The waste lasts for tens to HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years.
A pretty standard "nuclear is scary" misleading and incorrect piece of truthiness. Most of the activity is gone after just a century. Its still not all that good for you in the same way lead is not good for you. But its not in the same league it was at the start.
Guess how long you have to wait for DDT or asbestos to become safe? Its over a few HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of years. Along with many other very toxic and very poisons chemicals that we do in fact spill and contaminate local areas with all too frequently.
there is zero evidence that H5N1 causes a cytokine storm. In fact is was more mild than the previous strain from the previous year. Tamiflu however made a lot of money.
Well these in fact do that. Using more green in the bayer patten is using more area for luminance. Some bayer pattens even have "whites". The idea is that you get roughly full resolution luminance but lower resolution color information. Which is how we see. Which is why jpeg etc also do this.
Say wa? If you do it right CPUs are very good at sparse matrix methods. Its basic algorithms, lots of zeros and structure give lots of scope for optimization regardless of the target hardware. GPUs may be too and if vectorize properly and avoid branching and can give better performance per dollar. Yes this has been some of my day job.
The problem with NASA is that its a relic of the cold war. There is this manned mission thing that quite frankly is a waste of money. It does *not* even achieve anything that the space enthusiasts want. It has awful return on investment and stops the entire space program for years every time something goes wrong.
Some push manned missions because of inspiration and exploration spirit.. Shesh for the billions it costs you can make a lot of full length movies and release them for free.
Some claim you get more science done. This is odd since there is no scientific basis to such a claim. Lets not forget that probes, drones and robotic labs don't take people out of the loop, just out of hostile unlivable environments. In fact the apollo mission had crap return on investment, even for the technology of the time. That kind of mass budget could have really got a lot done, and since its not all life support system, probably been cheaper as well.
And if it is the science that is suppose to be the reason, then the current unmanned missions that are a fraction of the price of the ISS should already be inspiring everyone that give a crap? What does adding some dude with flag change?
I don't work for money. I work for what money buys. In my case that frequent holidays. Eating out. Skiing..etc. And on top of all that i enjoy my job. See the funny thing is i use money as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin is many things, but a useful medium of exchange is not one of them.
With the very low volume of trade. It does not look as good as you think it does. There is more to it than just last sale price. Esp when that is like a single coin. What do you think would happen if someone needed to liquidate 100k of coins? Same thing happens to shares with low volume as well.
There really was no point. Really. It was a cold war pissing contest. Yay we can piss further than those evil commies!
Proof however is in the pudding. Can you buy a ticket to the moon? Thing is this sort of mission, and apollo are the worst way to achieve what most space enthusiast dream of. In fact its a road block to it. All that it will achieve is a massive budget for select few to do very little science.
It fails to give general access to space. It fails to deliver science for the price. It could achieve some serious drama if they die. Thats about it.
Probably not - all the science that's been done by all the Mars rovers combined since the first one touched down years ago could have been done by one person with a pack full of tools in a few days
Bullshit. First of all for the mass budget that a single human on mars surface needs we could send dozens of mars rovers. Not just one. Secondly you still need to send the rover. A small set of tools does not include the quite fancy lab in remote car ever sent! Fact is we don't need people there to do science. Really what can that person do that a rover can't? Walk faster? Well that was about mass budget, which you total blow with a soft flesh bag that needs air food and water.
Pound for pound, dollar for dollar. The right *tool* for this job is robots/drones/machines. It was even this way for apollo. It was stated quite clearly that manned mission to the moon would provide far less science than probes etc. But it was felt that it was the mission they could beat the russians at.
We are a tool using species. Why do so many insist on the wrong tool. Hell even if all you want is tourism, then still this is a stupid idea. This will get such a reason no closer to reality than the apollo program did.
At the time this was "invented" it was very obvious, and that is the only time that matters. The *only* thing that we didn't know without a bit of work is the 15 nucleotide sequence. And this was the result of a clinical study.
Consider that you need a court case to work out if you do in fact infringe on a patent and in video codecs with the likes of the MPEG-LA there are sometime like almost 1000 of them or more. Getting just a summary/option thing from a patent attorney is about 10k last we checked and its non binding. That is a lot of cash.
Also some of these patents are probably too broad and would be invalidated. But its a lot of em and a lot of time money to do so.
Not everything maps to GPUs all that well. Some fluid stuff would be rather hard work to get to work fast on GPUs, say for example 2 phase flows. Also mapping stuff to a GPU means its often quite difficult to keep it flexible which is often needed for R&D fluid codes.
Its not just about FLOPs its also if you can use em, and without spending 2 years optimizing the code to do so.
This is big problem in bioinformatics and biology in general. How many people have tried the same idea (ideas really aren't that original) only to find no literature on it and find it doesn't work. Then they don't publish. Its hard work publishing negative results. Its even harder to get it in a jornal anyone gives a crap about. Rinse and repeat....
Seriously your doing something wrong. I am living a long way from home. In the EU and come from NZ. I have done post docs and now Senior Scientist. Was in Austria and am now in Switzerland. Life styles are approximately the same. Not only could i afford to relocate to the US if i decided, but have taken my family of 3 on a number of international holidays on a Post doc salary as the only earner (28k EUR after tax). My daughter and I were going on ski holidays every year.
Sure i don't own a sports car. But then again that is not how i mesure life style.
As for "politics". Well working in real jobs i assure you they are no better. That is a problem of interaction with others and all that it implies. I should note that i am a poor scientist by traditional impact factor or nature/science publication results. Yet have managed to always find something interesting to do. Its not always easy. But its not that hard either.
You seem to think there is a place with greener grass where what you call green is something quite unattainable. Sure if you want to be rich, then a science career is the wrong choice. But then almost every other profession is too. And why be rich when you can be happy?
There are effectively no well paying jobs in academia.
Any good academic jobs that exist have a few thousand applicants and require moving to the middle of a corn field. If you're good, you'll get one or two interviews per year for good jobs, but only while you're under 35. So, if you're good, expect 6ish interviews for jobs you want over your academic career, but all located in places that suck of course.
I am in academia. Perhaps you should look for jobs outside the US where its really not that bad. I had a "real" job originally, and sure i got paid more. But it was boring and stressful. Now my work is interesting and only stressful every now and then. Also i am getting more than 90k AND I am not a professor. Yet.
Seriously move to a country that has a decent standard of living for *most* people, and not just the 5% or whatever.
That only because you mesure your standard of living by how rich are the richest people in your country. I mesure it by how much i get to enjoy my live before i even retire. And of course health care;) I have it. Even after i am fired.
Slashdot Mirror
The waste lasts for tens to HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years.
A pretty standard "nuclear is scary" misleading and incorrect piece of truthiness. Most of the activity is gone after just a century. Its still not all that good for you in the same way lead is not good for you. But its not in the same league it was at the start.
Guess how long you have to wait for DDT or asbestos to become safe? Its over a few HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of years. Along with many other very toxic and very poisons chemicals that we do in fact spill and contaminate local areas with all too frequently.
there is zero evidence that H5N1 causes a cytokine storm. In fact is was more mild than the previous strain from the previous year. Tamiflu however made a lot of money.
Is that 7x10^9 people or 7x2^30 people?
Properly written sparse matrix algos don't store things sparsly!
Well these in fact do that. Using more green in the bayer patten is using more area for luminance. Some bayer pattens even have "whites". The idea is that you get roughly full resolution luminance but lower resolution color information. Which is how we see. Which is why jpeg etc also do this.
Say wa? If you do it right CPUs are very good at sparse matrix methods. Its basic algorithms, lots of zeros and structure give lots of scope for optimization regardless of the target hardware. GPUs may be too and if vectorize properly and avoid branching and can give better performance per dollar. Yes this has been some of my day job.
Its using the right tool for the job.
The problem with NASA is that its a relic of the cold war. There is this manned mission thing that quite frankly is a waste of money. It does *not* even achieve anything that the space enthusiasts want. It has awful return on investment and stops the entire space program for years every time something goes wrong.
Some push manned missions because of inspiration and exploration spirit.. Shesh for the billions it costs you can make a lot of full length movies and release them for free.
Some claim you get more science done. This is odd since there is no scientific basis to such a claim. Lets not forget that probes, drones and robotic labs don't take people out of the loop, just out of hostile unlivable environments. In fact the apollo mission had crap return on investment, even for the technology of the time. That kind of mass budget could have really got a lot done, and since its not all life support system, probably been cheaper as well.
And if it is the science that is suppose to be the reason, then the current unmanned missions that are a fraction of the price of the ISS should already be inspiring everyone that give a crap? What does adding some dude with flag change?
Yea, it was a lot better than the old one.
I don't work for money. I work for what money buys. In my case that frequent holidays. Eating out. Skiing..etc. And on top of all that i enjoy my job. See the funny thing is i use money as a medium of exchange. Bitcoin is many things, but a useful medium of exchange is not one of them.
What a waste of potential utility. I mean really we got lots of zeros in the hash.. Neat. Not. Work for no utility is stupid.
With the very low volume of trade. It does not look as good as you think it does. There is more to it than just last sale price. Esp when that is like a single coin. What do you think would happen if someone needed to liquidate 100k of coins? Same thing happens to shares with low volume as well.
Well the who is clearly a few. The trade volume is really low.
There really was no point. Really. It was a cold war pissing contest. Yay we can piss further than those evil commies!
Proof however is in the pudding. Can you buy a ticket to the moon? Thing is this sort of mission, and apollo are the worst way to achieve what most space enthusiast dream of. In fact its a road block to it. All that it will achieve is a massive budget for select few to do very little science.
It fails to give general access to space. It fails to deliver science for the price. It could achieve some serious drama if they die. Thats about it.
Probably not - all the science that's been done by all the Mars rovers combined since the first one touched down years ago could have been done by one person with a pack full of tools in a few days
Bullshit. First of all for the mass budget that a single human on mars surface needs we could send dozens of mars rovers. Not just one. Secondly you still need to send the rover. A small set of tools does not include the quite fancy lab in remote car ever sent! Fact is we don't need people there to do science. Really what can that person do that a rover can't? Walk faster? Well that was about mass budget, which you total blow with a soft flesh bag that needs air food and water.
Pound for pound, dollar for dollar. The right *tool* for this job is robots/drones/machines. It was even this way for apollo. It was stated quite clearly that manned mission to the moon would provide far less science than probes etc. But it was felt that it was the mission they could beat the russians at.
We are a tool using species. Why do so many insist on the wrong tool. Hell even if all you want is tourism, then still this is a stupid idea. This will get such a reason no closer to reality than the apollo program did.
At the time this was "invented" it was very obvious, and that is the only time that matters. The *only* thing that we didn't know without a bit of work is the 15 nucleotide sequence. And this was the result of a clinical study.
Don't you mean tax it?
Consider that you need a court case to work out if you do in fact infringe on a patent and in video codecs with the likes of the MPEG-LA there are sometime like almost 1000 of them or more. Getting just a summary/option thing from a patent attorney is about 10k last we checked and its non binding. That is a lot of cash.
Also some of these patents are probably too broad and would be invalidated. But its a lot of em and a lot of time money to do so.
No, its just those kids that keep playing on your lawn.
Not everything maps to GPUs all that well. Some fluid stuff would be rather hard work to get to work fast on GPUs, say for example 2 phase flows. Also mapping stuff to a GPU means its often quite difficult to keep it flexible which is often needed for R&D fluid codes.
Its not just about FLOPs its also if you can use em, and without spending 2 years optimizing the code to do so.
This is big problem in bioinformatics and biology in general. How many people have tried the same idea (ideas really aren't that original) only to find no literature on it and find it doesn't work. Then they don't publish. Its hard work publishing negative results. Its even harder to get it in a jornal anyone gives a crap about. Rinse and repeat....
Seriously your doing something wrong. I am living a long way from home. In the EU and come from NZ. I have done post docs and now Senior Scientist. Was in Austria and am now in Switzerland. Life styles are approximately the same. Not only could i afford to relocate to the US if i decided, but have taken my family of 3 on a number of international holidays on a Post doc salary as the only earner (28k EUR after tax). My daughter and I were going on ski holidays every year.
Sure i don't own a sports car. But then again that is not how i mesure life style.
As for "politics". Well working in real jobs i assure you they are no better. That is a problem of interaction with others and all that it implies. I should note that i am a poor scientist by traditional impact factor or nature/science publication results. Yet have managed to always find something interesting to do. Its not always easy. But its not that hard either.
You seem to think there is a place with greener grass where what you call green is something quite unattainable. Sure if you want to be rich, then a science career is the wrong choice. But then almost every other profession is too. And why be rich when you can be happy?
There are effectively no well paying jobs in academia.
Any good academic jobs that exist have a few thousand applicants and require moving to the middle of a corn field. If you're good, you'll get one or two interviews per year for good jobs, but only while you're under 35. So, if you're good, expect 6ish interviews for jobs you want over your academic career, but all located in places that suck of course.
I am in academia. Perhaps you should look for jobs outside the US where its really not that bad. I had a "real" job originally, and sure i got paid more. But it was boring and stressful. Now my work is interesting and only stressful every now and then. Also i am getting more than 90k AND I am not a professor. Yet.
Seriously move to a country that has a decent standard of living for *most* people, and not just the 5% or whatever.
That only because you mesure your standard of living by how rich are the richest people in your country. I mesure it by how much i get to enjoy my live before i even retire. And of course health care ;) I have it. Even after i am fired.
150dB is a lot. But i would expect atmospheric effects to preclude earth-space coms being very effective.
Are you claiming that happy teenagers is not a benefit to society as a whole?