While I agree the reason we don't reprocess is probably political, it would seem that addition of reagents virtually eliminates the possibility of developing weapons-grade plutonium from reprocessed nuclear material.
There's only one way to be certain: repeat the experiment.
I would suggest having the blind man and an average-sighted man separately walk down a very well-lit corridor with randomly positioned (i.e., changing every iteration) obstactles 10 times, recording the amount of time each takes and the number of collisions. Reduce the amount of lighting by some increment and repeat the experiment. Continue reducing lighting until total darkness is achieved.
If the blind man is truly navigating by blindsight, both his course times and collision rates should roughly scale positively with those of the sighted man and inversely to the light levels. But then, that would be using the scientific method like the international team of neuroscientists in TFA (whom you are accusing of incompetence) did, so of course you wouldn't believe it...
What the hell is wrong with you people?!? Have you no sense of justice*?
Clearly they should be fed through a meat grinder, their remains mixed with salt, water, sugar, and sodium nitrite and then sealed in a large aluminum container to preserve freshness for all eternity!
* All justice strictly poetic in nature; no real or legal justice is implied
What you are advocating is an intelligence test for voting. If that comes to be then who writes the test, or determines how complicated to make the ballot? Those that are in power will decide, and simply limit voting rights to the scale that they see fit to keep them in power. You yourself will eventually be excluded.
I think making an intelligence test harder so that fewer people can vote won't be an issue with politicians for a long while. Consider this: the harder they make the test, the more they limit the pool of possible voters to those least likely to believe bullshit political rhetoric. In fact, I would argue that any self-interested politician would instead be strongly in favor of a stupidity/malleability test, where only the dumbest/most easily swayed get the vote.
But let's suppose, for a second, that the tests do keep getting harder. Let's also suppose this happens with the full consent and support from the rest of the country (otherwise these smart guys would just get shot and the process would start over). That being the case, the pool of voters will continue to shrink until only the smartest person in the country can vote. At this point, one of two things can happen: he can vote for himself and be assured victory (in which case we now have the smartest President ever), or he can vote for someone else who he thinks is more capable (in which case we have a President that the smartest person in the country thinks would be a good fit).
Now, this is all well and good, but then what if the selected President is evil? We now have the smartest/most capable evil overlord ever, and THAT is the reason we can't vote based on intelligence. Not because the pool of voters will be smaller, but because the person elected will have much greater potential for great acts of good/evil (either of which can be destabilizing). Luckily, our current system allows for all great minds (good and evil) to be drowned out by the dumb, panicky masses who only want to vote for mediocre presidents who say they like good things and hate bad stuff.
So I guess it boils down to the following question: Which do you prefer in an evil overlord, malice or incompetence?
Indeed, all rail-based systems have a single point of failure (the track) which can be taken out with nothing more complicated than a sledgehammer. The only novel bit of concern for these maglev tracks that I can see is the higher cost involved with their construction, which might raise their value as targets. However, if the track can be engineered such that subsections can be replaced fairly quickly/cheaply (also a good idea for maintenance), it might mitigate that a bit.
This sounds like our current problem -- we have a plane that flies perfectly in air, but in water goes the opposite direction of what we want. So what do we do? Yeah, we just flip it.
The last sentence in TFS makes perfect sense if you use Merriam-Webster's second definition of immanent.
That is to say, the usage is correct if what the author meant to say was that the discovery of flying pigs is still within the limits of possible experience.
As an interesting aside, if the whole world were to convert to nuclear and keep their energy consumption rates constant (both unlikely, but for the sake of argument let's say they do), this would imply a yearly consumption of 5.0 * 10^20 J based on 2005 rates. Given that the IAEA estimates a total of 2.5 * 10^24 J of uranium available (if used in breeder reactors), there is enough uranium to power the world for 5000 years.
However, if we restrict supply to only that which has been proven economically recoverable by the IPCC and only use once-through reactors, that number drops to 2.0 * 10^21 J or a measly four years of worldwide power.
I'd say this is a fairly strong indictment against continued usage of our current once-through reactors, wouldn't you agree?
On the brighter side, we now have a better idea of what exciting new technologies to expect in 2109 (benevolent robot overlords permitting, of course)...
Slashdot Mirror
Haven't we already seen enough of the consequences of cross-contamination in the previous Phobos Grunt missions?
While I agree the reason we don't reprocess is probably political, it would seem that addition of reagents virtually eliminates the possibility of developing weapons-grade plutonium from reprocessed nuclear material.
There's only one way to be certain: repeat the experiment.
I would suggest having the blind man and an average-sighted man separately walk down a very well-lit corridor with randomly positioned (i.e., changing every iteration) obstactles 10 times, recording the amount of time each takes and the number of collisions. Reduce the amount of lighting by some increment and repeat the experiment. Continue reducing lighting until total darkness is achieved.
If the blind man is truly navigating by blindsight, both his course times and collision rates should roughly scale positively with those of the sighted man and inversely to the light levels. But then, that would be using the scientific method like the international team of neuroscientists in TFA (whom you are accusing of incompetence) did, so of course you wouldn't believe it...
Blindsight is 20/20.
*Does anyone know what they mean by "integral"? Every time I've heard the word "integral" in education, it usually translates in to "Required".
Calculus must have confused you to no end.
Why bother? Computer Science is just applied Mathematics...
Of course, some methods were better than others...
I'm standing right here, you insensitive clod!!
Never tell me the odds!
What the hell is wrong with you people?!? Have you no sense of justice*?
Clearly they should be fed through a meat grinder, their remains mixed with salt, water, sugar, and sodium nitrite and then sealed in a large aluminum container to preserve freshness for all eternity!
* All justice strictly poetic in nature; no real or legal justice is implied
Anyone else misread that last sentence as 'in chain mail' and get a mental image of Obama leading Crusaders to battle?
HIS MOM IS A CLASSY LADY!
What you are advocating is an intelligence test for voting. If that comes to be then who writes the test, or determines how complicated to make the ballot? Those that are in power will decide, and simply limit voting rights to the scale that they see fit to keep them in power. You yourself will eventually be excluded.
I think making an intelligence test harder so that fewer people can vote won't be an issue with politicians for a long while. Consider this: the harder they make the test, the more they limit the pool of possible voters to those least likely to believe bullshit political rhetoric. In fact, I would argue that any self-interested politician would instead be strongly in favor of a stupidity/malleability test, where only the dumbest/most easily swayed get the vote.
But let's suppose, for a second, that the tests do keep getting harder. Let's also suppose this happens with the full consent and support from the rest of the country (otherwise these smart guys would just get shot and the process would start over). That being the case, the pool of voters will continue to shrink until only the smartest person in the country can vote. At this point, one of two things can happen: he can vote for himself and be assured victory (in which case we now have the smartest President ever), or he can vote for someone else who he thinks is more capable (in which case we have a President that the smartest person in the country thinks would be a good fit).
Now, this is all well and good, but then what if the selected President is evil? We now have the smartest/most capable evil overlord ever, and THAT is the reason we can't vote based on intelligence. Not because the pool of voters will be smaller, but because the person elected will have much greater potential for great acts of good/evil (either of which can be destabilizing). Luckily, our current system allows for all great minds (good and evil) to be drowned out by the dumb, panicky masses who only want to vote for mediocre presidents who say they like good things and hate bad stuff.
So I guess it boils down to the following question: Which do you prefer in an evil overlord, malice or incompetence?
Fortunately for us, they are both vulnerable to flames.
Aarhus? In the middle of Aarstreet?
Get off his lawn!
Indeed, all rail-based systems have a single point of failure (the track) which can be taken out with nothing more complicated than a sledgehammer. The only novel bit of concern for these maglev tracks that I can see is the higher cost involved with their construction, which might raise their value as targets. However, if the track can be engineered such that subsections can be replaced fairly quickly/cheaply (also a good idea for maintenance), it might mitigate that a bit.
In that vein, I propose we scrap the whole robo-probe thing and go straight to a manned lander.
This sounds like our current problem -- we have a plane that flies perfectly in air, but in water goes the opposite direction of what we want. So what do we do? Yeah, we just flip it.
In addition, I propose we reverse it.
Clearly, they must believe a whooshing sound over your head is no joke.
The last sentence in TFS makes perfect sense if you use Merriam-Webster's second definition of immanent. That is to say, the usage is correct if what the author meant to say was that the discovery of flying pigs is still within the limits of possible experience.
Fundamentally, and potentially yes.
Details provided in the links.
2"x2"x2"?
I'd much rather my space computer be 1"x4"x9", perhaps in a nice matte black...
As an interesting aside, if the whole world were to convert to nuclear and keep their energy consumption rates constant (both unlikely, but for the sake of argument let's say they do), this would imply a yearly consumption of 5.0 * 10^20 J based on 2005 rates. Given that the IAEA estimates a total of 2.5 * 10^24 J of uranium available (if used in breeder reactors), there is enough uranium to power the world for 5000 years.
However, if we restrict supply to only that which has been proven economically recoverable by the IPCC and only use once-through reactors, that number drops to 2.0 * 10^21 J or a measly four years of worldwide power.
I'd say this is a fairly strong indictment against continued usage of our current once-through reactors, wouldn't you agree?
On the brighter side, we now have a better idea of what exciting new technologies to expect in 2109 (benevolent robot overlords permitting, of course)...