You have four or five major arteries going into the hand, and several major veins coming out. In addition, blood vessels often retract when severed, meaning you have to go digging for them. Three minutes in a random environment are not nearly enough; it takes longer than that for a professional surgeon in an operating room. Finally, there was the mention of vascular collapse, which takes more time to reverse than is available in the scenario you discuss.
There may be insecure aspects to this, but the risk of severing and reusing the hand is likely the least of them.
Construction costs for wind power in the United States seem to be about $1 per rated peak watt over a large scale (there are several 180MW farms under development for about $180 million each). I've seen numbers that suggest that the actual average output for most wind farms is about 40% of rated capacity, so the cost is $2.50 per watt for average output. I don't know what kind of maintenance costs come with wind farms; information on that would be appreciated.
Westinghouse is claiming costs of $1.21 to $1.37 per watt for the 1000MW AP1000 reactor design, depending on scale and number produced, which is half of the cost of wind power, on a smaller location than wind would require for 1000MW, and at a higher sustained output. Maintenance and fuel costs are still a question mark, though.
At least at the surface, the AP1000 looks like a better way of doing things than a giant wind farm. I need to do more research to find out if materials produced in such a design could be used easily for nuclear weapons, though.
Their press release on this indicated that fusion power plants "would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons."
Now, I know that there is some radioactivity from fusion, though it was my understanding that this is fairly easily contained (with required cleanup later on). But I also thought it could not be used to produce products for weapons. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can clear this up?
No, it was the same document, but an earlier draft. The wealthier states wanted it, because they still believed in the superiority of the upper class and didn't want the poor people to be able to take their wealth from them. The poorer states didn't like it so much because they had so little of it and didn't want the upper classes lording it over them. They compromised on that and a few other things, and moved on.
The court tends to be conservative, only not in the conventional political sense. It tends to narrowly rule in such a way as to err on the side of caution and with tradition, though there are exceptions to it. This is one of the things that encourages many people following the Grokster case, in that the court is usually loathe to overturn precedent, particularly that which it explicitly set in very clear terms in the relatively recent past.
Decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade that make significant changes in how the Constitution is interpreted are fairly rare. Right now, there are two appellate decisions on the Second Amendment that stand in almost direct contradiction to each other, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the right to bear arms is an individual right, while the Ninth Circuit ruled that there is no individual right. When the opportunity came up to decide the issue, the Supreme Court declined because, I suspect, they were not willing to dive into those admittedly troublesome waters.
They're also very pedantic. Several recent decisions were turned away or dismissed entirely because the person making the challenge did not hold proper standing. They insist that proper procedures and protocol are followed to the letter, and have little patience for those who do otherwise.
Skeletal reconstruction associated with a third arm, not to mention the control issues (is it even possible?) would make replacement far more likely than augmentation.
Pardon me. I never said that we shouldn't do it. I merely was refuting your comparison of space travel and exploration of the planet 500 years ago.
I am a full supporter of the manned space program. I have been repeatedly frustrated over the years with multiple cancellations of programs in order to fund the ISS operational when it has such limited value. I do believe that we should look to our past for simpler concepts such as the introduction of a Saturn V-class heavy lift booster to assist in putting large space station segments in orbit, as well as looking to the future for development of new technologies that bring the promise of space travel to ever-lower tiers of the populace.
At the same time, I applaud those who seek to find alternate methods into space, whether it be joyrides skipping the top of the atmosphere or reaching orbit or beyond. I think it's important that these entrepreneurs be allowed as much as possible to proceed with their visions. I encourage thinking about new propulsion methods such as ion drives and solar sails, and I hope that one day I can look around from my seat in an orbital transport and see multiple spacecraft cruising off for different areas.
My point of view extends well into the future of humanity, and it involves risk and loss, necessary costs for the expansion of mankind through space exploration. Where robots make sense to go, send them. Where it is feasible to send humans, put them in place. Give them the tools to do useful, productive work, but don't keep them there unnecessarily, wasting resources better spent on other aspects of the space program.
Those explorations very often brought back at least information about (if not examples of) new gold and silver deposits, spices, and new people to whack in the head with the dominant religion and culture of the explorers. In addition, while the ships were not cheap, the crews were less expensive to train and outfit than are space exploration crews.
Space travel is limited to a week or so at the most, with orbital stays no more than about six months in most cases. Training those crews is very resource-intensive, and the loss of a ship is a strike to national prestige. In the golden days of exploration, the loss of a ship was worrisome, but far less public, and an accepted part of extending one's territory overseas.
Judging by the responses that I see on news sites that do allow comments on stories, it will go a long way towards showing just how poorly educated and brainwashed much of the American populace actually is. I do tend to believe that people want to do what is right and generally want to be good, but when I see comments made on stories, and the fights that start when neither side has its facts straight...
The only worse response sequences I think I've seen on average is when there's a story about Pakistan and India trading shots, and the comments that come flying from both sides from nationalistic readers convinced that calling the other side 'scumbags' would be a disservice to bags filled with scum.
I do still think that a proper implementation would allow them to get some insightful comments, and perhaps a karma- or reputation-based system would be really handy to keep that in check. Hopefully they'll rethink things. Maybe it was designed to fail so that they could read Slashdot for helpful (free) advice on how to make it succeed.:)
None of those countries 'recognized' it as a religion. They simply put it on the list of responses because the number of respondents was high enough. It was a fun joke while it lasted. We'll see what happens in ten years' time.
"Oh, sure, this thing is the latest technology. It has a Viamamia Serious chip in it that does over 600 million Bogoblips running the latest Microsoft. It also comes with 200 megs of memory, and more than 100 megs of ROM! And look at this new two-button moose -- better than anything that Applesauce place can do. It can play all the latest games just as good as those big name-brand units, and for only half the cost at $1500 (monitor, mouse, keyboard, printer extra)."
-- Random Fry's floor sales rep
Bad drive sector. I've seen that happen. Of course, that's also often a precursor to Very Bad Things happening. It last happened on that IBM 75GXP I bought...
The manufacturer has offered to pay without recompense for the construction and installation of the unit, and then the town picks up the operating costs, essentially getting the plant for free in order for the manufacturer to get real-world experience and feedback, and some marketing. This represents an artificial depression of the price of the reactor and hence the electricity prices, because the town isn't paying for what is clearly a very expensive part of the whole plan.
This kind of thing skews the numbers associated with the reactor to such a degree as to make the electricity price very misleading.
I'm a big nuclear enthusiast, but isn't the manufacturer offering to pay for the unit itself, with the residents of the town paying for the upkeep and other long-term costs? Doesn't that skew the price expectations?
Lotus Notes is highly functional... provided you buy the $800,000 server cluster and hire the nine admins to maintain it and the twenty-six developers to shape it.
How long ago was this? Didn't Intel and AMD just sign a new patent-sharing agreement extending the previous 25-year-old agreement that allowed them access to the features each one developed?
I don't recall Intel ever getting mad about AMD using anything more than the chip names.
It's worth it for exploring and maybe light tech support, and on a fast PC, it's almost as quick as a slow Mac. I haven't tried it, but I've read that the latest dev code runs a bit quicker than the 0.3 release. Keep in mind, though, that it's still a lengthy install; on my Athlon 1800/512MB, it took close to eight hours just for the installation. Others have had better/worse results, but it's always a multiple-hours process. Once installed, it's sluggish, but workable.
Slashdot Mirror
You have four or five major arteries going into the hand, and several major veins coming out. In addition, blood vessels often retract when severed, meaning you have to go digging for them. Three minutes in a random environment are not nearly enough; it takes longer than that for a professional surgeon in an operating room. Finally, there was the mention of vascular collapse, which takes more time to reverse than is available in the scenario you discuss.
There may be insecure aspects to this, but the risk of severing and reusing the hand is likely the least of them.
"Turn around... Turn-- Turn around..."
"Behold! I have created food!"
Construction costs for wind power in the United States seem to be about $1 per rated peak watt over a large scale (there are several 180MW farms under development for about $180 million each). I've seen numbers that suggest that the actual average output for most wind farms is about 40% of rated capacity, so the cost is $2.50 per watt for average output. I don't know what kind of maintenance costs come with wind farms; information on that would be appreciated.
Westinghouse is claiming costs of $1.21 to $1.37 per watt for the 1000MW AP1000 reactor design, depending on scale and number produced, which is half of the cost of wind power, on a smaller location than wind would require for 1000MW, and at a higher sustained output. Maintenance and fuel costs are still a question mark, though.
At least at the surface, the AP1000 looks like a better way of doing things than a giant wind farm. I need to do more research to find out if materials produced in such a design could be used easily for nuclear weapons, though.
But I prefer C to BASIC...
What is the latest best ratio? I remember when a couple of universities were closing in on things, and their funding got cut along with the SCSC.
Their press release on this indicated that fusion power plants "would emit large amounts of radioactive material and could be used to produce materials for nuclear weapons."
Now, I know that there is some radioactivity from fusion, though it was my understanding that this is fairly easily contained (with required cleanup later on). But I also thought it could not be used to produce products for weapons. Perhaps someone with more knowledge on this can clear this up?
Massive chemical cleanup from production, massive ramping up of existing infrastructure, massive use of land to meet required energy levels.
I don't know if I should feel proud or ashamed that I could read that at almost normal speed.
And if I should feel ashamed, is it because I could read it at almost normal speed, or because I couldn't read it right at normal speed?
In Soviet Russia, we belong to all your base!
No, it was the same document, but an earlier draft. The wealthier states wanted it, because they still believed in the superiority of the upper class and didn't want the poor people to be able to take their wealth from them. The poorer states didn't like it so much because they had so little of it and didn't want the upper classes lording it over them. They compromised on that and a few other things, and moved on.
The court tends to be conservative, only not in the conventional political sense. It tends to narrowly rule in such a way as to err on the side of caution and with tradition, though there are exceptions to it. This is one of the things that encourages many people following the Grokster case, in that the court is usually loathe to overturn precedent, particularly that which it explicitly set in very clear terms in the relatively recent past.
Decisions like Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade that make significant changes in how the Constitution is interpreted are fairly rare. Right now, there are two appellate decisions on the Second Amendment that stand in almost direct contradiction to each other, with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the right to bear arms is an individual right, while the Ninth Circuit ruled that there is no individual right. When the opportunity came up to decide the issue, the Supreme Court declined because, I suspect, they were not willing to dive into those admittedly troublesome waters.
They're also very pedantic. Several recent decisions were turned away or dismissed entirely because the person making the challenge did not hold proper standing. They insist that proper procedures and protocol are followed to the letter, and have little patience for those who do otherwise.
Skeletal reconstruction associated with a third arm, not to mention the control issues (is it even possible?) would make replacement far more likely than augmentation.
Pardon me. I never said that we shouldn't do it. I merely was refuting your comparison of space travel and exploration of the planet 500 years ago.
I am a full supporter of the manned space program. I have been repeatedly frustrated over the years with multiple cancellations of programs in order to fund the ISS operational when it has such limited value. I do believe that we should look to our past for simpler concepts such as the introduction of a Saturn V-class heavy lift booster to assist in putting large space station segments in orbit, as well as looking to the future for development of new technologies that bring the promise of space travel to ever-lower tiers of the populace.
At the same time, I applaud those who seek to find alternate methods into space, whether it be joyrides skipping the top of the atmosphere or reaching orbit or beyond. I think it's important that these entrepreneurs be allowed as much as possible to proceed with their visions. I encourage thinking about new propulsion methods such as ion drives and solar sails, and I hope that one day I can look around from my seat in an orbital transport and see multiple spacecraft cruising off for different areas.
My point of view extends well into the future of humanity, and it involves risk and loss, necessary costs for the expansion of mankind through space exploration. Where robots make sense to go, send them. Where it is feasible to send humans, put them in place. Give them the tools to do useful, productive work, but don't keep them there unnecessarily, wasting resources better spent on other aspects of the space program.
Those explorations very often brought back at least information about (if not examples of) new gold and silver deposits, spices, and new people to whack in the head with the dominant religion and culture of the explorers. In addition, while the ships were not cheap, the crews were less expensive to train and outfit than are space exploration crews.
Space travel is limited to a week or so at the most, with orbital stays no more than about six months in most cases. Training those crews is very resource-intensive, and the loss of a ship is a strike to national prestige. In the golden days of exploration, the loss of a ship was worrisome, but far less public, and an accepted part of extending one's territory overseas.
Judging by the responses that I see on news sites that do allow comments on stories, it will go a long way towards showing just how poorly educated and brainwashed much of the American populace actually is. I do tend to believe that people want to do what is right and generally want to be good, but when I see comments made on stories, and the fights that start when neither side has its facts straight...
:)
The only worse response sequences I think I've seen on average is when there's a story about Pakistan and India trading shots, and the comments that come flying from both sides from nationalistic readers convinced that calling the other side 'scumbags' would be a disservice to bags filled with scum.
I do still think that a proper implementation would allow them to get some insightful comments, and perhaps a karma- or reputation-based system would be really handy to keep that in check. Hopefully they'll rethink things. Maybe it was designed to fail so that they could read Slashdot for helpful (free) advice on how to make it succeed.
None of those countries 'recognized' it as a religion. They simply put it on the list of responses because the number of respondents was high enough. It was a fun joke while it lasted. We'll see what happens in ten years' time.
"Oh, sure, this thing is the latest technology. It has a Viamamia Serious chip in it that does over 600 million Bogoblips running the latest Microsoft. It also comes with 200 megs of memory, and more than 100 megs of ROM! And look at this new two-button moose -- better than anything that Applesauce place can do. It can play all the latest games just as good as those big name-brand units, and for only half the cost at $1500 (monitor, mouse, keyboard, printer extra)."
-- Random Fry's floor sales rep
Funny. Everyone I talk to at Dell is named John, though they all sound like Apu. One of them tried to tell me he was in South Carolina or something.
Bad drive sector. I've seen that happen. Of course, that's also often a precursor to Very Bad Things happening. It last happened on that IBM 75GXP I bought...
You completely missed the point.
The manufacturer has offered to pay without recompense for the construction and installation of the unit, and then the town picks up the operating costs, essentially getting the plant for free in order for the manufacturer to get real-world experience and feedback, and some marketing. This represents an artificial depression of the price of the reactor and hence the electricity prices, because the town isn't paying for what is clearly a very expensive part of the whole plan.
This kind of thing skews the numbers associated with the reactor to such a degree as to make the electricity price very misleading.
I'm a big nuclear enthusiast, but isn't the manufacturer offering to pay for the unit itself, with the residents of the town paying for the upkeep and other long-term costs? Doesn't that skew the price expectations?
I seem to have forgotten to add "sense of humor" to the list of things to have for a large-scale Notes deployment. :)
Lotus Notes is highly functional... provided you buy the $800,000 server cluster and hire the nine admins to maintain it and the twenty-six developers to shape it.
How long ago was this? Didn't Intel and AMD just sign a new patent-sharing agreement extending the previous 25-year-old agreement that allowed them access to the features each one developed?
I don't recall Intel ever getting mad about AMD using anything more than the chip names.
It's worth it for exploring and maybe light tech support, and on a fast PC, it's almost as quick as a slow Mac. I haven't tried it, but I've read that the latest dev code runs a bit quicker than the 0.3 release. Keep in mind, though, that it's still a lengthy install; on my Athlon 1800/512MB, it took close to eight hours just for the installation. Others have had better/worse results, but it's always a multiple-hours process. Once installed, it's sluggish, but workable.