Plutonium's chemical toxicity is minor compared to its radiological abilities. IF plutonium reaches soft tissues (like your lungs), its alpha emissions will begin to systematically destroy your tissues and DNA. By the time the chemical toxicity comes into play, you'll be long dead from radiation exposure.
The key here is that Plutonium is rather hard to get into your system. In order to get it into your lungs, it has to be powderized AND airborne. Both are very difficult as Plutonium is hard and heavy. Ingestion is another possibility, but it seems that the Pu is generally passed through without ill effects. Again, it's very hard to disintegrate, so your body often fails to digest it. This makes Plutonium very dangerous on one hand, yet very, very safe on another. You could keep a piece of it in your pocket, and in general there will never be any ill effects.
Agreed. But one of my points is that if it leaks into the water supply, it's most likely going to settle and become a complete non-threat. AFAIK, it's not water soluble, so the worst that could happen is that it gets swept along by strong currents until it settles in an area with far more gentle currents.
BTW, Plutonium does release a small amount of Gamma radiation as well, but all that water should actually help in shielding against it.
I'd rather see it recycled. Some of this stuff can be fused to other materials and then used in personal power generation, medical imaging, industrial tools, sensor equipment, etc. That would be far safer than moving it all into one place where the sum radiation is impossible to shield against, and will cause a health hazard for the next 100-300 years.
No kidding. Can any nuclear scientists comment here? AFAIK, Plutonium is a fairly innocuous problem. It's heavier than just about everything, so it doesn't float. It's not water soluble, and it primarily releases Alpha particles (a non-threatening form of radiation). Unless they're leaking something like Strontium-90, Iodine-129, or something fresh out of the reactor with a half-life of three months, then I'm not particularly worried. I'm far more worried about all that Lead and battery acid we're throwing in landfills.
mouse problem: I looked at your question but you need to provide more details, it might be more useful to ask in distro specific forum
If you read my Journal from the beginning, you'll find that the mouse problem is present on all distros and Linux kernel versions. My optical mouse works for awhile, then Linux forgets it exists.
usb: it works fairly well in linux as well
Fairly well, yes. But it has a lot of bugs and problems that keep popping up. My USB Optical Mouse problem is a perfect example.
loosing files after crash: you need journaling file system, how is this freebsd versus linux issue?
Journalling is not a guarantee of a stable file system. I was just speaking with a collegue of mine on JavaGaming.org about how his EXT3 filesystem went belly up. BSD's FFS is a well tested filesystem that has one of the highest levels of reliability in the industry.
you wrote: "Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?"
and in your journal: "I've decided that I want a Linux distro that works correctly out of the box, and needs minimal configuration."
That's correct. I want a Linux system that I can install, run, and never actaully have to worry about again. While I can at least get to a Linux system that's easy to install (e.g. SuSE), they still release constant OS upgrades that require an upgrade reinstall. The only bright side to this is that your data files (hopefully) don't get deleted.
hint: if you don't want to reinstall your OS get a distro that is easy to maintain and upgrade, NOT the one that is easiest to install. I am not saying you should get debian but I have a debian install since about '98, constanlty upgraded, no rpm hell, (almost) no problems, constantly on the cutting edge (and this is fairly common, ask on debian mailing lists)
You'll note that Debian stable fails to meet most of the rest of my criteria. For example, lack of USB support means that my input devices don't work with the OS.
Remember, Debian stable is BEFORE Linux had USB support as part of the kernel. I still have a FreeBSD machine running from around that time that supports USB just fine.
all in all, there's no need to make linux look bad for freebsd to look good!
As I said, Linux has its ups and FreeBSD has its ups. I merely named some things that were important to me that FreeBSD met, that Linux doesn't.:-)
The best thing you can do is support initiatives like iTunes. Believe it or not, not every Congress Critter supports the RIAA and MPAA. If you support the distribution channels you want, and support only artists you LIKE, our Congress Critters will have some wonderful statistical evidence to throw back at the [MP|RI]AA organizations.
Keep in mind that Congress generally enjoys making people sweat it while they have the floor. I think it was only about a year or so ago that congress was grilling the RIAA for the Electronic distribution methods that were promised in exchange for tougher laws, not materializing.
I've thought about this a lot, and I've decided that having both KDE and GNOME is A Good Thing(TM). What is not a good thing, is distros bending over backwards to support both. If you're building a product for end users to use, you need to make the choice of GUI for them. This way the distro can focus its resources on making sure that the one GUI is consistent and works.
Two perfect examples of this are SuSE and Java Desktop System. SuSE made the KDE decision and has made their desktop very powerful through this decision. Similarly, JDS has chosen the GNOME route, and has been building a "not quite Linux" OS experience on top of it.
Now, if someone would just fix the way software is installed on Linux...
(The Gentoo troll should be here in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)
Re:BETTER QUESTION: Why do we even need FreeBSD?
on
FreeBSD Moves to X.Org
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux?
Well, for one, my mouse actually works. And so does USB. Oh! And my zip drive works! And I don't randomly lose files in a crash! And my programs are more responsive. And my system stays up longer. And I'm hacked less. etc. etc. etc.
There are more advantages to an OS than just ticks on a "supports this feature" list. Supporting a feature is not the same as supporting it well. The FreeBSD guys usually don't add a feature until it's supported well. The Linux guys add the feature, then improve after everyone tells them it's broken. Both camps have their advantages and disadvantages.
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Do a 's/BSD/Linux/g' and you're getting pretty close. Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing. This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months? The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
That's not progress!
Progress is something like Mac OS X: build a system that is MORE usable, and MORE feature-rich than the competitor. Yet what people like you seem to miss, is that Linux is not about building a "better" system! Linux is about building a system that is "free" in Stallman and Linus's definition of the word. If that is what you want, than Linux is a great choice. If you want a "better" end-user OS than Windows, then you're going to need to compromise some of the principles on which Linux is based. Take your pick, because these goals are mutually exclusive.
Bah! You young'uns no nothing about gaming! In my day Id software was synonymous with Commander Keen and we liked it that way! No fancy, shmancy three-dee thingymabobs! No siree! We had 2D platform scrollers about toddlers who saved the galaxy after bedtime! That was a *real* in-game storyline! No B.S. about a "Space Marine" saving the moons of Mars. What the heck is a "Space Marine" anyway? Bah, you kids. No imagination, none at all.
...makes it sound like they're talking about the long-forgotten Hollywood deal that would have made Doom into a blockbuster movie. Of course, like many game related movies, it went nowhere. In fact, the plans were changed to a "Quake Movie" after several years of negotiations. That also went nowhere.
My guess is that the only reason why Tomb Raider was made into a (bad) movie, was because the opportunity for *cough* "eye candy" was so much higher. Not that it mattered in the end. Jolie was nothing like the Lara Croft we were expecting. They might as well have made a Doom movie with a grunt in a push-up bra!;)
It's just like Nuclear Fusion. In 1950, nuclear fusion plants were "only 20 years away". Then in 1970, they were "only 20 years away". In 1990, they were "only 20 years away". Today, the most advanced fusion reactor ever will power up a set of Terrawatt lasers (don't wow too much, they only fire about one terrajoule a piece) in less than 10 years. And because of this, nuclear fission is only 20 years away. *sigh*
According to this link, it seems that a "deep cut" engraving can be made in marble with about 10-50W. They do also say that using a laser for regular cutting of marble is highly impractical. (I assume for many of the reasons other posters have pointed out.):-)
It seems that Laser Engraving equipment does exist and can cut Marble without problem. Why would a laser need to perform a plunge cut? (Not that there aren't reasons, I just don't know them.)
Does anyone know why they use a diamond tipped cutter instead of a laser cutter? Does the laser simply slice too far, too fast? Or is the diamond cutter really that much more efficient?
You too? Is it really as portable as they say, or is it just a fancy name for a low profile PC? I can't say I've tried throwing it through a window though. It seems a bit expensive for that.
There's no reason why you couldn't use a PNG for a photograph, it's just that most people avoid them because they're so large in comparison to a JPG. Originals are usually kept in an editor format like PSD or XCF.
GIFs are great for animations, but I really do prefer PNGs at this point. While it really isn't that big of a deal, PNGs are simply smaller and look better. If we could just get Microsoft to fix Internet Explorer, we'd have a new defacto standard for all non-photographic images.
At the very least, it should be obvious that the photos were taken in a near-vacuum. They're simply TOO clear to have been taken in an atmosphere. No distortion, no dust, no diffusion. Just a large light source shining down on some of the clearest images ever seen by man.
...this is pretty much the type of research a computer scientist does. So if you're thinking of going for your PHD in CompSci, just consider for a moment whether you REALLY want to be combining the math of CompSci, with the Molecular Biology of cow guts.
Agreed. I was originally just looking at the Pad2Pad stuff. The eMachineShop has all kinds of possibilities. For example, my wife is very good at drawing horses. To date, she's just been burning the images into "craft" wood pieces. With eMachineShop, she could draw up a laser etched, aluminum work-of-art and have it inexpensively cut on a (very expensive) laser cutter!
And think of all the money I could make by selling tourists some sort of Injection Molded trinket! I'd be rich! BWHAHAHA! Erm... ok, I'm getting a little carried away here. Seriously, though. How many zoos and museums make a killing off of those 2 dollar injection molding machines? People love the little animals or dinosaurs they get out of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Plutonium's chemical toxicity is minor compared to its radiological abilities. IF plutonium reaches soft tissues (like your lungs), its alpha emissions will begin to systematically destroy your tissues and DNA. By the time the chemical toxicity comes into play, you'll be long dead from radiation exposure.
The key here is that Plutonium is rather hard to get into your system. In order to get it into your lungs, it has to be powderized AND airborne. Both are very difficult as Plutonium is hard and heavy. Ingestion is another possibility, but it seems that the Pu is generally passed through without ill effects. Again, it's very hard to disintegrate, so your body often fails to digest it. This makes Plutonium very dangerous on one hand, yet very, very safe on another. You could keep a piece of it in your pocket, and in general there will never be any ill effects.
Agreed. But one of my points is that if it leaks into the water supply, it's most likely going to settle and become a complete non-threat. AFAIK, it's not water soluble, so the worst that could happen is that it gets swept along by strong currents until it settles in an area with far more gentle currents.
BTW, Plutonium does release a small amount of Gamma radiation as well, but all that water should actually help in shielding against it.
I'd rather see it recycled. Some of this stuff can be fused to other materials and then used in personal power generation, medical imaging, industrial tools, sensor equipment, etc. That would be far safer than moving it all into one place where the sum radiation is impossible to shield against, and will cause a health hazard for the next 100-300 years.
No kidding. Can any nuclear scientists comment here? AFAIK, Plutonium is a fairly innocuous problem. It's heavier than just about everything, so it doesn't float. It's not water soluble, and it primarily releases Alpha particles (a non-threatening form of radiation). Unless they're leaking something like Strontium-90, Iodine-129, or something fresh out of the reactor with a half-life of three months, then I'm not particularly worried. I'm far more worried about all that Lead and battery acid we're throwing in landfills.
mouse problem: I looked at your question but you need to provide more details, it might be more useful to ask in distro specific forum
If you read my Journal from the beginning, you'll find that the mouse problem is present on all distros and Linux kernel versions. My optical mouse works for awhile, then Linux forgets it exists.
usb: it works fairly well in linux as well
Fairly well, yes. But it has a lot of bugs and problems that keep popping up. My USB Optical Mouse problem is a perfect example.
loosing files after crash: you need journaling file system, how is this freebsd versus linux issue?
Journalling is not a guarantee of a stable file system. I was just speaking with a collegue of mine on JavaGaming.org about how his EXT3 filesystem went belly up. BSD's FFS is a well tested filesystem that has one of the highest levels of reliability in the industry.
you wrote: "Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months?"
and in your journal: "I've decided that I want a Linux distro that works correctly out of the box, and needs minimal configuration."
That's correct. I want a Linux system that I can install, run, and never actaully have to worry about again. While I can at least get to a Linux system that's easy to install (e.g. SuSE), they still release constant OS upgrades that require an upgrade reinstall. The only bright side to this is that your data files (hopefully) don't get deleted.
hint: if you don't want to reinstall your OS get a distro that is easy to maintain and upgrade, NOT the one that is easiest to install. I am not saying you should get debian but I have a debian install since about '98, constanlty upgraded, no rpm hell, (almost) no problems, constantly on the cutting edge (and this is fairly common, ask on debian mailing lists)
You'll note that Debian stable fails to meet most of the rest of my criteria. For example, lack of USB support means that my input devices don't work with the OS.
Remember, Debian stable is BEFORE Linux had USB support as part of the kernel. I still have a FreeBSD machine running from around that time that supports USB just fine.
all in all, there's no need to make linux look bad for freebsd to look good!
As I said, Linux has its ups and FreeBSD has its ups. I merely named some things that were important to me that FreeBSD met, that Linux doesn't.
The best thing you can do is support initiatives like iTunes. Believe it or not, not every Congress Critter supports the RIAA and MPAA. If you support the distribution channels you want, and support only artists you LIKE, our Congress Critters will have some wonderful statistical evidence to throw back at the [MP|RI]AA organizations.
Keep in mind that Congress generally enjoys making people sweat it while they have the floor. I think it was only about a year or so ago that congress was grilling the RIAA for the Electronic distribution methods that were promised in exchange for tougher laws, not materializing.
I've thought about this a lot, and I've decided that having both KDE and GNOME is A Good Thing(TM). What is not a good thing, is distros bending over backwards to support both. If you're building a product for end users to use, you need to make the choice of GUI for them. This way the distro can focus its resources on making sure that the one GUI is consistent and works.
Two perfect examples of this are SuSE and Java Desktop System. SuSE made the KDE decision and has made their desktop very powerful through this decision. Similarly, JDS has chosen the GNOME route, and has been building a "not quite Linux" OS experience on top of it.
Now, if someone would just fix the way software is installed on Linux...
(The Gentoo troll should be here in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)
Name anything freebsd actually does better than linux?
Well, for one, my mouse actually works. And so does USB. Oh! And my zip drive works! And I don't randomly lose files in a crash! And my programs are more responsive. And my system stays up longer. And I'm hacked less. etc. etc. etc.
There are more advantages to an OS than just ticks on a "supports this feature" list. Supporting a feature is not the same as supporting it well. The FreeBSD guys usually don't add a feature until it's supported well. The Linux guys add the feature, then improve after everyone tells them it's broken. Both camps have their advantages and disadvantages.
BSD is running on fumes of hype right now, once people wake up and realize it sucks it will be all done.
Do a 's/BSD/Linux/g' and you're getting pretty close. Modern Linux systems tend to be highly unstable with large numbers of known issues and overall poor testing. This is done intentionally to help Linux reach a competitive stage more quickly. But one does have to wonder: Is it worth completely reinstalling your OS every three months? The whole reason of ditching windows was to get away from reinstalling, DLL hell, and system instabilities. So we've made things better by replacing these 'problems' with reinstalling, RPM hell, and system instabilities.
That's not progress!
Progress is something like Mac OS X: build a system that is MORE usable, and MORE feature-rich than the competitor. Yet what people like you seem to miss, is that Linux is not about building a "better" system! Linux is about building a system that is "free" in Stallman and Linus's definition of the word. If that is what you want, than Linux is a great choice. If you want a "better" end-user OS than Windows, then you're going to need to compromise some of the principles on which Linux is based. Take your pick, because these goals are mutually exclusive.
Bah! You young'uns no nothing about gaming! In my day Id software was synonymous with Commander Keen and we liked it that way! No fancy, shmancy three-dee thingymabobs! No siree! We had 2D platform scrollers about toddlers who saved the galaxy after bedtime! That was a *real* in-game storyline! No B.S. about a "Space Marine" saving the moons of Mars. What the heck is a "Space Marine" anyway? Bah, you kids. No imagination, none at all.
...makes it sound like they're talking about the long-forgotten Hollywood deal that would have made Doom into a blockbuster movie. Of course, like many game related movies, it went nowhere. In fact, the plans were changed to a "Quake Movie" after several years of negotiations. That also went nowhere.
;)
My guess is that the only reason why Tomb Raider was made into a (bad) movie, was because the opportunity for *cough* "eye candy" was so much higher. Not that it mattered in the end. Jolie was nothing like the Lara Croft we were expecting. They might as well have made a Doom movie with a grunt in a push-up bra!
Doh! See what muscle memory does to a person? You intend to type one word, but a similar word that you're more used to spelling comes out.
It's just like Nuclear Fusion. In 1950, nuclear fusion plants were "only 20 years away". Then in 1970, they were "only 20 years away". In 1990, they were "only 20 years away". Today, the most advanced fusion reactor ever will power up a set of Terrawatt lasers (don't wow too much, they only fire about one terrajoule a piece) in less than 10 years. And because of this, nuclear fission is only 20 years away. *sigh*
According to this link, it seems that a "deep cut" engraving can be made in marble with about 10-50W. They do also say that using a laser for regular cutting of marble is highly impractical. (I assume for many of the reasons other posters have pointed out.) :-)
Someone give this man some mod points. That was what I wanted to know. Thanks! :-)
It seems that Laser Engraving equipment does exist and can cut Marble without problem. Why would a laser need to perform a plunge cut? (Not that there aren't reasons, I just don't know them.)
Does anyone know why they use a diamond tipped cutter instead of a laser cutter? Does the laser simply slice too far, too fast? Or is the diamond cutter really that much more efficient?
No, it doesn't. That's the problem.
You too? Is it really as portable as they say, or is it just a fancy name for a low profile PC? I can't say I've tried throwing it through a window though. It seems a bit expensive for that.
There's no reason why you couldn't use a PNG for a photograph, it's just that most people avoid them because they're so large in comparison to a JPG. Originals are usually kept in an editor format like PSD or XCF.
Full Alpha, or just transparency? I'd be happy with just transparent regions. I'm in no rush to play with translucencies.
GIFs are great for animations, but I really do prefer PNGs at this point. While it really isn't that big of a deal, PNGs are simply smaller and look better. If we could just get Microsoft to fix Internet Explorer, we'd have a new defacto standard for all non-photographic images.
At the very least, it should be obvious that the photos were taken in a near-vacuum. They're simply TOO clear to have been taken in an atmosphere. No distortion, no dust, no diffusion. Just a large light source shining down on some of the clearest images ever seen by man.
...this is pretty much the type of research a computer scientist does. So if you're thinking of going for your PHD in CompSci, just consider for a moment whether you REALLY want to be combining the math of CompSci, with the Molecular Biology of cow guts.
I caught the joke. My response was a joke in of itself. Thus the '=D' super smily. :-)
Agreed. I was originally just looking at the Pad2Pad stuff. The eMachineShop has all kinds of possibilities. For example, my wife is very good at drawing horses. To date, she's just been burning the images into "craft" wood pieces. With eMachineShop, she could draw up a laser etched, aluminum work-of-art and have it inexpensively cut on a (very expensive) laser cutter!
And think of all the money I could make by selling tourists some sort of Injection Molded trinket! I'd be rich! BWHAHAHA! Erm... ok, I'm getting a little carried away here. Seriously, though. How many zoos and museums make a killing off of those 2 dollar injection molding machines? People love the little animals or dinosaurs they get out of them.