Combat pilots probably have a lot better spatial awareness than most people. I suspect that would be _very_ important in space, even when not flying a ship.
If you aren't flying the ship, then that spatial awareness is useless - because you can't use it avoid anything. Not that there's anything in space close enough and slow enough that manual reflexes are useful for that, other than the rare case of two spacecraft docking.
In short, you've assumed she was "substantially unable" (etc..) without actually having any proof she was unable to do so. You also seem ignorant of the fact that cerebral palsy comes in a wide variety of forms. You also seem ignorant of the fact that she's living alone, on her own, which demonstrates the falsity of your assumption and the depth of your ignorance.
Or, in other words, you have ignorance piled on top of ignorance piled on top of groundless assumptions. None of which are any substitute for the facts, which in this case are trivially available to anyone following the case.
Which makes it easy to see why, to those that have done the research and are even mildly conversant with the facts, why the State of Texas ruled that the statute had been exceeded and why you have failed utterly to demonstrate otherwise.
And how do you figure the statute of limitations has not expired? Not only has the state said so, the link you provides says so too. She wasn't a child (younger than 14). Nor is the offense punishable under 22.04 (despite being disabled, she is able to care for herself). So the maximum possible term for the statue of limitations would seem to be five years.
Or, in other words, the link you provide doesn't seem to say what you think it does. The State of Texas agrees with my interpretation.
So, if you've "done the research", why not provide a cite showing where the State of Texas and the link you provided is wrong?
This car sounds like the wet dream of those folks that love to mix and match things to fit what they need. The word for it is on the tip of my tongue, but I'm not sure on it.
A wet dream for them, a potential nightmare for mechanics.
I was thinking much the same thing.
The last thing I want is my car sitting dead in my driveway or at the mechanics while battery leasing agent points fingers at the computer vendor who's busy blaming the motor drivers which were written by company that got bought out last year and the motor firmware is now on end-of-life anyhow... I want car my to just work. I don't want to add another thing to my life that needs me to ride an endless upgrade and compatibility treadmill.
This car has range and performance similar to the Leaf and the upcoming Focus, yet will cost less than 1/5 what either of those overpriced toys go for, and also looks better. What's your excuse?
The Leaf and the Focus exist in the real world, and have been tested and certified by the appropriate bodies as to safety, etc.... The Street Scooter is a pile of CAD drawings, Power Points, press releases, and imaginative artist's conceptions.
It's easy to be cheap and high performance when you're vaporware. Let's wait for hardware to hit the road when we can compare apples to apples before taking Nissan and Ford to task.
Also, the concept moves a substantial chunk of the cost (the batteries) 'off the books' by leasing them to the customer rather than selling them to the customer. While this creates an semi-illusory MSRP, it does however give a clearer picture of cost-to-own and cost-to-operate.
An Android phone is not the same as an Apple or Blackberry phone. Google just makes the software. Apple and Blackberry make their own hardware. Therefore you can't really say "Android phones have a high rate of defect".
So that means an end to the stories and claims and general nerd mirth about how 'Android phones are now the largest market segment'?
Disclaimer: I am a former SSBN crewman, a missile fire control technician to be exact.
I could have phrased things better. I didn't really mean to suggest they should necessarily all be test pilots, that was more of a reference to what old school astronauts were. I think they should all have some sort of experience in extremely high risk activities where things go wrong and someone has to deal with it really really quickly.
But that's the thing - pilots aren't the only people to have those reflexes and experiences. In addition, spacecraft in cruise phase to Mars aren't fighters in combat. The requirements and responses times and types are radically different.
I give and grant that pilots have faster reflexes - in the small hand and arm movements need to actuate a set of controls their hands are already on... and that's important during ascent and entry. (Especially back in the day of unreliable or non-existent automated controls.) But 99.99% of a spaceflight you aren't in ascent or entry with your hands on a joystick. Nor, for 99.99% of the emergencies you'll encounter in cruise phase, do you need those millisecond reflexes. (Because either you have to move your arm a considerable distance, or because you have to physically move some distance to deal with the casualty, or both.)
The 'astronauts must be pilots' meme was set back in the days of Mercury - when astronauts were thought to require thorough medical histories, required high security clearances (since they were dealing with ICBM's), and actually flew their spacecraft for 90% of the mission. Pretty much none of that remains true.
The 'astronauts must have near superhuman reflexes and speed' meme was set at the same time and under the same situation. And again, that situation has changed. We aren't flying spacecraft that a tiny leak could kill in a minute or where loss of life support could kill in five minutes anymore. The larger your craft, the slower your required response times can be.
Look how many Shuttle astronauts aren't pilots, and consider that the first American commander of the ISS was a Navy Seal with no flight training at all.
Preferably having actually experienced such situations. I think having experienced such situations and having dealt with them is what is the more important characteristic of test and combat pilots, not necessarily their piloting skills.
Submariners have experienced and dealt with such situations too. I've been through fires, flooding, suspected toxic gas releases and other atmosphere contamination events, loss of power, loss of hydraulics, loss of key computers, etc... etc... And that just the real deals, I'm not even counting the hours and hours of drills and simulations. And the guys who actually dove and drove the boat, or sat the reactor and propulsion consoles have even more appropriate experience.
No, there is far too much molly-coddling and concern for people's feelings in these matters. Get a small group of professional men together and Mars will be easily visited.
I've actually lived in circumstances somewhat resembling those of this simulation - as a SSBN crewman. And let me assure you, people do indeed go bat shit insane under those conditions. The ships you so admire kept their crews under control with a combination of brutal discipline and extremely heavy physical work, something unlikely to be tried today, singly or in tandem.
Which make me wonder if candidates for a Mars mission should be "old school" astronauts, those with experience as test pilots and who probably flew combat missions as well, or who did night carrier landing, etc.
None of those professions have any experience with long term isolation and any resulting stress. Their coping mechanisms are based around dealing with missions at most a few hours long the effects and after effects of adrenaline for brief periods. On top of that, a Mars mission includes very little actual flying.
So why should astronauts be pilots at all?
If you want individuals used to the stress of working under conditions of long term isolation in close quarters - look to submarines and to Antarctic overwinter crews.
Pray tell - where in the paragraph quoted below, lifted directly from the Wikipedia article, does it mention any change to void coefficient?
Pressurized water reactors, like all thermal reactor designs, require the fast fission neutrons to be slowed down (a process called moderation or thermalization) in order to interact with the nuclear fuel and sustain the chain reaction. In PWRs the coolant water is used as a moderator by letting the neutrons undergo multiple collisions with light hydrogen atoms in the water, losing speed in the process. This "moderating" of neutrons will happen more often when the water is denser (more collisions will occur). The use of water as a moderator is an important safety feature of PWRs, as an increase in temperature may cause the water to expand, giving greater 'gaps' between the water molecules and reducing the probability of thermalisation - thereby reducing the extent to which neutrons are slowed down and hence reducing the reactivity in the reactor. Therefore, if reactivity increases beyond normal, the reduced moderation of neutrons will cause the chain reaction to slow down, producing less heat. This property, known as the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, makes PWR reactors very stable. This process is referred to as 'Self-Regulating', i.e. the hotter the coolant becomes, the less reactive the plant becomes, shutting itself down slightly to compensate and vice versa. Thus the plant controls itself around a given temperature set by the position of the control rods.
The "Gaps" between molecules are the "voids" caused by boiling.
Right - that's why those gaps are mentioned in the section on PWR's.... where there is no boiling and no voids, and why voids are discussed in the section on BWR where there is boiling and voids. That should be a clue to you that there are two different effects in play.
I'll give you some info to get point you in the right direction. Water expands less than 3% from 4c to 80c, less than 4.2% from 4c to 100c
Here's a clue for you - a 4.2% change in density means an equal change in moderation effects. Read the bloody link you quoted at me with such relish, which says *exactly* what I've been saying all along. Study up on negative temperature coefficient - because it relies on precisely the existence of that effect. (It's even mentioned in the link you insisted I read, and which you patently have not.)
Less than 4.2% difference in density from a 96c change in temperature vs a change more than 3 orders of magnitude larger, which one is going to be responsible for a significant change in the neutron moderation rate? (Hint, it's the one that causes a big change in density)
That assumes the water at the point of the criticality incident was in fact boiling - something neither you nor I know for certain. You're confusing reactor design with the basic nuclear effects the original poster was discussing.
Pretending you know what you're talking about is no substitute for actually being correct.
The problem is, you should be saying that to a mirror. Because I *do* know what I'm talking about - and you're the one pretending. You won't even read the link you provide as support for your 'argument'... because it shows how wrong you actually are.
Lower water temperature DOES NOT significantly increase moderation rate
Yet, every light water reactor in the world depends on exactly that effect. (Hint: Google "cold water accident".)
The takeaway here is that anyone can follow the link I provided and determine which posts are correct.
Yes, let's look at your link. Let's quote from the very first paragraph of that link:
an increase in temperature may cause the water to expand, giving greater 'gaps' between the water molecules and reducing the probability of thermalisation - thereby reducing the extent to which neutrons are slowed down and hence reducing the reactivity in the reactor.
The very effect described by the original poster and myself and which you claim doesn't exist.
Care to to try again? You don't really need to, you've more than sufficiently proven your ignorance to me. (Protip: Wikipedia links are no substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about.)
The density change in liquid water does not significantly alter it's ability to moderate neutron flux.
Yes, yes it does. That's part of how a PWR obtains it's negative reactivity coefficient. (A major part of what makes them safe.) It's why reactor operators fear a cold water accident - the sudden introduction of significantly cooler water into the core.
The shape, and current status of the fuel is unknown, and that alone is the likely source of this event.
There are two things that can change criticality inside a reactor - a change in fuel geometry and properties or a change in moderator geometry or properties. Fuel alone will not cause such an event - unless a critical mass is present. For that to happen today (months after the accident and thousands of degrees below the fuels melting point) that means you have to have significant chunks of fuel moving about in the core.
The key takeaway here though, is the grandparent is correct, and you are not. Nuclear reactions are very sensitive to changes in moderator geometry or properties, that's the basic principle on which reactors work after all.
didn't Poul Anderson write a story of changing laws of physics too?
Brain Wave? Though that wasn't changing laws of physics per se, it was an unspecified 'field' that limited neural activity. Entering the field caused the Cretaceousâ"Tertiary extinction event, and the book begins as the solar system exits the field.
For someone in aid and development it is then obvious that Negroponte does not focus on actually improving things for the kids. Like many caricatured IT developers, he is focused on the product, not the user.
Oh, it's worse than that. From the very start, the OLPC laptop has been designed primarily to comply with Negroponte's political IT views. The poor of the world are just a means to that end.
Not to mention the whole app felt like a rushed kludge job of half baked ideas, and very inconsistant user interface.
Indeed. I've had the GMail app on my iPhone for over a year now - and it sucks rocks through a garden hose. And that pretty much goes for all of Google on the iPhone.
This really does explain the development of China over the last 10 or 20 years.
Concentration on sexy, l33t high tech projects while ignoring the growing rumbles of the people... Check.
Seriously, China's main problem (now and for the next couple of decades) is the now threatened prosperity of their growing middle class. (Threatened both with the faltering economies of the West, and as the West looks to alternate sources of labor as the cost of doing business in China increases.) Look to Russia for an example of how that turns out...
Indeed. Though I know Slashdot is (in general) fond of technocrats, there's no evidence they are any better or any worse as politicians than anyone else.
While comparing the performance specs is sexy and nerdish and l33t and all that - you leave off important bits, like power consumption and heat production. These matter in the real world of engineering data centers.
I wonder why they went for solid fuel rather an a liquid fluoride thorium reactor setup. There are many advantages to the liquid setup plus it is a technology which has been done and proven.
Probably because there are some *dis*advantages as well - like the need for a complex continuous reprocessing system to clean the salt of fission daughter products, chemical reaction byproducts and various contaminants. Or the extreme toxicity and handling hazards of the fuel salts. Or their tendency to breed corrosive byproducts during reactor operation and even while shut down.
I know molten salt reactors are the poster child of many nuclear enthusiasts... But there's a huge gap between 'the technology has been proven' and 'known design issues have been adequately addressed', let alone 'a viable design exists'. There's a lot more to it than just proving that you can fission fuel and generate heat, and almost none of that work has been done for the liquid fluoride thorium reactor
Ignore the suggestions that require you to rely on third party services and software that may or may not be be available in the future as technology etc... changes.
Type your passwords on a sheet of paper. Put the paper in an appropriately rated safe. Give the combination in a sealed envelope to the appropriate trusted individual(s).
Done.
Seriously, it's that dead simple. And since you'll likely need a safe anyhow to keep important papers in, you might as well make full use of it.
Speed Limits are arbitary limits which do not take into account
Actually, they're anything *but* arbitrary, The curves in the road, length and angles of ramps, presence or absence of acceleration lanes, general traffic level, etc... etc... all bear into the setting of speed limits. It's an imprecise science because local conditions can vary so much, but it is a science none the less.
The reason it doesn't take into account the factors you mention is because those factors are the ones the *driver* is supposed to take into account.
it would be one thing is there was a fair reply that held water; but this was a sham in every sense of the word.
When the working definition of a fair reply is "complete capitulation to all demands", there can never be a 'fair' reply - because you'll never accept anything less.
First of all it is a european organization "Desert Tec" building it.
A 'European organization' isn't 'Europe' either.
Second of all they don't need "funding" as they have enough money to built it without it.
Since there isn't a 'it' they are building, rather than a concept they are stumping... (And since, right on their homepage they're asking for donations.)
Third of all construction is starting in 2012 for the first plant
Um, no. Construction is starting on a experimental demonstration concept unit - not a 'plant' in any useful sense of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
If you aren't flying the ship, then that spatial awareness is useless - because you can't use it avoid anything. Not that there's anything in space close enough and slow enough that manual reflexes are useful for that, other than the rare case of two spacecraft docking.
In short, you've assumed she was "substantially unable" (etc..) without actually having any proof she was unable to do so. You also seem ignorant of the fact that cerebral palsy comes in a wide variety of forms. You also seem ignorant of the fact that she's living alone, on her own, which demonstrates the falsity of your assumption and the depth of your ignorance.
Or, in other words, you have ignorance piled on top of ignorance piled on top of groundless assumptions. None of which are any substitute for the facts, which in this case are trivially available to anyone following the case.
Which makes it easy to see why, to those that have done the research and are even mildly conversant with the facts, why the State of Texas ruled that the statute had been exceeded and why you have failed utterly to demonstrate otherwise.
And how do you figure the statute of limitations has not expired? Not only has the state said so, the link you provides says so too. She wasn't a child (younger than 14). Nor is the offense punishable under 22.04 (despite being disabled, she is able to care for herself). So the maximum possible term for the statue of limitations would seem to be five years.
Or, in other words, the link you provide doesn't seem to say what you think it does. The State of Texas agrees with my interpretation.
So, if you've "done the research", why not provide a cite showing where the State of Texas and the link you provided is wrong?
I was thinking much the same thing.
The last thing I want is my car sitting dead in my driveway or at the mechanics while battery leasing agent points fingers at the computer vendor who's busy blaming the motor drivers which were written by company that got bought out last year and the motor firmware is now on end-of-life anyhow... I want car my to just work. I don't want to add another thing to my life that needs me to ride an endless upgrade and compatibility treadmill.
The Leaf and the Focus exist in the real world, and have been tested and certified by the appropriate bodies as to safety, etc.... The Street Scooter is a pile of CAD drawings, Power Points, press releases, and imaginative artist's conceptions.
It's easy to be cheap and high performance when you're vaporware. Let's wait for hardware to hit the road when we can compare apples to apples before taking Nissan and Ford to task.
Also, the concept moves a substantial chunk of the cost (the batteries) 'off the books' by leasing them to the customer rather than selling them to the customer. While this creates an semi-illusory MSRP, it does however give a clearer picture of cost-to-own and cost-to-operate.
So that means an end to the stories and claims and general nerd mirth about how 'Android phones are now the largest market segment'?
Disclaimer: I am a former SSBN crewman, a missile fire control technician to be exact.
But that's the thing - pilots aren't the only people to have those reflexes and experiences. In addition, spacecraft in cruise phase to Mars aren't fighters in combat. The requirements and responses times and types are radically different.
I give and grant that pilots have faster reflexes - in the small hand and arm movements need to actuate a set of controls their hands are already on... and that's important during ascent and entry. (Especially back in the day of unreliable or non-existent automated controls.) But 99.99% of a spaceflight you aren't in ascent or entry with your hands on a joystick. Nor, for 99.99% of the emergencies you'll encounter in cruise phase, do you need those millisecond reflexes. (Because either you have to move your arm a considerable distance, or because you have to physically move some distance to deal with the casualty, or both.)
The 'astronauts must be pilots' meme was set back in the days of Mercury - when astronauts were thought to require thorough medical histories, required high security clearances (since they were dealing with ICBM's), and actually flew their spacecraft for 90% of the mission. Pretty much none of that remains true.
The 'astronauts must have near superhuman reflexes and speed' meme was set at the same time and under the same situation. And again, that situation has changed. We aren't flying spacecraft that a tiny leak could kill in a minute or where loss of life support could kill in five minutes anymore. The larger your craft, the slower your required response times can be.
Look how many Shuttle astronauts aren't pilots, and consider that the first American commander of the ISS was a Navy Seal with no flight training at all.
Submariners have experienced and dealt with such situations too. I've been through fires, flooding, suspected toxic gas releases and other atmosphere contamination events, loss of power, loss of hydraulics, loss of key computers, etc... etc... And that just the real deals, I'm not even counting the hours and hours of drills and simulations. And the guys who actually dove and drove the boat, or sat the reactor and propulsion consoles have even more appropriate experience.
I've actually lived in circumstances somewhat resembling those of this simulation - as a SSBN crewman. And let me assure you, people do indeed go bat shit insane under those conditions. The ships you so admire kept their crews under control with a combination of brutal discipline and extremely heavy physical work, something unlikely to be tried today, singly or in tandem.
None of those professions have any experience with long term isolation and any resulting stress. Their coping mechanisms are based around dealing with missions at most a few hours long the effects and after effects of adrenaline for brief periods. On top of that, a Mars mission includes very little actual flying.
So why should astronauts be pilots at all?
If you want individuals used to the stress of working under conditions of long term isolation in close quarters - look to submarines and to Antarctic overwinter crews.
Pray tell - where in the paragraph quoted below, lifted directly from the Wikipedia article, does it mention any change to void coefficient?
Pressurized water reactors, like all thermal reactor designs, require the fast fission neutrons to be slowed down (a process called moderation or thermalization) in order to interact with the nuclear fuel and sustain the chain reaction. In PWRs the coolant water is used as a moderator by letting the neutrons undergo multiple collisions with light hydrogen atoms in the water, losing speed in the process. This "moderating" of neutrons will happen more often when the water is denser (more collisions will occur). The use of water as a moderator is an important safety feature of PWRs, as an increase in temperature may cause the water to expand, giving greater 'gaps' between the water molecules and reducing the probability of thermalisation - thereby reducing the extent to which neutrons are slowed down and hence reducing the reactivity in the reactor. Therefore, if reactivity increases beyond normal, the reduced moderation of neutrons will cause the chain reaction to slow down, producing less heat. This property, known as the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, makes PWR reactors very stable. This process is referred to as 'Self-Regulating', i.e. the hotter the coolant becomes, the less reactive the plant becomes, shutting itself down slightly to compensate and vice versa. Thus the plant controls itself around a given temperature set by the position of the control rods.
Right - that's why those gaps are mentioned in the section on PWR's.... where there is no boiling and no voids, and why voids are discussed in the section on BWR where there is boiling and voids. That should be a clue to you that there are two different effects in play.
Here's a clue for you - a 4.2% change in density means an equal change in moderation effects. Read the bloody link you quoted at me with such relish, which says *exactly* what I've been saying all along. Study up on negative temperature coefficient - because it relies on precisely the existence of that effect. (It's even mentioned in the link you insisted I read, and which you patently have not.)
That assumes the water at the point of the criticality incident was in fact boiling - something neither you nor I know for certain. You're confusing reactor design with the basic nuclear effects the original poster was discussing.
The problem is, you should be saying that to a mirror. Because I *do* know what I'm talking about - and you're the one pretending. You won't even read the link you provide as support for your 'argument'... because it shows how wrong you actually are.
Yet, every light water reactor in the world depends on exactly that effect. (Hint: Google "cold water accident".)
Yes, let's look at your link. Let's quote from the very first paragraph of that link:
The very effect described by the original poster and myself and which you claim doesn't exist.
Care to to try again? You don't really need to, you've more than sufficiently proven your ignorance to me. (Protip: Wikipedia links are no substitute for actually knowing what you're talking about.)
Yes, yes it does. That's part of how a PWR obtains it's negative reactivity coefficient. (A major part of what makes them safe.) It's why reactor operators fear a cold water accident - the sudden introduction of significantly cooler water into the core.
There are two things that can change criticality inside a reactor - a change in fuel geometry and properties or a change in moderator geometry or properties. Fuel alone will not cause such an event - unless a critical mass is present. For that to happen today (months after the accident and thousands of degrees below the fuels melting point) that means you have to have significant chunks of fuel moving about in the core.
The key takeaway here though, is the grandparent is correct, and you are not. Nuclear reactions are very sensitive to changes in moderator geometry or properties, that's the basic principle on which reactors work after all.
Brain Wave? Though that wasn't changing laws of physics per se, it was an unspecified 'field' that limited neural activity. Entering the field caused the Cretaceousâ"Tertiary extinction event, and the book begins as the solar system exits the field.
Oh, it's worse than that. From the very start, the OLPC laptop has been designed primarily to comply with Negroponte's political IT views. The poor of the world are just a means to that end.
Since we're only a month into the new fiscal year, and debates for next years budget aren't anytime soon... time to adjust the tinfoil.
Indeed. I've had the GMail app on my iPhone for over a year now - and it sucks rocks through a garden hose. And that pretty much goes for all of Google on the iPhone.
Concentration on sexy, l33t high tech projects while ignoring the growing rumbles of the people... Check.
Seriously, China's main problem (now and for the next couple of decades) is the now threatened prosperity of their growing middle class. (Threatened both with the faltering economies of the West, and as the West looks to alternate sources of labor as the cost of doing business in China increases.) Look to Russia for an example of how that turns out...
Indeed. Though I know Slashdot is (in general) fond of technocrats, there's no evidence they are any better or any worse as politicians than anyone else.
While comparing the performance specs is sexy and nerdish and l33t and all that - you leave off important bits, like power consumption and heat production. These matter in the real world of engineering data centers.
Probably because there are some *dis*advantages as well - like the need for a complex continuous reprocessing system to clean the salt of fission daughter products, chemical reaction byproducts and various contaminants. Or the extreme toxicity and handling hazards of the fuel salts. Or their tendency to breed corrosive byproducts during reactor operation and even while shut down.
I know molten salt reactors are the poster child of many nuclear enthusiasts... But there's a huge gap between 'the technology has been proven' and 'known design issues have been adequately addressed', let alone 'a viable design exists'. There's a lot more to it than just proving that you can fission fuel and generate heat, and almost none of that work has been done for the liquid fluoride thorium reactor
Ignore the suggestions that require you to rely on third party services and software that may or may not be be available in the future as technology etc... changes.
Type your passwords on a sheet of paper. Put the paper in an appropriately rated safe. Give the combination in a sealed envelope to the appropriate trusted individual(s).
Done.
Seriously, it's that dead simple. And since you'll likely need a safe anyhow to keep important papers in, you might as well make full use of it.
Actually, they're anything *but* arbitrary, The curves in the road, length and angles of ramps, presence or absence of acceleration lanes, general traffic level, etc... etc... all bear into the setting of speed limits. It's an imprecise science because local conditions can vary so much, but it is a science none the less.
The reason it doesn't take into account the factors you mention is because those factors are the ones the *driver* is supposed to take into account.
When the working definition of a fair reply is "complete capitulation to all demands", there can never be a 'fair' reply - because you'll never accept anything less.
A 'European organization' isn't 'Europe' either.
Since there isn't a 'it' they are building, rather than a concept they are stumping... (And since, right on their homepage they're asking for donations.)
Um, no. Construction is starting on a experimental demonstration concept unit - not a 'plant' in any useful sense of the word.
You, you ignorant pinheaded jackass.