How do I know they would be safe? Care to explain to me how one could run out of control in theory?
As to pointing out a working one..there are no workign fusion power plants. DUH.
A very large number of people dead and others with cancer and a huge area uninhabitable? I don't think that's cute at all.
And befeore you say it can't happen here because that was just bad soviet technology, I live a few miles from a nuc plantin Ohio that had a fooball size hole in the reactor head. The operators didn't know. This was with a 'safe' good 'ol U.S. of A. design.
Easy. With fusion all you have are hydrogen for fuel, and helium as the product with some extra neutrons making your reactor vessel the only hot waste.
Something goes wrong with a fusion reaction, what's going to happen? Too little fuel, the reaction stops. Too much fuel, the reaction stops. It can't run out of control. Where's the danger other than finding a storage area for the metal from old reactor vessels?
Nuclear is scary because I live a few miles from a nuc reactor that had a football size in the reactor head, and the operators didn't know. Perry Plant. Ohio. Look it up. This is with a "good" design.
With Fission things can go very very bad. Fusion will be great because nothing can go that wrong. All you have to worry about is a storage location for some old reactor vessles. Things can't go boom and leave vast areas uninhabitable.
Well, I wish "you people" all lived next door to a nuclear reactor. You might feel differently if it were in your back yard. Here in northern Ohio the Perry nuclear plant had a football sized hole in the top of the reactor head from boric acid. They didn't know. A "bad thing" could have happened if it had gone on much longer. Thinking modern plants are proof agains accidents is STUPID.
There are a bunch of folks who used to live near this place called Chernobyl. They might disagree with you a bit on that one. The ones that are still alive that is.
FUSION is the nice clean SAFE way to go for clean nuclear engergy. Fission reactors can get awefully dirty when something bad happens.
Unless I'm now out of date, the last figures I saw said the CrayLink Interconnect can do 102 GB/sec. That's Just a tad bit more, don't you think? No messing with masses of gig ethernet to crossconnect them. It's just done.
"That Athlon-64 would cost half as much, draw half as much power, and generate half the heat if you ripped out the x86 emulation layer"
I dont' know about hlaf, but yes, you are right, it would be less. It would also loose the ability to run 99.99% of the applications that are currently run on it.
There is a price to be paid for backward compatability, but sometimes its best just to pony up the money, because the other option is just more expensive/painful.
Re:Oh? I can't run linux as root?
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 1
Uhhh, right. And that was why I explained how to run applications that need administrative rights while logged in as a regular user. That was the discussion. What's your point? Some applications under Linux or *BSD won't run without root privledges either.
If the program says it requires root privlidges to run and you think it shouldn't, bitch at the manufacturer to fix it to work with standard permissions. But windows DOES let you run those while logged in as a regular user. Just use 'runas' like you would use 'suser' in *nix. That was what the whole preceding discussion was about.
Well, one of the problems is, you just know there are going to be morons out there who decide to hack their hardware, screw it up, then call tech support saying it's broken. That's going to cost tech support time as well as potentially sending replacement units to folks who have screwed up their system on purpose.
Re:Oh? I can't run linux as root?
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You are out of date. In 2000 and XP, as a normal user, if you want to run a program as admin (or any other user), just shift-right-click on the program, a option menu pops up with one of the choices being "run-as". You can type in the account you want the program to run under, and bam, your done.
Like most things with computers, it's a matter of user-education. (Including users of other OS's which bash it because they don't know how to properly run it)
Yes, I think I'll have to give it a go. I tried Nero once long long ago. That early version sucked horribly, and I've never gone back to it. I'm sure it's much better now.
Rush to wreck them? That's the whole purpose of the machine, to test if things work you your environments specific conditions or go boom. If it goes boom, you re-ghost it. It doesn't take long at all.
What if the aliens are even more fanatically religous and want to convert us? Can you imagine being invaded by little gray, big-eyed, Jahovah's Witnesses?
I'm well aware of that. I've published a decent bit. Often some controls are done and don't appear in the journal due to space issues (especially true in Science in Nature). The controls sometimes get submitted to reviewers as additional material. I've often had to find related papers by the authors in other journals to find additional data and controls that I thought should have appeared in the original article in the top-tier journal. It would be nice to see them all togeather, but too often the papers aren't consisdered quite high-profile enough to rate the extra space in those top tier journals. Reports only get ~3 pages (4 figures), and Research Articles ~5 pages (6 figures). Some papers really require more space than that, but that's a restriction you have to realize is there as both an author and a reader of those journals.
Yes, it is. But in order to spot holes you have to actually read the friggin paper. Not just blindly speculate from some 3 paragraph snippit about it in another journal.
Why you're right! I bet those scientists have never thought of seeing what happens to untreated mice!
Wait a minute. Those are a basic point of any experiment. They are called 'controls'. You can't get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal without them. And this paper was published in 'Science' one of the premier scientific journals in the world. So the top scientists in the field looked over this paper before it was allowed to be published. Did you read the research article? Didn't think so. So, you really think that you, probably some snot-nosed 14-year old, are going to instantly spot a hole in some scientific research that real researchers who spend years thinking about the study aren't going to spot? And that the other top researchers in the field who reviewed the actual scientific paper didn't spot? Egotistical twit.
Slashdot Mirror
As to pointing out a working one..there are no workign fusion power plants. DUH.
A very large number of people dead and others with cancer and a huge area uninhabitable? I don't think that's cute at all.
And befeore you say it can't happen here because that was just bad soviet technology, I live a few miles from a nuc plantin Ohio that had a fooball size hole in the reactor head. The operators didn't know. This was with a 'safe' good 'ol U.S. of A. design.
Something goes wrong with a fusion reaction, what's going to happen? Too little fuel, the reaction stops. Too much fuel, the reaction stops. It can't run out of control. Where's the danger other than finding a storage area for the metal from old reactor vessels?
With Fission things can go very very bad. Fusion will be great because nothing can go that wrong. All you have to worry about is a storage location for some old reactor vessles. Things can't go boom and leave vast areas uninhabitable.
Well, I wish "you people" all lived next door to a nuclear reactor. You might feel differently if it were in your back yard. Here in northern Ohio the Perry nuclear plant had a football sized hole in the top of the reactor head from boric acid. They didn't know. A "bad thing" could have happened if it had gone on much longer. Thinking modern plants are proof agains accidents is STUPID.
FUSION is the nice clean SAFE way to go for clean nuclear engergy. Fission reactors can get awefully dirty when something bad happens.
Unless I'm now out of date, the last figures I saw said the CrayLink Interconnect can do 102 GB/sec. That's Just a tad bit more, don't you think? No messing with masses of gig ethernet to crossconnect them. It's just done.
Consider yourself lucky. I pay SBC $26/mo and only get 384k up AND down because I'm a long way from their POP.
I dont' know about hlaf, but yes, you are right, it would be less. It would also loose the ability to run 99.99% of the applications that are currently run on it.
There is a price to be paid for backward compatability, but sometimes its best just to pony up the money, because the other option is just more expensive/painful.
If the program says it requires root privlidges to run and you think it shouldn't, bitch at the manufacturer to fix it to work with standard permissions. But windows DOES let you run those while logged in as a regular user. Just use 'runas' like you would use 'suser' in *nix. That was what the whole preceding discussion was about.
Well, one of the problems is, you just know there are going to be morons out there who decide to hack their hardware, screw it up, then call tech support saying it's broken. That's going to cost tech support time as well as potentially sending replacement units to folks who have screwed up their system on purpose.
Like most things with computers, it's a matter of user-education. (Including users of other OS's which bash it because they don't know how to properly run it)
The damage is to your wallet. Then again, if you are installing pirated software, you might just deserve the damage.
Yes, I think I'll have to give it a go. I tried Nero once long long ago. That early version sucked horribly, and I've never gone back to it. I'm sure it's much better now.
Agreed, but I only used EZCD Creator to burn CDs or sessions. Never DirectCD. You are correct. DirectCD, does cause lots of issues on systems.
I actually like EZCD better than RecordNow. Bummer it will be going away.
Rush to wreck them? That's the whole purpose of the machine, to test if things work you your environments specific conditions or go boom. If it goes boom, you re-ghost it. It doesn't take long at all.
You are a sysadmin and you don't have any test boxes?
hmm, I just had a great idea for a DOOM 3 mod...
Fanatics will say aliens are just some government coverup like the fake moon landings, etc, etc.
Penguin is a multinational corp. It doesn't have to be across borders.
Yes we can.
I'm well aware of that. I've published a decent bit. Often some controls are done and don't appear in the journal due to space issues (especially true in Science in Nature). The controls sometimes get submitted to reviewers as additional material. I've often had to find related papers by the authors in other journals to find additional data and controls that I thought should have appeared in the original article in the top-tier journal. It would be nice to see them all togeather, but too often the papers aren't consisdered quite high-profile enough to rate the extra space in those top tier journals. Reports only get ~3 pages (4 figures), and Research Articles ~5 pages (6 figures). Some papers really require more space than that, but that's a restriction you have to realize is there as both an author and a reader of those journals.
I did as well, and yes, they did the controls.
Yes, it is. But in order to spot holes you have to actually read the friggin paper. Not just blindly speculate from some 3 paragraph snippit about it in another journal.
Wait a minute. Those are a basic point of any experiment. They are called 'controls'. You can't get a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal without them. And this paper was published in 'Science' one of the premier scientific journals in the world. So the top scientists in the field looked over this paper before it was allowed to be published. Did you read the research article? Didn't think so. So, you really think that you, probably some snot-nosed 14-year old, are going to instantly spot a hole in some scientific research that real researchers who spend years thinking about the study aren't going to spot? And that the other top researchers in the field who reviewed the actual scientific paper didn't spot? Egotistical twit.