be sure – but not so distant that it can’t be solved in one further paragraph. The concern is about Australia shipping Uranium ore to countries with poor supervisory & management schemes which might allow U238 to be diverted into a weapons program.
Solution? Don’t ship the U238, refined or not, but ship the energy it represents. We know Northern Australia has abundant ore bodies of Uranium and Aluminium. So build the nuclear reactor(s) close to the Uranium ore deposits (reduced transit risks), bring the Aluminium bauxite to the reactor (which outputs abundant electricity), and smelt the bauxite into pure Alumium metal, now b
Flash drives sound - well, flash.
'cept has anyone done their homework on the lifetime number of
writes, reads and rewrites achievable on each of these NAND species.
Now do a little arithmetic,
Value = Storage BYTES * life-writes-reads / $$$ / access speed
and see what you really get !!
Re:CLOVERFIELD, the worst movie iin 10 years
on
Cloverfield Discussion
·
· Score: 1, Informative
No doubt, someone will try to claim that the photography was Cinema Verite. It wasn't ! It was Cinema Bloody Shit.
Not just amateur quality, but infantile !
The acting was juvenile.
The plot was ill conceived.
The dialogue was absolutely retarded: e.g. Person1: "Hammer down is at 0600 hours". Person2: "What time is that?". Person1: "6am" Person2: "I knew that!". No wonder the USA is in utter decline with this state of educational ignorance amongst its' College Graduates.
How dare the film-makers (and film distributors) launch this crap upon the public, with little warning or trailers to forewarn of how bad this movie is.
Every one who attends should demand their money back from cinema management when exiting.
Slashdot Mirror
- Surely this is an argument based on Economics, not on Maths? The side that can implement : "the best kill-ratio per dollar" will surely "win". Frex, if one side implements Laser Missile Killer Guns, with low cost per gun, per "shot", per man-hour $, then it can just keep on shooting down whatever appears in the skies, oceans, wherever. One doesn't need a very big "bullet", or "mortar", to bring down a giant missile. And they don't have to be very accurate "bullets" or "mortars". One can launch a veritable "wall of metal" at any air missile (like the Phalanx Gun does) see: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-laser-phalanx-03783/ Similarly underwater. What do others think ?
There are pious canons that Green Warriors take as unquestionable dogma, in regard to Nuclear Energy. Firstly, nuclear opponents state that nuclear energy is “... more expensive than conventional or alternative power sources...” Fortunately, in The Age, 28/04/2005, there appears an article by Lesley KEMENY containing favourable quantitative costings of nuclear power versus other sources – including waste disposal & decommissioning, see http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Going-nuclear-its-the-new-green/2005/04/27/1114462096097.html The companion opinion article on 28/04/05, by Peter GARRETT, was starkly revealed as only that - unjustified opinion. Secondly it is asserted that there are no adequate technologies “... in place to safely quarantine radioactive waste ...”
This is abysmal luddite ignorance, and for better information, one should now consult the ABC news article on-line at: http://www.abc.net.au/ news/newsitems/200504/sl 346616.htm
Also see: http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_03.asp.
These internet articles report on 25-year old Australian SYNROC technology, invented by Ted RINGWOOD, which more than matches any safety requirement for disposing nuclear waste. This technology can store the entire world’s current annual nuclear waste in a small 20metre cube, unharvestable by terrorists, buried underneath any stable Australian geology, (a mere nothing) for eons. A portable or permanent SYNROC plant set beside every reactor can immobiise its waste into a deep rock-steady mass, avoiding the necessity to transport any unstable waste overland or water.
Thirdly, there is raised the spectre of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These were mainly political disasters, not so much as technical ones. The Luddites of this world should remember that - “The cure for BAD technology is not NO technology, but BETTER technology”. No one is going back to living in caves as some kind of halcyon rebirth! Even greenies need electricity and computers and transport to distribute their views. Yes, recyclable energy is environmentally attractive, but it can’t be developed quickly enough to cure the crises which confront our energy hungry populations. Only nuclear technology can get there in time, and one better nuclear technology is the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), which can be explored at: http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/topics/article 04.html This reactor is intrinsically stable, and cannot “go critical” - any loss of moderator gas just causes the nuclear fires to snuff out like a candle.
Fourthly, in terms of “the risk of terrorists attacking reactors”, such reactors can be buried deep underground, to minimise nuclear leakage from any militant attack. Though one notes that every kind of above ground power plant is equally vulnerable to attack, it is granted that radio-active isotopes need special protection against dispersal.
Fifthly, other letter writers have expressed concern about “Nuclear Mining” – a separate topic to nuclear energy to be sure – but not so distant that it can’t be solved in one further paragraph. The concern is about Australia shipping Uranium ore to countries with poor supervisory & management schemes which might allow U238 to be diverted into a weapons program.
Solution? Don’t ship the U238, refined or not, but ship the energy it represents. We know Northern Australia has abundant ore bodies of Uranium and Aluminium. So build the nuclear reactor(s) close to the Uranium ore deposits (reduced transit risks), bring the Aluminium bauxite to the reactor (which outputs abundant electricity), and smelt the bauxite into pure Alumium metal, now b
Flash drives sound - well, flash. 'cept has anyone done their homework on the lifetime number of writes, reads and rewrites achievable on each of these NAND species. Now do a little arithmetic, Value = Storage BYTES * life-writes-reads / $$$ / access speed and see what you really get !!
No doubt, someone will try to claim that the photography was Cinema Verite.
It wasn't ! It was Cinema Bloody Shit.
Not just amateur quality, but infantile !
The acting was juvenile.
The plot was ill conceived.
The dialogue was absolutely retarded:
e.g. Person1: "Hammer down is at 0600 hours". Person2: "What time is that?". Person1: "6am" Person2: "I knew that!". No wonder the USA is in utter decline with this state of educational ignorance amongst its' College Graduates.
How dare the film-makers (and film distributors) launch this crap upon the public, with little warning or trailers to forewarn of how bad this movie is.
Every one who attends should demand their money back from cinema management when exiting.