I also loved my N-charge I which bit the dust recently and picked up the N-charge II. The size changes really don't make a lot of sense from a usability standpoint. Not only that but I have gone through two of the N-charge II's already. They are no where near as robust as the previous version.
I often use quicktime streaming server with slides now to stream lectures.
QTSS is free and slides now is inexpensive. Found at
http://www.slidesnow.com/
Jeff
Actually, most of the government programs are not quite run in a spare no expense nature. In fact, it is usually the opposite. The useful (of course in my opinion) programs in a government organization are typically just scraping by while the worthless programs usually backed by strong bureaucrats are usually living high off the hog.
I tend to fight this battle on a daily basis with my friendly neighborhood government organization. But sticking to NASA look at the Space Station, relatively well funded, but very little scientific gain, certainly as compared to the HST, but the HST is to be sacrificed.
Anyway, I agree with you that 1:50 is an acceptable risk, and that there is usually a lot of mispent resources in a program the size of NASA. However, you won't get any commercial entity to put up a Hubble Space Telescope, although a commercial entity could probably realize enough gain by putting a colony on the moon.
Space Exploration has an almost 100% guarantee to be profitable for all. According to our current understanding of physics. There is a 100% probability that the earth will be uninhabitable in the future. If we are not off of this rock by the time that happens, well it should be obvious. Someone with the means must take the first steps.
Even ignoring this, the benefits in materials, computational abilities, etc. far outweighs the costs. As for the risk involved, it is dangerous. Their currently is about a 1 in 50 chance of a major failure resulting in death per U. S. mission. However, there are many people willing to take this risk. We should allow them to.
The U. S. government has historically responded to negative press (the loss of Columbia garnered much negative press) by overreacting. Work requirements at the national laboratories are so restrictive that it is almost amazing when something is actually accomplished. Cans of compressed air (dust-off) were recently catagorized as hazardous materials at at least one lab. Unfortunately, unreasonable requirements are standard operating procedure for the U. S. government. Usually, these requirements are demanded by the public. General public doesn't want to risk the lives of astronauts, etc. Space flight is a dangerous job, but the people willing to accept those risks should be allowed to accept them.
A reactor must be critical to function. Critical means a sustained chain reaction is occuring, not that a melt-down is happening.
Reactor use delayed neutrons to be controlled critical. Reactors can be very well controlled in this range. It is when a reactor/bomb/tank etc becomes critical with prompt neutrons that things become problematic.
That said the gas fuel reactor is an excellent design that should be put into operation when a few more issues are worked out.
Secondly, it is true that nuclear warheads deteriorate over time. This doesn't mean they become more dangerous to have lying around, though. It simply means that they are not 100%-guaranteed to detonate anymore.
Not necessarily, it depends upon what is being damaged on whether or not they are more dangerous to have lying around.
There are no practical reasons for conducting nuclear tests, except if the U.S. really were to go ahead and build mini-nukes. But this, in my humble opinion, would only open another Pandora's box...
I agree with you that pursuing mini-nukes is really not a wise use of resources. This does not mean that limited testing is not wise.
The above points, by the way, are roughly what I heard at a session about nuclear arms control at the March Meeting of the American Physical Society in Austin this year. Pretty much all the experts there agreed on this.
Pretty much all the experts there that have not been or are not responsible for stockpile stewerdship or are in political positions. Go to one of the Pu sessions at the March Meeting and you can see experts with different opinions. Kind of like the split on gun control issues between police chiefs and beat cops.
Unfortunately, you are completely wrong. Data in past tests are no guarantee of the safety of the country's nuclear arms. Radioactive elements by definition are transmuting into other elements. Testing does not have to be about making bigger bombs but can be about ensuring the saftey of the current stockpile.
Amazingly enough from a safety standpoint, this was probably the best decision made by the U. S. Congress in a long time. Furthermore, reserving the right to conduct a nuclear test, does not mean the U. S. will ever conduct another. No U. S. tests have been conducted since the nuclear test ban treaty was defeated.
None of the amendments are worth the paper that they are printed on without people willing to put their lives on the line to uphold them.
When people lose the will to enforce the rights spelled out to them in the Constitution, it will indeed be a sad day.
In fact, it was the U. S. S. R. that developed the first deliverable hydrogen bomb. However, as is often said, the devil is in the details and some secrecy is wise as it often takes a great deal of time for people to figure out the details.
It really is not that cut and dry.
It is very difficult to teach mathematically intensive subjects without writing it out. What I typically do is provide pdf notes for the students and then go through and write it all out on the board.
It solves the handwriting problem and I got more interaction from the students then when I just used powerpoint. I still have the powerpoint for occasions when illustrations and movies help to make a point, but powerpoint alone was not that successful for me.
What is the definition of older hardware?
My standard machine is a powerbook g4, but I havey an apple powerbook duo 230 that still works fine. My wife and kids use it, daily. Now, this is a computer that I bought in 1993.
It won't run OS X, should I flip out because Apple refuses to support OS X on it. I think it would probably look good on its 9 inch B/W screen.
I have a 5 GB ipod, it clearly states mac only. Crystal?
Actually, three were killed. The control rods stuck. During the maintence cycle, the workers jerked up the control rod. Too many neutrons caused the reactor to move from delayed critical, ie controlled, to prompt critical, ie. uncontrolled.
Correct. They don't get out and cause damage locally to the site, within about the width of a piece of paper. Now, if lodged in the lungs or bones, this can be a problem. However, beta and gamma emitters can irradiate a larger portion of the body. In fact, a single absorbed gamma can cause more damage than a single alpha particle. The cumulative effect of the localized damage of the alpha particle is worse.
However, it is incorrect to say that alpha particles bounce around the whole body causing damage everywhere because that doesn't happen.
Plutonium is a pretty weak gamma emitter and like I said I wouldn't bury it in my backyard. I would encase it in a salt mine like WIPP.
Plutonium is not as chemically toxic as some think. I know many people carrying multiple body burdens.
See http://www.aps.org/apsnews/articles/11351.html for more info on others with high body burdens. Again, I would suck down a bottle of pu spiked water but it is not an immediate death sentence like taking cyanide.
I agree that much more radiation is released from coal fired plants than nuclear. It has been shown in McBride, J.P., R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco, Science 202, 1045 (1978) that you receive a higher radiation dose by living next to a coal-fired plant that you do living next to a nuclear reactor.
Nearly everything is radioactive. The mountain that the Uranium fuel was dug out of, yourself from potassium and carbon, etc.
Just from being alive you are receiving a radiation dose of 300-350 mrem per year depending upon where you live. Your body evolved in a low-level radiation environment.
Even if nuclear waste will be a large problem for 1000000 years (a premise that I disagree with), I tend to be more concerned with the immediate problem of the current increase in global temperatures (whatever the cause).
Plutonium is an alpha emitter. An alpha particle is such a dangerous beast that a piece of paper is all the protection that you need.
If you bury a 1/2 ounce of plutonium in your backyard, you will have buried plutonium oxide in a pretty short period of time. This is not a form that is highly susceptible to transport. If you do not dig up your backyard, you wouldn't know that it was there.
I personally wouldn't bury plutonium in my backyard there are plenty of better alternatives.
Slashdot Mirror
I also loved my N-charge I which bit the dust recently and picked up the N-charge II. The size changes really don't make a lot of sense from a usability standpoint. Not only that but I have gone through two of the N-charge II's already. They are no where near as robust as the previous version.
I often use quicktime streaming server with slides now to stream lectures. QTSS is free and slides now is inexpensive. Found at http://www.slidesnow.com/
Jeff
Damn, I just got bit by a spider as I was out walking last night. I can't believe that I wasted the last 24 hours building a webshooter for nothing.
Actually, most of the government programs are not quite run in a spare no expense nature. In fact, it is usually the opposite. The useful (of course in my opinion) programs in a government organization are typically just scraping by while the worthless programs usually backed by strong bureaucrats are usually living high off the hog.
I tend to fight this battle on a daily basis with my friendly neighborhood government organization. But sticking to NASA look at the Space Station, relatively well funded, but very little scientific gain, certainly as compared to the HST, but the HST is to be sacrificed.
Anyway, I agree with you that 1:50 is an acceptable risk, and that there is usually a lot of mispent resources in a program the size of NASA. However, you won't get any commercial entity to put up a Hubble Space Telescope, although a commercial entity could probably realize enough gain by putting a colony on the moon.
Space Exploration has an almost 100% guarantee to be profitable for all. According to our current understanding of physics. There is a 100% probability that the earth will be uninhabitable in the future. If we are not off of this rock by the time that happens, well it should be obvious. Someone with the means must take the first steps. Even ignoring this, the benefits in materials, computational abilities, etc. far outweighs the costs. As for the risk involved, it is dangerous. Their currently is about a 1 in 50 chance of a major failure resulting in death per U. S. mission. However, there are many people willing to take this risk. We should allow them to.
Framemaker
Where did you see this information about the diary?
Yes, but it is much easier to detect cheating on scientific and engineering homework.
The U. S. government has historically responded to negative press (the loss of Columbia garnered much negative press) by overreacting. Work requirements at the national laboratories are so restrictive that it is almost amazing when something is actually accomplished. Cans of compressed air (dust-off) were recently catagorized as hazardous materials at at least one lab. Unfortunately, unreasonable requirements are standard operating procedure for the U. S. government. Usually, these requirements are demanded by the public. General public doesn't want to risk the lives of astronauts, etc. Space flight is a dangerous job, but the people willing to accept those risks should be allowed to accept them.
I also liked Titan AE. In my opinion, it also had an excellent musical score, to go along with interesting animation.
Reactor use delayed neutrons to be controlled critical. Reactors can be very well controlled in this range. It is when a reactor/bomb/tank etc becomes critical with prompt neutrons that things become problematic.
That said the gas fuel reactor is an excellent design that should be put into operation when a few more issues are worked out.
Not necessarily, it depends upon what is being damaged on whether or not they are more dangerous to have lying around.
There are no practical reasons for conducting nuclear tests, except if the U.S. really were to go ahead and build mini-nukes. But this, in my humble opinion, would only open another Pandora's box...
I agree with you that pursuing mini-nukes is really not a wise use of resources. This does not mean that limited testing is not wise.
The above points, by the way, are roughly what I heard at a session about nuclear arms control at the March Meeting of the American Physical Society in Austin this year. Pretty much all the experts there agreed on this.
Pretty much all the experts there that have not been or are not responsible for stockpile stewerdship or are in political positions. Go to one of the Pu sessions at the March Meeting and you can see experts with different opinions. Kind of like the split on gun control issues between police chiefs and beat cops.
Amazingly enough from a safety standpoint, this was probably the best decision made by the U. S. Congress in a long time. Furthermore, reserving the right to conduct a nuclear test, does not mean the U. S. will ever conduct another. No U. S. tests have been conducted since the nuclear test ban treaty was defeated.
None of the amendments are worth the paper that they are printed on without people willing to put their lives on the line to uphold them. When people lose the will to enforce the rights spelled out to them in the Constitution, it will indeed be a sad day.
In fact, it was the U. S. S. R. that developed the first deliverable hydrogen bomb. However, as is often said, the devil is in the details and some secrecy is wise as it often takes a great deal of time for people to figure out the details.
It really is not that cut and dry. It is very difficult to teach mathematically intensive subjects without writing it out. What I typically do is provide pdf notes for the students and then go through and write it all out on the board. It solves the handwriting problem and I got more interaction from the students then when I just used powerpoint. I still have the powerpoint for occasions when illustrations and movies help to make a point, but powerpoint alone was not that successful for me.
It is used for Mushroom farms.
What is the definition of older hardware? My standard machine is a powerbook g4, but I havey an apple powerbook duo 230 that still works fine. My wife and kids use it, daily. Now, this is a computer that I bought in 1993. It won't run OS X, should I flip out because Apple refuses to support OS X on it. I think it would probably look good on its 9 inch B/W screen. I have a 5 GB ipod, it clearly states mac only. Crystal?
No problem, I had a feeling that that was what you meant. I just didn't want anybody to infer the other.
Actually, three were killed. The control rods stuck. During the maintence cycle, the workers jerked up the control rod. Too many neutrons caused the reactor to move from delayed critical, ie controlled, to prompt critical, ie. uncontrolled.
However, it is incorrect to say that alpha particles bounce around the whole body causing damage everywhere because that doesn't happen.
Plutonium is not as chemically toxic as some think. I know many people carrying multiple body burdens. See http://www.aps.org/apsnews/articles/11351.html for more info on others with high body burdens. Again, I would suck down a bottle of pu spiked water but it is not an immediate death sentence like taking cyanide.
I agree that much more radiation is released from coal fired plants than nuclear. It has been shown in McBride, J.P., R. E. Moore, J. P. Witherspoon, and R. E. Blanco, Science 202, 1045 (1978) that you receive a higher radiation dose by living next to a coal-fired plant that you do living next to a nuclear reactor.
Just from being alive you are receiving a radiation dose of 300-350 mrem per year depending upon where you live. Your body evolved in a low-level radiation environment.
Even if nuclear waste will be a large problem for 1000000 years (a premise that I disagree with), I tend to be more concerned with the immediate problem of the current increase in global temperatures (whatever the cause).
Plutonium is an alpha emitter. An alpha particle is such a dangerous beast that a piece of paper is all the protection that you need. If you bury a 1/2 ounce of plutonium in your backyard, you will have buried plutonium oxide in a pretty short period of time. This is not a form that is highly susceptible to transport. If you do not dig up your backyard, you wouldn't know that it was there. I personally wouldn't bury plutonium in my backyard there are plenty of better alternatives.
I use mac spartan. It uses the old fashioned red/green glasses but works pretty well.
Jeff