Which is why you read the summary - because it clearly states that the goal of the expedition is to create such map, not that such a map already exists.
The Slashdot crowd is generally anlytical, and critical.
Somewhat. They're also [in]famous for not actually reading the article or study. And for acting as though they (without any experience) have found problems that scientists/engineers (with experience) hadn't thought of (but did if you read the article/study). Etc... etc...
Sadly, his study is fatally flawed because his assumption is flawed. Just because total pedestrian deaths have fallen, that does not mean the percentage of total deaths caused by hybrids isn't rising.
Not to mention that regardless of any express license terms, sharing that qualifies as fair use is also NOT AN INFRINGMENT and is LEGAL and should not be described as illegal or as "infringing files."
For that very limited subset of files which will qualify as "fair use", sure. But outside of files licensed to be freely shared or in the public domain, that subset is so small as to be non-existent.
my whole point is that if you play with semantics loosely enough, you'll find that probably the vast majority of the material on the Net as a whole is "illegal" and "copyrighted."
Of course, you're playing the same game - and pretending you're the one playing it straight.
I don't think anybody will argue that Bittorrent is not a vector for piracy.
Aw, horseshit. That's exactly what Slashdot has been arguing for years - "it's a method of sharing files that just happens to also be used for illegitimate purposes by some" is how the argument has long been phrased. Just look at the highly rated comments in the discussion, like yours, each one arguing how it's just not possible that they study is accurate. It must be spin. Etc... Etc...
While most of the ebooks might well be what most of us would consider "spam" ("Make $10,000 dollars in 7 days!"), they are almost certainly not copyrighted material in the sense that we would think of it. There may actaully be some copyright asserted, but I doubt any of these have been properly submitted to the library of congress
You're a couple of decades behind on copyright law - copyright attaches at the moment of creation, submission to the Library of Congress isn't required.
In forty years, those slides will still be sitting in a box and will be viewable. However, it's not like you can put a DVD/CD in your attic and let it sit there, forgotten, for 40years.
You can't put slide film in an attic for forty years and expect it to be viewable either. You *may* get lucky, but odds are the heat will degrade the slides into uselessness.
Film *can* last a long time, but it isn't magic and poor storage can ruin it in an amazingly short time. That's why professionals use(d) multiple layers of dust free archival envelopes in temperature controlled storage.
If the plant is already operating, then it's working fluid (salt) is already hot and wouldn't need to be heated as much either. In fact, of the two, the working fluid is likely to be slightly hotter.
Could this technology be combined with desalinization, i.e. take salt water, pull the salt out to produce potable water, and use the salt to improve the plant's efficiency?
No, once the plant is charged with working fluid, you don't need to add any more.
Too bad the Americans didn't invent the SLOWPOKE, which while small, has never had a recorded incident as far as I am aware of, in its 40+ year history.
Which sounds impressive - so long as you are innocent of any actual knowledge of nuclear energy in general and reactors in particular. (Which I'm not.)
SLOWPOKE isn't a power reactor, and thus is utterly irrelevant to the type of reactors the GP was discussing. Nor is it's safety record particularly notable, as it's typical of pool reactor safety history.
Now, it is true that the basic design can be roughly adapted to a very low power power reactor... The output is so small it's irrelevant to the reactors being discussed in this article.
Interesting that Boeing has finally weighed in with something new for human space transport and that their offering looks very much like a commodity product
It's roughly as interesting as the Sun rising in the East. Or did you somehow thing Boeing and the other big companies were going to ignore a potential market?
Somewhat surprising for such a larger organization that is used to fat government contracts with no competition past the initial bidding.
I'm guessing you are unaware that Boeing also has a huge commercial division.
Regardless, it is nice to see that the government and private sectors will soon have an ability to choose, it sure beats the old system.
Nope. This is a winner-take-all fight to the finish. The market, absent subsidies, isn't big enough to support more than one supplier.
I didn't come up with a "better" explanation, but I did come up with a different one that apparently is just as compatible with the evidence.
If it's the one I replied to, it's not compatible with the evidence.
Save the lecture. My point was that there was other hypotheses that could explain the existing evidence. Why should we get into a discussion of the scientific method when it isn't an issue? Isn't that a bit unscientific to introduce extraneous information?
You asked a question, and I answered it. I introduced a discussion of the scientific method because your egregious lack of understanding of it is why we're having this discussion in the first place.
Given Google's history of purchasing companies and leaving them wither on the vine, developing ideas and then not following through to completion, and generally acting like it has the attention span of an easily distracted five year old... It's easy to believe that Google would spend $700 million on something they don't really understand. They see it as a search-and-aggregation engine, and that's pure catnip to Google.
Why is that assertion true (that a sharp gradient implies what they claim it implies)?
Why shouldn't it be true? (With the caveat that science doesn't claim to produce truth - only to produce explanations that match observations.) The theory matches all available evidence, so it'll do until someone comes up with a better explanation.
From what I understand, there appears to be observations of perhaps two or three impacts that they're basing this assertion on, Shoemaker-Levy and single addition impacts on Jupiter and Saturn since. That seems very sparse evidence on which to base such claims.
That's the way science works - they examine the available facts and produce a theory that explains it. Then other people seek to find if the theory holds up over time, as more facts are discovered.
You'd think wrongly then. Because while he was referring specifically to reactors, those comments apply to all large engineering projects - then and now.
Reading through the comments and seeing the deluge of "who cares" comments, I'm simply baffled. Who cares about a major corporation deceiving the public?
Because the public has been bloody well begging to be deceived to. They'd never believe it was a 'command center' unless it was filled to brim with screens showing current images and Serious Looking People staring grimly into them. They don't care if the screens are showing something the people in the command center can't do a damm thing about (that's for the guys actually working), it must have Teh Sexy.
Real command centers sometimes have blank screens, or screens showing thing like an Excel spreadsheet providing the information the people in the command center need. They have empty chairs sometimes because it's occupant is up taking a bathroom break, or is in a conference somewhere, or just because there's no need for that seat to be occupied at that precise moment.
This is a management and supervisory center, not NASA mission control or the bridge of the starship Enterprise.
Who cares about this deception occurring while the corporation is dealing with an ecological/public relations disaster?
The only people who care (about this matter) are shallow individuals more impressed with glitz and glitter and looking for a topic for today's Twenty Minute Hate. Synthetic hate is so convenient and the 'net stands ready to deliver today's canned sermon 24/7.
Mod me troll. Feel free. After all, who cares.
And here we see the reality. Facts need not apply because they might upset your world view.
So what you have is a reactor that produces its own fuel
No it doesn't. You put fuel in at the start, and unless you put in more it eventually burns it all up (even if you remove the poisons) and stops working. (If it produced it's own fuel, it would be a perpetual motion machine.)
In fifty years, a 1 GW IFR type reactor would produce about a cubic yard of waste.
A cubic yard of metal - and several boxcars worth of other wastes.
Your brother has bought into the hype, but fails to understand the difference between hype and actual working nuclear technology.
We may be seeing the results of many impacts over thousands of years rather than single large impacts a couple centuries ago.
If your hypothesis was true - they wouldn't be a sharp gradient of CO concentrations between atmospheric layers. However, such a gradient was observed, showing the impacts occurred in a relatively short time frame a relatively short time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why you read the summary - because it clearly states that the goal of the expedition is to create such map, not that such a map already exists.
Somewhat. They're also [in]famous for not actually reading the article or study. And for acting as though they (without any experience) have found problems that scientists/engineers (with experience) hadn't thought of (but did if you read the article/study). Etc... etc...
Neither can rape, murder, drunk driving, child abuse...
[Remainder of impassioned rant of why theft and piracy should be legal, snipped.]
If one was profoundly ignorant, one could claim that.
Sadly, his study is fatally flawed because his assumption is flawed. Just because total pedestrian deaths have fallen, that does not mean the percentage of total deaths caused by hybrids isn't rising.
For that very limited subset of files which will qualify as "fair use", sure. But outside of files licensed to be freely shared or in the public domain, that subset is so small as to be non-existent.
Of course, you're playing the same game - and pretending you're the one playing it straight.
Aw, horseshit. That's exactly what Slashdot has been arguing for years - "it's a method of sharing files that just happens to also be used for illegitimate purposes by some" is how the argument has long been phrased. Just look at the highly rated comments in the discussion, like yours, each one arguing how it's just not possible that they study is accurate. It must be spin. Etc... Etc...
You're a couple of decades behind on copyright law - copyright attaches at the moment of creation, submission to the Library of Congress isn't required.
You can't put slide film in an attic for forty years and expect it to be viewable either. You *may* get lucky, but odds are the heat will degrade the slides into uselessness.
Film *can* last a long time, but it isn't magic and poor storage can ruin it in an amazingly short time. That's why professionals use(d) multiple layers of dust free archival envelopes in temperature controlled storage.
If the plant is already operating, then it's working fluid (salt) is already hot and wouldn't need to be heated as much either. In fact, of the two, the working fluid is likely to be slightly hotter.
No, once the plant is charged with working fluid, you don't need to add any more.
Which sounds impressive - so long as you are innocent of any actual knowledge of nuclear energy in general and reactors in particular. (Which I'm not.)
SLOWPOKE isn't a power reactor, and thus is utterly irrelevant to the type of reactors the GP was discussing. Nor is it's safety record particularly notable, as it's typical of pool reactor safety history.
Now, it is true that the basic design can be roughly adapted to a very low power power reactor... The output is so small it's irrelevant to the reactors being discussed in this article.
What I say doesn't matter - as your disconnection from the real world is proven by your willingness to indulge in such delusions in the first place.
It's roughly as interesting as the Sun rising in the East. Or did you somehow thing Boeing and the other big companies were going to ignore a potential market?
I'm guessing you are unaware that Boeing also has a huge commercial division.
Nope. This is a winner-take-all fight to the finish. The market, absent subsidies, isn't big enough to support more than one supplier.
You have no idea what my belief system is - except in your own deluded mind.
If it's the one I replied to, it's not compatible with the evidence.
You asked a question, and I answered it. I introduced a discussion of the scientific method because your egregious lack of understanding of it is why we're having this discussion in the first place.
Given Google's history of purchasing companies and leaving them wither on the vine, developing ideas and then not following through to completion, and generally acting like it has the attention span of an easily distracted five year old... It's easy to believe that Google would spend $700 million on something they don't really understand. They see it as a search-and-aggregation engine, and that's pure catnip to Google.
Why shouldn't it be true? (With the caveat that science doesn't claim to produce truth - only to produce explanations that match observations.) The theory matches all available evidence, so it'll do until someone comes up with a better explanation.
That's the way science works - they examine the available facts and produce a theory that explains it. Then other people seek to find if the theory holds up over time, as more facts are discovered.
You'd think wrongly then. Because while he was referring specifically to reactors, those comments apply to all large engineering projects - then and now.
Because the public has been bloody well begging to be deceived to. They'd never believe it was a 'command center' unless it was filled to brim with screens showing current images and Serious Looking People staring grimly into them. They don't care if the screens are showing something the people in the command center can't do a damm thing about (that's for the guys actually working), it must have Teh Sexy.
Real command centers sometimes have blank screens, or screens showing thing like an Excel spreadsheet providing the information the people in the command center need. They have empty chairs sometimes because it's occupant is up taking a bathroom break, or is in a conference somewhere, or just because there's no need for that seat to be occupied at that precise moment.
This is a management and supervisory center, not NASA mission control or the bridge of the starship Enterprise.
The only people who care (about this matter) are shallow individuals more impressed with glitz and glitter and looking for a topic for today's Twenty Minute Hate. Synthetic hate is so convenient and the 'net stands ready to deliver today's canned sermon 24/7.
And here we see the reality. Facts need not apply because they might upset your world view.
That no one else noticed the incorrect statement is meaningless.
You do know there is a huge difference between producing a plant and marketing an unbuilt and untested plant don't you?
No it doesn't. You put fuel in at the start, and unless you put in more it eventually burns it all up (even if you remove the poisons) and stops working. (If it produced it's own fuel, it would be a perpetual motion machine.)
A cubic yard of metal - and several boxcars worth of other wastes.
Your brother has bought into the hype, but fails to understand the difference between hype and actual working nuclear technology.
If your hypothesis was true - they wouldn't be a sharp gradient of CO concentrations between atmospheric layers. However, such a gradient was observed, showing the impacts occurred in a relatively short time frame a relatively short time ago.
If you read the abstract or the article linked in the summary, you'd know.
The balance of your reply makes it clear why you didn't however.
Yes, I believe you're full of bullshit. Willfully and knowingly so. And you revel in it.
It's pretty much the nature of doing anything serious. Even out in my wood shop often it's the smallest things that require the most thought and work.