Even more so with the new fluid dynamic bearings in newer hard drives. The only time they actually wear is when they are started and stopped, otherwise there is no actual contact between the bearing surfaces and so they can theroetically last forever. I read about a 100 year old hydroelectric turbine that used the water as a fluid bearing that had no significant wear and was predicted to last at least another 1000 years.
EPROMS are only good for about 10 years, and thats without all the radiation theyd get from being in space. I think Charles Stross had the right idea with using gold-and-diamond optical discs.
Well a rather obvious application would be in better body armor. Or maybe more durable rifles. Most rifle barrels wear out after only a few thousand rounds.
According to this page (http://extremetech.shopping.com/xPF-Samsung_710T_ 17IN_LCD_264MM_12X10_ALOG_BLK_710T_17IN_LCD_264MM_ 12X10_ALOG_BLK) it is a full 24 bit screen. Anyway the colors really great on it.
After days of agonizing between it and the 20 inch Dell, I bought the Samsung 710T and I am pretty happy with it. And I have never noticed any ghosting whatsoever while playing games like Far Cry and Doom 3 and watching movies like Hell Boy. So I think the Response Time is already adequate, at least on the 17 inch sizes.
Yeah, because Wall-mart became the biggest company in the world by being ignorant about technology. Do some reading. A lot of WM success is due to brilliant use of IT to improve the efficiancy of there logistics.
Seeing as all the participants in all the public distributed computing projects only ever communicate with the central server it isn't very accurate to call them grids. More like a many spoked wheel without a rim. I assume the computers in this project will comunicate with each other in a P2P fashion.
I live in Wisconsin and U.S Cellular is the best provider here and they converted there entire network to CDMA so I have warm fuzzy feelings. It really amazing to be in the middle of a rural farm field and get an excellent signal.
MPEG basically makes use of this concept, only encoding the differences from frame to frame. I always wondered if this couldn't be used on a series of similar photos. Many model photoshoots tend to be a huge number of very similar photos. Could they not all be encoded as a series of diffs? Start with photo one, then store a diff between photo one and 2, then the diff between photo 2 and 3, etc. I would think this coudl have some really dramatic space savings. You maybe could even have the software automatically sort the pics, choosing the most similar photos to diff, but I assume this would require diffing every pic with every other, a nasty O(n^2) problem.
I've downloaded huge files including SP2 over a shitty rural modem connection (right now I'm at 28.8. Sometimes, when the planets are in the correct alignment and Satan accepted my sacrifice, I even conect at 41.1. Sadly, it actually does feel noticably faster) The key is patience! A modem is a very good teacher of patience.
You should really work on your reading skills because you didin't notice that the pebbles are ALSO COVERD IN SILICON CARBIDE, a very tough material that is also very fire resistant. You really thought they didn't know that graphite is flammable?
You should really read the article and understand that the new pebble-bed reactors are inherently safe in that they rely on fundamental physical laws to prevent bad things from happening. They are very different that the old type of reactors. Sadly, we almost went with therse type of reactors in the first place but didn't becuse the Navy needed the rod-type for vessel power. If we had used them people's attitudes to nuclear power would be very different because there would be no Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Also the Integral Fast Reactor is a sound soultion to the problem of plutonium waste.
Actually there is a very good solution to the nuclear waste problem and it is called the Integrated Fast Reactor. It can actaully consume Plutonium and convert it into less problematic waste.
IFR!!!! Produces more fuel than it uses!
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 1
The Integral Fast Reactor is a brilliant solution to the "problem" of all the 'waste' from nuclear power. It really really needs to be better known. Heres some info:
Would it benefit the United States to share IFR technology with other nations?
There are arguments both ways. Using nuclear energy instead of energy from
burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) will reduce carbon dioxide
emissions into the atmosphere, which is almost certainly a good thing.
Using breeder reactors makes the supply of nuclear fuel larger. However,
nuclear waste is very unpopular politically in many coutries including the
United States, so many people may be angry with the US if it helps other
countries use more nuclear power.
Is it likely that other nations would use it?
IFR is a better, safer reactor design than most reactors now in use. There
are many new reactor designs that are better and safer than anything now in
use for power production. Nations that build new reactors will probably
use some of these newer designs, possibly including IFR.
Is the IFR considered renewable?
It isn't renewable in the sense that you can plant seeds in the ground and
grow nuclear fuel from them. However, as a "breeder" reactor, it does make
plutonium 239, which can be used as nuclear fuel, from uranium 238, which
cannot be used as a nuclear fuel.
Can it recycle its wastes?
Just the plutonium and heavier elements. Some wastes, such as fission
products, need to be removed and disposed of. However, this is a
tremendous advantage over conventional nuclear power plants, as the
components of the spent fuel that are the most hazardous over the long term
are used as fuel, converting them into less hazardous materials and getting
energy from them is the process.
Is the IFR safe? What safety tests have been run?
(I have copied the following two paragraphs directly from the Web site
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/ifr/ifr3.html, "The Unofficial IFR Home Page.")
The passive safety characteristics of the IFR were tested in EBR-II on
April 3, 1986, against two of the most severe accident events postulated
for nuclear power plants. The first test (the Loss of Flow Test) simulated
a complete station blackout, so that power was lost to all cooling systems.
The second test (the Loss of Heat Sink Test) simulated the loss of ability
to remove heat from the plant by shutting off power to the secondary cooling
system. In both of these tests, the normal safety systems were not allowed
to function and the operators did not interfere. The tests were run with
the reactor initially at full power. In both tests, the passive safety
features simply shut down the reactor with no damage.
The fuel and coolant remained within safe temperature limits as the reactor
quickly shut itself down in both cases. Relying only on passive
characteristics, EBR-II smoothly returned to a safe condition without
activation of any control rods and without action by the reactor operators.
The same features responsible for this remarkable performance in EBR-II
will be incorporated into the design of future IFR plants, regardless of
how large they may be.
Can IFR wastes be used in nuclear weapons?
The IFR recycles all the elements it makes that can be used in nuclear
weapons, so they don't go into the waste stream.
What is usually used?
Nuclear weapons require "fissile" nuclei, which split apart, releasing
energy and neutrons when contacted with slow-moving neutrons. Thge three
"fissile" nuclei that I know of are uranium-235, uranium-233, and
plutonium-239. Uranium-235 is obtained by painstakingly purifying
("enriching") it from natural uranium which is about 0.71% uranium-235.
Uranium-233 is made from thorium-232 by bombarding it with neutrons.
Plutonium 239 is made by bombarding uranium-238 with neutrons. This
happens in nuclear reactors, because most of the uranium in nuclear fuel is
uranium 238.
If not, could it be processed to be usable for weapons?
The actual waste from IFR would be useless for making weapons. However,
IFR fuel must be removed periodically to be reprocessed,
No, not a War on Islam, a war on Wahabi exremists who have already made very,very,very clear that they consider themselves at war with you, me, and every other American citizen and to a lesser extent all non-wahabis. Read "The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism" by Stephen Schwartz
Yes and no. Dubya would never claim that every person in America is in favor of this war, but the majority is, and he is the legitimatly elected leader. On the other hand, Saddam actually expected the world to take his claims of a 100% vote for his reelection seriously because he is so damn out of touch with reality. Thats what happens when you can summarily execute anybody who disagrees with you.
So the Evil Americans are repelled in their despicable purpose and he can go back to living under the glorious rule of the Wonderfully Wonderful Saddam Hussein.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, just block the damn keywords: hussyfan, babyj, pthc, r@ygold, ragold, kiddiemovie, realkiddiemovie, etc. I did it and it works well.
Not really, "I'm not a nerd. Nerds are smart." Milhouse. Someone can have geeky interests witout being that smart. And by smart I mean like 130+ IQ.
geeky, smart, hot. Choose any two.
So would I. I KNOW i read it, but I have no chance in hell of remembering WHERE.
Even more so with the new fluid dynamic bearings in newer hard drives. The only time they actually wear is when they are started and stopped, otherwise there is no actual contact between the bearing surfaces and so they can theroetically last forever. I read about a 100 year old hydroelectric turbine that used the water as a fluid bearing that had no significant wear and was predicted to last at least another 1000 years.
I had the same thought about spam-control companies. They have no interest in actually stopping spam because that would put them out of business.
EPROMS are only good for about 10 years, and thats without all the radiation theyd get from being in space. I think Charles Stross had the right idea with using gold-and-diamond optical discs.
Well a rather obvious application would be in better body armor. Or maybe more durable rifles. Most rifle barrels wear out after only a few thousand rounds.
According to this page (http://extremetech.shopping.com/xPF-Samsung_710T_ 17IN_LCD_264MM_12X10_ALOG_BLK_710T_17IN_LCD_264MM_ 12X10_ALOG_BLK) it is a full 24 bit screen. Anyway the colors really great on it.
Wow, didn't know that at all. That is really Orwellian. I'd love to learn more and satisfy my inherent skepticism. Could you provide any links?
After days of agonizing between it and the 20 inch Dell, I bought the Samsung 710T and I am pretty happy with it. And I have never noticed any ghosting whatsoever while playing games like Far Cry and Doom 3 and watching movies like Hell Boy. So I think the Response Time is already adequate, at least on the 17 inch sizes.
Yeah, because Wall-mart became the biggest company in the world by being ignorant about technology. Do some reading. A lot of WM success is due to brilliant use of IT to improve the efficiancy of there logistics.
Seeing as all the participants in all the public distributed computing projects only ever communicate with the central server it isn't very accurate to call them grids. More like a many spoked wheel without a rim. I assume the computers in this project will comunicate with each other in a P2P fashion.
I live in Wisconsin and U.S Cellular is the best provider here and they converted there entire network to CDMA so I have warm fuzzy feelings. It really amazing to be in the middle of a rural farm field and get an excellent signal.
Uh, isn't CDMA the superior technology?
MPEG basically makes use of this concept, only encoding the differences from frame to frame. I always wondered if this couldn't be used on a series of similar photos. Many model photoshoots tend to be a huge number of very similar photos. Could they not all be encoded as a series of diffs? Start with photo one, then store a diff between photo one and 2, then the diff between photo 2 and 3, etc. I would think this coudl have some really dramatic space savings. You maybe could even have the software automatically sort the pics, choosing the most similar photos to diff, but I assume this would require diffing every pic with every other, a nasty O(n^2) problem.
I've downloaded huge files including SP2 over a shitty rural modem connection (right now I'm at 28.8. Sometimes, when the planets are in the correct alignment and Satan accepted my sacrifice, I even conect at 41.1. Sadly, it actually does feel noticably faster) The key is patience! A modem is a very good teacher of patience.
You should really work on your reading skills because you didin't notice that the pebbles are ALSO COVERD IN SILICON CARBIDE, a very tough material that is also very fire resistant. You really thought they didn't know that graphite is flammable?
You should really read the article and understand that the new pebble-bed reactors are inherently safe in that they rely on fundamental physical laws to prevent bad things from happening. They are very different that the old type of reactors. Sadly, we almost went with therse type of reactors in the first place but didn't becuse the Navy needed the rod-type for vessel power. If we had used them people's attitudes to nuclear power would be very different because there would be no Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Also the Integral Fast Reactor is a sound soultion to the problem of plutonium waste.
Actually there is a very good solution to the nuclear waste problem and it is called the Integrated Fast Reactor. It can actaully consume Plutonium and convert it into less problematic waste.
The Integral Fast Reactor is a brilliant solution to the "problem" of all the 'waste' from nuclear power. It really really needs to be better known. Heres some info: Would it benefit the United States to share IFR technology with other nations? There are arguments both ways. Using nuclear energy instead of energy from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) will reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, which is almost certainly a good thing. Using breeder reactors makes the supply of nuclear fuel larger. However, nuclear waste is very unpopular politically in many coutries including the United States, so many people may be angry with the US if it helps other countries use more nuclear power. Is it likely that other nations would use it? IFR is a better, safer reactor design than most reactors now in use. There are many new reactor designs that are better and safer than anything now in use for power production. Nations that build new reactors will probably use some of these newer designs, possibly including IFR. Is the IFR considered renewable? It isn't renewable in the sense that you can plant seeds in the ground and grow nuclear fuel from them. However, as a "breeder" reactor, it does make plutonium 239, which can be used as nuclear fuel, from uranium 238, which cannot be used as a nuclear fuel. Can it recycle its wastes? Just the plutonium and heavier elements. Some wastes, such as fission products, need to be removed and disposed of. However, this is a tremendous advantage over conventional nuclear power plants, as the components of the spent fuel that are the most hazardous over the long term are used as fuel, converting them into less hazardous materials and getting energy from them is the process. Is the IFR safe? What safety tests have been run? (I have copied the following two paragraphs directly from the Web site http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/ifr/ifr3.html, "The Unofficial IFR Home Page.") The passive safety characteristics of the IFR were tested in EBR-II on April 3, 1986, against two of the most severe accident events postulated for nuclear power plants. The first test (the Loss of Flow Test) simulated a complete station blackout, so that power was lost to all cooling systems. The second test (the Loss of Heat Sink Test) simulated the loss of ability to remove heat from the plant by shutting off power to the secondary cooling system. In both of these tests, the normal safety systems were not allowed to function and the operators did not interfere. The tests were run with the reactor initially at full power. In both tests, the passive safety features simply shut down the reactor with no damage. The fuel and coolant remained within safe temperature limits as the reactor quickly shut itself down in both cases. Relying only on passive characteristics, EBR-II smoothly returned to a safe condition without activation of any control rods and without action by the reactor operators. The same features responsible for this remarkable performance in EBR-II will be incorporated into the design of future IFR plants, regardless of how large they may be. Can IFR wastes be used in nuclear weapons? The IFR recycles all the elements it makes that can be used in nuclear weapons, so they don't go into the waste stream. What is usually used? Nuclear weapons require "fissile" nuclei, which split apart, releasing energy and neutrons when contacted with slow-moving neutrons. Thge three "fissile" nuclei that I know of are uranium-235, uranium-233, and plutonium-239. Uranium-235 is obtained by painstakingly purifying ("enriching") it from natural uranium which is about 0.71% uranium-235. Uranium-233 is made from thorium-232 by bombarding it with neutrons. Plutonium 239 is made by bombarding uranium-238 with neutrons. This happens in nuclear reactors, because most of the uranium in nuclear fuel is uranium 238. If not, could it be processed to be usable for weapons? The actual waste from IFR would be useless for making weapons. However, IFR fuel must be removed periodically to be reprocessed,
No, not a War on Islam, a war on Wahabi exremists who have already made very,very,very clear that they consider themselves at war with you, me, and every other American citizen and to a lesser extent all non-wahabis. Read "The Two Faces of Islam: Saudi Fundamentalism and Its Role in Terrorism" by Stephen Schwartz
That quote seems a very accurate description of what is going on in Iraq.
Yes and no. Dubya would never claim that every person in America is in favor of this war, but the majority is, and he is the legitimatly elected leader. On the other hand, Saddam actually expected the world to take his claims of a 100% vote for his reelection seriously because he is so damn out of touch with reality. Thats what happens when you can summarily execute anybody who disagrees with you.
So the Evil Americans are repelled in their despicable purpose and he can go back to living under the glorious rule of the Wonderfully Wonderful Saddam Hussein.