Interesting. I too had an idea a couple of years ago involving new battery and motor tech. I wonder if we were looking at similar ideas or not. I didn't look hard, but could not find anything resembling my idea. Care to share a link to the product you saw?
Uranium-233 is a different isotope to the Uranium-238 (Which is bred to Plutonium-239) used in current reactor technologies. It has a different decay path that is much safer than those of the currently used isotopes.
Which is why research money needs to be spent. They didn't get further than a couple of small ones in the 60's due to political reasons, not technical ones.
Sure, the current class of low efficiency(~5%), high pressure (~150ATM), radioactive steam-bomb, light water reactors don't seem to be making economic sense, especially when spent-fuel disposal and the locked-in fuel-supply-chain are taken into consideration.
But when you look at technologies like LFTR, then all those problems magically vanish. Sure, there are hurdles such as Thorium mining infrastucture (Which brings its own benefits such as rare-earth elements that we are relying on other countries for) and high temperature (but low pressure) vessels to name but two, but that is what research is for. This needs to get recognised and get funded. It's cleaner (minimal waste), safer (lower pressure, passive cooling systems), efficient (most of the fuel is burned, steam turbines are more efficient) tech!
You will still get roads full of crap drivers with $10K loans they can't afford.
Rather than making it about the money, make it about driver skill. Have driver training that actually teaches you something useful and an tests that actually test your skill. Skidpans and basic car control should be a compulsory part of this training & testing.
As for doing stupid stuff instead of paying attention to driving. How about a fine based on your salary, say %5-%10. Sure the very rich will get round this loophole by getting their paid driver to take the fines and then pay for them, but it would work for the VAST majority of people who think it's more important to use their phone or put on makeup.
Just like in the software world. I don't have the code or distribution permissions for Windows or any other commercial OS. This doesn't stop Linux from existing.
Why is it any different for cars? There is nothing to stop you building your own (And lots of people do).
I'm curious. What exactly is 'closed source' about building a car, or an electric car? All you require to build one is tools, materials, skill and knowledge.
It will never work. It has a rectangular shape, rounded corners and a flat screen with narrow borders. How could they so blatantly rip off someone elses design like that!
I made it up to the conclusion. I need to go through the probability math again slowly, but I trust they are right.
And my, that is odd. I guess I have to accept the results of those experiments and they don;t fit with locality. I am *starting* to get a grasp of this now, not that it makes (common) sense yet lol.
Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists have backed up lots of incorrect things over the eons of our scientific history. That said, I get that the scientific methods these days are far more strict and would not allow for such mistakes such as the word being flat and in he centre of the universe. But still, you have to wonder. It seems too odd to not have to wonder:)
So it is all about perception then and not in reality. In my example, the perception is that it's entangled until observed, but in *reality* the ball is already in one of the boxes.
From what I read elsewhere in this thread, this is not how it actually works. In reality, something is in fact in both states and it is only the measurement that makes it settle into one state or the other. This just doesn't make sense so I would like to know why they are so sure about this:)
OK, I get what people are saying now. Not that 'it's in one state or the other, only measurement will show which one state' but that 'it is in BOTH states' and only measurement will make it become in one state.
Fine, I would accept that, but I can't 'just accept' things. This will likely make life hard for me as I need to know why they think this. As without anything backing it up, it's just an 'idea'.
So I imagine to understand the proof that something is in two states at once, I will need to learn quantum mechanics? Or is there a layman explanation that clarifies why they are so sure that thing X is in both states Y & Z simultaneiously rather than only being in one unknown state?
A great explanation, which made sense. But now I just have more questions. Like, "I will put a ball in one of these boxes, but I will not tell you which one I put it in. Now from your perspective, Neither the statement 'this box has the ball in it' nor 'this box does not have the ball in it' is true. You have no way of selecting which box I put the ball in." How is this any different?
What I am saying is, I don't see how there is any 'entanglement' there. It's just either in one diamond or the other. It's only our perception that doesn't know which one it is in.
I'd really love to get my head around this one day lol.
Warning. Soviet Russia jokes are now being used in 'hip and on the pulse' radio adverts. It is time to stop using it now. It has lost its funny (In Soviet Russia, its funny loses YOU!).
The thing is, that stanleyb is not alone. In my team at work, 1 person never had cable, the other just cancelled his. I am thinking of cancelling mine when this contract runs out, that leaves only 1 person in that small group. I was in the train station and randomly heard employees there talking about cancelling. I have other friends and acquaintances that talk about cancelling.
The stanleyb's may not make a difference on their own, but the group of them is growing, faster and faster.
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, thinking about it more, I wish I didn't post it now lol.
Heh, similar I guess. I was going for a skateboard style single-wheel affair... I don't think it's worth pursuing though.
Especially now I have talked about it in public!
Interesting. I too had an idea a couple of years ago involving new battery and motor tech. I wonder if we were looking at similar ideas or not. I didn't look hard, but could not find anything resembling my idea. Care to share a link to the product you saw?
In space, no-one can here you scream.
Uranium-233 is a different isotope to the Uranium-238 (Which is bred to Plutonium-239) used in current reactor technologies. It has a different decay path that is much safer than those of the currently used isotopes.
Which is why research money needs to be spent. They didn't get further than a couple of small ones in the 60's due to political reasons, not technical ones.
Sure, the current class of low efficiency(~5%), high pressure (~150ATM), radioactive steam-bomb, light water reactors don't seem to be making economic sense, especially when spent-fuel disposal and the locked-in fuel-supply-chain are taken into consideration.
But when you look at technologies like LFTR, then all those problems magically vanish. Sure, there are hurdles such as Thorium mining infrastucture (Which brings its own benefits such as rare-earth elements that we are relying on other countries for) and high temperature (but low pressure) vessels to name but two, but that is what research is for. This needs to get recognised and get funded. It's cleaner (minimal waste), safer (lower pressure, passive cooling systems), efficient (most of the fuel is burned, steam turbines are more efficient) tech!
Well I hate to say it, but you can pry my car out of my cold dead hands. (Not my current car mind, you can have that POS!)
What about a loophole whereby if you build your own car, then you are allowed to drive? :)
You will still get roads full of crap drivers with $10K loans they can't afford.
Rather than making it about the money, make it about driver skill. Have driver training that actually teaches you something useful and an tests that actually test your skill. Skidpans and basic car control should be a compulsory part of this training & testing.
As for doing stupid stuff instead of paying attention to driving. How about a fine based on your salary, say %5-%10. Sure the very rich will get round this loophole by getting their paid driver to take the fines and then pay for them, but it would work for the VAST majority of people who think it's more important to use their phone or put on makeup.
Yes, but it tastes filthy! Here take this cup back!
Some griefers are professionals too.
Just like in the software world. I don't have the code or distribution permissions for Windows or any other commercial OS. This doesn't stop Linux from existing.
Why is it any different for cars? There is nothing to stop you building your own (And lots of people do).
I'm curious. What exactly is 'closed source' about building a car, or an electric car? All you require to build one is tools, materials, skill and knowledge.
It will never work. It has a rectangular shape, rounded corners and a flat screen with narrow borders. How could they so blatantly rip off someone elses design like that!
Ok, so I have tried to soak in Bells Theorem. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html
I made it up to the conclusion. I need to go through the probability math again slowly, but I trust they are right.
And my, that is odd. I guess I have to accept the results of those experiments and they don;t fit with locality. I am *starting* to get a grasp of this now, not that it makes (common) sense yet lol.
Hmm. I can try I guess :)
Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists have backed up lots of incorrect things over the eons of our scientific history. That said, I get that the scientific methods these days are far more strict and would not allow for such mistakes such as the word being flat and in he centre of the universe. But still, you have to wonder. It seems too odd to not have to wonder :)
Yeah. and in layman terms please :)
So it is all about perception then and not in reality. In my example, the perception is that it's entangled until observed, but in *reality* the ball is already in one of the boxes.
From what I read elsewhere in this thread, this is not how it actually works. In reality, something is in fact in both states and it is only the measurement that makes it settle into one state or the other. This just doesn't make sense so I would like to know why they are so sure about this :)
OK, I get what people are saying now. Not that 'it's in one state or the other, only measurement will show which one state' but that 'it is in BOTH states' and only measurement will make it become in one state.
Fine, I would accept that, but I can't 'just accept' things. This will likely make life hard for me as I need to know why they think this. As without anything backing it up, it's just an 'idea'.
So I imagine to understand the proof that something is in two states at once, I will need to learn quantum mechanics? Or is there a layman explanation that clarifies why they are so sure that thing X is in both states Y & Z simultaneiously rather than only being in one unknown state?
A great explanation, which made sense. But now I just have more questions. Like, "I will put a ball in one of these boxes, but I will not tell you which one I put it in. Now from your perspective, Neither the statement 'this box has the ball in it' nor 'this box does not have the ball in it' is true. You have no way of selecting which box I put the ball in." How is this any different?
What I am saying is, I don't see how there is any 'entanglement' there. It's just either in one diamond or the other. It's only our perception that doesn't know which one it is in.
I'd really love to get my head around this one day lol.
Warning. Soviet Russia jokes are now being used in 'hip and on the pulse' radio adverts. It is time to stop using it now. It has lost its funny (In Soviet Russia, its funny loses YOU!).
Goatse!
Damn, I have not been goatsed in YEARS :(
The thing is, that stanleyb is not alone. In my team at work, 1 person never had cable, the other just cancelled his. I am thinking of cancelling mine when this contract runs out, that leaves only 1 person in that small group. I was in the train station and randomly heard employees there talking about cancelling. I have other friends and acquaintances that talk about cancelling.
The stanleyb's may not make a difference on their own, but the group of them is growing, faster and faster.
It will hurt the telcos soon.
(I'm in Canada so my telcos are my TV too)
Wow, it was just this morning that some passive/aggressive type told me that very same quote for the first time. I'm enjoying it :)
Do you actually use the Canadian Netflix?