You're close: this was a substandard US reactor design. It doesn't really matter who does the bad job at designing, if the job was done wrong then it's done wrong. Somehow people forget that there must be quite a few of those Mark I BWRs out there still running. They have known flaws. To top it off, the reactor manufacturer (GE) colluded with operators of the Japanese plant in question and have a disturbing track record of lying through their teeth (mirror here).
Do you drive cars designed in the 60s in Germany? Would you drive them if the engines were merely upgraded to modern, less-polluting versions? No? Why? Because those things were mostly unsafe deathtraps, with piss-poor handling. The reactor in question is at beast an early 60s vintage design that came online in 1971. It's a textbook safety engineering fuckup. Why do you mix politics into this discussion? You have an old, fucked-up design that should have been offline by now. End of story. Do you judge the safety of cars in general by what came off the end of Chevrolet production line circa 1965, too?
You don't need a completely passive system to be better than the GE Mark I BWR fuck-up. All it'd take is to have coolant pumps that operate on the steam generated by the reactor itself. Those could be backup pumps, and they could have retrofitted it years ago. In the aftermath of this quake, they'll either have to do just that, or decommission the plants.
If one were to be a conspiracy theorist: it's a Made-in-the-USA trojan horse, a rare but strong 60s vintage design that breaks about every rule in the book.
Moreso, the 60s vintage GE Mark I BWR is the culprit here. It's a design with serious safety shortcomings. IMHO all those reactors should have been decommissioned by now. They are not any sort of an indicator of how safe the up-to-date designs are. They are a similar safety disaster as cars of the same vintage. You wouldn't want to drive a 60s vintage Chevy as your daily commute car. The poor handling on recovery from the ramps is outright scary. Never mind what happens in a wreck. That's a solid car analogy right there;)
Wonder how many of the usual "Nuclear Energy is cheap, safe, clean and does the dishes AND the laundry" posts we get today.
Here's a car analogy for you.
You're judging the reliability and safety of today's cars by what was around in 1960s (when the Daichi Plant 1's GE reactor was designed). To recap: seat belts were a novelty and people generally shunned them, no air bags, no ABS, car bodies did a relatively poor job at protecting both car occupants and pedestrians.
Guess what: the affected hardware at Fukushima is Mark I GE boiling water reactors, installed in early 70s. Those are designs from the 60s, with well known deficiencies. In a modern reactor pretty much as long as containment hasn't been breached and external heat dump is available (cooling tower still standing), the turbines should be able to operate and cool it down. The GE Mark I is dependent on external electric power for operation of the pumps, it doesn't use its own steam power directly to power the coolant pumps. Thus you have a system where you can trip some breakers and overheat the reactor. We know better now. You should too. Is googling so hard?
So I guess that's testament to the quality of their own C++ front-end code, then? Or is it just that EDG's code is somehow better suited to on-the-fly parsing than their own code?
I think you're trolling. You can get certification to ISO 60610 quite quickly. Getting the device through the FDA can then be quite quick. If you've got the money, it can be less than a year to get it out on the market.
Yeah, because all radiation is the same. People hear the word "radiation" and the automatically assume it's bad. That's TRWTF. That's why someone had to come up with the acronym MRI. The underlying method's acronym -- NMR -- was too scary. As far as I'm concerned, if a patient is scared of an imaging procedure because its name contains the word "nuclear", then perhaps natural selection should take its course and eliminate said individual from the gene pool without meddling from marketeers.
I've used VS2008 with C#, and there intellisense has been rock solid. With C++ it regularly hangs up, sometimes for a minute or more, and I cannot really depend on it -- it's very frustrating. I think that for C++ development, Qt Creator's code parser tools beat the crap out of VS2008 at least: I'm comparing them side-by-side all the time, on same code bases. I can't say how Eclipse is in C++ code insight department, but I've used it a bit for Java development and it felt rock solid and dependable -- just like VS2008 did for C#.
I don't think that the boot-up times are important at all. If you're spending a significant amount of time starting up your IDE, you're not using it much anyway, or you're doing something seriously wrong (tm). I'll have Qt Creator running for a week or two at a time, same for VS2008 running in a VM. I can't even tell you how long it takes it to start them up: I start them up so rarely.
I think that Qt Creator's C++ parser works way better than Intellisense. I get consistently better results (on same projects) as far as code insight goes with Qt Creator than with Visual Studio 2008. It's quite often that Intellisense simply gives up for a couple minutes at a time. Maybe it works great for C# and such, but for C++ it's far from useable (for me).
The only gripe I have with Qt Creator is that it still depends on the pile of excrement that gdb is:(
I feel sorry for you if the word 'curriculum' only has negative connotations for you. Even if it were just a lecture, some are better than others. What I meant is that an engineer gets to spend a day with a kid or two, showing them something cool that they do.
Per your interpretation, "coping" must mean "getting rid of" -- a fucking life OUTSIDE, right? There's no amount of "coping" with a 3 month old that will enable you to leave him alone at home and go out for a date. Sure, he may sleep through the night at that age, but would you really want to place bets on that? Babies can get sick pretty quick, you can have a perfectly normal looking baby at 7pm, and a very sick one at 9pm, with vomit/diarrhea etc.
We'd certainly go out a whole lot of our kids could stay at home with a good nanny. Sorry, the rest of the family is ~4000 miles away, so they can't really help.
You know what I think? It's fine and dandy if only private money would go towards that. The fact that public money, even a single penny, goes towards this project, means that public priorities have to be taken into account. And, since I last checked, most of the Western world is in kind of a financial bind right now, this project is excess, plain and simple. Or, let me put it another way: disband the English royalty, sell off their assets, and then finance such projects -- I'd have no problem with that.
You pull a strawman mentioning another day in Iraq. Aren't there other things to spend money on? You think the government won't have anything to do but spend it in Iraq if this project would not be funded?! Can't engineering education and "enrichment" be better funded directly, rather than with a huge overhead of such a project? Sure, bullet cars do capture the dreams and can pull kids towards engineering, but it's IMHO about the most ineffective way of going at it. How about simply having a program where businesses can apply for small grants to cover costs of developing and administering a day-long curriculum where they get a kid or two on board and show what is the cool stuff they work on? Isn't there anything else "cool enough" besides excesses?
So, they need $2900 per article to cover their operating costs?! Is their data center on the Moon or something? Peer reviewers do it for free, editing is usually minimal, so WTF costs so much?
There would be a temporary hyperinflation and local devaluation of the dollar. Dropping money on a place where there's nothing much to be had for the money -- doesn't make much sense. Due to very low supply and high demand, you'd end up having to pay $100 per a loaf of bread.
Haha about temperature differences causing "internal copper" to become damaged. Internal copper, hmm, because Cat5e has external copper sheathing, you say? LOL. No, temperature differences in Libya are irrelevant if you're talking about Cat5e or Cat6.
As for distance -- we're talking about wireless links. You completely missed the point and your post is still rated Insightful? WTF?
I agree, but what I said was simply that the EULA provisions are under contract law, and whatever prosecutor will look at will be separate from that. ISP's doings are admittedly fair game.
Slashdot Mirror
Where are mod points when you need them? This should be +5 informative.
Bravo, well said.
You're close: this was a substandard US reactor design. It doesn't really matter who does the bad job at designing, if the job was done wrong then it's done wrong. Somehow people forget that there must be quite a few of those Mark I BWRs out there still running. They have known flaws. To top it off, the reactor manufacturer (GE) colluded with operators of the Japanese plant in question and have a disturbing track record of lying through their teeth (mirror here).
Do you drive cars designed in the 60s in Germany? Would you drive them if the engines were merely upgraded to modern, less-polluting versions? No? Why? Because those things were mostly unsafe deathtraps, with piss-poor handling. The reactor in question is at beast an early 60s vintage design that came online in 1971. It's a textbook safety engineering fuckup. Why do you mix politics into this discussion? You have an old, fucked-up design that should have been offline by now. End of story. Do you judge the safety of cars in general by what came off the end of Chevrolet production line circa 1965, too?
You don't need a completely passive system to be better than the GE Mark I BWR fuck-up. All it'd take is to have coolant pumps that operate on the steam generated by the reactor itself. Those could be backup pumps, and they could have retrofitted it years ago. In the aftermath of this quake, they'll either have to do just that, or decommission the plants.
If one were to be a conspiracy theorist: it's a Made-in-the-USA trojan horse, a rare but strong 60s vintage design that breaks about every rule in the book.
Moreso, the 60s vintage GE Mark I BWR is the culprit here. It's a design with serious safety shortcomings. IMHO all those reactors should have been decommissioned by now. They are not any sort of an indicator of how safe the up-to-date designs are. They are a similar safety disaster as cars of the same vintage. You wouldn't want to drive a 60s vintage Chevy as your daily commute car. The poor handling on recovery from the ramps is outright scary. Never mind what happens in a wreck. That's a solid car analogy right there ;)
Wonder how many of the usual "Nuclear Energy is cheap, safe, clean and does the dishes AND the laundry" posts we get today.
Here's a car analogy for you.
You're judging the reliability and safety of today's cars by what was around in 1960s (when the Daichi Plant 1's GE reactor was designed). To recap: seat belts were a novelty and people generally shunned them, no air bags, no ABS, car bodies did a relatively poor job at protecting both car occupants and pedestrians.
Guess what: the affected hardware at Fukushima is Mark I GE boiling water reactors, installed in early 70s. Those are designs from the 60s, with well known deficiencies. In a modern reactor pretty much as long as containment hasn't been breached and external heat dump is available (cooling tower still standing), the turbines should be able to operate and cool it down. The GE Mark I is dependent on external electric power for operation of the pumps, it doesn't use its own steam power directly to power the coolant pumps. Thus you have a system where you can trip some breakers and overheat the reactor. We know better now. You should too. Is googling so hard?
So I guess that's testament to the quality of their own C++ front-end code, then? Or is it just that EDG's code is somehow better suited to on-the-fly parsing than their own code?
I think you're trolling. You can get certification to ISO 60610 quite quickly. Getting the device through the FDA can then be quite quick. If you've got the money, it can be less than a year to get it out on the market.
Yeah, because all radiation is the same. People hear the word "radiation" and the automatically assume it's bad. That's TRWTF. That's why someone had to come up with the acronym MRI. The underlying method's acronym -- NMR -- was too scary. As far as I'm concerned, if a patient is scared of an imaging procedure because its name contains the word "nuclear", then perhaps natural selection should take its course and eliminate said individual from the gene pool without meddling from marketeers.
Thanks to wine developers, Direct3D on Linux is actually pretty darn good, all things considered.
I've used VS2008 with C#, and there intellisense has been rock solid. With C++ it regularly hangs up, sometimes for a minute or more, and I cannot really depend on it -- it's very frustrating. I think that for C++ development, Qt Creator's code parser tools beat the crap out of VS2008 at least: I'm comparing them side-by-side all the time, on same code bases. I can't say how Eclipse is in C++ code insight department, but I've used it a bit for Java development and it felt rock solid and dependable -- just like VS2008 did for C#.
I don't think that the boot-up times are important at all. If you're spending a significant amount of time starting up your IDE, you're not using it much anyway, or you're doing something seriously wrong (tm). I'll have Qt Creator running for a week or two at a time, same for VS2008 running in a VM. I can't even tell you how long it takes it to start them up: I start them up so rarely.
This should be modded +5 Informative. It seems to be the only technical, to-the-point post in the whole thread. Kudos!
I think that Qt Creator's C++ parser works way better than Intellisense. I get consistently better results (on same projects) as far as code insight goes with Qt Creator than with Visual Studio 2008. It's quite often that Intellisense simply gives up for a couple minutes at a time. Maybe it works great for C# and such, but for C++ it's far from useable (for me).
The only gripe I have with Qt Creator is that it still depends on the pile of excrement that gdb is :(
I feel sorry for you if the word 'curriculum' only has negative connotations for you. Even if it were just a lecture, some are better than others. What I meant is that an engineer gets to spend a day with a kid or two, showing them something cool that they do.
Per your interpretation, "coping" must mean "getting rid of" -- a fucking life OUTSIDE, right? There's no amount of "coping" with a 3 month old that will enable you to leave him alone at home and go out for a date. Sure, he may sleep through the night at that age, but would you really want to place bets on that? Babies can get sick pretty quick, you can have a perfectly normal looking baby at 7pm, and a very sick one at 9pm, with vomit/diarrhea etc.
We'd certainly go out a whole lot of our kids could stay at home with a good nanny. Sorry, the rest of the family is ~4000 miles away, so they can't really help.
You know what I think? It's fine and dandy if only private money would go towards that. The fact that public money, even a single penny, goes towards this project, means that public priorities have to be taken into account. And, since I last checked, most of the Western world is in kind of a financial bind right now, this project is excess, plain and simple. Or, let me put it another way: disband the English royalty, sell off their assets, and then finance such projects -- I'd have no problem with that.
You pull a strawman mentioning another day in Iraq. Aren't there other things to spend money on? You think the government won't have anything to do but spend it in Iraq if this project would not be funded?! Can't engineering education and "enrichment" be better funded directly, rather than with a huge overhead of such a project? Sure, bullet cars do capture the dreams and can pull kids towards engineering, but it's IMHO about the most ineffective way of going at it. How about simply having a program where businesses can apply for small grants to cover costs of developing and administering a day-long curriculum where they get a kid or two on board and show what is the cool stuff they work on? Isn't there anything else "cool enough" besides excesses?
Insightful? You've got to be kidding me. Since when is libel a jailable offense in the U.S.?
So, they need $2900 per article to cover their operating costs?! Is their data center on the Moon or something? Peer reviewers do it for free, editing is usually minimal, so WTF costs so much?
There would be a temporary hyperinflation and local devaluation of the dollar. Dropping money on a place where there's nothing much to be had for the money -- doesn't make much sense. Due to very low supply and high demand, you'd end up having to pay $100 per a loaf of bread.
Haha about temperature differences causing "internal copper" to become damaged. Internal copper, hmm, because Cat5e has external copper sheathing, you say? LOL. No, temperature differences in Libya are irrelevant if you're talking about Cat5e or Cat6.
As for distance -- we're talking about wireless links. You completely missed the point and your post is still rated Insightful? WTF?
Buy a 100mW laser pointer, take the camera out remotely.
I agree, but what I said was simply that the EULA provisions are under contract law, and whatever prosecutor will look at will be separate from that. ISP's doings are admittedly fair game.