Actually, most of the types of fusion reactions are dirty as hell; the lowest temperature one, that we are most likely to manage first, is pretty bad- most of the energy comes out in fast neutrons, not heat, hard radiation. So in order to liberate this energy, well, it's difficult.
One scheme was to clad the inside of the reactor with lithium, transmute that with the neutrons and then take the resultant material and put that in a fission reactor and then boil steam.
All this mucking about of course makes for a lot of pretty hot nuclear waste and it would never be environmentally friendly.
This is the Deuterium-Tritium, but the tritium-tritium reaction is essential clean; no fast neatrons; however the temperature and pressure is so much higher, that the problems to achieve break-even are greater.
One new feature I only caught on to recently in Netscape 7.01 is bookmarking groups of tabs.
What this means is you can bookmark a group of URLs, and then download them in parallel. That's much faster, because you don't have to wait for each to download individually, since even with broadband, it takes a while for each page to download. Also, you don't have to think about it; you can download the same URLs every day.
Try it; it's very cool; atleast it is if you like using tabbed browsing.
I started reading it; but its really hard to know, even if everything it says is completely true; there's enormous scope for selective taking of evidence.
But I find what appears to be a premise of the site; that you find out what is 'really' happening or what really happened flawed. Even if you could, that wouldn't help you find a way out of the mess; firstly some people wouldn't believe you even if you had 100% accurate and truthful evidence; secondly different people base their decisions on evidence, it's just that different people will base their decision on different pieces of evidence.
Finally, I noticed some tendency of the site to condemn other commentators based on their opinions on completely disconnected areas. This amounts to being ad hominem attacks.
As with all these sites you have to take the evidence with a ton of salt. Personally I would trust say, the BBC, much more than this site.
Look, I was getting submillisecond latency when I did the test. There's no reason that WiFi should have large latency; the wireless side latency is negligible provided there is no interference/noise (speed of light is 300km/millsecond, WiFi only has standard a range of 0.1km), the protocol stack latency by all rights should be negligible; the processors I used were running at 650+ Mhz; why would it take more than a millisecond to handle a few packets?
Re:The future? Just like the past should be...
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
All of which were invented and developed in the public sector.
... of NAZI GERMANY... and RUSSIA...
Hint: V2 was the first rocket to go into space, and then there was Russia, you know, first PEOPLE IN SPACE;-)
Fortunately NASA is upholding this grand tradition of investigating space with public funds in your name. Of course you don't get to go. And people die. But trust them, they'll come up with a good reason.
So, you're saying that you've tried it once, with your hardware, and it didn't work, therefore it is impossible? It's perfectly possible you have interference you're not aware of, or else, maybe the protocol stack that came with your WiFi is pants.
Well, my laptop PCMCIA slot is screwed at the moment, so I can't retry it; but last time I tried this, I got something like:
a) laptop to google 121ms (over WiFi, then through PC, then through ADSL)
b) same PC to google 120ms (ADSL)
There was some variability- actually the lowest ping time I found was from the laptop;-), but the results were typical.
This was with actiontec wireless PCMCIA card to a actiontec wireless PC card.
WiFi doesn't have any significant latency issues; that's wrong; I've measured it to be under 1ms.
There can be jitter however, if there is interference or heavy usage of the wireless interface, but otherwise latency is negligable; 1 millisecond or less; over the entire range of WiFi.
It's because, on radar, they look just like stealth nuclear missles - at least until the little parachute pops open, but by then it's DEFCON5 anyway....
Uh... No.
Radar systems aren't really looking for nuclear missiles being launched from continental USA, and besides, the difference between a 20ft long missile that's going intercontinental, and a rocket that's about 12 inches long is enormous, (different radar signatures, different trajectory, different speeds, different...)
I imagine it's because they might be used to disperse chemical agents, though the best I was ever capable of was dispering little model rocket parts.
Yes. I imagine you do imagine that. However, that isn't why these are being banned; it's more the materials that are used to construct the rockets are being clamped down upon; because they can be used to make much bigger rockets than model rocketary. The politicians drafting the laws don't really care whether model rocketry gets destroyed or not. In fact, they don't even care much whether the laws are practical at all; currently the laws are coming into play that preclude foreigners from driving explosives within the USA, which sounds fine, till you start to think about delivery men crossing the border from Canada and so forth; or people with green cards who are living in USA perfectly legitimately etc. etc.
Coriolis effect on the earth weather is caused by the air moving faster at the equator (since the earth is rotating). So if any air swings north, then it tends to keep its speed and forms an anticyclone. If it swings south, cyclone. But really it's just the momentum of the air.
From the point of view of the tether point, the cable (if it is straight) will be pointing almost towards the geostationary point. From 30 degrees south, that would be a point about 3000 km north and about 35 km up, so it would be about 5 degrees off vertical.
I'm reasonably sure that the cable can't be straight, the cable will sag under the earths gravity a fair bit, and form a catenary. Indeed, I suspect that's why the cable can't go more than 45 degrees from the equator- eventually it rubs on the ground.
It's self stabilising. If the cable goes slightly off the vertical, the rotation ('centrifugal force' if you like fictious forces) tends to pull the cable back above the fixing point; it's like a giant pendulum.
I constantly see broken elevators at work and in many buildings, hell it would suck to get stuck in an elevator 80km above ground, I can just see it: a dark room with 6 people and some lagguage. Everything is going ok and all of a sudden, 40hours after lift off - shebang, nothing works!
Don't worry. They have a backup-plan: stairs. You can leave the luggage- it will be delivered when (if) you reach the top.
I suppose in order to prove it, you would have to show that the forest didn't disappear in areas that were owned by someone, otherwise it's not tragedy of the commons, it's just economics. I am a little skeptical about tragedy of the commons in most cases; although I'm sure it can actually occur.
So you'd just have to secure a whole bunch of patents and use them in everything you produce (even if they aren't needed) so that 95% of the patents touched are yours. Hence you get to pay yourself most of that 5%, leaving 0.25% of the total for others.
Two things:
a) I didn't say that it would be equal shares for every patent used; that doesn't work.
b) adding useless stuff to your product makes it more expensive to make. If you overdo it; you lose more than the 5%. Also, the law courts start to weigh in at some point; if you've obviously just stuffed a patent in for no reason then they can take a dim view, and withhold payment.
Without intervention--the goodwill and self-restraint of the participants, or externally-imposed restraints, or a change of resource costing--it is inevitable.
Yes. In practice there nearly always are these restraints. The actual tragedy of the commons is something of a myth I think, historically; I'm not aware of any definitive example.
Now that's NOT what i meant. On the contrary, I was afraid it would still (like current system) block free software out!
Yes. That's life I guess.;-( I'm unconvinced that abolishing patents entirely are a good thing- it means that rich people like Bill Gates can steal _anything_.
Huh? I don't see how that's going to happen.
Well, if it really was that obvious in which case the courts will likely find in your favour. Otherwise, it comes back into the public domain in the long run anyway after 15-25 years. It's a bit of a git I know, but in the long run, patents expire.
- What if the program you wrote has 21 features that are protected by different patents?
Then the inventors split the 5% between them.
- Even more troubling: What about free software?
I don't really agree with patents on most software- it's too obvious for words 98% of the time, but I guess this will sort itself out in the long run when most of the obvious things are patented, or the patent office gets beaten with a clue stick.
Yes, you don't want people deliberately 'open sourcing' patented technology (5% of nothing is still nothing). We could have a statutary minimum sum per implementation of a patent, to avoid this issue. But the IP owner could always wave any royalties if they agree with it being open sourced of course.
Slashdot Mirror
One scheme was to clad the inside of the reactor with lithium, transmute that with the neutrons and then take the resultant material and put that in a fission reactor and then boil steam.
All this mucking about of course makes for a lot of pretty hot nuclear waste and it would never be environmentally friendly.
This is the Deuterium-Tritium, but the tritium-tritium reaction is essential clean; no fast neatrons; however the temperature and pressure is so much higher, that the problems to achieve break-even are greater.
What this means is you can bookmark a group of URLs, and then download them in parallel. That's much faster, because you don't have to wait for each to download individually, since even with broadband, it takes a while for each page to download. Also, you don't have to think about it; you can download the same URLs every day.
Try it; it's very cool; atleast it is if you like using tabbed browsing.
But I find what appears to be a premise of the site; that you find out what is 'really' happening or what really happened flawed. Even if you could, that wouldn't help you find a way out of the mess; firstly some people wouldn't believe you even if you had 100% accurate and truthful evidence; secondly different people base their decisions on evidence, it's just that different people will base their decision on different pieces of evidence.
Finally, I noticed some tendency of the site to condemn other commentators based on their opinions on completely disconnected areas. This amounts to being ad hominem attacks.
As with all these sites you have to take the evidence with a ton of salt. Personally I would trust say, the BBC, much more than this site.
so that means it's a pretty lousy world.
Probably ;-)
Hint: V2 was the first rocket to go into space, and then there was Russia, you know, first PEOPLE IN SPACE ;-)
Fortunately NASA is upholding this grand tradition of investigating space with public funds in your name. Of course you don't get to go. And people die. But trust them, they'll come up with a good reason.
Well, my laptop PCMCIA slot is screwed at the moment, so I can't retry it; but last time I tried this, I got something like:
a) laptop to google 121ms (over WiFi, then through PC, then through ADSL)
b) same PC to google 120ms (ADSL)
There was some variability- actually the lowest ping time I found was from the laptop ;-), but the results were typical.
This was with actiontec wireless PCMCIA card to a actiontec wireless PC card.
There can be jitter however, if there is interference or heavy usage of the wireless interface, but otherwise latency is negligable; 1 millisecond or less; over the entire range of WiFi.
People have done VOIP over WiFi perfectly well.
p.s. I am joking.
The sites probably aren't in Pennsylvania. They might be anywhere in the world.
Uh... No. Radar systems aren't really looking for nuclear missiles being launched from continental USA, and besides, the difference between a 20ft long missile that's going intercontinental, and a rocket that's about 12 inches long is enormous, (different radar signatures, different trajectory, different speeds, different...)
I imagine it's because they might be used to disperse chemical agents, though the best I was ever capable of was dispering little model rocket parts.
Yes. I imagine you do imagine that. However, that isn't why these are being banned; it's more the materials that are used to construct the rockets are being clamped down upon; because they can be used to make much bigger rockets than model rocketary. The politicians drafting the laws don't really care whether model rocketry gets destroyed or not. In fact, they don't even care much whether the laws are practical at all; currently the laws are coming into play that preclude foreigners from driving explosives within the USA, which sounds fine, till you start to think about delivery men crossing the border from Canada and so forth; or people with green cards who are living in USA perfectly legitimately etc. etc.
Coriolis effect on the earth weather is caused by the air moving faster at the equator (since the earth is rotating). So if any air swings north, then it tends to keep its speed and forms an anticyclone. If it swings south, cyclone. But really it's just the momentum of the air.
The coriolis effect certainly isn't fictitious, but the coriolis force is.
I'm reasonably sure that the cable can't be straight, the cable will sag under the earths gravity a fair bit, and form a catenary. Indeed, I suspect that's why the cable can't go more than 45 degrees from the equator- eventually it rubs on the ground.
Yeah, but it's another fictitious force...
In fact the initial 'seed' cable weighs under 1kg per kilometer.
Very good. For extra points explain 'coriolis force'.
Well, in a rotating frame of reference such as the earth both centrifugal and coriolis forces 'really' do exist.
It's self stabilising. If the cable goes slightly off the vertical, the rotation ('centrifugal force' if you like fictious forces) tends to pull the cable back above the fixing point; it's like a giant pendulum.
Don't worry. They have a backup-plan: stairs. You can leave the luggage- it will be delivered when (if) you reach the top.
I suppose in order to prove it, you would have to show that the forest didn't disappear in areas that were owned by someone, otherwise it's not tragedy of the commons, it's just economics. I am a little skeptical about tragedy of the commons in most cases; although I'm sure it can actually occur.
Two things:
a) I didn't say that it would be equal shares for every patent used; that doesn't work.
b) adding useless stuff to your product makes it more expensive to make. If you overdo it; you lose more than the 5%. Also, the law courts start to weigh in at some point; if you've obviously just stuffed a patent in for no reason then they can take a dim view, and withhold payment.
Yes. In practice there nearly always are these restraints. The actual tragedy of the commons is something of a myth I think, historically; I'm not aware of any definitive example.
Yes. That's life I guess. ;-( I'm unconvinced that abolishing patents entirely are a good thing- it means that rich people like Bill Gates can steal _anything_.
Huh? I don't see how that's going to happen.
Well, if it really was that obvious in which case the courts will likely find in your favour. Otherwise, it comes back into the public domain in the long run anyway after 15-25 years. It's a bit of a git I know, but in the long run, patents expire.
Then the inventors split the 5% between them.
- Even more troubling: What about free software?
I don't really agree with patents on most software- it's too obvious for words 98% of the time, but I guess this will sort itself out in the long run when most of the obvious things are patented, or the patent office gets beaten with a clue stick.
Yes, you don't want people deliberately 'open sourcing' patented technology (5% of nothing is still nothing). We could have a statutary minimum sum per implementation of a patent, to avoid this issue. But the IP owner could always wave any royalties if they agree with it being open sourced of course.
By which I mean, with all the tools including the slightly less common ones e.g. traceroute, ping nslookup etc. etc.
Anyone?