Which vaccines? I think you are wrong. Certainly, I can find no evidence that hepatitis vaccines are made from primate livers; they have been made from blood plasma (of infected humans) and by recombinant DNA techniques, with yeasts as the vector. Hepatitis has been isolated from, and studied in, marmoset livers; but I doubt that these livers were used for *human* vaccination.
Can you provide *any* authoritative reference to support your strange theory? I'd be interested.
You're probably right on the other points, but not only does PostgreSQL have "object-relational database features", Postgres was the *first* object-relational database in the world, IIRC. And thus obviously object-relational *before Oracle* was.
I believe the modern object-relational database was invented by Stonebraker et al (at Berkeley?). Postgres was *their implementation* of an object-relational database. PostgreSQL evolved afterward from Postgres, driven mainly by Stonebraker's former students, I believe.
I just got a Quantum (now Maxtor) Atlas 10K III for $320 (Canadian - that's just US$200). The premium which you pay for a SCSI system is really not that bad - basically US$100-200 for the host adapter; plus US$100 more per HD, if you don't need booming capacity. In return you get superior performance and reliability.
IDE is OK for X terminals, as well as the ubiquitous, shitty and disposable, Win9x boxes in the world. But *real* computers, be they serious workstations or servers, deserve SCSI.
The performance advantage for SCSI drives is larger than you would guess by just looking at the spindle speeds. And in my experience, the failure rate for IDE drives is vastly higher than for SCSI drives, under similar workloads - they're just built for a more demanding life.
> Microsoft had no problem jumping on it and getting it out and in use > (in 90% of the browsers out there, no less).
Really? IE6 supports it; are 90% of internet users using IE6? I think not.
Something like (very roughly), 65% use IE (all versions), 20% use AOL (w. embedded IE, various versions), 10% use Netscape/Mozilla (all versions), 5% others.
So 85% use an IE-based browser. What fraction of those are *IE6*-based? Half? My guess would be that less than 30% of current users (total, all browsers) run IE6.
People should remember that the majority of users *don't upgrade* their web browser regularly. Lots of IE's market share is still version 4; and I would guess that 6 is still not as popular as 5.x.
> Similarly, would you use a C or C++ compiler that > always aborts when seeing the first minor syntax > error? Such a compiler would greatly slow you > down, because you'd only be able to find one > error at a time.
This is a terrible example. I expect C/C++ compilers to be highly intolerant of incorrect or non-standard-compliant code; and generate verbose warnings and errors on encountering it. I somewhat agree with you, when it comes to something like a web browser; but a compiler should *always* be conservative; otherwise poor software reliability will be right around the corner...
(reading and posting from Konqueror, the world's niftiest web browser.;-)
Atomic scale circuits
on
If I Had a Hammer
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
"slight physics problems" is right; and how!
I'm very doubtful that 128-bit machines will *ever* be built; though only a fool would say they definitely won't be built, this early in the game.
32-bit CPU's still take large chunks of silicon, and their features are approaching 1E-7 meters in size. 64-bit machines will not be severely limited until they are trying to manage about 10 orders of magnitude (1E10 times - well over 2^32 times) more circuit elements. If circuits are still basically planar in physical layout, this implies circuit features approaching 1E-12 meters (1E-7 / sqrt( 1E10 ))...
Since silicon atoms are roughly 2.5E-10 meters across, there might be a slight problem with building circuit features this small.;-)
Put another way, the realistic limit for further process shrink is about 2 more orders of magnitude (the circuits would be just a few atoms across) - only 4 more orders of magnitude in total number of circuit elements, not 10.
So I really have a hard time seeing how a computer built with *chips*, that is smaller than a skyscraper, would ever need more than 64 address bits.
Answer that and you'll just have shot down your entire first paragraph. There are almost no CPU fabs at.13 micron, outside of the PC market. Are there *any* CPU's at.13, other than Power4 and x86?
Your second and third paragraphs are essentially agreeing with me - there is on-going, and will be more, fab consolidation...
All of those little guys make much smaller planes and/or a smaller range of models than Boeing and Airbus. Boeing and Airbus are the *only*, I repeat *ONLY*, two effective competitors left in the world-wide market for large airliners.
Lockheed abandoned the market; McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing, and so on...
Ultimately, only IBM and Intel can stand on their own when it comes to state of the art fabs. It was the cost of continually upgrading the fab that caused Compaq to abandon Alpha. Sun will be very fortunate if it continues to succeed in it's traditional fab arangement with TI. I think that Sun, TI, AMD (and maybe others) should try to pool their resources some way here; maybe with jointly owned/operated fabs or something...
I think you just single-handedly proved the value of OO features in the language itself. The difference in readability between the previous C++, and your C implementation is, frankly, striking.
PCBs are regarded as a "*probable* human carcinogen". Epidemiological studies of this kind of thing are always *choked solid* with confounding factors. The only absolutely clear data come from lab work, using animal models.
PCBs have been confirmed to cause cancer in rodents, but rodents appear to generally be more susceptible to some carcinogens than humans. There are known cases of rodent carcinogens which are *not* regarded as "probable human carcinogens".
The science in these areas is *far* from done. Recent genetic differences found between rodents and primates raise the very real possibility that humans are virtually non-susceptible to some rodent carcinogens. It is my understanding that, for this very reason, gene-splicing is being investigated to produce rodents whose cancer susceptibilities are more like humans.
Re:Guilt By Association, don't buy it
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 2
The FDA *never* approved thalidomide. It was approved and used in *other* countries. The thalidomide story is actually partly one of a public watchdog (the FDA) doing its job very well.
Regarding your " real factual arguments": They mostly sound good. I wonder; what about GM used to boost vitamin content; or boost resistance to a disease in a non-toxic way? Are those bad too?
I think what we need is plenty of public scrutiny, and firm regulations - rather than an out-right ban on GMOs.
I'm guessing that this is an alkaline-electrolyte fuel cell - the cheapest and most mature type. This type is also more suitable both for indoor use and quick start-ups than most of the other types. I am *not* positive that this is the type they are using - it might be a low-temperature proton-exchange membrane variant.
However, alkaline electrolytes (probably potassium hydroxide) are poisoned very quickly by CO2 contamination, and stop working. So you have to feed it pure hydrogen - the chief downside to this fuel-cell type.
Other types, principally phosphoric acid, proton-exchange membrane, molten carbonate and solid oxide, can tolerate traces of CO2, to varying degrees, but may have other drawbacks. So then you can reform natural gas, propane or methanol, for instance, with steam, to produce CO2-contaminated hydrogen, and use that.
> Have you actually tried that? I think you'd be in for a rude shock. Power quality will almost
> certainly cost you a lot more then the 10K that the fuel cell would set you back.
You can (and people actually do) use the crappy AC output from these generators to power sensitive equipment. You simply need the right power-conditioning equipment between the generator and your delicate load.
Since utility AC is not so great either, a good set-up will need such equipment *anyway*, so you really do get the output of the generator for the cost of the generator alone - the power conditioning cost is already sunk.
Your friend failed because he used a UPS which was not designed for this kind of power conditioning role. The right kind of UPS will work fine with a crappy Honda generator.
You can buy integrated backup systems, from companies like APC, which include a generator. There is nothing magical about the kind of generator they use - it *too* produces crappy AC. But that AC is then rectified to DC, which is then stabilized by a lead-acid battery, which is then inverted to clean AC - or some similar scheme.
If you know what you are doing, you can build equivalent systems yourself, using standard, cheap generators from the hardware store...
Falling temperatures and declining sunlight levels would be the main pressures on plant and animal populations in this kind of scenario. Breathing through your skin has nothing to do with these kinds of stresses.
The creatures which you describe could survive the cold in tropical areas. The dinosaurs were living in temperate areas, which would get far too cold. The reason they evolved so big was to survive in cooler areas due to the cube-square law and it's ramifications for body-heat retention.
When the hard times came, that size proved a disadvantage. Lean times are harder on big critters than little ones - the food supply problem becomes impossible for them. Remember, modern-day elephants descended from rat-sized mammals.
Metals have been produced from seawater for decades, and very economically, too. There are several which can be practically produced this way. But of that group, the only common *structural* metal which I can think of is Magnesium.
Magnesium hydroxide can be cheaply extracted from brine by precipitation when a cheap alkali is added - usually slaked lime (calcium hydroxide). The magnesium hydroxide becomes the feedstock for electrolytic cells which produce metallic magnesium. This second step is similar to the way that metallic aluminum is produced from aluminum hydroxide, after it is refined from bauxite. At one time, most of the world's magnesium was produced this way, though it may or may not be now - there are other practical sources. It is sufficient to say that the cost of electrolysis for magnesium production greatly outweighs the cost of the hydroxide feedstock, regardless of the source.
Uranium can also be produced from seawater, by various methods, but the cost is very much higher than either current world prices (very low right now) or even historical peak prices. It *is* however, *definitely* not too expensive for breeder reactor usage (breeders yield ~100 times more energy per unit mass of natural uranium). And there is something like 500 - 1000 times more uranium dissolved in seawater than all current, proven reserves in conventional mines.
In addition, I believe several other, non-structural metals are or can be produced from seawater. Rubidium, cesium, strontium, barium are perhaps possible. The amounts available is *usually* vastly larger than mine reserves.
Clearly, calling metal extraction from seawater "science fiction" is quite inappropriate.
> they need a powerful reactor. They energy
> density must be far higher than the reactors
> currently in use. There was a project in the
> 1960'ies, and they came to the conclusion that
> they need a 2000-3000 times higher energy
> density.
THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I am shouting because you are absolutely nuts. The power densities (energy density is *not* the right term) of NERVA reactors that were actually built and tested in the '60s are *multiple* orders of magnitude higher than power reactors used for electricity production. Ballpark: 1000 times higher! They have existing designs which are powerful enough to be useful for upper stages right now. Primary booster designs are about one more order of magnitude larger and perfectly feasible.
> they need a conventional booster for
> the first 30000 feet...
Not if they simply provide the ram rocket (that's the correct term for the design which the article describes) with oxidizer and integral combustors for early acceleration. Then the hybrid design would be chemically powered at lift off, but nuclear powered the rest of the way. It need not use a separate booster, but could be a an SSTO (single-stage-
to-orbit).
> the reactor must
> withstand an explosion of the conventional
> booster
This isn't very difficult for the designs which are likely to be tried. Early graphite designs would break up and release radioactivity easily, but it sounds (from the uranium dioxide reference) like they will be making the fuel elements from a tungsten-UO2 cermet. This stuff is *really* hard, dense and tough. You would be surprised at how little a chemical explosion might do to it.
Furthermore, it is important to understand that nuclear fuel is only *very slightly* radioactive until the reactor is powered up and fission products are produced. A wrecked *fresh* core below 30 000 feet represents a near-zero hazard.
> they must convince the public that
> the radioactive traces that are released in
> the upper atmosphere are negligable.
This is going to be a political problem, not a scientific problem. It is important to understand that the thickness of the atmosphere makes a *really* good radiation shield. Radionuclides in the stratosphere may be released and emit gamma rays, but almost *none* of the gammas will reach the ground. You should realize that there are something like 7 (metric) tons of air over every square meter between you and the stratosphere!
Stratospheric fallout is perhaps hundreds of times less threatening to the environment than tropospheric fallout. There's no rain up there. In the troposphere, rainout is the primary means that radioactivity will reach the ground - in a few days. But with no rainout, finely-divided stratospheric fallout remains aloft - and on the preferable side of that 7t/sq.m shield - for months. Fission products are mostly short lived, and a tremendous amount of decay occurs before they will reach the ground.
Furthermore, the amounts normally released are likely to be very small - because of that tungsten-UO2 cermet again. The UO2 particles in the cermet will do a tremendous job of retaining fission products, and the fuel elements should be cladded with plain tungsten or a similar metal or alloy.
...unless you want to give money to Microsoft for a Windows CE license.
*I* would only get a "Linux" palmtop which actually came with Linux on it, never one which came with WinCE and required hacking to get a decent OS on there. Why pay BG for stuff that you are planning to *immediately* throw away.
I just ordered an Agenda VR3 yesterday, and I would say it seems like excellent value for the money.
Go with Agenda. They are the FIRST out of the gate with Linux actually pre-installed.
I'm a little shocked at this question actually, because for me the correct answer is SO absolutely obvious.
Of the gang of friends that I had in high school and into university, lots of them were studying a field of science or engineering - about 5 out of 10 that spring to mind. Of those 5, I can only think of 1 who didn't turn away from science and get into computers/programming/networking/ sysadmining/webstuff when we hit the job market. That was where the job opportunities were, and we were all computer literate and generally smart enough to transition into one or more of those rapidly growing fields. None of the fields that any of us we were studying offered nearly comparable opportunity.
My background was in Nuclear Power Engineering and I got so angry and depressed after completing 3 years of university - considering the unimaginably crummy (and in my case locally unpredictable) job market, that I chucked it all and went into the job market with no degree. I'm one of the 4 (of the 5) now earning a good living as a computer guy. I do programming and system administration in the technical computing field - Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) specifically.
My point is actually very simple: There is an abundance of people who can do the job for you. But you have to get the resume points the right-way round. They are the ones schooled in science, but with work experience with computers. NOT the ones schooled in computers, but with work experience in science.
ELIMINATE CS degrees from consideration. Look for scientific schooling, then job experience in programming. There are lots of us who fell into our jobs, many would like to do something more scientific, and some would jump at the kind of position which you describe.
If MRAM replaces DRAM (not just flash), then UPSes will no longer be necessary. Since a UPS is currently advisable for any system doing serious work, this has big cost implications.
On many new systems with a UPS, the UPS costs more than the DRAM in the box. So it follows that MRAM could be more than twice as expensive as DRAM, and still displace it for many serious applications.
I think that it's quite unlikely that anyone with traditionalist Unix skills at a decent level will have a hard time competing in the IT job market with Windows-oriented folks.
I certainly didn't say that Motif was flawless, and your complaints may be valid. I just object to the logic that, if something isn't perfect, it must therefore be a piece of garbage.
My bottom line is that GTK+ is not just "reinventing the wheel" - it's "reinventing the wheel *badly*". It's missing lots of things that it would have gained by sticking with a Xt foundation.
Your complaints really sound to me like an argument for the continued evolution of Motif. Subclassing/replacing XmTextField and replacing XmList might be good ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
> Vaccines are made from primate livers
Which vaccines? I think you are wrong. Certainly, I can find no evidence that hepatitis vaccines are made from primate livers; they have been made from blood plasma (of infected humans) and by recombinant DNA techniques, with yeasts as the vector. Hepatitis has been isolated from, and studied in, marmoset livers; but I doubt that these livers were used for *human* vaccination.
Can you provide *any* authoritative reference to support your strange theory? I'd be interested.
> 3. Object-relational database features.
You're probably right on the other points, but not only does PostgreSQL have "object-relational database features", Postgres was the *first* object-relational database in the world, IIRC. And thus obviously object-relational *before Oracle* was.
I believe the modern object-relational database was invented by Stonebraker et al (at Berkeley?). Postgres was *their implementation* of an object-relational database. PostgreSQL evolved afterward from Postgres, driven mainly by Stonebraker's former students, I believe.
Have you looked at Kivio, from theKompany.com? This is not really my kind of thing, so I can't tell you if it will do everything you need or not...
Support native Linux ISV's!
I just got a Quantum (now Maxtor) Atlas 10K III for $320 (Canadian - that's just US$200). The premium which you pay for a SCSI system is really not that bad - basically US$100-200 for the host adapter; plus US$100 more per HD, if you don't need booming capacity. In return you get superior performance and reliability.
IDE is OK for X terminals, as well as the ubiquitous, shitty and disposable, Win9x boxes in the world. But *real* computers, be they serious workstations or servers, deserve SCSI.
The performance advantage for SCSI drives is larger than you would guess by just looking at the spindle speeds. And in my experience, the failure rate for IDE drives is vastly higher than for SCSI drives, under similar workloads - they're just built for a more demanding life.
> Microsoft had no problem jumping on it and getting it out and in use
> (in 90% of the browsers out there, no less).
Really? IE6 supports it; are 90% of internet users using IE6? I think not.
Something like (very roughly), 65% use IE (all versions), 20% use AOL (w. embedded IE, various versions), 10% use Netscape/Mozilla (all versions), 5% others.
So 85% use an IE-based browser. What fraction of those are *IE6*-based? Half? My guess would be that less than 30% of current users (total, all browsers) run IE6.
People should remember that the majority of users *don't upgrade* their web browser regularly. Lots of IE's market share is still version 4; and I would guess that 6 is still not as popular as 5.x.
...And much of this wasted space is available to the *legitimate* filesystem on the volume...
And "Hiding" is an interesting term here. It's not hidden, if it's not encrypted; and if it's encrypted, why bother with such nonsense...
> Similarly, would you use a C or C++ compiler that
;-)
> always aborts when seeing the first minor syntax
> error? Such a compiler would greatly slow you
> down, because you'd only be able to find one
> error at a time.
This is a terrible example. I expect C/C++ compilers to be highly intolerant of incorrect or non-standard-compliant code; and generate verbose warnings and errors on encountering it. I somewhat agree with you, when it comes to something like a web browser; but a compiler should *always* be conservative; otherwise poor software reliability will be right around the corner...
(reading and posting from Konqueror, the world's niftiest web browser.
"slight physics problems" is right; and how!
;-)
I'm very doubtful that 128-bit machines will *ever* be built; though only a fool would say they definitely won't be built, this early in the game.
32-bit CPU's still take large chunks of silicon, and their features are approaching 1E-7 meters in size. 64-bit machines will not be severely limited until they are trying to manage about 10 orders of magnitude (1E10 times - well over 2^32 times) more circuit elements. If circuits are still basically planar in physical layout, this implies circuit features approaching 1E-12 meters (1E-7 / sqrt( 1E10 ))...
Since silicon atoms are roughly 2.5E-10 meters across, there might be a slight problem with building circuit features this small.
Put another way, the realistic limit for further process shrink is about 2 more orders of magnitude (the circuits would be just a few atoms across) - only 4 more orders of magnitude in total number of circuit elements, not 10.
So I really have a hard time seeing how a computer built with *chips*, that is smaller than a skyscraper, would ever need more than 64 address bits.
Answer that and you'll just have shot down your entire first paragraph. There are almost no CPU fabs at .13 micron, outside of the PC market. Are there *any* CPU's at .13, other than Power4 and x86?
Your second and third paragraphs are essentially agreeing with me - there is on-going, and will be more, fab consolidation...
All of those little guys make much smaller planes and/or a smaller range of models than Boeing and Airbus. Boeing and Airbus are the *only*, I repeat *ONLY*, two effective competitors left in the world-wide market for large airliners.
Lockheed abandoned the market; McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing, and so on...
Ultimately, only IBM and Intel can stand on their own when it comes to state of the art fabs. It was the cost of continually upgrading the fab that caused Compaq to abandon Alpha. Sun will be very fortunate if it continues to succeed in it's traditional fab arangement with TI. I think that Sun, TI, AMD (and maybe others) should try to pool their resources some way here; maybe with jointly owned/operated fabs or something...
...because you're hurting me. ;-)
I think you just single-handedly proved the value of OO features in the language itself. The difference in readability between the previous C++, and your C implementation is, frankly, striking.
PCBs are regarded as a "*probable* human carcinogen". Epidemiological studies of this kind of thing are always *choked solid* with confounding factors. The only absolutely clear data come from lab work, using animal models.
PCBs have been confirmed to cause cancer in rodents, but rodents appear to generally be more susceptible to some carcinogens than humans. There are known cases of rodent carcinogens which are *not* regarded as "probable human carcinogens".
The science in these areas is *far* from done. Recent genetic differences found between rodents and primates raise the very real possibility that humans are virtually non-susceptible to some rodent carcinogens. It is my understanding that, for this very reason, gene-splicing is being investigated to produce rodents whose cancer susceptibilities are more like humans.
The FDA *never* approved thalidomide. It was approved and used in *other* countries. The thalidomide story is actually partly one of a public watchdog (the FDA) doing its job very well.
Regarding your " real factual arguments": They mostly sound good. I wonder; what about GM used to boost vitamin content; or boost resistance to a disease in a non-toxic way? Are those bad too?
I think what we need is plenty of public scrutiny, and firm regulations - rather than an out-right ban on GMOs.
I'm guessing that this is an alkaline-electrolyte fuel cell - the cheapest and most mature type. This type is also more suitable both for indoor use and quick start-ups than most of the other types. I am *not* positive that this is the type they are using - it might be a low-temperature proton-exchange membrane variant.
However, alkaline electrolytes (probably potassium hydroxide) are poisoned very quickly by CO2 contamination, and stop working. So you have to feed it pure hydrogen - the chief downside to this fuel-cell type.
Other types, principally phosphoric acid, proton-exchange membrane, molten carbonate and solid oxide, can tolerate traces of CO2, to varying degrees, but may have other drawbacks. So then you can reform natural gas, propane or methanol, for instance, with steam, to produce CO2-contaminated hydrogen, and use that.
> Have you actually tried that? I think you'd be in for a rude shock. Power quality will almost
> certainly cost you a lot more then the 10K that the fuel cell would set you back.
You can (and people actually do) use the crappy AC output from these generators to power sensitive equipment. You simply need the right power-conditioning equipment between the generator and your delicate load.
Since utility AC is not so great either, a good set-up will need such equipment *anyway*, so you really do get the output of the generator for the cost of the generator alone - the power conditioning cost is already sunk.
Your friend failed because he used a UPS which was not designed for this kind of power conditioning role. The right kind of UPS will work fine with a crappy Honda generator.
You can buy integrated backup systems, from companies like APC, which include a generator. There is nothing magical about the kind of generator they use - it *too* produces crappy AC. But that AC is then rectified to DC, which is then stabilized by a lead-acid battery, which is then inverted to clean AC - or some similar scheme.
If you know what you are doing, you can build equivalent systems yourself, using standard, cheap generators from the hardware store...
Falling temperatures and declining sunlight levels would be the main pressures on plant and animal populations in this kind of scenario. Breathing through your skin has nothing to do with these kinds of stresses.
The creatures which you describe could survive the cold in tropical areas. The dinosaurs were living in temperate areas, which would get far too cold. The reason they evolved so big was to survive in cooler areas due to the cube-square law and it's ramifications for body-heat retention.
When the hard times came, that size proved a disadvantage. Lean times are harder on big critters than little ones - the food supply problem becomes impossible for them. Remember, modern-day elephants descended from rat-sized mammals.
That research you're talking about has borne fruit. BNCT is now becoming a widespread treatment option.
Metals have been produced from seawater for decades, and very economically, too. There are several which can be practically produced this way. But of that group, the only common *structural* metal which I can think of is Magnesium.
Magnesium hydroxide can be cheaply extracted from brine by precipitation when a cheap alkali is added - usually slaked lime (calcium hydroxide). The magnesium hydroxide becomes the feedstock for electrolytic cells which produce metallic magnesium. This second step is similar to the way that metallic aluminum is produced from aluminum hydroxide, after it is refined from bauxite. At one time, most of the world's magnesium was produced this way, though it may or may not be now - there are other practical sources. It is sufficient to say that the cost of electrolysis for magnesium production greatly outweighs the cost of the hydroxide feedstock, regardless of the source.
Uranium can also be produced from seawater, by various methods, but the cost is very much higher than either current world prices (very low right now) or even historical peak prices. It *is* however, *definitely* not too expensive for breeder reactor usage (breeders yield ~100 times more energy per unit mass of natural uranium). And there is something like 500 - 1000 times more uranium dissolved in seawater than all current, proven reserves in conventional mines.
In addition, I believe several other, non-structural metals are or can be produced from seawater. Rubidium, cesium, strontium, barium are perhaps possible. The amounts available is *usually* vastly larger than mine reserves.
Clearly, calling metal extraction from seawater "science fiction" is quite inappropriate.
> they need a powerful reactor. They energy
> density must be far higher than the reactors
> currently in use. There was a project in the
> 1960'ies, and they came to the conclusion that
> they need a 2000-3000 times higher energy
> density.
THIS IS COMPLETELY FALSE. I am shouting because you are absolutely nuts. The power densities (energy density is *not* the right term) of NERVA reactors that were actually built and tested in the '60s are *multiple* orders of magnitude higher than power reactors used for electricity production. Ballpark: 1000 times higher! They have existing designs which are powerful enough to be useful for upper stages right now. Primary booster designs are about one more order of magnitude larger and perfectly feasible.
> they need a conventional booster for
> the first 30000 feet...
Not if they simply provide the ram rocket (that's the correct term for the design which the article describes) with oxidizer and integral combustors for early acceleration. Then the hybrid design would be chemically powered at lift off, but nuclear powered the rest of the way. It need not use a separate booster, but could be a an SSTO (single-stage-
to-orbit).
> the reactor must
> withstand an explosion of the conventional
> booster
This isn't very difficult for the designs which are likely to be tried. Early graphite designs would break up and release radioactivity easily, but it sounds (from the uranium dioxide reference) like they will be making the fuel elements from a tungsten-UO2 cermet. This stuff is *really* hard, dense and tough. You would be surprised at how little a chemical explosion might do to it.
Furthermore, it is important to understand that nuclear fuel is only *very slightly* radioactive until the reactor is powered up and fission products are produced. A wrecked *fresh* core below 30 000 feet represents a near-zero hazard.
> they must convince the public that
> the radioactive traces that are released in
> the upper atmosphere are negligable.
This is going to be a political problem, not a scientific problem. It is important to understand that the thickness of the atmosphere makes a *really* good radiation shield. Radionuclides in the stratosphere may be released and emit gamma rays, but almost *none* of the gammas will reach the ground. You should realize that there are something like 7 (metric) tons of air over every square meter between you and the stratosphere!
Stratospheric fallout is perhaps hundreds of times less threatening to the environment than tropospheric fallout. There's no rain up there. In the troposphere, rainout is the primary means that radioactivity will reach the ground - in a few days. But with no rainout, finely-divided stratospheric fallout remains aloft - and on the preferable side of that 7t/sq.m shield - for months. Fission products are mostly short lived, and a tremendous amount of decay occurs before they will reach the ground.
Furthermore, the amounts normally released are likely to be very small - because of that tungsten-UO2 cermet again. The UO2 particles in the cermet will do a tremendous job of retaining fission products, and the fuel elements should be cladded with plain tungsten or a similar metal or alloy.
...unless you want to give money to Microsoft for a Windows CE license.
*I* would only get a "Linux" palmtop which actually came with Linux on it, never one which came with WinCE and required hacking to get a decent OS on there. Why pay BG for stuff that you are planning to *immediately* throw away.
I just ordered an Agenda VR3 yesterday, and I would say it seems like excellent value for the money.
Go with Agenda. They are the FIRST out of the gate with Linux actually pre-installed.
http://www.agendacomputing.com
I'm a little shocked at this question actually, because for me the correct answer is SO absolutely obvious.
Of the gang of friends that I had in high school and into university, lots of them were studying a field of science or engineering - about 5 out of 10 that spring to mind. Of those 5, I can only think of 1 who didn't turn away from science and get into computers/programming/networking/ sysadmining/webstuff when we hit the job market. That was where the job opportunities were, and we were all computer literate and generally smart enough to transition into one or more of those rapidly growing fields. None of the fields that any of us we were studying offered nearly comparable opportunity.
My background was in Nuclear Power Engineering and I got so angry and depressed after completing 3 years of university - considering the unimaginably crummy (and in my case locally unpredictable) job market, that I chucked it all and went into the job market with no degree. I'm one of the 4 (of the 5) now earning a good living as a computer guy. I do programming and system administration in the technical computing field - Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM) specifically.
My point is actually very simple: There is an abundance of people who can do the job for you. But you have to get the resume points the right-way round. They are the ones schooled in science, but with work experience with computers. NOT the ones schooled in computers, but with work experience in science.
ELIMINATE CS degrees from consideration. Look for scientific schooling, then job experience in programming. There are lots of us who fell into our jobs, many would like to do something more scientific, and some would jump at the kind of position which you describe.
I guess I should have explicitly excluded systems, like most servers, where availability is important.
But for most desktops, availability is usually quite secondary to data protection, so UPSes might be obviated.
If MRAM replaces DRAM (not just flash), then UPSes will no longer be necessary. Since a UPS is currently advisable for any system doing serious work, this has big cost implications.
On many new systems with a UPS, the UPS costs more than the DRAM in the box. So it follows that MRAM could be more than twice as expensive as DRAM, and still displace it for many serious applications.
I think that it's quite unlikely that anyone with traditionalist Unix skills at a decent level will have a hard time competing in the IT job market with Windows-oriented folks.
Quite the reverse...
I certainly didn't say that Motif was flawless, and your complaints may be valid. I just object to the logic that, if something isn't perfect, it must therefore be a piece of garbage.
My bottom line is that GTK+ is not just "reinventing the wheel" - it's "reinventing the wheel *badly*". It's missing lots of things that it would have gained by sticking with a Xt foundation.
Your complaints really sound to me like an argument for the continued evolution of Motif. Subclassing/replacing XmTextField and replacing XmList might be good ideas.