What happens if some geologist of the future unknowingly takes a core sample in just the wrong place, to name just one of many not entirely unlikely scenarios.
I have a question. Where did the nuclear fuel come from? Can't we just put the nuclear waste back where the nuclear fuel came from? Like, maybe IN THE GROUND?!
Geologists go around claiming that the Earth's core is molten because of all the radioactive materials heating Earth. That stuff was there all this time. In fact, there are places on Earth where natural events have created natural nuclear reactors, which burned for thousands of years.
"If a canister holding either a whole fuel assembly or solidified waste should disintegrate, even soon after its emplacement in a repository, there is good reason to believe that the fission products and TRU nuclides would not diffuse far into the environment. Strong support for this contention is furnished by what has become known as the _Oklo phenomenon_. Oklo is the name of a uranium mine in the African nation of Gabon, where France obtains much of the uranium for her nuclear program. When uranium from this mine was introduced into a French gaseous diffusion plant, it was discovered that the feed uranium was already depleted below the 0.711 w% of ordinary natural uranium. It was as if the uranium had already been used to fuel some unknown reactor."
Earth is naturally radioactive! You people are acting as if the world never saw radioactivity before science magically produced it. Do you think it would be healthy growing up in a pitchblend pit?
- a 30-foot free fall onto an unyielding surface, landing on the cask's weakest point, which would be equivalent to a crash at 120 miles per hour into a concrete bridge abutment;
> A 30 foot free fall is less than 40mph, this is nonsense.
I calculate it is about 21 mph just before impact. However, you are neglecting the point that velocity doesn't cause the damage; the damage is caused by the impact forces, aka deceleration. The more sudden the deceleration, the more damage the impact will cause. A 100 mph impact into a giant air mattress will cause very little damage--human stuntmen make such impacts on a regular basis. A 15 mph impact into a steel wall can seriously hurt or kill a human. So, it isn't the speed that matters, but the rate of acceleration (or deceleration) that matters.
When DOE says that the 30-foot drop *is equivalent to* a 120 mph crash into a concrete pillar, they aren't referring to velocity, but to deceleration. It doesn't matter what the speed of the container was before impact; it only matters what acceleration forces it experienced at impact.
- a puncture test, during which the container must fall 40 inches onto a steel rod six inches in diameter;
> This really isn't any big deal compared to a heavy armour-piercing round is it?
Of course you can buy those from just any Wal-Mart, right? I don't think so.
The casks they use for transport are stronger than a main battle tank.
> Anti-tank rounds anyone?
What are you going to do? Pick up the round with your bare hands and slam it into the side of the container with your brute strength? That's assuming you actually got a live round in the first place.
Here's a scenario: You get a tank from someplace, a tank with a working main gun. You drive this tank up by the freeway without being noticed. Then, when the shipping container comes by, you take careful aim and shoot. Your aim is good, your shot punctures the side of the container. There is a spill of radioactive material. The freeway is shut down. The world panics, and everyone commits suicide. The end.
Is that how your story works?
> Your comment just convinces me that a terrorist with access to the right heavy weapons could take out one of these casks rather easily.
Anti-aircraft rounds can put a hole in the side of the shipping containers. However, such rounds would result in the release of a quantity of radioactive material the size of a man's thumbnail.
Nothing can ever be made absolutely foolproof. However, there is such a thing as reasonable risk, just as there is such a thing as obstructionism and fear-mongering. This waste needs to be buried, and this is the best solution to achieving that task. The risk is reasonable. It's the anti-nuke crowd that isn't.
(Number of post attempts before this message posts: 1)
The waste needs to be stored on-site at nuclear plants and we need to find ways to recycle the waste further -- things like breeder reactors and reprocessing.
The industry and government made a major effort to install breeder reactors 30 years ago, but the anti-nuclear lobby killed it in the '70s. I remember it well, as I remember my strong disappointment when the anti-nuke crowd succeeded.
While the waste is transported to Yucca from nuclear power stations, it will pass within 2 miles of 90% of the US population -- it will be in your backyard too.
Small amounts at a time, and they can be moved as necessary.
The Feds have lied about a number of key facts.
I doubt that, but the anti-nuke segment certainly has.
The government claims that the area is a seismic (sp?) dead zone.
What do you think that means?
Yet there was an earthquake at Yucca mountain about a month ago
That's what I thought; you don't know much about seismic activity.
There is no such thing as a region of Earth that doesn't have some seismic wave (aka "earthquake") go through it at some point. The important question to ask is, "How powerful is the seismic wave?" How much energy and destructive force does the seismic wave contain?
There is also a possibilty that any waste that leaks from the mountain will contaminate an aquifer which provides water to millions.
The waste is all solid. It isn't going to leak anywhere, even if the canisters were ruptured. There also hasn't been any water leak through the area in a very long time.
No matter how you put it, Yucca mountain is a bad deal for everyone.
Yucca Mountain is the best option.
(Number of submission attempts before this message posted: 1)
A single mid-sized moving van took out the federal building in Oklahoma. I think something similar could be done to take out a transport truck.
The truck isn't the issue; the issue is the cargo container that is loaded on the truck. Yes, the explosion could destroy the truck. I don't believe that anyone could make a car bomb large enough to rupture the cargo container; a large blast is more likely to throw the container than rupture it. The federal building, on the other hand, was anchored to the ground, so a strong blast to its support columns collapsed the front half of the building.
These containers are not flimsy structures. They are made of double-walled stainless steel, with a wall of lead in between the two steel walls. They are much stronger and tougher than a concrete building.
(Unrelated note: I'm sure sick of Slashdot failing to post my comments. It keeps giving me a "Page Cannot be Displayed Error Message." If I simply paste and repost, it complains that not enough time has passed since I clicked, "Submit." It won't take my bug complaints. It has no contact information, so the only way I can notify anyone that Slashdot's engine is messing up is to put it in comments. It took me 4 attempts to get this message to post.)
Yes, they confused resistance with dilectric value. The phenomenon described is the the slowing of propogation of signals in a wire surrounded by a material of high dilectric constant.
"WITH many companies struggling to integrate low-k dielectrics, STMicroelectronics researchers claim to have succeeded in reducing the dielectric constant (k) of silicon dioxide, the traditional CMOS dielectric, using air holes. Low k values translate into higher signal propagation speeds. Using air as part of the dielectric is not a new idea, but the difficulty has been producing an interlayer dielectric with sufficient mechanical strength, reliability and uniformity.
"The ST team integrated an SiO[subscript2] air-gap material into a dual-damascene copper process. The dielectric constant was measured at less than 1.7. The researchers say there are no issues with current leakage, electrical resistance or electromigration of the copper. The team is looking for implementation at sub-130nm.
Fig.A (above left) is a cross-section of a three-level copper/air-gap architecture with a 640nm line spacing. Fig.B (above right) shows that the deposited oxide at the top of the image is planar to within 60nm above the voids."
"Dielectric constant is not an easy property to measure or to specify, because it depends not only on the intrinsic properties of the material itself, but also on the test method, the test frequency and the conditioning of samples before and during the test. Dielectric constant tends to shift with temperature.
Perhaps most importantly, Emmanuel lacks the funds (I assume) to take a case to the Supreme Court. Such things involve a tremendous amount of money.
I know a group that spent over $100k over several years getting a case to the US Supreme Court. I don't know how much it cost once actually at the Court's front door, but I do know that it takes a while to pay off past debt.
For those that haven't heard of 2600 Magazine, I recommend that you check it out. I've subscribed since the early '90s, though it's been published continuously (every quarter) for over a decade now.
2600 is the same group that showed (and many members used) techniques to make free phone calls and hack into corporate networks. I also had a friend who was closely associated with 2600, because (he said) they were the only people with the guts actually to do the stuff they talk about (though he complained that the local group was a bunch of wimpy children). His idea of fun was taking over the computer of some university student writing out his term paper and making random edits to the paper as the student typed it. He also showed me lists used by 2600 (and others) targeting people for harassment, listing their phone numbers and specific things to say or do to annoy them, and why.
My points in mentioning all this is:
1) It is completely against the spirit of 2600 to pay for information, so no one should ever subscribe to their magazine. Instead, to keep with the spirit of 2600, interested parties should make illegal copies of 2600 magazine, and really clever techniques should be published.
2) 2600 demonstrates that many computer-adept individuals are anti-social hoodlums deserving of the contempt of the general public, to say nothing of arrest and imprisonment. I liken them to Whole Earth's "Monkeywrench Gang" and other local terrorists and hell-raisers.
Whether you want to support 2600's legal work or you'd simply like to keep current on hacker news and culture, I recommend that you subscribe.
I can always appreciate a fine hack, even if I think the hacker should be shot.
Given the comments in the article, it should be obvious what Microsoft is doing at a Linux expo. In fact, this would make a great geek comedy. Every MS comment quoted by "LinuxToday" is heavy with double intender.
"The audience that attends this show is very important to us" == "and we would like them back in our matrix"
"we have some great products to show" == "especially the mind-reading prop from 'Batman' and various hypnotic tools"
"We have learned a lot at these events," == "as wise men say, 'know thy enemy'"
"These forums are a great way to establish a dialog." == "These forums give us another chance to tell you how wrong you are for leaving."
"I'm expecting good things to come out of this," == "Microsoft market share should increase at the expense of Linux and we might even discover that fatal flaw in Linux that we've needed to exploit."
"It's about that first step in a broader dialog [with the Linux community] and showing our customers some of the great things in our embedded products." == "I'm like a prostitute in front of a convent."
The bottom line is, MS is only going to LWE to subvert the conference, not to become a supporter of the community. It would be appropriate if their booth were shaped like a giant horse.
Each of 48 trains would produce 2.1 MW of electricity, for a total of 100.8 Megawatts, for 1000 hours a year, amounts to 100.8 Gigawatt-hours a year.
The State of California in 2001 produced 265059 Gigawatt-hours, or almost 3000 times more electric power than these trains are supposed to produce. Even solar energy contributes more to California; 638 GW-hours!
But could'nt ford just as easily (and cheaply) put a little script in their page that checked for the refering web page?
So, if someone represents me in public as saying something about another person, you think that *I'm* at fault if I don't correct the misperception the way you think I should? It's not enough for you that 2600 is making Ford look cheap and underhanded against GM; you have to complain that Ford didn't resolve its complaint the way *you* want, rather than the way the law allows.
So, what happens if 1000 of these dummy sites pop up? Is Ford supposed to simply and quietly edit its script each time someone comes up with another stupid trick? Do you think that's the reason that people hire network administrators?
Some kid throws mud on your window. You can wipe it off easily and cheaply. But, why should that kid be allowed to throw mud on your window? Wouldn't you talk to the responsible person to make sure the kid stops throwing mud on your window? Only, at 2600, there are no responsible people; they are a bunch of criminals.
But what were they going to bitch about? Anything in particular? I guess that's what I am curious about. Is it anything significant, or is it just another excuse to bitch?
If you have to ask "why," you aren't 2600 material.
No one likes having words put into their mouths. In essence, this is what 2600 is doing by pointing their registered domain name at unsuspecting sites. They may think it's funny, but what would Ford think if GM sued them?
2600 argues that "no one in their right mind" would simply assume that Ford would put up such a domain name. They argue that "anyone in their right mind" would do a "whois" search to find out if Ford really put up the domain. Well, that's great that 2600 feels that comfortable with network technology. It's horrid that they have spent so much time in a small room together that they have forgotten that some people in this world have never heard of a "whois" search.
2600 has proven once again that they are a bunch of arogant punks.
<p.
BTW, don't ever buy a copy of their magazine; you would taint their philosophy. If you are a true 2600 sort of person, you have to find some way to make illegal copies of 2600 magazine. It's up to you if your solution is economically feasible.
The submission comments on this article make it sound like someone is still dazzled by the concept of hooking a refrigerator to the Internet. Ever since Electrolux introduced its Internet refrigerator in 1999, there have been several stories about the concept:
"Consider a future where all appliances with power cords can be networked using universal plug and play including:
A customer called an auto dealership to complain of a problem with his new car. The salesman said, "You have the simplest car ever devised. A single knob controls the ignition, the steering and all the other functions. What problem could you possibly have?" The customer said, "I lost the knob."
"Ananova" is a "news of the weird" site, not a science site. The "Telegraph" is also attempting to sensationalize the story. However, the story at "Ananova" is essentially the same story that I read a few days ago. I don't remember the source of the story I read--probably the "Dallas Morning News"--and I can't find any links to the story on the Web. However, here is a brief blurb about the researcher at SMU:
"Teplitz" "over the past three years has collaborated with Olness, Rosenbaum, Scalise, Stroynowski, Vega, two graduate students, and an undergraduate student, within the Department, and, outside the Department, with workers from SMU geology, JPL, William and Mary, Virginia Tech, the University of Texas, MSU, Maryland, Tel Aviv, Southwest Research Institute, and Oklahoma. His work, in this period, falls in three categories: exotic matter (6 papers); other particle physics (4 papers); and solar system physics (2 papers). Recent work of note includes: explaining the MACHO events with mirror matter; detailing possible searches for SIMPs - new neutral, stable, strongly interacting massive particles (on the basis of which an accelerator mass spectrometry experiment is underway at Purdue); searching for seismic evidence of ton-sized nuggets (about the dimensions of a red blood cell) of strange quark matter passing through the Earth; and computing finite density corrections to energy loss into Kaluza-Klein modes in astrophysical plasmas."
It is odd that Google can't find half these articles (that Altavista can), and Altavista can't find the other half (that Google can). I'm a bit surprised and not very happy that a major news story that I saw in print is not showing in either search engine.
photons don't encounter things like electrical resistance
One may not have to worry about electrical resistance in a photonic circuit, but one must still be concerned with optical absorption. Some of the photons that are absorbed in the chip end up heating the chip.
(I vaguely recall that some of the other absorbed photons wouldn't necessarily heat the chip, but would, instead, give rise to other products, like phonons, which themselves may or may not heat the chip.)
Scanning a laser across a 12 inch wafer will never be cheaper than doing it by lithography.
The laser doesn't have to scan across the wafer; one may use the same masking process used in lithography. The difference between conventional lithography and the new technique is that the new technique can complete the entire waveguide in one step, simply by exposing the polymer to laser light. The old lithographic technique required a step to build the waveguide and several more steps to build the reflectors, besides any other components (such as lenses) that might be in the waveguide.
I wonder if technology like this could take the mechanics out of something like DLP. Or perhaps, on a further refinement, this technology could supercede the entire concept of things like galvanometers in things like laser shows.
DLP is a completely different application, on a vastly different physical scale of application. Whereas, in DLP, the object is to project a beam of light onto a screen several meters distant for viewing by people, the integrated light guides are guiding light through paths that are less than a millimeter long, on static routes. There really isn't any interchangeability between these applications.
The site to which you linked refers to a completely different subject, that of interconnecting between discrete devices. The subject of the original article is interconnection within a single, monolithic chip. One of the points of the original article is that the new technology can also make tighter turns than regular optical fibers.
When I was in high school, my 1984 Science Fair project was on optical computers. My presentation was based on a rectangular cell in which tiny bubbles reflected light along the parameter of the 2-D rectangle. Changes in the dimensions of the cell result in changes in the interference of the light, which represented data.
Eventually, I figured out that the bubbles don't have to be a discrete substance. It should be possible to use changes in density in the substrate as if they were bubbles. The changes in density would be produced by interference waves, sort of a dynamic hologram. Indeed, my optical computer would ideally have been an analog computer based on dynamic holograms.
One of the points made in the textbook of the last Speech class I took is that, "More communication does not always mean greater cooperation." I took that class in 1995, and, even then, I considered the idea long-overdue. I had been frustrated for a few years at the nonsense Liberals were spouting that the more we talk to each other, the more we will understand and respect each other. I hope that now someone will realize that the World Wide Web is not going to unleash the hidden paradise that dwells within all men.
As we saw with Intel just a few years ago, the big monopoly CAN be taken down. If there is a better product (ie Linux) at a better price, it can take over the market. I don't have to remind you of which processor has the best performance right now.
Normally, I wouldn't repeat what many others have said, but your comment is too egregious not to pummel you with the fact; neither Intel nor Microsoft have been "taken down."
There is a vicious untrue myth held by many Americans that market dominance is related to product superiority. Supposedly, the best products will be the most successful in the marketplace. People base important decisions on this untrue myth, even though they must know it is not true. The computer world is especially littered by superior products that were market failures. One of the hazards of a monopoly is that it can destroy the marketability of a superior product.
I am driven to hunt down the marketing myth and kill it, wherever I find it. Rush Limbaugh loves to justify the actions of a company on the basis of the myth. I hear it spilling from the mouths of otherwise sensible people. Maybe it is wishful thinking? Is it the old idea that if one builds a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to their door? Ask any inventor--and I mean, ANY inventor, even those who work at a monopoly--how many people beat a path to their door when they invent a better product. It doesn't happen, folks. It has never happened. The world does not care a bit if you have created a better product; they world only cares about the product that is in front of their noses. The hardest part about inventing is not the inventing; its selling the invention. It does not matter if the invention is superior or not; superiority does not guarantee success!
I think there's a valid analogy to Microsoft. If MS stops keeping their customers happy, there are plenty of potential competitors who will try to eat their lunch.
Microsoft cannot *keep* its customers happy, because most of Microsoft's customers are not happy initially. What Microsoft does is keep its customers 1) from seeing any alternatives and 2) keeping their customers from becoming too unhappy.
I do not use Windows because I am happy using Windows; I am using Windows because it is difficult *not* to use Windows. I have several versions of Linux, but it is difficult for me to use them to do what I want to do. I've managed, for example, to get SuSE Linux 7.2 to connect to the Web using my ISP's PPPoE connection, but, for reasons completely beyond my understanding, my connection expires literally every minute. I cannot maintain a Linux connection to the Internet for more than 1 minute at a time. No one can (or did, when I asked on Usenet) tell me why this is so. The most important point, though, is the reason I bought SuSE Linux in the first place is that I was so angry at Windows crashing that I vowed I would find an alternative, no matter what it took.
Do you enjoy Windows crashing? Hmmm...? Do you think it is an accident that Microsoft advertised Windows 2000 as being much more crash-resistent than Windows 98? Do you think that people were happy for the last decade with an OS that kept crashing? Or, do you deny that Windows has been prone to crash until Windows 2000? Who is living in the dream world; you or me?
They are successful because they mostly keep their customers happy and mostly produce good products. And before you start flaming me about the previous sentence, remember that Microsoft's customers are Joe Six pack and the PHB's not geeks who read slashdot.
Joe Six pack is happy using Microsoft the same way that Russians were happy in Soviet Russia. They are happy they can use a computer at all; they don't know how much Microsoft is to blame for their computer being faulty, never mind less-than ideal. I've met some people who claim they are happy using Windows; mostly system administrators or VB programmers. The average user is not happy using a computer in the first place (and some are most unhappy). Considering the pervasiveness of Windows, to be unhappy using a PC is to be unhappy with Windows. Don't tell me that *you* are never unhappy using Windows?
Now, Microsoft has decided to add *security* to Windows. What a genius! Wow, I'm *so* glad that Bill Gates realized that an OS needs to be secure! Lucky for us, he caught that issue before it became a problem! I mean, it's not like people go around all the time compromising the vulnerabilities in Windows programs, right? It's not like anyone had ever complained about Windows software vulnerabilities, right? Clearly, Microsoft's monopoly of the PC OS has been a good thing, because now, after Bill Gates finally recognized the problem (to his bottom line), his company will start making the one true secure OS that we all will need. We don't have it now because we don't need it now, you see; if we needed it now, Microsoft would be selling it, now. And, as you have pointed out, Microsoft's customers are happy with Windows that is insecure. See how the open market always knows best?
Don't try to insult my intelligence by telling me that Microsoft's monopoly has not hurt the average computer user, and I won't be so inclined to insult your intelligence.
I found a link to the Baen Free Library through Slashdot. I appreciate your efforts to offer some books free, but I disagree with some of your analysis.
I felt prompted to write to you when I read your statement, "piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable." I disagree with your statement for two reasons; my model of human nature and my observation of pirating activity.
1) Humans naturally take what they desire, without consideration for repaying the source. If the general public were free to pick an apple off a tree, would they naturally attempt to compensate the tree? No; compensation is so unnatural that some people make a career out of compensating apple trees! People eventually learn that by offering compensation, they are more likely to get what they desire, and they learn that if no one compensates a supply, the supply eventually dwindles, and may cease to exist. However, that is a learned behavior.
2) I have several friends (and the number is increasing) who pirate movies. I know of more than one person who downloads a half-dozen movies every night. They spend a lot of money buying CD blanks, and CD labels, and computer equipment. Every so often, they also buy a movie (whether they happen to have pirated that particular title or not). The weird thing (to me) is that they don't watch any of the movies they pirate. They appear to regard it as a kind of currency, which they hoard. One man takes pleasure in being able to offer these movies to anyone who wants to see them; as it happens, he is slightly lacking in the social skills and activities of his age group. Indeed, the exchange of pirated movies is serving an important social bonding function. They don't care what the price is of the movies; they don't even check what the price is of the movies. They simply go through the list of movies on the file-share and download the titles with interesting names.
I'm sure there are many motivations for pirating, but they all boil down to the inherent self-centered nature of humans. Compensating a source is a learned behavior. If people buy goods that are also offered free of charge, their doing so is most likely the result of training (the only other alternative that I would allow is that they are mentally disturbed).
There is an important branch at this point. The Baen Free Library is not actually offering a product free that is identical to the product they are selling. There is a material difference between an e-copy and a paper copy. I find an e-copy to be most useful for performing searches and quotes, but a paper copy is much more gratifying, easier to read and more easily quantifiable. Quality sells, and not just the quality of the story.
BTW, I am aware that in a free market system, the seller tends to sell at whatever price the market will bear. There are calculations that optimize price for sales volume or for income. Business don't usually simply charge for the cost of the materials used in production, nor even for mere normal living expenses. Most businesses in the United States attempt to increase their material value, which comes at the expense of the customer. There are many, many ways that a business may pursue increasing its value. As I see it, the severe restrictions being pursued against piracy by businesses are for the purpose of assuring shareholders that there are no unaccountable material losses. Some businesses would rather lose revenue stream than offer a free sample, particularly a free sample that they did not authorize. Also, businesses are operated by people, and the same forces that lead to piracy from consumers are at work in businessmen. Many businesses would use free labor and sell expensive goods if they could make that work. Again, training is necessary to offset inherent human greed. In the interest of maintaining markets, laws and legal enforcement are needed when training is insufficient.
... there were people who had a philosophy that stated that proof required evidence. They believed that valid conclusions could only come from good data and good reasoning. They even labeled conclusions based on lack of evidence as a logical fallacy. These people were scientists and logicians
One day, evil men entered the valley where the scientists and logicians worked. The evil men said that all life sprang from physical effects that we see and can replicate today. Even though no one had ever seen non-life become life without the intervention of life, people wanted to believe the evil men. So, the scientists and logicians looked the other way as the evil men perverted the principles on which the former had stood.
Soon, people began to believe that life is inevitable everywhere in the Universe, even though no one had ever seen any life anywhere else. They made up formulas to estimate many things they had never seen, logically derived from the implications of the lies the evil men had spread earlier. As a result, powerful movements arose that were based on the belief that life must commonly exist throughout the Universe. The End.
There are several reasons that it is difficult to calculate the amount of life beyond Earth. The most important is that no one has ever demonstrated a workable process that will produce independent life forms. Ever. Not even Fox, with his organic soap bubbles. In fact, no one has even the ghost of an idea what it would take to produce life from non-life without the intervention of life. So, any theory that attempts to base an argument favoring abundant life is based on extreme, baseless imagination. We would normally call such people, "fools"; instead, we call them, "evolutionary biologists."
The second reason that it is so difficult to estimate the likely for life beyond Earth is that the few facts we know about life chemistry result in calculations that show that abiogenesis is practically impossible. Even a single incidence of abiogenesis in a trillion years is virtually impossible, based on what is known. But, many people don't want to believe such results, and so, they don't. We normally call such people, "fools." In this case, we have several names for them, including "SETI researchers."
Don't get upset with me; either produce a specific, observable and repeatable example of abiogenesis, or live with the title of "fool."
Slashdot Mirror
I have a question. Where did the nuclear fuel come from? Can't we just put the nuclear waste back where the nuclear fuel came from? Like, maybe IN THE GROUND?!
Geologists go around claiming that the Earth's core is molten because of all the radioactive materials heating Earth. That stuff was there all this time. In fact, there are places on Earth where natural events have created natural nuclear reactors, which burned for thousands of years.
"If a canister holding either a whole fuel assembly or solidified waste should disintegrate, even soon after its emplacement in a repository, there is good reason to believe that the fission products and TRU nuclides would not diffuse far into the environment. Strong support for this contention is furnished by what has become known as the _Oklo phenomenon_. Oklo is the name of a uranium mine in the African nation of Gabon, where France obtains much of the uranium for her nuclear program. When uranium from this mine was introduced into a French gaseous diffusion plant, it was discovered that the feed uranium was already depleted below the 0.711 w% of ordinary natural uranium. It was as if the uranium had already been used to fuel some unknown reactor."
http://nova.nuc.umr.edu/~ans/oklo.html
Earth is naturally radioactive! You people are acting as if the world never saw radioactivity before science magically produced it. Do you think it would be healthy growing up in a pitchblend pit?
> A 30 foot free fall is less than 40mph, this is nonsense. I calculate it is about 21 mph just before impact. However, you are neglecting the point that velocity doesn't cause the damage; the damage is caused by the impact forces, aka deceleration. The more sudden the deceleration, the more damage the impact will cause. A 100 mph impact into a giant air mattress will cause very little damage--human stuntmen make such impacts on a regular basis. A 15 mph impact into a steel wall can seriously hurt or kill a human. So, it isn't the speed that matters, but the rate of acceleration (or deceleration) that matters.
When DOE says that the 30-foot drop *is equivalent to* a 120 mph crash into a concrete pillar, they aren't referring to velocity, but to deceleration. It doesn't matter what the speed of the container was before impact; it only matters what acceleration forces it experienced at impact.
- a puncture test, during which the container must fall 40 inches onto a steel rod six inches in diameter;
> This really isn't any big deal compared to a heavy armour-piercing round is it?
Of course you can buy those from just any Wal-Mart, right? I don't think so.
The casks they use for transport are stronger than a main battle tank.
> Anti-tank rounds anyone?
What are you going to do? Pick up the round with your bare hands and slam it into the side of the container with your brute strength? That's assuming you actually got a live round in the first place.
Here's a scenario: You get a tank from someplace, a tank with a working main gun. You drive this tank up by the freeway without being noticed. Then, when the shipping container comes by, you take careful aim and shoot. Your aim is good, your shot punctures the side of the container. There is a spill of radioactive material. The freeway is shut down. The world panics, and everyone commits suicide. The end.
Is that how your story works?
> Your comment just convinces me that a terrorist with access to the right heavy weapons could take out one of these casks rather easily.
Anti-aircraft rounds can put a hole in the side of the shipping containers. However, such rounds would result in the release of a quantity of radioactive material the size of a man's thumbnail.
Nothing can ever be made absolutely foolproof. However, there is such a thing as reasonable risk, just as there is such a thing as obstructionism and fear-mongering. This waste needs to be buried, and this is the best solution to achieving that task. The risk is reasonable. It's the anti-nuke crowd that isn't.
(Number of post attempts before this message posts: 1)
The industry and government made a major effort to install breeder reactors 30 years ago, but the anti-nuclear lobby killed it in the '70s. I remember it well, as I remember my strong disappointment when the anti-nuke crowd succeeded.
While the waste is transported to Yucca from nuclear power stations, it will pass within 2 miles of 90% of the US population -- it will be in your backyard too.
Small amounts at a time, and they can be moved as necessary.
The Feds have lied about a number of key facts.
I doubt that, but the anti-nuke segment certainly has.
The government claims that the area is a seismic (sp?) dead zone.
What do you think that means?
Yet there was an earthquake at Yucca mountain about a month ago
That's what I thought; you don't know much about seismic activity.
There is no such thing as a region of Earth that doesn't have some seismic wave (aka "earthquake") go through it at some point. The important question to ask is, "How powerful is the seismic wave?" How much energy and destructive force does the seismic wave contain?
Here is a map of all earthquakes of magnitude greater than 3.0 in Nevada's Southern Great Basin from 1978 to 2000. If you only want to see Year 2000's data, click here. Be sure to visit the Yucca Mountain Seismic Monitoring by the Nevada Seismological Laboratory Web page.
and a major fault line about 300 miles away.
Too far away to be significant.
There is also a possibilty that any waste that leaks from the mountain will contaminate an aquifer which provides water to millions.
The waste is all solid. It isn't going to leak anywhere, even if the canisters were ruptured. There also hasn't been any water leak through the area in a very long time.
No matter how you put it, Yucca mountain is a bad deal for everyone.
Yucca Mountain is the best option.
(Number of submission attempts before this message posted: 1)
The truck isn't the issue; the issue is the cargo container that is loaded on the truck. Yes, the explosion could destroy the truck. I don't believe that anyone could make a car bomb large enough to rupture the cargo container; a large blast is more likely to throw the container than rupture it. The federal building, on the other hand, was anchored to the ground, so a strong blast to its support columns collapsed the front half of the building.
These containers are not flimsy structures. They are made of double-walled stainless steel, with a wall of lead in between the two steel walls. They are much stronger and tougher than a concrete building.
(Unrelated note: I'm sure sick of Slashdot failing to post my comments. It keeps giving me a "Page Cannot be Displayed Error Message." If I simply paste and repost, it complains that not enough time has passed since I clicked, "Submit." It won't take my bug complaints. It has no contact information, so the only way I can notify anyone that Slashdot's engine is messing up is to put it in comments. It took me 4 attempts to get this message to post.)
No good lie is complete invention; the most effective lies contain all the truth the audience can easily understand.
Bald chicken 'needs no plucking'
Food of the Future: Fish Flesh Grown without the Fish
"WITH many companies struggling to integrate low-k dielectrics, STMicroelectronics researchers claim to have succeeded in reducing the dielectric constant (k) of silicon dioxide, the traditional CMOS dielectric, using air holes. Low k values translate into higher signal propagation speeds. Using air as part of the dielectric is not a new idea, but the difficulty has been producing an interlayer dielectric with sufficient mechanical strength, reliability and uniformity.
"The ST team integrated an SiO[subscript2] air-gap material into a dual-damascene copper process. The dielectric constant was measured at less than 1.7. The researchers say there are no issues with current leakage, electrical resistance or electromigration of the copper. The team is looking for implementation at sub-130nm. Fig.A (above left) is a cross-section of a three-level copper/air-gap architecture with a 640nm line spacing. Fig.B (above right) shows that the deposited oxide at the top of the image is planar to within 60nm above the voids."
Air-gap dielectric
"Dielectric constant is not an easy property to measure or to specify, because it depends not only on the intrinsic properties of the material itself, but also on the test method, the test frequency and the conditioning of samples before and during the test. Dielectric constant tends to shift with temperature.
What is Dielectric Constant
I know a group that spent over $100k over several years getting a case to the US Supreme Court. I don't know how much it cost once actually at the Court's front door, but I do know that it takes a while to pay off past debt.
For those that haven't heard of 2600 Magazine, I recommend that you check it out. I've subscribed since the early '90s, though it's been published continuously (every quarter) for over a decade now.
2600 is the same group that showed (and many members used) techniques to make free phone calls and hack into corporate networks. I also had a friend who was closely associated with 2600, because (he said) they were the only people with the guts actually to do the stuff they talk about (though he complained that the local group was a bunch of wimpy children). His idea of fun was taking over the computer of some university student writing out his term paper and making random edits to the paper as the student typed it. He also showed me lists used by 2600 (and others) targeting people for harassment, listing their phone numbers and specific things to say or do to annoy them, and why.
My points in mentioning all this is:
1) It is completely against the spirit of 2600 to pay for information, so no one should ever subscribe to their magazine. Instead, to keep with the spirit of 2600, interested parties should make illegal copies of 2600 magazine, and really clever techniques should be published.
2) 2600 demonstrates that many computer-adept individuals are anti-social hoodlums deserving of the contempt of the general public, to say nothing of arrest and imprisonment. I liken them to Whole Earth's "Monkeywrench Gang" and other local terrorists and hell-raisers.
Whether you want to support 2600's legal work or you'd simply like to keep current on hacker news and culture, I recommend that you subscribe.
I can always appreciate a fine hack, even if I think the hacker should be shot.
"The audience that attends this show is very important to us" == "and we would like them back in our matrix"
"we have some great products to show" == "especially the mind-reading prop from 'Batman' and various hypnotic tools"
"We have learned a lot at these events," == "as wise men say, 'know thy enemy'"
"These forums are a great way to establish a dialog." == "These forums give us another chance to tell you how wrong you are for leaving."
"I'm expecting good things to come out of this," == "Microsoft market share should increase at the expense of Linux and we might even discover that fatal flaw in Linux that we've needed to exploit."
"It's about that first step in a broader dialog [with the Linux community] and showing our customers some of the great things in our embedded products." == "I'm like a prostitute in front of a convent."
The bottom line is, MS is only going to LWE to subvert the conference, not to become a supporter of the community. It would be appropriate if their booth were shaped like a giant horse.
The State of California in 2001 produced 265059 Gigawatt-hours, or almost 3000 times more electric power than these trains are supposed to produce. Even solar energy contributes more to California; 638 GW-hours!
California Gross System Electricity Production for 2001
So, if someone represents me in public as saying something about another person, you think that *I'm* at fault if I don't correct the misperception the way you think I should? It's not enough for you that 2600 is making Ford look cheap and underhanded against GM; you have to complain that Ford didn't resolve its complaint the way *you* want, rather than the way the law allows.
So, what happens if 1000 of these dummy sites pop up? Is Ford supposed to simply and quietly edit its script each time someone comes up with another stupid trick? Do you think that's the reason that people hire network administrators?
Some kid throws mud on your window. You can wipe it off easily and cheaply. But, why should that kid be allowed to throw mud on your window? Wouldn't you talk to the responsible person to make sure the kid stops throwing mud on your window? Only, at 2600, there are no responsible people; they are a bunch of criminals.
If you have to ask "why," you aren't 2600 material.
2600 argues that "no one in their right mind" would simply assume that Ford would put up such a domain name. They argue that "anyone in their right mind" would do a "whois" search to find out if Ford really put up the domain. Well, that's great that 2600 feels that comfortable with network technology. It's horrid that they have spent so much time in a small room together that they have forgotten that some people in this world have never heard of a "whois" search.
2600 has proven once again that they are a bunch of arogant punks. <p. BTW, don't ever buy a copy of their magazine; you would taint their philosophy. If you are a true 2600 sort of person, you have to find some way to make illegal copies of 2600 magazine. It's up to you if your solution is economically feasible.
"Consider a future where all appliances with power cords can be networked using universal plug and play including:
computers
telephones
stereos
even refrigerators"
http://www.powerlinecommunications.net/smarthomes. htm
Nice diagram of the LG I-fridge as a "Residential Gateway":
http://www.slfp.com/011302BIZp.htm
"Internet Refrigerator"
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/may98/0121.html
"Can Your Refrigerator Surf?"0 . sp
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,14675,0
But, most of all, I want to point out the comments that my own company makes about *its* I-fridge:
"We created the first Internet refrigerator to show how the Internet will merge into our everyday lives", 00.html
http://au.fujitsu.com/FAL/CDA/Articles/0,1029,546
... of a joke I read about 15 years ago.
A customer called an auto dealership to complain of a problem with his new car. The salesman said, "You have the simplest car ever devised. A single knob controls the ignition, the steering and all the other functions. What problem could you possibly have?" The customer said, "I lost the knob."
"Ananova" is a "news of the weird" site, not a science site. The "Telegraph" is also attempting to sensationalize the story. However, the story at "Ananova" is essentially the same story that I read a few days ago. I don't remember the source of the story I read--probably the "Dallas Morning News"--and I can't find any links to the story on the Web. However, here is a brief blurb about the researcher at SMU:
h tm
"Teplitz"
"over the past three years has collaborated with Olness, Rosenbaum, Scalise, Stroynowski, Vega, two graduate students, and an undergraduate student, within the Department, and, outside the Department, with workers from SMU geology, JPL, William and Mary, Virginia Tech, the University of Texas, MSU, Maryland, Tel Aviv, Southwest Research Institute, and Oklahoma. His work, in this period, falls in three categories: exotic matter (6 papers); other particle physics (4 papers); and solar system physics (2 papers). Recent work of note includes: explaining the MACHO events with mirror matter; detailing possible searches for SIMPs - new neutral, stable, strongly interacting massive particles (on the basis of which an accelerator mass spectrometry experiment is underway at Purdue); searching for seismic evidence of ton-sized nuggets (about the dimensions of a red blood cell) of strange quark matter passing through the Earth; and computing finite density corrections to energy loss into Kaluza-Klein modes in astrophysical plasmas."
http://www.physics.smu.edu/~web/research/index.
It is odd that Google can't find half these articles (that Altavista can), and Altavista can't find the other half (that Google can). I'm a bit surprised and not very happy that a major news story that I saw in print is not showing in either search engine.
One may not have to worry about electrical resistance in a photonic circuit, but one must still be concerned with optical absorption. Some of the photons that are absorbed in the chip end up heating the chip.
(I vaguely recall that some of the other absorbed photons wouldn't necessarily heat the chip, but would, instead, give rise to other products, like phonons, which themselves may or may not heat the chip.)
The laser doesn't have to scan across the wafer; one may use the same masking process used in lithography. The difference between conventional lithography and the new technique is that the new technique can complete the entire waveguide in one step, simply by exposing the polymer to laser light. The old lithographic technique required a step to build the waveguide and several more steps to build the reflectors, besides any other components (such as lenses) that might be in the waveguide.
DLP is a completely different application, on a vastly different physical scale of application. Whereas, in DLP, the object is to project a beam of light onto a screen several meters distant for viewing by people, the integrated light guides are guiding light through paths that are less than a millimeter long, on static routes. There really isn't any interchangeability between these applications.
The site to which you linked refers to a completely different subject, that of interconnecting between discrete devices. The subject of the original article is interconnection within a single, monolithic chip. One of the points of the original article is that the new technology can also make tighter turns than regular optical fibers.
Eventually, I figured out that the bubbles don't have to be a discrete substance. It should be possible to use changes in density in the substrate as if they were bubbles. The changes in density would be produced by interference waves, sort of a dynamic hologram. Indeed, my optical computer would ideally have been an analog computer based on dynamic holograms.
Normally, I wouldn't repeat what many others have said, but your comment is too egregious not to pummel you with the fact; neither Intel nor Microsoft have been "taken down."
There is a vicious untrue myth held by many Americans that market dominance is related to product superiority. Supposedly, the best products will be the most successful in the marketplace. People base important decisions on this untrue myth, even though they must know it is not true. The computer world is especially littered by superior products that were market failures. One of the hazards of a monopoly is that it can destroy the marketability of a superior product.
I am driven to hunt down the marketing myth and kill it, wherever I find it. Rush Limbaugh loves to justify the actions of a company on the basis of the myth. I hear it spilling from the mouths of otherwise sensible people. Maybe it is wishful thinking? Is it the old idea that if one builds a better mousetrap, the world will beat a path to their door? Ask any inventor--and I mean, ANY inventor, even those who work at a monopoly--how many people beat a path to their door when they invent a better product. It doesn't happen, folks. It has never happened. The world does not care a bit if you have created a better product; they world only cares about the product that is in front of their noses. The hardest part about inventing is not the inventing; its selling the invention. It does not matter if the invention is superior or not; superiority does not guarantee success!
Microsoft cannot *keep* its customers happy, because most of Microsoft's customers are not happy initially. What Microsoft does is keep its customers 1) from seeing any alternatives and 2) keeping their customers from becoming too unhappy.
I do not use Windows because I am happy using Windows; I am using Windows because it is difficult *not* to use Windows. I have several versions of Linux, but it is difficult for me to use them to do what I want to do. I've managed, for example, to get SuSE Linux 7.2 to connect to the Web using my ISP's PPPoE connection, but, for reasons completely beyond my understanding, my connection expires literally every minute. I cannot maintain a Linux connection to the Internet for more than 1 minute at a time. No one can (or did, when I asked on Usenet) tell me why this is so. The most important point, though, is the reason I bought SuSE Linux in the first place is that I was so angry at Windows crashing that I vowed I would find an alternative, no matter what it took.
Do you enjoy Windows crashing? Hmmm...? Do you think it is an accident that Microsoft advertised Windows 2000 as being much more crash-resistent than Windows 98? Do you think that people were happy for the last decade with an OS that kept crashing? Or, do you deny that Windows has been prone to crash until Windows 2000? Who is living in the dream world; you or me?
They are successful because they mostly keep their customers happy and mostly produce good products. And before you start flaming me about the previous sentence, remember that Microsoft's customers are Joe Six pack and the PHB's not geeks who read slashdot.
Joe Six pack is happy using Microsoft the same way that Russians were happy in Soviet Russia. They are happy they can use a computer at all; they don't know how much Microsoft is to blame for their computer being faulty, never mind less-than ideal. I've met some people who claim they are happy using Windows; mostly system administrators or VB programmers. The average user is not happy using a computer in the first place (and some are most unhappy). Considering the pervasiveness of Windows, to be unhappy using a PC is to be unhappy with Windows. Don't tell me that *you* are never unhappy using Windows?
Now, Microsoft has decided to add *security* to Windows. What a genius! Wow, I'm *so* glad that Bill Gates realized that an OS needs to be secure! Lucky for us, he caught that issue before it became a problem! I mean, it's not like people go around all the time compromising the vulnerabilities in Windows programs, right? It's not like anyone had ever complained about Windows software vulnerabilities, right? Clearly, Microsoft's monopoly of the PC OS has been a good thing, because now, after Bill Gates finally recognized the problem (to his bottom line), his company will start making the one true secure OS that we all will need. We don't have it now because we don't need it now, you see; if we needed it now, Microsoft would be selling it, now. And, as you have pointed out, Microsoft's customers are happy with Windows that is insecure. See how the open market always knows best?
Don't try to insult my intelligence by telling me that Microsoft's monopoly has not hurt the average computer user, and I won't be so inclined to insult your intelligence.
Dear Sir:
I found a link to the Baen Free Library through Slashdot. I appreciate your efforts to offer some books free, but I disagree with some of your analysis.
I felt prompted to write to you when I read your statement, "piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable." I disagree with your statement for two reasons; my model of human nature and my observation of pirating activity.
1) Humans naturally take what they desire, without consideration for repaying the source. If the general public were free to pick an apple off a tree, would they naturally attempt to compensate the tree? No; compensation is so unnatural that some people make a career out of compensating apple trees! People eventually learn that by offering compensation, they are more likely to get what they desire, and they learn that if no one compensates a supply, the supply eventually dwindles, and may cease to exist. However, that is a learned behavior.
2) I have several friends (and the number is increasing) who pirate movies. I know of more than one person who downloads a half-dozen movies every night. They spend a lot of money buying CD blanks, and CD labels, and computer equipment. Every so often, they also buy a movie (whether they happen to have pirated that particular title or not). The weird thing (to me) is that they don't watch any of the movies they pirate. They appear to regard it as a kind of currency, which they hoard. One man takes pleasure in being able to offer these movies to anyone who wants to see them; as it happens, he is slightly lacking in the social skills and activities of his age group. Indeed, the exchange of pirated movies is serving an important social bonding function. They don't care what the price is of the movies; they don't even check what the price is of the movies. They simply go through the list of movies on the file-share and download the titles with interesting names.
I'm sure there are many motivations for pirating, but they all boil down to the inherent self-centered nature of humans. Compensating a source is a learned behavior. If people buy goods that are also offered free of charge, their doing so is most likely the result of training (the only other alternative that I would allow is that they are mentally disturbed).
There is an important branch at this point. The Baen Free Library is not actually offering a product free that is identical to the product they are selling. There is a material difference between an e-copy and a paper copy. I find an e-copy to be most useful for performing searches and quotes, but a paper copy is much more gratifying, easier to read and more easily quantifiable. Quality sells, and not just the quality of the story.
BTW, I am aware that in a free market system, the seller tends to sell at whatever price the market will bear. There are calculations that optimize price for sales volume or for income. Business don't usually simply charge for the cost of the materials used in production, nor even for mere normal living expenses. Most businesses in the United States attempt to increase their material value, which comes at the expense of the customer. There are many, many ways that a business may pursue increasing its value. As I see it, the severe restrictions being pursued against piracy by businesses are for the purpose of assuring shareholders that there are no unaccountable material losses. Some businesses would rather lose revenue stream than offer a free sample, particularly a free sample that they did not authorize. Also, businesses are operated by people, and the same forces that lead to piracy from consumers are at work in businessmen. Many businesses would use free labor and sell expensive goods if they could make that work. Again, training is necessary to offset inherent human greed. In the interest of maintaining markets, laws and legal enforcement are needed when training is insufficient.
Sincerely,
Richard Alexander
One day, evil men entered the valley where the scientists and logicians worked. The evil men said that all life sprang from physical effects that we see and can replicate today. Even though no one had ever seen non-life become life without the intervention of life, people wanted to believe the evil men. So, the scientists and logicians looked the other way as the evil men perverted the principles on which the former had stood.
Soon, people began to believe that life is inevitable everywhere in the Universe, even though no one had ever seen any life anywhere else. They made up formulas to estimate many things they had never seen, logically derived from the implications of the lies the evil men had spread earlier. As a result, powerful movements arose that were based on the belief that life must commonly exist throughout the Universe. The End.
There are several reasons that it is difficult to calculate the amount of life beyond Earth. The most important is that no one has ever demonstrated a workable process that will produce independent life forms. Ever. Not even Fox, with his organic soap bubbles. In fact, no one has even the ghost of an idea what it would take to produce life from non-life without the intervention of life. So, any theory that attempts to base an argument favoring abundant life is based on extreme, baseless imagination. We would normally call such people, "fools"; instead, we call them, "evolutionary biologists."
The second reason that it is so difficult to estimate the likely for life beyond Earth is that the few facts we know about life chemistry result in calculations that show that abiogenesis is practically impossible. Even a single incidence of abiogenesis in a trillion years is virtually impossible, based on what is known. But, many people don't want to believe such results, and so, they don't. We normally call such people, "fools." In this case, we have several names for them, including "SETI researchers."
Don't get upset with me; either produce a specific, observable and repeatable example of abiogenesis, or live with the title of "fool."