Yes, actually reactors must go super-critical just to get started. This just means that the reaction rate is increasing. When you get to the operating level you want, you push the rods in until the reaction slows to a critical level.
As far as meltdowns go, you forget one thing. As the core melts surrounding materials, it mixes with them and this causes a certain amount of moderation, slowing down the nuclear reaction. Many new reactor designs incorporate moderating materials directly into the containment vessel so that even under a full and uncontrolled meltdown, the moderation caused by these materials is enough to slow the reaction and prevent a breach. New reactors can survive an full catastrophic failure of all systems simultaneously and still not allow a breach of the containment system.
He stated the 'color' of our photo receptors. Although our photo receptors pick up C, Y, and M -- it is because their colors (as he said) are R, G, and B.
ie: the Red Photoreceptor reflects RED, that is why it is a red colored photoreceptor. Since it reflects RED, it picks up BLUE and GREEN, which make one of the (secondary) colors you mentioned.
Ouch! I'm not sure where you got this (mis)information, but it is entirely incorrect.
The photoreceptors (cones) in our eyes are named for the colors they are sensitive to, not the colors they appear. The 'Red' photoreceptors in our eyes are most responsive to RED light, not cyan. If you pick up any book on vision or do a cursory google search you can find graphs showing the response curves for each type of cone and how they overlap in the visible frequency spectrum. See here for example.
Not all Canon's are created equal. I have the S9000 and it's been the best printer I've ever purchased. The printhead is seperate from the tanks but also removable for easy soaking/cleaning (or you can just buy a new one). If your printhead in an older Epson gets clogged, you have to send it in for servicing or take it appart yourself and void your warranty.
The S9000 is a 6-color photo printer with incredible resolution and can make 19"x13" prints. I can get an entire set of SIX ink cartriges for $15 or refill them EASILY myself for even less!:)
His diabolical plans to automatically destroy the computers of alleged copyright infringers was well on it's way to fruition. And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling haxorz!;)
No, no no. It's not being done by the RIAA/MPAA. It's being done by Senator Orin Hatch! His outspoken plans to automatically destroy infringing users' computers was well on it's way.
You may be right, but... Go read the insane tolerance requirements for reading a DVD and then get back to me about what is and isn't feasable. Never underestimate the capabilities of a group of tallented engineers with vision and a few billion dollars backing them up.;)
Sorry, my mistake. I was looking at a different post talking about geosynchronous orbit and somehow mixed the two up what with all the work interruptions.:)
The problem is... kinetic energy only accounts for less than 9 percent of the energy in a geosynchronous orbit. The other 91 percent is the potential energy lost doing work against gravity.
Taking a mass from rest at the equator to a geosynchronous orbit requires over 58 megajoules per killogram (KE=4.7MJ, PE=53.7MJ) neglecting friction and other losses. In kwh, that's over 16 kwh/kg.
Note that the kinetic energy in a geosynchronous orbit (~3km/s) is much less than the kinetic energy in a LEO.
Thanks for your insightful post (which I happen to agree with).
And please feel free to disregard the following if you're not a mathematician.:)
This is pretty offtopic, but it reminded me of something I thought of the other day while thinking about Godel's theorem. I realized that where people generally consider statements to be either 'true' or 'false', I believe there must be a third category as well which I'll label 'invalid'. Further, statements which attest to their own validity (being true/false) either directly or indirectly must be labeled 'invalid'. This eliminates the "circular argument" type of proofs and the traditional paradoxical statements such as "this statement is false". Now the interesting thing you realize while looking at these three groups of statements is that the true statements can't contain any assertion that the group itself as a whole is 'true', otherwise it would be an invalid statement. Like the man who tells everyone how humble he is... By saying he is, he isn't. Obviously the group may contain arguments that other parts of the set are true, but they can't come full circle so you end up with the statements on the 'periphery' of the true-group attesting to statements at the 'core' of the true-group. The one property that the set of true statements seems to have over the other two is that the set of true statements will not contradict eachother. In other words self consistency. The truth will stand by itself needing no external statement(s) to verify it.
Now, maybe that's nothing earth shattering, but I thought it was interesting, and generally supports the way I (and hopefully others) determine what's true: (1) You hear something new. (2) If it seems to not contradict other things you believe to be true, you mentally label it as 'probably true'. On the other hand, if it contradicts your beliefs/views/ideas you mentally label it as 'probably false/invalid'. (3) As you hear/learn more things, they will either reinforce each other or contradict each other and things you have mental notes on will shift either way as this process continues. It's kind of like constructive and destructive interference, and the constructive (non contradictory) ideas should end up being the 'true' ones. Note that the best way to insure this is to learn as much as possible from as many sources as possible.
Also seemed to make sense of somthing I had read that previously didn't seem to make much sense to me: "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." D&C 93:30
Sorry to go on and on. Just some thoughts of the sleep deprived.;)
Re:They've copyrighted BLANK LINES!!!!
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
Nope... I'm converting all my hardware and software to use the letters "I" and "O". An "O" will be represented in my computers by a low logic level and an "I" will be represented by a high logic level.;)
Yes, it does (IMHO). This is a huge detriment to scientific progress in general. We're building epicycles upon epicycles and heading for a quagmire of stagnation.
You just would never know unless you get deep into it. For example, new popular and widely accpeted ideas on the leading edge of quantum mechanics directly contradict the widely accepted theories of special relativity, yet nobody is willing to even admit that their ideas might be wrong. The lay person has absolutely no idea that any of this is the case and usually blindly accepts that "Leading Physicists" must know what they're doing because they're so learned and smart.
Further, while some physicists strive for clarity and simplicity, many physicists use abstraction, mathematics and absurd speculation to make things seem more difficult and advanced than they really are in what seems to be an attempt to boost their already inflated egos.
For a couple of examples: The discovery of the quantization of cosmological red-shift was met with both derrision and gross unscientific bias even though presented only as empirical data! It wasn't until other researchers set out specifically to disprove the original data found the same results. Since these results seriously call into question the source of the cosmilogical red-shift and cast doubts on the holy "Big Bang", they've been largely ignored and 'swept under the rug' so to speak even though their implications to currently accepted ideas demmand they be explained.
Another scientist presenting empirical evidence of distribution correlation between quasars and local galaxies was booed off the stage while attemting to present his objective data and subsequently ostracized from the community. His findings were ignored and called effects of gravitational lensing even though that can not possibly be the reason due to the sheer statistical improbibility it would present.
The view seems to be: As long as you don't rock the boat or challenge the status quo, you're ok, but please don't try to openly show objective data that might dammage the ivory tower we've built.
Yes, I am well aware of and agree with the tenets of science. It's too bad that those tenets are subverted so often by those who espouse them. It makes for slow progress when you have to wait for a generation to die off... especially when that generation is pushing their flawed ideas on a young and gullible new generation in a very authoritarian manner.
Unlike religionists, the only time scientists get stuffy when someone questions their data is when that someone has made no effort to understand the process, and is speaking from a position of obvious fallacy.
I have to take extreme exception with this. Scientists are human and as such can be extremely biased and unaccepting of new ideas in the face of mountains of scientific evidence against their beliefs. In my field, I see this all the time.
It would be great if we could all be entirely objective and follow the scientific method to a tee all the time, but in reality, this is seldom the case... even for reputable "scientists".
Arrogance, and a need to have our beliefs vindicated are probably the most common downfalls I see. The good scientists are those who know they don't know it all and are willing to accept when theories they've been taught or developed are evidenced to be false. It can be a huge impact on the psyche to discover that you've based your life's work on something that's entirely wrong, and there are those who just cannot accept such an admission.
Someone earlier made a distinction between science (the method) and scientism (a belief system akin to materialism). Too many scientists treat their theories and ideas as religeon and show just as much dogmatic rigidness as any religeon.
I could go on and on or cite numerous examples, but you should have seen plenty of this around you (if you're truely objective).
Wish I had mod points today. There is such a huge amount of blatantly unobjective bias in the scientific community today, it's hard to believe. (At least in physics).
or even infinite copies for $0. In the latter case, Public Domain has been created.
Apparently 'Public Domain' DOES have to be defined for people like you. Your cost argument is necessary but insufficient. A work is considered public domain ONLY if it is released without restrictions. That includes CONTRACUTAL restrictions such as the GPL.
Many companys allow unrestricted distribution of software or literary works while explicitly restating copyright.
Slashdot Mirror
Where's an "Uninformed" moderation when you need it?
sub-critical = reaction decreasing. net neutron absorbtion.
critical = reaction sustaining. neutrons emission == neutron absorbtion.
super-critical = reaction increasing. net neutron emmision.
As far as meltdowns go, you forget one thing. As the core melts surrounding materials, it mixes with them and this causes a certain amount of moderation, slowing down the nuclear reaction. Many new reactor designs incorporate moderating materials directly into the containment vessel so that even under a full and uncontrolled meltdown, the moderation caused by these materials is enough to slow the reaction and prevent a breach. New reactors can survive an full catastrophic failure of all systems simultaneously and still not allow a breach of the containment system.
MYTH #2: ... the [foss] user is obliged to contribute in some manner.
LOL ;)
ie: the Red Photoreceptor reflects RED, that is why it is a red colored photoreceptor. Since it reflects RED, it picks up BLUE and GREEN, which make one of the (secondary) colors you mentioned.
Ouch! I'm not sure where you got this (mis)information, but it is entirely incorrect.
The photoreceptors (cones) in our eyes are named for the colors they are sensitive to, not the colors they appear. The 'Red' photoreceptors in our eyes are most responsive to RED light, not cyan. If you pick up any book on vision or do a cursory google search you can find graphs showing the response curves for each type of cone and how they overlap in the visible frequency spectrum. See here for example.
It's Toonces!
Sorry I don't have any mod points. ;)
The S9000 is a 6-color photo printer with incredible resolution and can make 19"x13" prints. I can get an entire set of SIX ink cartriges for $15 or refill them EASILY myself for even less! :)
His diabolical plans to automatically destroy the computers of alleged copyright infringers was well on it's way to fruition. And he would have gotten away with it too if it weren't for those meddling haxorz! ;)
No, no no. It's not being done by the RIAA/MPAA. It's being done by Senator Orin Hatch! His outspoken plans to automatically destroy infringing users' computers was well on it's way.
I'd mod you funny if I had some points. Great site! ;)
You may be right, but... Go read the insane tolerance requirements for reading a DVD and then get back to me about what is and isn't feasable. Never underestimate the capabilities of a group of tallented engineers with vision and a few billion dollars backing them up. ;)
Sorry, my mistake. I was looking at a different post talking about geosynchronous orbit and somehow mixed the two up what with all the work interruptions. :)
Taking a mass from rest at the equator to a geosynchronous orbit requires over 58 megajoules per killogram (KE=4.7MJ, PE=53.7MJ) neglecting friction and other losses. In kwh, that's over 16 kwh/kg.
Note that the kinetic energy in a geosynchronous orbit (~3km/s) is much less than the kinetic energy in a LEO.
PE = G m M_earth [ 1/r_earth - 1/r_geosync ] = 14.9 kwh / kg
KE = G m M_earth / 2 r_geosync = 1.3 kwh / kg
Total energy fo about 16.2 kwh / kg. Just FYI. :)
And please feel free to disregard the following if you're not a mathematician. :)
This is pretty offtopic, but it reminded me of something I thought of the other day while thinking about Godel's theorem. I realized that where people generally consider statements to be either 'true' or 'false', I believe there must be a third category as well which I'll label 'invalid'. Further, statements which attest to their own validity (being true/false) either directly or indirectly must be labeled 'invalid'. This eliminates the "circular argument" type of proofs and the traditional paradoxical statements such as "this statement is false". Now the interesting thing you realize while looking at these three groups of statements is that the true statements can't contain any assertion that the group itself as a whole is 'true', otherwise it would be an invalid statement. Like the man who tells everyone how humble he is... By saying he is, he isn't. Obviously the group may contain arguments that other parts of the set are true, but they can't come full circle so you end up with the statements on the 'periphery' of the true-group attesting to statements at the 'core' of the true-group. The one property that the set of true statements seems to have over the other two is that the set of true statements will not contradict eachother. In other words self consistency. The truth will stand by itself needing no external statement(s) to verify it.
Now, maybe that's nothing earth shattering, but I thought it was interesting, and generally supports the way I (and hopefully others) determine what's true: (1) You hear something new. (2) If it seems to not contradict other things you believe to be true, you mentally label it as 'probably true'. On the other hand, if it contradicts your beliefs/views/ideas you mentally label it as 'probably false/invalid'. (3) As you hear/learn more things, they will either reinforce each other or contradict each other and things you have mental notes on will shift either way as this process continues. It's kind of like constructive and destructive interference, and the constructive (non contradictory) ideas should end up being the 'true' ones. Note that the best way to insure this is to learn as much as possible from as many sources as possible. Also seemed to make sense of somthing I had read that previously didn't seem to make much sense to me: "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence." D&C 93:30
Sorry to go on and on. Just some thoughts of the sleep deprived. ;)
Nope... I'm converting all my hardware and software to use the letters "I" and "O". An "O" will be represented in my computers by a low logic level and an "I" will be represented by a high logic level. ;)
You just would never know unless you get deep into it. For example, new popular and widely accpeted ideas on the leading edge of quantum mechanics directly contradict the widely accepted theories of special relativity, yet nobody is willing to even admit that their ideas might be wrong. The lay person has absolutely no idea that any of this is the case and usually blindly accepts that "Leading Physicists" must know what they're doing because they're so learned and smart.
Further, while some physicists strive for clarity and simplicity, many physicists use abstraction, mathematics and absurd speculation to make things seem more difficult and advanced than they really are in what seems to be an attempt to boost their already inflated egos.
For a couple of examples: The discovery of the quantization of cosmological red-shift was met with both derrision and gross unscientific bias even though presented only as empirical data! It wasn't until other researchers set out specifically to disprove the original data found the same results. Since these results seriously call into question the source of the cosmilogical red-shift and cast doubts on the holy "Big Bang", they've been largely ignored and 'swept under the rug' so to speak even though their implications to currently accepted ideas demmand they be explained.
Another scientist presenting empirical evidence of distribution correlation between quasars and local galaxies was booed off the stage while attemting to present his objective data and subsequently ostracized from the community. His findings were ignored and called effects of gravitational lensing even though that can not possibly be the reason due to the sheer statistical improbibility it would present.
The view seems to be: As long as you don't rock the boat or challenge the status quo, you're ok, but please don't try to openly show objective data that might dammage the ivory tower we've built.
Yes, I am well aware of and agree with the tenets of science. It's too bad that those tenets are subverted so often by those who espouse them. It makes for slow progress when you have to wait for a generation to die off... especially when that generation is pushing their flawed ideas on a young and gullible new generation in a very authoritarian manner.
Excellent post... which I had mod points. :)
I have to take extreme exception with this. Scientists are human and as such can be extremely biased and unaccepting of new ideas in the face of mountains of scientific evidence against their beliefs. In my field, I see this all the time.
It would be great if we could all be entirely objective and follow the scientific method to a tee all the time, but in reality, this is seldom the case... even for reputable "scientists".
Arrogance, and a need to have our beliefs vindicated are probably the most common downfalls I see. The good scientists are those who know they don't know it all and are willing to accept when theories they've been taught or developed are evidenced to be false. It can be a huge impact on the psyche to discover that you've based your life's work on something that's entirely wrong, and there are those who just cannot accept such an admission.
Someone earlier made a distinction between science (the method) and scientism (a belief system akin to materialism). Too many scientists treat their theories and ideas as religeon and show just as much dogmatic rigidness as any religeon.
I could go on and on or cite numerous examples, but you should have seen plenty of this around you (if you're truely objective).
Wish I had mod points today. There is such a huge amount of blatantly unobjective bias in the scientific community today, it's hard to believe. (At least in physics).
That's funny. I'd be more inclined to believe them if they claimed they had a non-random generator. ;)
printf "%d\n", $i++ while 1;
Apparently 'Public Domain' DOES have to be defined for people like you. Your cost argument is necessary but insufficient. A work is considered public domain ONLY if it is released without restrictions. That includes CONTRACUTAL restrictions such as the GPL.
Many companys allow unrestricted distribution of software or literary works while explicitly restating copyright.
When I read the first link in the synopsis I could have sworn it said "Microsoft-fudded report" instead of "Microsoft-funded report". ;)