The fuel rods in a reactor are, at that stage, reasonably independent of one another.
Independent in what sense? As in, individually there is no self-sustaining reaction and no meltdown, but put them together and they produce enough heat and radiation to melt?
I know that's asked sarcastically, but I'm genuinely interested in what way the fuel rods behave independently of each other that would be interesting.
I'm curious how much they'll be able to infer, though. Nuclear reactors (and reactions) are viciously non-linear. If you make it too small, you'll get no (self-sustaining) reaction at all. From that point up, the nuclear reaction scales with volume, thermal transfer probably scales with surface area, and other material properties and deformations will scale anything from linear to fourth power (at least).
So trying to infer anything about full-scale reactors from this is going to rely on a lot of modelling to tell you how the results will be transformed into real-world performance. Since it's that model that you're trying to investigate, there are lots of potential pitfalls.
Secondly, the laws of war have never been developed through "a deliberate and focused international dialogue that includes a range of cultural and institutional perspectives." The laws of war have, unfortunately, always developed just after a major conflict, when lots of people said, "Whoa, we should do something to stop that happening again."
The problem isn't the politicians' lack of intelligence, but the fact that their motives aren't aligned with what I want
FTFY. Your post is pure wishful thinking, Actually, when asked, the British public are widely supportive of ISP-level filtering to block pornography. The most on-point survey I can dig up[1] is from 2010, but shows that, even though only 16% of people think that a filter would be effective at blocking pornography and 60% think it would be relatively easy for technically-able people to circumvent it, still 60% of people supported a filter and only 22% opposed it.
So, actually, the politicians are doing what they should - implementing the will of the majority of the people. You don't like it personally? Tough.
That same survey, by the way, showed more support for an opt-out (ie default-on) filter than for an opt-in one, though other surveys have shown the other way around.
Second, move somewhere where your taxes are not used on bombing villages in Pakistan, which has the downside that you can no longer feel patriotic about being an American.
This falls over the line into definite doublethink. Apparently, it's fine to feel patriotic about being an American while your government bombs hell out of innocent villagers in Pakistan; it's only if you leave America that you'd ever have to stop feeling patriotic.
Similar idea to the Entourage eDGe. I thought these had fallen by the wayside (about two weeks after I bought one, incidentally) but at least the Wikipedia entry doesn't mention that they've gone out of business.
The simplest and most effective way is to let a few services go down for a few hours due to lack of maintenance and explain that you're too busy to get them all up again in short time.
No, those were promisory notes denominated in US dollars - which were issued by the US Treasury and which (then) had their value fixed by the US government.
The cattle claim probably has some validity - there is good evidence that the Assyrians accounted the value of debts in head of cattle, not necessarily representing physical cattle but an equivalent value. They were essentially exchanging promisory notes denominated in cattle. This forms some of the earliest evidence of writing we have.
The claim above that money has only been in use as we know it for a few hundred years is simply ludicrous, though. Throughout Europe, Africa and the Near East at the very least coins are dug regularly that are at least 2,000 years old. A very basic google search will find you images of Western coins that are ~2,700 years old. The Chinese have been minting coins for at least 3,000 years. This is only based on archaeological finds and there is no particular reason to think the history of money is not longer - coinage is, after all, something of value which is not just thrown away to be found thousands of years later.
So, yes, money in a form that is very recognisable from today's money has existed for a very large fraction of (recorded) human history.
Well, regulation and creation are also rather different things. My car exists because someone made it and sold it to me, and is subject to creation. The FRS exists because congress passed a law creating it.
What is money if not basically a promissory device? I promise to give you a certain amount of goods and services.
Fine. But that's not what banknotes are - they are a promise to give you a certain amount of money, not a certain amount of goods and services. You can then trade that promise in exchange for goods and services.
US Dollars aren't "issued by government." The US monetary supply is completely in control by a private banking system called the Federal Reserve System.
Not quite sure how you see the FRS as 'private' - it's a national reserve bank established by legislation. It also, crucially for this discussion, is not responsible for issuing US dollars - that's the US Department of the Treasury.
Gold and silver standards pre-existed state control of money.
I'd be interested to see proof of this. I agree that it seems likely to have been the case, but I don't think we can actually point to a culture where it was true. Issue of coinage by governments goes back a long way in human history, and for the majority of that it consisted of a gold or silver standard - initially by minting coins from fixed quantities of the metal in question, later by legislating a fixed ratio of metal to coins.
Not the 19th century. This century starting in 1913. That's what we (in the US) have now: a private bank issuing private banknotes.
There is a lot of confusion here. 1 - 1913 is not in this century, it's in the last century. 2 - The FRS is not private. Its operations are independent of the other organs of government, but that doesn't make it a private organisation. 3 - The FRS does not issue currency (see above).
This is utter crap. With very, very few exceptions, money has always been issued by government. Governments have always imposed currency by requiring that taxes are paid in using it. Governments have always set standards for the production of money. Governments have always punished those who attempt to interfere with money.
Gold and silver standards were exactly a system of money imposed by governments, effectively legislating the price of the underlying metal. Such standards caused problems exactly because it was a government attempting to impose money at a fixed price to a commodity where the market (ie the people) tried to push to a different price for that commodity.
I guess you're thinking of 19th century banknotes, issued by private banks, but they are not money as such, just a promissory note which the bank would exchange for a fixed number of coins which were the state-imposed money. Once they became government-backed legal tender they were subsumed into the existing money system (although you might argue that eg UK bank notes are still only promissory notes redeemable for coins, at least in theory). They were never an independent, floating-exchange currency like bitcoin is.
Aggressively and partisanly put, but I think about right. Any other senior manager in the world who said of a failure, "I didn't know," would immediately be asked, "Why didn't you know? It's your responsibility to know." As techies, we know how this goes - these organisational failures happen from the top down and it is the action of a weak, failing manager to try to pass the blame down the chain. We don't stand for it in any other situation; why would we here?
And, while we're at it, ECC RAM is able to correct any single bit error in an access (whatever width the bus is) and detect any double bit error. The likelihood of more than two bits in the same word flipping is so minuscule I think it's pretty clear it's not worth it.
Slashdot Mirror
He has a choice; he can spend 124 years in prison now, if he wants.
Neither does precedent.
Very interesting, thanks.
Independent in what sense? As in, individually there is no self-sustaining reaction and no meltdown, but put them together and they produce enough heat and radiation to melt?
I know that's asked sarcastically, but I'm genuinely interested in what way the fuel rods behave independently of each other that would be interesting.
I'm curious how much they'll be able to infer, though. Nuclear reactors (and reactions) are viciously non-linear. If you make it too small, you'll get no (self-sustaining) reaction at all. From that point up, the nuclear reaction scales with volume, thermal transfer probably scales with surface area, and other material properties and deformations will scale anything from linear to fourth power (at least).
So trying to infer anything about full-scale reactors from this is going to rely on a lot of modelling to tell you how the results will be transformed into real-world performance. Since it's that model that you're trying to investigate, there are lots of potential pitfalls.
Firstly, Betteridge's law applies here.
Secondly, the laws of war have never been developed through "a deliberate and focused international dialogue that includes a range of cultural and institutional perspectives." The laws of war have, unfortunately, always developed just after a major conflict, when lots of people said, "Whoa, we should do something to stop that happening again."
Yes, yes, because every bridge the government builds falls down three or four times a day in the first couple of weeks after it's opened.
Hmmm. The link Works For Me (TM). Probably your country's oppressive internet filter in action...
So right - but so bad for your karma.
FTFY. Your post is pure wishful thinking, Actually, when asked, the British public are widely supportive of ISP-level filtering to block pornography. The most on-point survey I can dig up[1] is from 2010, but shows that, even though only 16% of people think that a filter would be effective at blocking pornography and 60% think it would be relatively easy for technically-able people to circumvent it, still 60% of people supported a filter and only 22% opposed it.
So, actually, the politicians are doing what they should - implementing the will of the majority of the people. You don't like it personally? Tough.
That same survey, by the way, showed more support for an opt-out (ie default-on) filter than for an opt-in one, though other surveys have shown the other way around.
[1] http://yougov.co.uk/news/2010/12/22/pornography-protection/
That's where you're wrong. Move with the times.
This falls over the line into definite doublethink. Apparently, it's fine to feel patriotic about being an American while your government bombs hell out of innocent villagers in Pakistan; it's only if you leave America that you'd ever have to stop feeling patriotic.
Really? I've only ever tried this once, at Bristol international airport, but the scanner read off my LCD screen just fine.
Given the average update frequency and lack of greyscaling, I don't think anyone's going to be watching pr0n on these.
Similar idea to the Entourage eDGe. I thought these had fallen by the wayside (about two weeks after I bought one, incidentally) but at least the Wikipedia entry doesn't mention that they've gone out of business.
The simplest and most effective way is to let a few services go down for a few hours due to lack of maintenance and explain that you're too busy to get them all up again in short time.
No, those were promisory notes denominated in US dollars - which were issued by the US Treasury and which (then) had their value fixed by the US government.
The cattle claim probably has some validity - there is good evidence that the Assyrians accounted the value of debts in head of cattle, not necessarily representing physical cattle but an equivalent value. They were essentially exchanging promisory notes denominated in cattle. This forms some of the earliest evidence of writing we have.
The claim above that money has only been in use as we know it for a few hundred years is simply ludicrous, though. Throughout Europe, Africa and the Near East at the very least coins are dug regularly that are at least 2,000 years old. A very basic google search will find you images of Western coins that are ~2,700 years old. The Chinese have been minting coins for at least 3,000 years. This is only based on archaeological finds and there is no particular reason to think the history of money is not longer - coinage is, after all, something of value which is not just thrown away to be found thousands of years later.
So, yes, money in a form that is very recognisable from today's money has existed for a very large fraction of (recorded) human history.
System. It's called the Federal Reserve System - FRS. See? It's not 'owned' by anyone, any more than the Supreme Court is 'owned' by anyone.
Well, regulation and creation are also rather different things. My car exists because someone made it and sold it to me, and is subject to creation. The FRS exists because congress passed a law creating it.
Fine. But that's not what banknotes are - they are a promise to give you a certain amount of money, not a certain amount of goods and services. You can then trade that promise in exchange for goods and services.
Not quite sure how you see the FRS as 'private' - it's a national reserve bank established by legislation. It also, crucially for this discussion, is not responsible for issuing US dollars - that's the US Department of the Treasury.
I'd be interested to see proof of this. I agree that it seems likely to have been the case, but I don't think we can actually point to a culture where it was true. Issue of coinage by governments goes back a long way in human history, and for the majority of that it consisted of a gold or silver standard - initially by minting coins from fixed quantities of the metal in question, later by legislating a fixed ratio of metal to coins.
There is a lot of confusion here. 1 - 1913 is not in this century, it's in the last century. 2 - The FRS is not private. Its operations are independent of the other organs of government, but that doesn't make it a private organisation. 3 - The FRS does not issue currency (see above).
This is utter crap. With very, very few exceptions, money has always been issued by government. Governments have always imposed currency by requiring that taxes are paid in using it. Governments have always set standards for the production of money. Governments have always punished those who attempt to interfere with money.
Gold and silver standards were exactly a system of money imposed by governments, effectively legislating the price of the underlying metal. Such standards caused problems exactly because it was a government attempting to impose money at a fixed price to a commodity where the market (ie the people) tried to push to a different price for that commodity.
I guess you're thinking of 19th century banknotes, issued by private banks, but they are not money as such, just a promissory note which the bank would exchange for a fixed number of coins which were the state-imposed money. Once they became government-backed legal tender they were subsumed into the existing money system (although you might argue that eg UK bank notes are still only promissory notes redeemable for coins, at least in theory). They were never an independent, floating-exchange currency like bitcoin is.
Aggressively and partisanly put, but I think about right. Any other senior manager in the world who said of a failure, "I didn't know," would immediately be asked, "Why didn't you know? It's your responsibility to know." As techies, we know how this goes - these organisational failures happen from the top down and it is the action of a weak, failing manager to try to pass the blame down the chain. We don't stand for it in any other situation; why would we here?
And, while we're at it, ECC RAM is able to correct any single bit error in an access (whatever width the bus is) and detect any double bit error. The likelihood of more than two bits in the same word flipping is so minuscule I think it's pretty clear it's not worth it.