The problem with guns is that they provide a very easy way to commit suicide. Someone with easy access to a gun only has to suicidal for a few moments. This is one of the reasons military suicides are higher than the general population, even after taking into account the differences in their mental states.
I think one could make a similar argument about knives, or just about any other weapon. Heck, throw in cars or bridges while you're at in.
That shit is poison, a proliferation risk, and it isn't like there is an unlimited supply of fissile material anyway. At best nuclear energy is a stopgap technology. At current rates it is thought that there is a 200 year supply at best... more like 100 years (or less) should consumption double (or triple).
"Proliferation risk"? Please cite your source!
"200 year supply at best"? Again, please cite your source.
It has been a long time since I have answered the phone, and heard the tone from a misdialed fax machine. Fax machines aren't completely dead, but they are far less common than they used to be. I think only lawyers are bureaucrats still use them.
They're still used pretty extensively in the British military, especially when it comes to the logistical arms. We used them a lot when we had to get paper work sent out to the upstream depot ASAP for top priority supply demands. Everything else was sent via the computer systems, but as those systems sent stuff off in batches at a particular time of day, we needed a way of bypassing the "batch cycle" as we called it and getting the top priority stuff dealt with immediately.
its cock on close design allows much higher rates of fire
Mind explaining this? Cock on close vs cock on open, taking advantage of the more naturally forceful movement?
Bingo. Although it doesn't in itself make the weapon fire faster, it does make it easier to work the bolt more quickly compared to something like a Mosin, a Mauser or an Arisaka. It's definitely easier than the old Lebel 1886!
Basically, most of those rifles cock the hammer or striker as the bolt is moved to the rear where as the Lee rifles did that as the bolt was pushed forwards. It feels easier to get more force behind your stroke when pushing that it is when pulling.
way too costly. it's a specialistic sniper weapon, while the Lee Enfield, well let's say costs are pretty all amortized by now.
Remember, the old Lee Enfield rifles were never designed as sniper weapons. They were battle rifles first and foremost, which just happened to be pretty serviceable as sniper weapons. Additionally, I don't think the rifles to be replaced are scoped rifles. As far as I know they are simply standard Lee Enfield No.4's.
I think it's a bit of a shame that the old Ishapore production line in India was shut down. Their Lee Enfield rifles were very well made from what I'm told and chambered in 7.62 Nato. The Enfield design is very old, but it's still damned good. The action isn't as strong as the old Mosin, but its cock on close design allows much higher rates of fire.
Then I would put on the resume that you hold patents, but I wouldn't put down what they are. If they want to know then they can ask. Same thing as I do with my references i.e. "references available on request".
Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.
Is it just me, or is the idea that "everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work" the very idea of science?
Congratulations, Slashdot... this is precisely what you should have expected when you opened your authentication to any asshole with a facebook account.
High digit UIDs which show as facebook logins posting spam.
Oh, and to the poster... fuck you you slimy sack of human excrement.
I swear, we could make Slashdot twice as intelligent by getting rid of the 7 digit ids.
From the (maximum of) 5 milligrams of mercury? What did you do? Break the lamp very carefully and then snort the contents?
I might as well have done. No, I was trying to remove the dead bulb from an overhead lamp when it shattered in my face. Unfortunately, it was in my office at home so I had to keep working in that environment (trying to meet a daily word-count). Even with the windows and doors open it still affected me for several hours. Not pleasant, though it seems to have been temporary.
Compared the coal-fired electric plant, that's nothing.
I had a broken FL bulb just the other day. I can assure you, the effects I suffered certainly did NOT feel like "nothing". The blindness, shakes, tingling and headaches didn't last long, but they were definitely not pleasant.
Cost dude cost. Nuclear is very expensive these days, decommissioning costs are far far higher than initial estimates.
Why did the costs go up? I think it was political interference and artificial price inflation. Why did the costs for renewables (aka unreliables) go down? Subsidies. Political interference.
From what I've seen and heard, the only obstacles to nuclear energy have been man made. Rather than any truly insurmountable physical challenges that couldn't be engineered around, it's always been blocked by those with a vested interest in ensuring the failure of nuclear fission.
Just out of interest, why are you so anti-nuke? What makes you feel that it shouldn't succeed?
A small reactor on a ship can be ramped quite quickly, but a large multi gigawatt land based reactor takes a lot of time in orde to minimize thermal stresses.
Also I'm sure that idiot Merkel decided to close all their nuclear power stations because she thought they'd get nice cheap gas from russia. Hmm, wonder how thats working out for her now...
At the peak, German nuclear generation was 133 TWh in 2011. Since then, German renewables generation has grown from 47 TWh/year to 178 TWh/year, Germany can now meet demand without any nuclear and without additional gas imports.
I'm sorry the facts broke your narrative.
Why do I get this funny feeling that the "178 TWh/year" figure is from the rated capacity factors and not the actual production?
I thought we in the Slashdot community were more civil. AND I quite doubt you are qualified to judge my mental health from afar. Be that as it may, if the fuel is "perfectly usable" why were they proposing to bury it in Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years??? Yes, I understand that fuel from some more modern reactors can be re-processed up to 95%. But some of this old stuff has been looking for a home for 50 years.
Why hasn't it been used already? It can be boiled down to political influence (ala IFR cancellation), "NIMBY"ism and (IMO) artificially inflated prices of other fuels keeping energy supply high enough so that nuclear operators can't make enough money. Even with all of that, the fuel will still be perfectly usable in the future as the other sources dry up and the so called 'renewables' fail to pick up the slack. Long story short, every obstacle that has been placed in the way of nuclear energy has been man made.
Btw, I once thought slashdot was supposed to be civil, but when one runs into the kind of insanity, nonsense and astroturfing on here every day it tends to reduce ones capacity for being civil. No, I'm not technically qualified to judge whether you are truly insane. That said, the nonsense you were spouting is a clear combat indicator of such insanity. "Smoke" and "fire" and all that.
It may sound far-fetched, but an electromagnetic rail gun would be feasible. Especially if the waste could be made into smaller units. Just aim it into the sun! No more problem. As a side benefit, the technology learned from this could be used to perhaps shoot material into orbit to build spacecraft out THERE, where the high cost of escaping the gravity well of earth would not be present.
Why fire perfectly usable fuel into the sun? Quite frankly, you're insane.
That way the 'waste' could be used as fuel with (as far as I know) very little, if any, reprocessing.
Even with modern fast reactor designs running on metallic fuel, some reprocessing is still necessary, though it's nowhere near as involved, messy and proliferation-prone as PUREX and aqueous processes. The most tantalizing prospect for fast reactors running on metallic fuel, especially for systems which incorporate fission product off-gassing and capture while in operation, is the ability to achieve extremely high burn up, which allows this reprocessing step to only be performed at very infrequent intervals (say once every 30-40 years). This means the power plant doesn't need its own attached reprocessing facility (as the IFR project proposed), but instead the investment in the reprocessing facility can be shared, concentrated into a single, well secured and efficient facility for, say, the whole country.
I'd mod you guys up as "Informative" if I could. The info is appreciated, thanks!:)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with guns is that they provide a very easy way to commit suicide. Someone with easy access to a gun only has to suicidal for a few moments. This is one of the reasons military suicides are higher than the general population, even after taking into account the differences in their mental states.
I think one could make a similar argument about knives, or just about any other weapon. Heck, throw in cars or bridges while you're at in.
That shit is poison, a proliferation risk, and it isn't like there is an unlimited supply of fissile material anyway. At best nuclear energy is a stopgap technology. At current rates it is thought that there is a 200 year supply at best... more like 100 years (or less) should consumption double (or triple).
"Proliferation risk"? Please cite your source!
"200 year supply at best"? Again, please cite your source.
It has been a long time since I have answered the phone, and heard the tone from a misdialed fax machine. Fax machines aren't completely dead, but they are far less common than they used to be. I think only lawyers are bureaucrats still use them.
They're still used pretty extensively in the British military, especially when it comes to the logistical arms. We used them a lot when we had to get paper work sent out to the upstream depot ASAP for top priority supply demands. Everything else was sent via the computer systems, but as those systems sent stuff off in batches at a particular time of day, we needed a way of bypassing the "batch cycle" as we called it and getting the top priority stuff dealt with immediately.
The artist is 69... I hope he wrote the solution in his will because at this rate the encryption will outlive him.
Actually maybe I don't. It would be also amusing to have a cypher-sculpture in front of CIA headquarters that never gets solved.
Perhaps they have solved it, but want to keep that info to themselves?
22 lr is ~145 db.
It's sharp enough to stand out from other noise, including dropping a book.
IIRC, there are subsonic .22lr rounds which would work perfectly with commercially available suppressors to bring that figure right the way down.
you mean: if it ain't fixed, keep using the break
Touchè!
its cock on close design allows much higher rates of fire
Mind explaining this? Cock on close vs cock on open, taking advantage of the more naturally forceful movement?
Bingo. Although it doesn't in itself make the weapon fire faster, it does make it easier to work the bolt more quickly compared to something like a Mosin, a Mauser or an Arisaka. It's definitely easier than the old Lebel 1886!
Basically, most of those rifles cock the hammer or striker as the bolt is moved to the rear where as the Lee rifles did that as the bolt was pushed forwards. It feels easier to get more force behind your stroke when pushing that it is when pulling.
way too costly. it's a specialistic sniper weapon, while the Lee Enfield, well let's say costs are pretty all amortized by now.
Remember, the old Lee Enfield rifles were never designed as sniper weapons. They were battle rifles first and foremost, which just happened to be pretty serviceable as sniper weapons. Additionally, I don't think the rifles to be replaced are scoped rifles. As far as I know they are simply standard Lee Enfield No.4's.
I think it's a bit of a shame that the old Ishapore production line in India was shut down. Their Lee Enfield rifles were very well made from what I'm told and chambered in 7.62 Nato. The Enfield design is very old, but it's still damned good. The action isn't as strong as the old Mosin, but its cock on close design allows much higher rates of fire.
Then I would put on the resume that you hold patents, but I wouldn't put down what they are. If they want to know then they can ask. Same thing as I do with my references i.e. "references available on request".
Of course, everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work.
Is it just me, or is the idea that "everything is a hoax and scientifically impossible until the day it is proven to actually work" the very idea of science?
I'll wait for the next paper...
Where have you been AC? We live in the age of "everyone gets a trophy".
I must assume my trophies are stuck in the mail somewhere.
Don't UK cars normally have both kph and mph on the speedometer?
Yes, we do. though sometimes people have a brain fart and read the kph numbers, thinking they're doing 60 mph rather than 60kph.
Congratulations, Slashdot ... this is precisely what you should have expected when you opened your authentication to any asshole with a facebook account.
High digit UIDs which show as facebook logins posting spam.
Oh, and to the poster ... fuck you you slimy sack of human excrement.
I swear, we could make Slashdot twice as intelligent by getting rid of the 7 digit ids.
Hiya! I'm not a bot!
obvious troll is obvious.
From your description it sounds like it wasn't the mercury so much as receiving a full dose of Obecalp.
Did you seek medical attention?
Ho-ho-ho. Have an internet.
From the (maximum of) 5 milligrams of mercury? What did you do? Break the lamp very carefully and then snort the contents?
I might as well have done. No, I was trying to remove the dead bulb from an overhead lamp when it shattered in my face. Unfortunately, it was in my office at home so I had to keep working in that environment (trying to meet a daily word-count). Even with the windows and doors open it still affected me for several hours. Not pleasant, though it seems to have been temporary.
Compared the coal-fired electric plant, that's nothing.
I had a broken FL bulb just the other day. I can assure you, the effects I suffered certainly did NOT feel like "nothing". The blindness, shakes, tingling and headaches didn't last long, but they were definitely not pleasant.
Cost dude cost. Nuclear is very expensive these days, decommissioning costs are far far higher than initial estimates.
Why did the costs go up? I think it was political interference and artificial price inflation. Why did the costs for renewables (aka unreliables) go down? Subsidies. Political interference.
From what I've seen and heard, the only obstacles to nuclear energy have been man made. Rather than any truly insurmountable physical challenges that couldn't be engineered around, it's always been blocked by those with a vested interest in ensuring the failure of nuclear fission.
Just out of interest, why are you so anti-nuke? What makes you feel that it shouldn't succeed?
If these new designs are so great then why does the nuclear industry keep going with the old designs?
Politics dude, politics.
A small reactor on a ship can be ramped quite quickly, but a large multi gigawatt land based reactor takes a lot of time in orde to minimize thermal stresses.
Who says we have to build huge?
Also I'm sure that idiot Merkel decided to close all their nuclear power stations because she thought they'd get nice cheap gas from russia. Hmm, wonder how thats working out for her now...
At the peak, German nuclear generation was 133 TWh in 2011. Since then, German renewables generation has grown from 47 TWh/year to 178 TWh/year, Germany can now meet demand without any nuclear and without additional gas imports.
I'm sorry the facts broke your narrative.
Why do I get this funny feeling that the "178 TWh/year" figure is from the rated capacity factors and not the actual production?
I thought we in the Slashdot community were more civil. AND I quite doubt you are qualified to judge my mental health from afar. Be that as it may, if the fuel is "perfectly usable" why were they proposing to bury it in Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years??? Yes, I understand that fuel from some more modern reactors can be re-processed up to 95%. But some of this old stuff has been looking for a home for 50 years.
Why hasn't it been used already? It can be boiled down to political influence (ala IFR cancellation), "NIMBY"ism and (IMO) artificially inflated prices of other fuels keeping energy supply high enough so that nuclear operators can't make enough money. Even with all of that, the fuel will still be perfectly usable in the future as the other sources dry up and the so called 'renewables' fail to pick up the slack. Long story short, every obstacle that has been placed in the way of nuclear energy has been man made.
Btw, I once thought slashdot was supposed to be civil, but when one runs into the kind of insanity, nonsense and astroturfing on here every day it tends to reduce ones capacity for being civil. No, I'm not technically qualified to judge whether you are truly insane. That said, the nonsense you were spouting is a clear combat indicator of such insanity. "Smoke" and "fire" and all that.
It may sound far-fetched, but an electromagnetic rail gun would be feasible. Especially if the waste could be made into smaller units. Just aim it into the sun! No more problem. As a side benefit, the technology learned from this could be used to perhaps shoot material into orbit to build spacecraft out THERE, where the high cost of escaping the gravity well of earth would not be present.
Why fire perfectly usable fuel into the sun? Quite frankly, you're insane.
That way the 'waste' could be used as fuel with (as far as I know) very little, if any, reprocessing.
Even with modern fast reactor designs running on metallic fuel, some reprocessing is still necessary, though it's nowhere near as involved, messy and proliferation-prone as PUREX and aqueous processes. The most tantalizing prospect for fast reactors running on metallic fuel, especially for systems which incorporate fission product off-gassing and capture while in operation, is the ability to achieve extremely high burn up, which allows this reprocessing step to only be performed at very infrequent intervals (say once every 30-40 years). This means the power plant doesn't need its own attached reprocessing facility (as the IFR project proposed), but instead the investment in the reprocessing facility can be shared, concentrated into a single, well secured and efficient facility for, say, the whole country.
I'd mod you guys up as "Informative" if I could. The info is appreciated, thanks! :)
Another, altogether better idea would be to simply build fast neutron reactors and use the 'waste' to generate heat and electricity.