In fact they have not been done, not molten salt anyway. Molten salt was done, but with U. Th breeding blankets were done in normal reactors. Th as a fuel additive is done now in a range of rectors. Not much else. The nuclear industry has been stagnant for a very very long time.
Also U will not run out in 70 years. I really don't know why that number keeps coming up. Its more like 100s without reprocessing and thousands with reprocessing, 10 of thousands with ocean U. Th has about x5 that and *must* be reprocessed since its not a fuel, but fertile. (you breed fuel from it).
Its true that past designs are heavily subsidized. However its also true for coal and hydro etc. Newer designs *could* be much better and have some kind of plan for the waste. Its not a given that its "cheaper" energy all things considered. But its also not a given that won't be either. The biggest problem it that its a 10-20 year to "market" R&D project. That is a lot of up front capitol without a guarantee payback.
Criticizing these precautions because they "don't stop an attack like [the one that just happened in Russia]," is, again, like criticizing a bathing suit because it doesn't keep you dry. It's not meant to, it was never meant to, and nobody has ever suggested it would.
I didn't. I said they don't stop people getting knives, bombs or guns onto planes.
It's aimed at preventing people from hijacking or blowing up planes in-flight.
No it not. Its designed to make it look like they are "doing something", and its gone out of control. Scanners that can be easily fooled, "pat downs" that don't work, and slack staff that are often just complete jerks about everything.
If it really was about preventing people from hijacking a plane, then they would catch more than 50% of the knives and other weapons in tests (last time they missed 75% IIRC). However they don't even do that. They miss loaded guns, razor blades, pocket knives etc all the time. And liquids, or printer cartridges? Baby pat downs? Seriously?
There are only 2 things that make flying (already very very safe) safer after 11/9. Locked cockpit doors, and passengers that are not going to take a hijacking sitting down. Since quite a few of my friends family got to come and see the inside of the cockpit, the first one hasn't changed anything because pilots don't use the lock.
If we are being realistic, there are no other responses that can work. Refuse to be terrorized is the only effective response. Eisenhower said it best.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain pursuit of absolute security.
Panicking, shutting down a country's airports, nude scanners and junk pat downs is not an effective response.
A good fitter turner or welder still gets a very decent salary+benefits. At least all the ones I know do. And by decent I mean they are getting paid more than me, and i have a PhD.
No it hasn't. You still need to pay for the decoder/encoder. You also can't put that content on a data DVD and sell it either, without paying for it. Even if you give the DVD away for free.
Royalty free means free. Not "you no longer pay for step 2, but you still pay for step 1 and step 3".
Yes you are right. But that is why so many of us have a problem with h.264 in particular and software patents in general. However in some countries its still the law. We need to comply with it and work on changing it. Or accept the fines/court cases if we don't follow the law.
H.264 is not temporarily royalty free. If i want to encode or decode h.264 i *must* use a licensed (ie not free) encoder/decoder. If i want to release a data DVD with h.264 encoded content i must pay per disk... etc etc....
They where also going to charge to be allowed to put a h.264 video on the internet. That part has been made free for free websites *only*. Somehow their quite impressive marking department manged to convince a lot of people that somehow its now "free" for a time.
In his defense... you started it. You know after years of studying this stuff, then some/. "clever guy" comes along with a *Wikipedia* article to point out how we are all clearly wrong about it all....
Incorrect. You may mean dark as in not bright. But in the field it is not what is meant when one says dark matter. What is meant that it is very weakly, if at all, interacts via the forces other than gravity.
Rogue this or that does not even come within 100 or even 1000 times close to covering the "missing" gravitational matter.
Remember that 99% the mass of the solar system is the sun. even a few "dark" Jupiter's don't change the mass estimates of the solar system appreciably.
Yet by all accounts we need 10x more mass than what we observe. A planet here or there, dust etc are either too low in mass to matter, or are detectable. (we can see "black" or "dark" ie dust etc.).
If something with the mass of earth and the gravitational pull of earth (aka dark matter earth) got even within the orbit of the moon, the effects would be of biblical 2012 proportions. We would have our orbit perturbed so much that at best it would take us so close to the sun that life would not survive (aka oceans boiled off into space), or so far away that the sun would be little more than a really bright star at mid day (atmosphere frozen). Hell there is a good chance that we would be flung out into space in short order. The gravitation pull will cause mass flooding via tidal perturbations. And we haven't even considered what would happen to the moon.
He3 is a desperate attempt my moon lovers to have a reason to go to the moon.
First of all we can't fuse DT which is >1000x easier to fuse than He3 or He3D. So its not a fuel for anything we can build right now at all.
Secondly, if we can fuse He3 or He3D we can also fuse DD which *gives* He3 ash. This source of He3 will be cheaper by a long shot.
Finally there is very little He3 on the moon and is very dilute..01ppm or about 10000x less concentrated that Uranium ore and you can't use leaching. Its probably going to cost you more energy to get the He3 than contained in the He3. For reference coal has something like several 100x more energy per kg than He3 in the moon surface.
yes. People tend to forget we live on water world. But we also don't *consume* that much water... we "use" it and its quite possible to recycle it a much higher level than we do now. There just any reason to do so on earth. Well not much. The same cannot be said for space/moon "cities".
Re:Tomcat is as rock solid as it gets
on
Tomcat 7 Finalized
·
· Score: 1
- Your "security record" comes from the fact that tomcat is written in a "safe" language, a security hole would have to come from some stupid manual hole, a JVM bug or the APR connector.
How is that a bad thing, or in anyway negate the original claim?
$7 won't even get close to cutting it, as in Europe we have high taxes that pay for roads too. Road infrastructure is really really expensive. Think about it, how much did it cost to pave your driveway? Now add 2 lanes, kerbs and drainage, and make it 250m long. And you still can't get to the local best buy.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact they have not been done, not molten salt anyway. Molten salt was done, but with U. Th breeding blankets were done in normal reactors. Th as a fuel additive is done now in a range of rectors. Not much else. The nuclear industry has been stagnant for a very very long time.
Also U will not run out in 70 years. I really don't know why that number keeps coming up. Its more like 100s without reprocessing and thousands with reprocessing, 10 of thousands with ocean U. Th has about x5 that and *must* be reprocessed since its not a fuel, but fertile. (you breed fuel from it).
Its true that past designs are heavily subsidized. However its also true for coal and hydro etc. Newer designs *could* be much better and have some kind of plan for the waste. Its not a given that its "cheaper" energy all things considered. But its also not a given that won't be either. The biggest problem it that its a 10-20 year to "market" R&D project. That is a lot of up front capitol without a guarantee payback.
And FF. It is also much faster that the last version. But the last version had major suckage with respect to performance.
right.. missed that sorry.
Criticizing these precautions because they "don't stop an attack like [the one that just happened in Russia]," is, again, like criticizing a bathing suit because it doesn't keep you dry. It's not meant to, it was never meant to, and nobody has ever suggested it would.
I didn't. I said they don't stop people getting knives, bombs or guns onto planes.
It's aimed at preventing people from hijacking or blowing up planes in-flight.
No it not. Its designed to make it look like they are "doing something", and its gone out of control. Scanners that can be easily fooled, "pat downs" that don't work, and slack staff that are often just complete jerks about everything.
If it really was about preventing people from hijacking a plane, then they would catch more than 50% of the knives and other weapons in tests (last time they missed 75% IIRC). However they don't even do that. They miss loaded guns, razor blades, pocket knives etc all the time. And liquids, or printer cartridges? Baby pat downs? Seriously?
There are only 2 things that make flying (already very very safe) safer after 11/9. Locked cockpit doors, and passengers that are not going to take a hijacking sitting down. Since quite a few of my friends family got to come and see the inside of the cockpit, the first one hasn't changed anything because pilots don't use the lock.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain pursuit of absolute security.
Panicking, shutting down a country's airports, nude scanners and junk pat downs is not an effective response.
A good fitter turner or welder still gets a very decent salary+benefits. At least all the ones I know do. And by decent I mean they are getting paid more than me, and i have a PhD.
And what do all Blizzard games do again? They have DRM and authentication.
"Toilets are always funny!", The Octopus, the Sprint.
Its pretty much the default under linux. Also my home router etc all came out of the box supporting both. The only thing that does not, is my ISP.
I didn't notice that. Then yes i agree, a bunch of plants is way better. Or better still, algae. Algae is suppose to get up to 2-3% IIRC.
It is however about 1% or less efficient. While these guys are claiming 15% efficient.
No it hasn't. You still need to pay for the decoder/encoder. You also can't put that content on a data DVD and sell it either, without paying for it. Even if you give the DVD away for free.
Royalty free means free. Not "you no longer pay for step 2, but you still pay for step 1 and step 3".
Yes you are right. But that is why so many of us have a problem with h.264 in particular and software patents in general. However in some countries its still the law. We need to comply with it and work on changing it. Or accept the fines/court cases if we don't follow the law.
H.264 is not temporarily royalty free. If i want to encode or decode h.264 i *must* use a licensed (ie not free) encoder/decoder. If i want to release a data DVD with h.264 encoded content i must pay per disk... etc etc....
They where also going to charge to be allowed to put a h.264 video on the internet. That part has been made free for free websites *only*. Somehow their quite impressive marking department manged to convince a lot of people that somehow its now "free" for a time.
In his defense... you started it. You know after years of studying this stuff, then some /. "clever guy" comes along with a *Wikipedia* article to point out how we are all clearly wrong about it all....
Yea right.
Incorrect. You may mean dark as in not bright. But in the field it is not what is meant when one says dark matter. What is meant that it is very weakly, if at all, interacts via the forces other than gravity.
Rogue this or that does not even come within 100 or even 1000 times close to covering the "missing" gravitational matter.
Remember that 99% the mass of the solar system is the sun. even a few "dark" Jupiter's don't change the mass estimates of the solar system appreciably.
Yet by all accounts we need 10x more mass than what we observe. A planet here or there, dust etc are either too low in mass to matter, or are detectable. (we can see "black" or "dark" ie dust etc.).
Baryonic dark matter is *not* what astronomers or cosmologists mean when they say dark matter.
If something with the mass of earth and the gravitational pull of earth (aka dark matter earth) got even within the orbit of the moon, the effects would be of biblical 2012 proportions. We would have our orbit perturbed so much that at best it would take us so close to the sun that life would not survive (aka oceans boiled off into space), or so far away that the sun would be little more than a really bright star at mid day (atmosphere frozen). Hell there is a good chance that we would be flung out into space in short order. The gravitation pull will cause mass flooding via tidal perturbations. And we haven't even considered what would happen to the moon.
He3 is a desperate attempt my moon lovers to have a reason to go to the moon.
.01ppm or about 10000x less concentrated that Uranium ore and you can't use leaching. Its probably going to cost you more energy to get the He3 than contained in the He3. For reference coal has something like several 100x more energy per kg than He3 in the moon surface.
First of all we can't fuse DT which is >1000x easier to fuse than He3 or He3D. So its not a fuel for anything we can build right now at all.
Secondly, if we can fuse He3 or He3D we can also fuse DD which *gives* He3 ash. This source of He3 will be cheaper by a long shot.
Finally there is very little He3 on the moon and is very dilute.
yes. People tend to forget we live on water world. But we also don't *consume* that much water... we "use" it and its quite possible to recycle it a much higher level than we do now. There just any reason to do so on earth. Well not much. The same cannot be said for space/moon "cities".
- Your "security record" comes from the fact that tomcat is written in a "safe" language, a security hole would have to come from some stupid manual hole, a JVM bug or the APR connector.
How is that a bad thing, or in anyway negate the original claim?
$7 won't even get close to cutting it, as in Europe we have high taxes that pay for roads too. Road infrastructure is really really expensive. Think about it, how much did it cost to pave your driveway? Now add 2 lanes, kerbs and drainage, and make it 250m long. And you still can't get to the local best buy.
So does mine... I do work on my computer.