1. If a Primary coolant pipe leaked it would be contained because it is would be in the containment building that is one of the reasons you have them.
2Whoosh.. Even bringing up the Titanic is yet another simple minded attempt to bring fear into this. What did it have anything to do with anything. It was silly. But if you want to work with it I will your bringing up that Chernobyl when talking about a modern western light water reactor is kind of like someone bringing up that Titanic as a reason for not going on a modern cruise ship! "Lets go on a cruise." "No it is too dangerous remember that Titanic." "But this ship will have enough lifeboats unlike the Titanic." "No remember the Titanic it could still sink too fast to get in the life boats!" "But it has Radar and GPS and satellite communications so it can avoid storm, reefs, and even icebergs!" "But it could run into one that is totally under water!" "But we are going on a Caribbean Cruise! There are no icebergs!" "Just because nobody has ever seen one doesn't mean that they are not there"! Bringing up Chernobyl or the Titanic when talking about a modern western reactor is NOTHING BUT A FEAR TACTIC. The both have the same validity to the subject. Nothing at all.
Plus you know that France gets the majority of their power from nuclear, Japan gets a lot of from Nuclear, and China is planning on building more reactors "made by GE no less". I find it hard to believe that those nations are being "taken in" and building plants that are no economic to build and run. And your source isn't a journal of technology, physics, engineering, or economics! It is a journal of sociology which can include some economics but would probably lack the technical expertise in the subject of Nuclear Engineering or even power generation. I have seen similar studies. They all use older US plants as the source of their cost data. That is going to give you skewed data because those plants are all over 30 years old in design and each of them was a custom design. The had huge cost over runs because of that. Add in the problems with regulators after TMI and the costs are terrible. If you use modern standardized reactor designs like those used in France and China the costs totally different
Oh and here is one final article but not a study. It is from one of the founders of Greenpeace about why he was wrong about Nuclear and now supports it along with the reasons. http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753?GT1=43002
Simple fact seems that you fear nuclear power. No study or history of safe plant operation in the West will convince you because you have made up your mind. Anything that confirms your fear you will embrace and that which contradicts you will reject. The West had decades of experience running nuclear power plants with France getting something like 80 of it's power from nuclear and Sweden getting around 50% all with reasonable costs and very good safety. The US also has a very good safety record even with TMI.
"Isn't it possible that (since he worked on the Lotus Notes project) Ray Ozzie is the originator of this idea and Lotus Notes did not have the foresight to patent this technology when he worked for them? Isn't it possible that he thought this idea patentable and in a better late than never fashion he patented it?" Please look up prior art. It was out and published for more than a year so too bad it is now not patentable.
The steam explosion yes but it would take a lot of work. The raging fire that spread most of the fall out no. Also once the water is gone there is no moderation and the reaction slows in a light water reactor. In the graphite reactor that was in Chernobyl once the water was gone the reaction speed up. And reactors in the US have containment buildings.
Maybe but the F-14 really wasn't a kick-butt air superiority fighter. It was a fleet interceptor. It's job was to protect the fleet from Soviet Bomber launching long range anti-ship missiles. The F-15 was the kick-butt air superiority fighter. It was also very expensive and had it's issues but was used a lot and then once mature was even used as the start for a long range strike air craft called the Strike Eagle about 10 years after it entered service. BTW it's first "combat" mission with the US was in the 1990s.
You do know that the F-14 entered service in the early 70s and didn't see combat with the US until the 80s? So it was 10 years or more. You really don't want to work out the bugs in a fighter in combat if you can avoid it. Way to many get shot down and way to many people die.
"it does not communicate with other aircraft because the electronics are deficient." Where do we get these "experts" The avionics are not deficient. The F-22 and for that matter F-35 don't use the old Link-16 data link that current aircraft use. They use a new low probability of intercept data link that hasn't been installed on the older aircraft. Putting a Link-16 on those aircraft would make them none stealthy.
Please get over you mindless fear. 1. When people talk about reactors exploding they are usually thinking big mushroom cloud destroying a city. Not going to happen. Even a massive steam explosion in a western style light water reactor is EXTREMELY unlikely. The reactor in Idaho people like to bring up wasn't a commercial reactor but an experimental military reactor. Even then it killed fewer people than died at my local oil fired power plant putting up Christmas decorations.
2. Since a Chernobyl style accident is IMPOSSIBLE then bringing it up when talking about a western light water water power reactor is tactic to use groundless fear to scare the ignorant. And yes you are correct there is no reason to protect a building more than a mile for the water from being rammed by the Titanic.
3. We can discuss that when they want to build a power reactor in the US that doesn't have a containment building. All planned reactors in the US will have them. Also the Social Science Journal isn't an engineering or even a physics journal. In fact this is on their front page today. "Child maltreatment in Disney animated feature films: 1937â"2006 " How about a reference from a physics journal or even the IEEE to back it up?
1. Not really an explosion. It was more of steam rupture. No combustion or nuclear explosion was responsible. Just think of it as venting in a hurry. But that can happen with your home hot water heater. 2. But none of those will cause a Chernobyl style disaster. 3. The US isn't a poor country that needs to refuel the reactor while it is running.
1. Reactors don't explode. 2. A Chernobyl style accident is impossible with a light water reactor. 3. Even with a Chernobyl style reactor and even if they had the exact same accident the problem would have been manageable if they had a freaking containment building. 4. Reactors all go critical. What you don't want is for them to go super critical. 5. No modern reactor can go super critical the fuel they use isn't enriched enough to go super critical and they all need a moderator like water to work.
"That gives you a rough idea of how "weak" the computer inside Apollo truly was." Or how strong the programmers where. Most of the code in most programs is for things like UI, security, data validation, help systems and so on. Very little code is there to do the actual work. The Apollo system was built to be used by a few highly trained people. It didn't need a help system. I would rather think of how good the programmers where and frankly the hardware people where than compare it to what we have 40 years latter. If you want to think about just how far they had come how fast. This was built only 42 years before men landed on the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_St._Louis I would say holy freaking jump batman for the moon landing!
Or how about who care? Really they are celebs. I don't look them up often and rarely to see what they look like. If they don't like the picture then they can replace it or link to there own sit.
No need to get so nasty. I am not one of the faithful but I don't see why they couldn't change ZFS to GPL. They might but then they might not. If they don't then if Linux wants the features of ZFS they will have to write it themselves.
Wow people are slow. 1. iTunes is the gateway to the iTunes music store. Sure you can use it to rip and transcode CDs but so can a ton of other programs that are free. 2. iTunes is big and slow and the the real reason to use the store. Man this is such an complete desire to make as much money by locking customers into your software and hardware. It is so funny that the fanboys are so willing to stand with Apple. What do you guys work for them?
iTunes store purchases are not mandatory for using iTunes. Therefore, someone using iTunes to manage non-apple provided media on devices not from apple or licensed by apple may be perceived as 'ripping off' apple. You mean like any Windows user? I mean you don't have to buy an iPod to use iTunes.
The math doesn't offer any cost for reto fitting the existing destroyers. But that doesn't matter. It doesn't make any sense with the numbers given in the summery or the description. Or frankly any of the numbers given in the story lined to. But that is because the summary and the story is terrible. If you read the story I found you will get some better numbers. Those numbers make a lot more sense and they are not using building a sea going Pirus. They are simply building a turbo electric drive which isn't a new idea in the least.
Right President Obama will offer to meet with the blob in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Okay now that we have done both sides of the stupid poltical comments we can move one.
heck turbo electric drive is nothing new. The US used it for Battleships in the 20s and 30s. But this seems to use batteries but I don't see the use on a DDG - 51. The power load for the sensors alone is huge. For an ASW frigate maybe but not a DDG!
Umm how do you get that number? 12000*65 is under 800000 your off by a zero. For your math to work oil would have too cost $650 a barrel. So yes I would say it is a waste wouldn't you?
Not really. Convert it to dollars. A single barrel of crude right now costs around $65. Unless the numbers are off then this seems like a waste of money. I doubt that a DDG 51 could run even run it's sensors for long in in this mode. Sounds like you could use it for docking.
My radar is tipped of by the fact that Apple is now one of the biggest music retailers. Also by the fact that unlike Walmart the have no need for physical stock. The idea that the profit from that just isn't that much is what strikes me as silly. What is even more silly is that nobody can show me this low number. Apple wouldn't let other stores use playfair DRM because they wanted the profit from the music sales. Apple doesn't want the Pre to work with iTunes because they want profit from the ipod sales. Apple makes a lot of money from both! They want to keep it that way. The idea that Apple isn't make that much money from all those sales is what should be throwing up red flags.
It is half a billion and that is only one year. Plus apple probably doesn't make $30 off of every pod. I am sure the shuffle has a lower mark up. And no your wrong half a billon plus in anual sales is never a drop in a bucket. Even using your math it is close to 10% which in any business report is significant amount.
Bull pucky http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/apple-apparentl/ From this Apple makes.29 cents per song and made over 570 million dollars in 2008! So unless you are a member of the royal family your statement about not making any significant money is just false.
Slashdot Mirror
1. If a Primary coolant pipe leaked it would be contained because it is would be in the containment building that is one of the reasons you have them.
2Whoosh..
Even bringing up the Titanic is yet another simple minded attempt to bring fear into this.
What did it have anything to do with anything. It was silly.
But if you want to work with it I will your bringing up that Chernobyl when talking about a modern western light water reactor is kind of like someone bringing up that Titanic as a reason for not going on a modern cruise ship!
"Lets go on a cruise."
"No it is too dangerous remember that Titanic."
"But this ship will have enough lifeboats unlike the Titanic."
"No remember the Titanic it could still sink too fast to get in the life boats!"
"But it has Radar and GPS and satellite communications so it can avoid storm, reefs, and even icebergs!"
"But it could run into one that is totally under water!"
"But we are going on a Caribbean Cruise! There are no icebergs!"
"Just because nobody has ever seen one doesn't mean that they are not there"!
Bringing up Chernobyl or the Titanic when talking about a modern western reactor is NOTHING BUT A FEAR TACTIC.
The both have the same validity to the subject. Nothing at all.
Okay want some sources that disagree with yours
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html
http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/
Of these are pro nuclear sites but before you dismiss them just realise this. If there where studies of nuclear power that positive results wouldn't pro-nuclear sites post them?
Also wouldn't anti-nuclear sites dismiss them?
Plus you know that France gets the majority of their power from nuclear, Japan gets a lot of from Nuclear, and China is planning on building more reactors "made by GE no less". I find it hard to believe that those nations are being "taken in" and building plants that are no economic to build and run.
And your source isn't a journal of technology, physics, engineering, or economics!
It is a journal of sociology which can include some economics but would probably lack the technical expertise in the subject of Nuclear Engineering or even power generation.
I have seen similar studies. They all use older US plants as the source of their cost data. That is going to give you skewed data because those plants are all over 30 years old in design and each of them was a custom design. The had huge cost over runs because of that. Add in the problems with regulators after TMI and the costs are terrible. If you use modern standardized reactor designs like those used in France and China the costs totally different
Oh and here is one final article but not a study.
It is from one of the founders of Greenpeace about why he was wrong about Nuclear and now supports it along with the reasons.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/131753?GT1=43002
Simple fact seems that you fear nuclear power. No study or history of safe plant operation in the West will convince you because you have made up your mind. Anything that confirms your fear you will embrace and that which contradicts you will reject.
The West had decades of experience running nuclear power plants with France getting something like 80 of it's power from nuclear and Sweden getting around 50% all with reasonable costs and very good safety. The US also has a very good safety record even with TMI.
"Isn't it possible that (since he worked on the Lotus Notes project) Ray Ozzie is the originator of this idea and Lotus Notes did not have the foresight to patent this technology when he worked for them? Isn't it possible that he thought this idea patentable and in a better late than never fashion he patented it?"
Please look up prior art.
It was out and published for more than a year so too bad it is now not patentable.
The steam explosion yes but it would take a lot of work. The raging fire that spread most of the fall out no. Also once the water is gone there is no moderation and the reaction slows in a light water reactor. In the graphite reactor that was in Chernobyl once the water was gone the reaction speed up.
And reactors in the US have containment buildings.
Maybe but the F-14 really wasn't a kick-butt air superiority fighter. It was a fleet interceptor. It's job was to protect the fleet from Soviet Bomber launching long range anti-ship missiles.
The F-15 was the kick-butt air superiority fighter. It was also very expensive and had it's issues but was used a lot and then once mature was even used as the start for a long range strike air craft called the Strike Eagle about 10 years after it entered service.
BTW it's first "combat" mission with the US was in the 1990s.
You do know that the F-14 entered service in the early 70s and didn't see combat with the US until the 80s? So it was 10 years or more.
You really don't want to work out the bugs in a fighter in combat if you can avoid it. Way to many get shot down and way to many people die.
"it does not communicate with other aircraft because the electronics are deficient."
Where do we get these "experts"
The avionics are not deficient. The F-22 and for that matter F-35 don't use the old Link-16 data link that current aircraft use. They use a new low probability of intercept data link that hasn't been installed on the older aircraft. Putting a Link-16 on those aircraft would make them none stealthy.
Please get over you mindless fear.
1. When people talk about reactors exploding they are usually thinking big mushroom cloud destroying a city. Not going to happen. Even a massive steam explosion in a western style light water reactor is EXTREMELY unlikely. The reactor in Idaho people like to bring up wasn't a commercial reactor but an experimental military reactor. Even then it killed fewer people than died at my local oil fired power plant putting up Christmas decorations.
2. Since a Chernobyl style accident is IMPOSSIBLE then bringing it up when talking about a western light water water power reactor is tactic to use groundless fear to scare the ignorant. And yes you are correct there is no reason to protect a building more than a mile for the water from being rammed by the Titanic.
3. We can discuss that when they want to build a power reactor in the US that doesn't have a containment building. All planned reactors in the US will have them. Also the Social Science Journal isn't an engineering or even a physics journal. In fact this is on their front page today. "Child maltreatment in Disney animated feature films: 1937â"2006 "
How about a reference from a physics journal or even the IEEE to back it up?
1. Not really an explosion. It was more of steam rupture. No combustion or nuclear explosion was responsible. Just think of it as venting in a hurry. But that can happen with your home hot water heater.
2. But none of those will cause a Chernobyl style disaster.
3. The US isn't a poor country that needs to refuel the reactor while it is running.
1. Reactors don't explode.
2. A Chernobyl style accident is impossible with a light water reactor.
3. Even with a Chernobyl style reactor and even if they had the exact same accident the problem would have been manageable if they had a freaking containment building.
4. Reactors all go critical. What you don't want is for them to go super critical.
5. No modern reactor can go super critical the fuel they use isn't enriched enough to go super critical and they all need a moderator like water to work.
"That gives you a rough idea of how "weak" the computer inside Apollo truly was."
Or how strong the programmers where.
Most of the code in most programs is for things like UI, security, data validation, help systems and so on.
Very little code is there to do the actual work.
The Apollo system was built to be used by a few highly trained people. It didn't need a help system.
I would rather think of how good the programmers where and frankly the hardware people where than compare it to what we have 40 years latter.
If you want to think about just how far they had come how fast.
This was built only 42 years before men landed on the moon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_of_St._Louis
I would say holy freaking jump batman for the moon landing!
Or how about who care? Really they are celebs. I don't look them up often and rarely to see what they look like. If they don't like the picture then they can replace it or link to there own sit.
No need to get so nasty. I am not one of the faithful but I don't see why they couldn't change ZFS to GPL. They might but then they might not.
If they don't then if Linux wants the features of ZFS they will have to write it themselves.
You all know you want it.
The assertion that Apple doesn't make any money from iTunes.
Wow people are slow.
1. iTunes is the gateway to the iTunes music store. Sure you can use it to rip and transcode CDs but so can a ton of other programs that are free.
2. iTunes is big and slow and the the real reason to use the store.
Man this is such an complete desire to make as much money by locking customers into your software and hardware. It is so funny that the fanboys are so willing to stand with Apple. What do you guys work for them?
iTunes store purchases are not mandatory for using iTunes. Therefore, someone using iTunes to manage non-apple provided media on devices not from apple or licensed by apple may be perceived as 'ripping off' apple.
You mean like any Windows user? I mean you don't have to buy an iPod to use iTunes.
The math doesn't offer any cost for reto fitting the existing destroyers.
But that doesn't matter. It doesn't make any sense with the numbers given in the summery or the description. Or frankly any of the numbers given in the story lined to.
But that is because the summary and the story is terrible.
If you read the story I found you will get some better numbers. Those numbers make a lot more sense and they are not using building a sea going Pirus. They are simply building a turbo electric drive which isn't a new idea in the least.
Right President Obama will offer to meet with the blob in an atmosphere of mutual respect.
Okay now that we have done both sides of the stupid poltical comments we can move one.
heck turbo electric drive is nothing new. The US used it for Battleships in the 20s and 30s. But this seems to use batteries but I don't see the use on a DDG - 51. The power load for the sensors alone is huge. For an ASW frigate maybe but not a DDG!
Umm how do you get that number?
12000*65 is under 800000 your off by a zero. For your math to work oil would have too cost $650 a barrel. So yes I would say it is a waste wouldn't you?
Not really. Convert it to dollars. A single barrel of crude right now costs around $65. Unless the numbers are off then this seems like a waste of money. I doubt that a DDG 51 could run even run it's sensors for long in in this mode.
Sounds like you could use it for docking.
My radar is tipped of by the fact that Apple is now one of the biggest music retailers. Also by the fact that unlike Walmart the have no need for physical stock. The idea that the profit from that just isn't that much is what strikes me as silly. What is even more silly is that nobody can show me this low number.
Apple wouldn't let other stores use playfair DRM because they wanted the profit from the music sales. Apple doesn't want the Pre to work with iTunes because they want profit from the ipod sales. Apple makes a lot of money from both! They want to keep it that way.
The idea that Apple isn't make that much money from all those sales is what should be throwing up red flags.
It is half a billion and that is only one year.
Plus apple probably doesn't make $30 off of every pod. I am sure the shuffle has a lower mark up.
And no your wrong half a billon plus in anual sales is never a drop in a bucket. Even using your math it is close to 10% which in any business report is significant amount.
Bull pucky .29 cents per song and made over 570 million dollars in 2008!
http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/apple-apparentl/
From this Apple makes
So unless you are a member of the royal family your statement about not making any significant money is just false.
Plus lets be honest. The most secure machines are not on the internet!
Not every device is connected and not everybody is connected at all times.