If it can ruin mutually assured destruction, some countries might try to prevent mass deployment of it by a preemptive strike. Although I admit that this is very unlikely.
Interesting, but I don't think this would happen, as neutrinos don't have charge. The Cherenkov radiation is an electromagnetic effect, so it does not work on neutrinos.
Exactly, the European countries (mind you, not the same as the EU) have many problems with free speech, and I think this move is mostly motivated by the fear that the US is using its ownership of the majority of the Internet infrastructure to enforce its own economical goals.
The Russians would still win WW2 without US help. But yeah, that would mean all of Europe except Britain would fall to communism. The problem is, someone will always rule the world, and if we have to choose between Russia, China and the USA, the Americans are still the best. There were plans about a paneuropean military alliance but I don't think that will happen in the foreseeable future.
"For example, it is necessary that each reactor has at least one protected independent diesel generator positioned out of the way which does not fail even in case of an extremely violent earthquake," he said.
"All reactors have to survive much more violent events than what they were built to resist," he added, citing as possible examples an earthquake that destroys the southern city of Nice or the collapse of all dams at once, triggering massive floods.
These events are very unlikely to happen. The plants are perfectly safe.
Even if they had everything needed researched and designed so they could start immedietly, getting that much stuff to the Moon would still require at least 50 years and cost much morte they claim it would. This is a scam to collect funding.
Libya made a huge mistake for example, so did Iraq.
Yeah because it would have been great if one side had access to nuclear weapons in those civil wars wouldn't it? With smaller undemocratic countries the chances of nukes getting into the hands of some crazy rogue dictator is huge. Just look at all the suicide bombers, there are many people who don't care about death. If every country had nukes there would at least one dumb enough to use them.
Slashdot Mirror
If it can ruin mutually assured destruction, some countries might try to prevent mass deployment of it by a preemptive strike. Although I admit that this is very unlikely.
Sorry, I tought it was a synonim of beetle.
Well the neutrons did arrive a few hours earlier in than the light from 1987a, so it does not have to be an exact match.
Interesting, but I don't think this would happen, as neutrinos don't have charge. The Cherenkov radiation is an electromagnetic effect, so it does not work on neutrinos.
Oh, sorry then, that does require general relativity.
If anyone notices bad behavior, there is no need for additional monitoring. But if noone notices it, there is no harm done. What's the point?
But I remain sceptical until an independent experiment ran by another team confirms it.
That objects can't travel faster than light is in special relativity, which does not contradict quantum mechanics.
OPERA measures muon neutrinos, not electron neutrinos. It's possible that only one kind travels faster than light.
Not a parasite bug but a bacteria. The human body is not a piece of software to call every problem a bug.
Exactly, the European countries (mind you, not the same as the EU) have many problems with free speech, and I think this move is mostly motivated by the fear that the US is using its ownership of the majority of the Internet infrastructure to enforce its own economical goals.
The Russians would still win WW2 without US help. But yeah, that would mean all of Europe except Britain would fall to communism. The problem is, someone will always rule the world, and if we have to choose between Russia, China and the USA, the Americans are still the best. There were plans about a paneuropean military alliance but I don't think that will happen in the foreseeable future.
is Lines Of Code, obviously.
These events are very unlikely to happen. The plants are perfectly safe.
We already have that. For example, whenever a bank modifies the contract they have to send a letter detailing the modifications.
In my country EULAs are not allowed to contain "unusual" (I'm not sure hot that is defined) parts.
Even if they had everything needed researched and designed so they could start immedietly, getting that much stuff to the Moon would still require at least 50 years and cost much morte they claim it would. This is a scam to collect funding.
Battleships kill soldiers, nukes kill civilians, and millions of them. BIG difference.
To be honest, Russian nuclear technology is also based on the US one.
For deterrence to work, they had to be used at least once.
Yeah, building the bomb is easy, but building a rocket to carry it is much harder.
would make the world a more honest place or would unmake the world
The second.
Libya made a huge mistake for example, so did Iraq.
Yeah because it would have been great if one side had access to nuclear weapons in those civil wars wouldn't it? With smaller undemocratic countries the chances of nukes getting into the hands of some crazy rogue dictator is huge. Just look at all the suicide bombers, there are many people who don't care about death. If every country had nukes there would at least one dumb enough to use them.
You don't sell a copy but lease a copyright licence. Copyright is a legal thing mostly independent of the physical format.
Steganography is tech which while I admire, I hope that I will never need to use. Sadly, the world seems to be going the other way.