How about a place that starts with letting you develop weekly menus. Then allows you to attach recipes to the menu. and Then - - generates a shopping list in your favorite store aisle format. Makes the whole weekly shopping and food prep thing a bit easier... Anyone know of such a place. Safeway has a site that gives you a shopping list in store isle format but no menus.
Actually, seems to me that this technology could have substantial impact on several kinds of disabilities. There are folks who can move their eyes but can't control keyboards and mice. See for instance anyone with Lou Gerhigs or any number of other injuries or illnesses. Although this would also be of use to the normally sighted and functional as well.
Just my thoughts - I could be wrong..
Actually this was intended to simply expand the discussion to include some issues regarding scientific methods applied to an understanding of risk.. Sorry 'bout the use of that word five times.. I will dust off my thesaurus. I actually did like your post BTW and the fact that Canadians can actually burn weapons.
Of course, these are simply my opinions, I could be wrong...
I personally think it will help folks baseline their general understanding of some of the scientific issues regarding radiation, risks, and ethics. [Yes - there is a relationship between the rhetoric of the radiation debate and ethics]
This read should follow well the link from Zoyd above regarding the history of radiation limits by J. Samuel Walker.
I would also like folks to refer to comments posted elsewhere (sorry - I don't know how to do links yet) by MikeLRoy
"Project Plowshare . . . . by MikeLRoy on Sunday October 22,
@05:35AM EDT (#30). . . . . Back in the laste '50, when nuclear
power was still all "new and wonderful", the US Government embarked
on Project Plowshare, with the goal of using atomic and
thermonuclear weapons for the purpose of digging.
For those trying to keep with the rhetoric on where the "truth" is in this complicated discussion surrounding radiation, risk, environment and regulatory issues, it is often very difficult to understand enough background to base a decision. Even the fairly straightforward issue of a simple risk analysis [based as it can be on mathematics and the experiences of human life] is a tough one and is often performed at such an unconscious level that we folks don't even perceive we are evaluating risks. For instance - some folks drive hundreds of miles to remote locations to protest the dangers of nuclear power - BUT those same folks don't for an instant consider the "risk" of the drive, the complete chain of "pollution and dependance (think Middle East)" that goes into filling their tanks, or the fact that the power plant they are going to protest at is about the only really "green" power source they will ever see in their lifetimes. All that they are are considering on their journey is the rhetoric of activism that they have embraced from some anti-environmental group with a political agenda. [ for the doubters - follow the money from your donations - and follow the scientific reasoning of the anti-environmental rhetoric]
Damn - pay particular attention to what Zoyd says, the nuclear power plant they are protesting at can even burn Nuclear Weapons into electricity, and if that is not a sword vigorously beaten into a ploughshare I don't know what is.
As Zoyd further states,
It's use has been explored by the U.S., but, obviously, they decided against it.
There are some concerns about radioactive fallout, but I believe they are overblown -- the risks would be overshadowed by the rewards.
I believe that in the case of using nuclear explosions to dig channels, Zoyd is possibly correct. The United States exerted considerable effort to make "clean" bombs, partly because they did not want to crap up the environment of a potential target and partly because of Project Plowshares' Civil Engineering uses (why just nuke someplace if you can't go there and use it somehow, plus folks eventually have to live there again . . . . someday).....
But, and it is a really big "but" here, imagine the value to commerce and culture if you could somehow construct a sea level passage between say the Pacific and the Atlantic, a really wide one. Especially, if you didn't have to lose all of those workers to malaria and accidents making this sea level passage. The risk analysis for this one would have been interesting to develop, potential loss of life to slight increase in background radiation versus malaria deaths and heightened accident rate for lock operation over - say about 100 years of operation....Hmmmmmm.
But all of this is - of course - not even on the table to discuss since we have so politicized, and emotionalized the rhetoric of all things radiation that a reasoned discourse is all but impossible.
Re: fusion comes in two fundamental flavors.. Magnetically confined and Inertially confined. One is aimed at power production (in about a zillion years) the other is what makes really good bombs. Maybe power too someday...
For the magnetic version the holding of really hot plasmas (a fusion engines main claim to fame) in magnetic bottles has been attempted for oh - about forty or so years..... It has even had some brief (milliseconds) successes too. However, the bottles are terrifically difficult to make and the damn plasmas don't seem to last long. Seems like these doughnut shaped magnetic bottles have some very complex instabilities...(insert really cool mathematical models)
If you go with the inertial confined plasmas as a solution to fusions then you get another whole complex batch on issues regarding getting any appreciable energy out compared to the really huge lasers that put the energy there to start with. And - oh - yeah - some folks say the whole purpose for the inertial confinement program is just to tweak bomb codes any ways...
As for Breeder technology - well you probably won't need them for a while since there is a pant load of Uranium fuel available all over the place. Course we could always blend down those pesky nuclear weapons and mix that very highly enriched stuff (called bomb grade enriched Uranium) with some of the old cheap stuff (not bomb grade stuff). - The pricey stuff is made by liberally adding huge amounts of energy (really really huge) in order to separate U235 from the rest of the old U stuff found in naturally occurring Uranium...)
This would let us literally burn our "swords" into "plowshares" - to really mix a metaphor or two. For more info - please see the Uranium institute at
http://www.uilondon.org/index.htm
Personally I would love to know we are burning up weapons to produce electricity,,,
Oh yeah - and virtually no greenhouse gasses. (no no - really) (well not counting the discharge from employees cars as the drive to work...)
However, Nuclear Power requires political will, a deep sense of environmentalism, and an understanding of the basics of the scientific method that real Science is based on - not junk science -
Political will (or won't) is a precious commodity.. Tons of folks have a deep sense of environmentalism (kids are practically born knowing how to recycle) and there are even a bunch of folks who kind of get the drift of the philosophy of the scientific method (it really is simply a clear way of thinking - similar to good programming)... But the anti-environmental movement - the Greens as they sometimes collectively call themselves - take pride in pursuing political agendas wrapped up in a false cloak of science. (my rant)
Solar is nice but imagine what it would take to keep just one Vally - possibly a Silicone one- humming with just sunlight.... Wind is really nice too - but it is also responsible for the greatest number of dead raptors (those really cool birds like falcons, hawks, and other hunters) in the United States today. And wind is such a very small player today - just imagine what it would be like if there were many many more spinning blades for birds of prey.. Sort of like food processing the atmosphere. (would you like feathers with that kilowatt??) And don't even get me started with those damn dams... Boy what a piece-o-feces they are....Let me see now- how can we kill of the greatest number of pacific and Atlantic salmon (and other types of really tasty fishes as well) in the least amount of time.. Oh - yeah - I remember - lets just block them away from those places they go to for sex..
Course the solution is a combination of things - ain't it just like life to be a bit complex... Lots of base load nuclear, some clean oil, some cleaner Natural gas, considered use of Solar and Wind (Tidal too like the Bay of Fundy) and a bunch of improved conservation end (demand side) concepts..
Just my thoughts for what its worth.. I could be wrong..
A very long time ago - On iron no longer known there was this guy I knew who could make machines sing. It was a Honeywell 2060A mainframe with 256k of wirewound ferite core memory, 5 big tape drives with air channels that would hold the tape loops, 5 (five or ten platter) disks drives, and a card punch, card reader and paper tape punch and reader. This whole thing with its standard drum printer could do amazing stuff. With a card loaded program and a pretty good sized stack of data cards (lewis 5081's each and every one) you could make just about the whole machine sing...Way cool especially in 72 or 73... The program was really just some read-a-card and send it via PIP to some output or I/O And yes - This guy definied "Can we say Wayyy too much time on his hands"...
Slashdot Mirror
How about a place that starts with letting you develop weekly menus. Then allows you to attach recipes to the menu. and Then - - generates a shopping list in your favorite store aisle format. Makes the whole weekly shopping and food prep thing a bit easier... Anyone know of such a place. Safeway has a site that gives you a shopping list in store isle format but no menus.
Thoughts?
Actually, seems to me that this technology could have substantial impact on several kinds of disabilities. There are folks who can move their eyes but can't control keyboards and mice. See for instance anyone with Lou Gerhigs or any number of other injuries or illnesses. Although this would also be of use to the normally sighted and functional as well. Just my thoughts - I could be wrong..
Actually this was intended to simply expand the discussion to include some issues regarding scientific methods applied to an understanding of risk.. Sorry 'bout the use of that word five times.. I will dust off my thesaurus. I actually did like your post BTW and the fact that Canadians can actually burn weapons.
Of course, these are simply my opinions, I could be wrong...
http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1999/jaworowski
I personally think it will help folks baseline their general understanding of some of the scientific issues regarding radiation, risks, and ethics. [Yes - there is a relationship between the rhetoric of the radiation debate and ethics]
This read should follow well the link from Zoyd above regarding the history of radiation limits by J. Samuel Walker.
I would also like folks to refer to comments posted elsewhere (sorry - I don't know how to do links yet) by MikeLRoy
For those trying to keep with the rhetoric on where the "truth" is in this complicated discussion surrounding radiation, risk, environment and regulatory issues, it is often very difficult to understand enough background to base a decision. Even the fairly straightforward issue of a simple risk analysis [based as it can be on mathematics and the experiences of human life] is a tough one and is often performed at such an unconscious level that we folks don't even perceive we are evaluating risks. For instance - some folks drive hundreds of miles to remote locations to protest the dangers of nuclear power - BUT those same folks don't for an instant consider the "risk" of the drive, the complete chain of "pollution and dependance (think Middle East)" that goes into filling their tanks, or the fact that the power plant they are going to protest at is about the only really "green" power source they will ever see in their lifetimes. All that they are are considering on their journey is the rhetoric of activism that they have embraced from some anti-environmental group with a political agenda. [ for the doubters - follow the money from your donations - and follow the scientific reasoning of the anti-environmental rhetoric]
Damn - pay particular attention to what Zoyd says, the nuclear power plant they are protesting at can even burn Nuclear Weapons into electricity, and if that is not a sword vigorously beaten into a ploughshare I don't know what is. As Zoyd further states,
I believe that in the case of using nuclear explosions to dig channels, Zoyd is possibly correct. The United States exerted considerable effort to make "clean" bombs, partly because they did not want to crap up the environment of a potential target and partly because of Project Plowshares' Civil Engineering uses (why just nuke someplace if you can't go there and use it somehow, plus folks eventually have to live there again . . . . someday).....
But, and it is a really big "but" here, imagine the value to commerce and culture if you could somehow construct a sea level passage between say the Pacific and the Atlantic, a really wide one. Especially, if you didn't have to lose all of those workers to malaria and accidents making this sea level passage. The risk analysis for this one would have been interesting to develop, potential loss of life to slight increase in background radiation versus malaria deaths and heightened accident rate for lock operation over - say about 100 years of operation....Hmmmmmm.
But all of this is - of course - not even on the table to discuss since we have so politicized, and emotionalized the rhetoric of all things radiation that a reasoned discourse is all but impossible.
Re: fusion comes in two fundamental flavors.. Magnetically confined and Inertially confined. One is aimed at power production (in about a zillion years) the other is what makes really good bombs. Maybe power too someday...
... But the anti-environmental movement - the Greens as they sometimes collectively call themselves - take pride in pursuing political agendas wrapped up in a false cloak of science. (my rant)
... Wind is really nice too - but it is also responsible for the greatest number of dead raptors (those really cool birds like falcons, hawks, and other hunters) in the United States today. And wind is such a very small player today - just imagine what it would be like if there were many many more spinning blades for birds of prey.. Sort of like food processing the atmosphere. (would you like feathers with that kilowatt??) And don't even get me started with those damn dams... Boy what a piece-o-feces they are....Let me see now- how can we kill of the greatest number of pacific and Atlantic salmon (and other types of really tasty fishes as well) in the least amount of time.. Oh - yeah - I remember - lets just block them away from those places they go to for sex..
For the magnetic version the holding of really hot plasmas (a fusion engines main claim to fame) in magnetic bottles has been attempted for oh - about forty or so years..... It has even had some brief (milliseconds) successes too. However, the bottles are terrifically difficult to make and the damn plasmas don't seem to last long. Seems like these doughnut shaped magnetic bottles have some very complex instabilities...(insert really cool mathematical models)
If you go with the inertial confined plasmas as a solution to fusions then you get another whole complex batch on issues regarding getting any appreciable energy out compared to the really huge lasers that put the energy there to start with. And - oh - yeah - some folks say the whole purpose for the inertial confinement program is just to tweak bomb codes any ways...
As for Breeder technology - well you probably won't need them for a while since there is a pant load of Uranium fuel available all over the place. Course we could always blend down those pesky nuclear weapons and mix that very highly enriched stuff (called bomb grade enriched Uranium) with some of the old cheap stuff (not bomb grade stuff). - The pricey stuff is made by liberally adding huge amounts of energy (really really huge) in order to separate U235 from the rest of the old U stuff found in naturally occurring Uranium...)
This would let us literally burn our "swords" into "plowshares" - to really mix a metaphor or two. For more info - please see the Uranium institute at
http://www.uilondon.org/index.htm
Personally I would love to know we are burning up weapons to produce electricity,,,
Oh yeah - and virtually no greenhouse gasses. (no no - really) (well not counting the discharge from employees cars as the drive to work...)
However, Nuclear Power requires political will, a deep sense of environmentalism, and an understanding of the basics of the scientific method that real Science is based on - not junk science -
Political will (or won't) is a precious commodity.. Tons of folks have a deep sense of environmentalism (kids are practically born knowing how to recycle) and there are even a bunch of folks who kind of get the drift of the philosophy of the scientific method (it really is simply a clear way of thinking - similar to good programming)
Solar is nice but imagine what it would take to keep just one Vally - possibly a Silicone one- humming with just sunlight.
Course the solution is a combination of things - ain't it just like life to be a bit complex... Lots of base load nuclear, some clean oil, some cleaner Natural gas, considered use of Solar and Wind (Tidal too like the Bay of Fundy) and a bunch of improved conservation end (demand side) concepts..
Just my thoughts for what its worth.. I could be wrong..
I bid
a totally beat to death Tecra - bout five years old. Coffee stained mother board - third replacement one so far.
One old cat.
A fat Labrador
Miscellaneous lawn mowers
and a bag of Rebel Grass Seed..
Sorry - no money
A very long time ago - On iron no longer known there was this guy I knew who could make machines sing. It was a Honeywell 2060A mainframe with 256k of wirewound ferite core memory, 5 big tape drives with air channels that would hold the tape loops, 5 (five or ten platter) disks drives, and a card punch, card reader and paper tape punch and reader. This whole thing with its standard drum printer could do amazing stuff. With a card loaded program and a pretty good sized stack of data cards (lewis 5081's each and every one) you could make just about the whole machine sing...Way cool especially in 72 or 73... The program was really just some read-a-card and send it via PIP to some output or I/O And yes - This guy definied "Can we say Wayyy too much time on his hands"...