Yeah, his argument falls apart from comparative analysis. Where are the piles of dead bodies from coal mining and handling? From automobile wrecks? Of course we don't see piles of dead bodies from any cause short of war or extreme disaster, when it takes time to gather them up and dispose of them. That doesn't make the victims any less dead.
But what you wouldn't expect is plutonium to be found in the environment. You wouldn't expect that unless the fuel rods have been damaged and some of the radioactive fuel has escaped.
And what you overlook is that the report is not that there is water loose that is radioactive, but that there is water loose that is 100,000 times more radioactive than normal for water INSIDE THE REACTOR. Not in the environment; not in the building, but IN THE CORE.
+1. The only post I've seen that gets straight to the real, troublesome questions. I've been wondering the same thing. But nobody in the news has been wondering. It's like a nuclear disaster started in slow motion and everyone ran around in circles waving their arms like Keystone Kops and there was nobody to see that instant action was taken at the highest possible level, national priority ONE.
Incredibly cheap. Where I come from it's more like 18 cents per kwh.
Anyway, the OP's problem is the vastly inflated power requirement, not the modest inefficiency of the power supply. I have a fine very fast Shuttle 3 GHz dual core that takes under 50 watts in nominal desktop use. I have several smaller "desktops" (6.5x6.5x2.25" or so) that are slightly more modest dual core with 2.5" drives and are under 24 watts. (These readings do not count the monitor, and there is a lot to be gained in that department, granted.)
My notebook uses an ultra low voltage dual core CPU and is around 15 watts even counting the display.
How much of the time is he really using the 3D power of his no doubt honking graphics card? Playing games or doing 3D composition work? The gigantic amount of power wasted by ludicrously powerful 3D graphics that goes 99% unused is a pet peeve of mine .
Not that good. Not for most aluminum alloys under any kind of severe conditions. And zinc chromate over anodizing is much better than zinc chromate alone.
Of course, speaking of the inside of a spacecraft, it's hard to imagine the conditions would be at all severe.
Christ, what an unimaginative answer. So the robots last 1 hour. Big deal. That's one hour more of useful work than you have without them. You get a thousand of them and send them in one after the other. So they only last 1 minute. So what. You make them scoot through rapidly and throw them away, replenishing with new ones.
Yes, the judge may instruct the jury in the law, and then the jury has the enshrined right to say (figuratively) sorry, we don't care; stuff it. It's called "jury nullification." Learn it; love it. It's really too bad more citizens are not aware of their power, and it's really sad that many just don't care. In this case, I would have worked like fury in the jury room to nullify.
I can't do better than quote Wikipedia on this:
"Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law (an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment). A jury exercising its power of nullification need not disagree with the judge's instructions themselves—which concern what the law is—but may rule contrary to the instruction in light of the actual evidence admitted in the case."
I would add that the jury does not have to rule "in light of the actual evidence" at all. It has the power to rule for ANY reason. The reason is between the jurors and their source of moral authority if any. No one has the right to question their motives or reasons. Not the judge, that's for double damn sure. He may categorically refuse to inform the jury of their true rights, but he has no authority to prevent them from finding out their rights and exercising them.
"Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy)."
Or just buy a half decent brand in the first place. I have 432 hours on some new Samsungs and the SMART data shows power cycles = 6 and load cycles = 6. No brain dead head parking every few seconds. They run cool as cucumbers, too.
It's quite a bit less than half the price. If you wait for one of the periodic markdowns or coupon deals, you can get the Samsung 2 TB for anywhere from $75.99 to $79.99.
And the Samsungs are far superior to any of the other brands.
The increase in efficiency of the electric motor over the internal combustion engine is (currently) in the neighborhood of 4:1 - 6:1, so instead of traveling 330 (46.4 / 0.14) times further on the same weight of "fuel," the former only travels around 50-80 times further. But no thinking person would use lead-acid batteries to try to replace gasoline - he would use lithium-ion or similar, which has 4-5 times better energy density, so you're down to a factor of 10-20. There is also regenerative braking for the electric vehicle, which further narrows the difference depending on traffic conditions. But when you add the high cost of batteries, degradation over time/use, the poor performance at temperatures significantly below room temperature, and other factors, it is not a mystery why electric vehicles are still fringe technology.
Did you not hear the part about energy density? The 50F capacitor is described as having about the same size as an AA battery. An alkaline AA battery has the equivalent of several THOUSAND farads, and lithium ion significantly more. If your electric car can travel 50 miles now, then with the capacitors (probably costing millions of dollars) it would have a range of less than 1 mile.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, his argument falls apart from comparative analysis. Where are the piles of dead bodies from coal mining and handling? From automobile wrecks? Of course we don't see piles of dead bodies from any cause short of war or extreme disaster, when it takes time to gather them up and dispose of them. That doesn't make the victims any less dead.
But what you wouldn't expect is plutonium to be found in the environment. You wouldn't expect that unless the fuel rods have been damaged and some of the radioactive fuel has escaped.
And what you overlook is that the report is not that there is water loose that is radioactive, but that there is water loose that is 100,000 times more radioactive than normal for water INSIDE THE REACTOR. Not in the environment; not in the building, but IN THE CORE.
+1. The only post I've seen that gets straight to the real, troublesome questions. I've been wondering the same thing. But nobody in the news has been wondering. It's like a nuclear disaster started in slow motion and everyone ran around in circles waving their arms like Keystone Kops and there was nobody to see that instant action was taken at the highest possible level, national priority ONE.
666,624 is 651.0k
They heard 640k might not be enough for anyone so they got an extra 11k
-1, PUNK
Incredibly cheap. Where I come from it's more like 18 cents per kwh.
Anyway, the OP's problem is the vastly inflated power requirement, not the modest inefficiency of the power supply. I have a fine very fast Shuttle 3 GHz dual core that takes under 50 watts in nominal desktop use. I have several smaller "desktops" (6.5x6.5x2.25" or so) that are slightly more modest dual core with 2.5" drives and are under 24 watts. (These readings do not count the monitor, and there is a lot to be gained in that department, granted.)
My notebook uses an ultra low voltage dual core CPU and is around 15 watts even counting the display.
How much of the time is he really using the 3D power of his no doubt honking graphics card? Playing games or doing 3D composition work? The gigantic amount of power wasted by ludicrously powerful 3D graphics that goes 99% unused is a pet peeve of mine .
Not that good. Not for most aluminum alloys under any kind of severe conditions. And zinc chromate over anodizing is much better than zinc chromate alone.
Of course, speaking of the inside of a spacecraft, it's hard to imagine the conditions would be at all severe.
From where did you pull the off the wall figure of 10% population increase per year? The peak, reached in 1962-1963, was 2.2%. It is currently 1.13%.
It's pretty clear they didn't have people with the right skills on scene and nobody was willing to take the initiative and improvise.
+1, insightful.
Yes, it was a comparatively shit design. The mirror image of that is that the Japanese accepted and bought the shit design. You get what you pay for.
Christ, what an unimaginative answer. So the robots last 1 hour. Big deal. That's one hour more of useful work than you have without them. You get a thousand of them and send them in one after the other. So they only last 1 minute. So what. You make them scoot through rapidly and throw them away, replenishing with new ones.
But you do realize that corruption is the driving engine for the US Federal government, and heck, most other governments in the world.
Oops ... wait a minute ...
Check out the feedback on sellers' sites, smart guy.
Yes, the judge may instruct the jury in the law, and then the jury has the enshrined right to say (figuratively) sorry, we don't care; stuff it. It's called "jury nullification." Learn it; love it. It's really too bad more citizens are not aware of their power, and it's really sad that many just don't care. In this case, I would have worked like fury in the jury room to nullify.
I can't do better than quote Wikipedia on this:
"Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of the evidence and contrary to the letter of the law (an official rule, and especially a legislative enactment). A jury exercising its power of nullification need not disagree with the judge's instructions themselves—which concern what the law is—but may rule contrary to the instruction in light of the actual evidence admitted in the case."
I would add that the jury does not have to rule "in light of the actual evidence" at all. It has the power to rule for ANY reason. The reason is between the jurors and their source of moral authority if any. No one has the right to question their motives or reasons. Not the judge, that's for double damn sure. He may categorically refuse to inform the jury of their true rights, but he has no authority to prevent them from finding out their rights and exercising them.
"Jury nullification is a de facto and traditional power of juries. Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of most modern common law systems—a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further supported by two common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict, and the prohibition (in some countries) on retrying defendants after an acquittal (see related topics res judicata and double jeopardy)."
Hence the question, why would they omit that most salient fact?
But they are not smart. If they were smart, their operating system would be halfway usable and reliable.
Yes. The Samsung 2 TB are superbly high quality, reliable, quiet, low power, and cheap.
Or just buy a half decent brand in the first place. I have 432 hours on some new Samsungs and the SMART data shows power cycles = 6 and load cycles = 6. No brain dead head parking every few seconds. They run cool as cucumbers, too.
It's quite a bit less than half the price. If you wait for one of the periodic markdowns or coupon deals, you can get the Samsung 2 TB for anywhere from $75.99 to $79.99.
And the Samsungs are far superior to any of the other brands.
Why does the spec page omit the single most important spec: power consumption?
GPS guided ordnance seems absurdly vulnerable to jamming and interference to me.
The increase in efficiency of the electric motor over the internal combustion engine is (currently) in the neighborhood of 4:1 - 6:1, so instead of traveling 330 (46.4 / 0.14) times further on the same weight of "fuel," the former only travels around 50-80 times further. But no thinking person would use lead-acid batteries to try to replace gasoline - he would use lithium-ion or similar, which has 4-5 times better energy density, so you're down to a factor of 10-20. There is also regenerative braking for the electric vehicle, which further narrows the difference depending on traffic conditions. But when you add the high cost of batteries, degradation over time/use, the poor performance at temperatures significantly below room temperature, and other factors, it is not a mystery why electric vehicles are still fringe technology.
Did you not hear the part about energy density? The 50F capacitor is described as having about the same size as an AA battery. An alkaline AA battery has the equivalent of several THOUSAND farads, and lithium ion significantly more. If your electric car can travel 50 miles now, then with the capacitors (probably costing millions of dollars) it would have a range of less than 1 mile.