Nonsense. Galileo is necessary for economic reasons. Any military reasons are secondary.
Just imagine all distribution trucks and airplanes under computer control using Galileo as a positioning system. It will be as important as clocks are today. GPS provides no guarantees on accuracy and the US military can disable or decrease the accuracy of the signal any time they want. Not something you want controlling a loaded truck speeding on a highway or an airplane fully loaded with people doing a poinpoint landing.
I didn't say the west "deserves" it. My point was that the west was asking for it. Don't poke a hornet's nest and then blame the hornets for stinging you.
If the Muslim didn't want the Crusades, they shouldn't have invaded Christian kingdomsfirst.
If they didn't want Afghanistan to be invaded, they shouldn't have demolished a couple of towers in the USA a couple of years ago.
I claim that as population size and area of the country grow, expenses for the needed infrastructure for the adequate and uniform education grow faster than linearly. So it is unfair to compare Denmark with USA or Russia, or Korea with Brasil.
That makes no sense at all. The opposite should apply due to economies of scale. I think the problem is that parents and the state in the USA do not give enough incentive for children to work. In Japan, if you do not study hard you are considered worthless unworthy scum. In the USA you are 'cool'.
Compare the amount of investment then with now. Even the Germans, with Heisenberg and lots of money couldn't get it to work. There were hurdles along the way. But some very smart people fixed those (with non insignificant funding to help).
Sid designed a lot of great games. Including the Sword of the Samurai, the original Pirates!, Civilization, Colonization, F-15 Strike Eagle, Gunship. He certainly likes to change genres a lot.
However I would agree that he has basically done zilch since Colonization came out. Except signing on his name. You could count Sim Golf, but that game was not that interesting. Sid seems to have forgotten his roots and seemingly wants to be Will Wright now. A shame.
It is possible to make them back down on a bad measure. Apply sufficient pressure and it will happen. Impossibility is what the other side wants you to think you can do.
Actually, you can trigger an h-bomb using other things as well. It is just that no one has made a trigger that is as convenient, reliable and compact as an a-bomb yet.
Some people have proposed usings lasers or a matter-antimatter anihilation as triggers.
The waste is a problem for political reasons more than technical. There is plenty of natural radioactivity, which can even be life threatening after long exposure, at some places. Just bury it someplace after the short-lived elements burn up. It came from a hole in the ground, it can go back into one.
I answered about the fuel supply issue to the other poster. I shall only add the additional note here that I doubt mining He-3 from Luna will ever be economic to transport back to Earth. Even if you get the Fusion reactors that can work viably and economically (no proper reactor exists, despite lots of research and billions spent since the 1950s).
1) Depends on which fuel your Fusion reactor runs on. Deuterium is nearly endless, but some of the fuels proposed like Helium-3 are not. Some estimates have put the reserves for Fissionables at hundreds or thousands of years, especially if you mine Uranium from sea-water or breed Thorium into Uranium. Humanity has only mined Uranium considerably for a short time. The fuel energy is poorly burned, most comes out as waste (no one cares to make reactors more efficient because Uranium is so cheap). I consider something that can be used for thousands of years good enough. By that time we should have come up with something better which we cannot even conceive with our current knowledge. Or at least I hope so.
2) I agree with the short-livedness aspect of the waste products, but the same also more or less applies to certain fast Fission reactor designs. You can make WMD (H-Bombs anyone?) with some of the fuels used for Fusion, like Tritium, you aren't going to win many friends to Fusion by pushing that aspect. I have always found this a weak motive anyway. Perhaps we should also ban the manufacture of steel or rubber by the same measures.
I have mostly lost hope on Thermal Fusion. After many, many decades and billions spent, break even still has not been reached. All design estimates show that any Fusion reactor will have to be much larger than a Fission reactor with the same power output (so it will be more expensive), plus there is the small issue of lithium blankets, which constitute radioactive waste that must be discarded after they are irradiated with neutrons.
The Tokamaks and similar thermal fusion devices (Stellarators, etc) are a dead end concept. If you want one of those, just use the power the Sun generates, at least it is for free. Making your own is anti-economic.
Innertial Confinement Fusion may solve the density issue I suppose, but that won't come cheap either and the fact that it is an inherently pulsed device carries its own problems.
So Fission beats Fusion on nearly all criteria. Even once the Tokamaks start working properly.
Cold Fusion would be nice, but I wouldn't bet anything on it.
The solution to the energy problem must lay on a mix of sources. No single source is good enough.
The UK has no land based missiles anymore. Its all Tridents in
Vanguard class submarines
(upto 16 Trident II D5 missiles with 12 MIRV 100kT warheads, but presently only with 48 warheads x 4 subs). France has some in submarines (upto 16 M45 missiles with 6 MIRV 150kT warheads x 3 subs) and some air force tactical nukes (300 kT ASMP).
So each country could easily hit well over a hundred targets with nukes using their present force. At a full load of missiles according to best specs, the UK subs could theoretically hit 768 targets, while the French subs could hit 288 targets. Just do the math.
The French are also introducing the better M51 missile, with 12 MIRVs instead of 6. That could double their number of warheads to 576 standard.
Well, having tanks that get miles per gallon rather than gallons per mile would help. If the Army didn't use fuel guzzler tanks and trucks, it wouldn't need to carry as much ressuply fuel in the first place. Those turbines in the Abrahams use waaaay too much fuel. Which is why no one else uses turbines in their tanks anymore. British, German, Israeli, etc.
IMHO it would be a better solution to actually decrease the logistics requirements of the army, so you have less transportation requirements, plus reinforcing the convoy system somehow.
I know I would buy one, if it has solid OSS drivers, performance at least comparable to the midline NVIDIA and ATI graphics and a reasonable price. I'm a strategy game buff, so I never buy top of the line graphics cards anyway.
Well, I certainly would hit the back button. I see Neal continues his usual verbose self. Phewww...
After I finished reading Cryptonomicon (which I affectionately call "the phonebook"), I decided not to read a Neal Stephenson book again. The story was good. But all those wasted pages! I could have cut that book to a fifth its size and there would have been no real loss in plot. Just think about the poor trees man...
Yes people, I'm saying this tongue in cheek.
Re:Old school hackers vs. new school hackers.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Ever considered *gasp* soliciting payment per task instead of per software copy?
You can boot from a CD too. At least that's what the OS install does.
Re:Nuclear energy works!
on
China Goes Nuclear
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Chernobyl's left a dead zone that shows what Three Mile Island could have done if it had gone only slightly further.
A dead zone? A nature preserve is more like it. Since the place was irradiated and people don't go there anymore, the place is turning into a forest. Sure, the animals and plants are irradiated and that will shorten their lifespan and cause cancer, etc. Well, if people were still there most wouldn't even be living there. I wouldn't be surprised to see people living there again in 30 years once the more dangerous short half-lived elements decay. Just like in Hiroshima.
People go to spas for health reasons, yet spas are usually pretty radioactive.
The latent effect of exposure to 239Pu was the subject of a Los Alamos National Laboratory study.
This paper provides an update to an ongoing study of the health of a group of 26 young males who
worked on the Manhattan Engineer District's Project at Los Alamos in 1944 and 1945. During this
time, these men experienced significant contamination of 239Pu. Of the 26, 21 had left Los Alamos by
1946, one left in 1948, and none had significant additional plutonium exposure after 1945. Exposure was
primarily by inhalation, though some also were exposed through cuts in the skin. The internal plutonium
deposition ranged from 50 to 3,180 Bq and the effective dose ranged from 0.1 to 7.2 Sv. The median
deposition and dose were 565 Bq and 1.25 Sv, respectively. The mortality of this group was compared to
the mortality of U.S. white males. The standardized mortality ratio (STR), calculated by comparing the
mortality of the subject group to the U.S. white male population, indicates that the exposed Los Alamos
group experienced statistically significant fewer cancers and longer lives. Since this may be due to the
education level of the Los Alamos group (these 26 had attained a higher level of education than the
average U.S. male and this generally correlates with a healthier life style), they were also compared with a
population of unexposed Los Alamos workers with comparable hire dates and general education levels.
This comparison indicates that the general mortality, as well as cancer-induced mortality, of the two
groups were statistically similar. Thus, the exposure of these 26 men to 239Pu did not significantly affect
their health over their lifetimes.
So yes, Pu is dangerous (what isn't?), yes it should be carefully handled, but I still find it funny that some people think we should outright ban it, while its sitting in containers at special facilities, while cheerfully getting injected with Botox (botulism toxin) to remove a wrinkle...
So you are worried about what to do with excess production? Were all problems that simple to fix. BTW, France's other electric client is Italy, which dismantled its nuclear power plants in a hissy fit after Chernobyl...
2. One who opposes technical or technological change.
The meaning of that word has evolved since the XIXth century. By opposing the nuclear industry, you are only helping the coal and gas-fired lobby, since the other energy sources cannot compete with fossils (wind and hydro are not economically viable everywhere, solar is ludicrously expensive).
Slashdot Mirror
Just imagine all distribution trucks and airplanes under computer control using Galileo as a positioning system. It will be as important as clocks are today. GPS provides no guarantees on accuracy and the US military can disable or decrease the accuracy of the signal any time they want. Not something you want controlling a loaded truck speeding on a highway or an airplane fully loaded with people doing a poinpoint landing.
Actually, I read it is similar to a Pascal p-code machine. So Wirth should be in the list too. :-)
If the Muslim didn't want the Crusades, they shouldn't have invaded Christian kingdoms first.
If they didn't want Afghanistan to be invaded, they shouldn't have demolished a couple of towers in the USA a couple of years ago.
The Muslims aren't innocent either.
That makes no sense at all. The opposite should apply due to economies of scale. I think the problem is that parents and the state in the USA do not give enough incentive for children to work. In Japan, if you do not study hard you are considered worthless unworthy scum. In the USA you are 'cool'.
Bozo was a genius in his own field too.
Compare the amount of investment then with now. Even the Germans, with Heisenberg and lots of money couldn't get it to work. There were hurdles along the way. But some very smart people fixed those (with non insignificant funding to help).
Your real hand does the same thing. On the other hand, I suppose it is hard to replace after you tried sensing what a kitchen stove is.
Yes, it seems Sid Meier likes to only do a game once.
However I would agree that he has basically done zilch since Colonization came out. Except signing on his name. You could count Sim Golf, but that game was not that interesting. Sid seems to have forgotten his roots and seemingly wants to be Will Wright now. A shame.
It is possible to make them back down on a bad measure. Apply sufficient pressure and it will happen. Impossibility is what the other side wants you to think you can do.
Some people have proposed usings lasers or a matter-antimatter anihilation as triggers.
I answered about the fuel supply issue to the other poster. I shall only add the additional note here that I doubt mining He-3 from Luna will ever be economic to transport back to Earth. Even if you get the Fusion reactors that can work viably and economically (no proper reactor exists, despite lots of research and billions spent since the 1950s).
2) I agree with the short-livedness aspect of the waste products, but the same also more or less applies to certain fast Fission reactor designs. You can make WMD (H-Bombs anyone?) with some of the fuels used for Fusion, like Tritium, you aren't going to win many friends to Fusion by pushing that aspect. I have always found this a weak motive anyway. Perhaps we should also ban the manufacture of steel or rubber by the same measures.
The Tokamaks and similar thermal fusion devices (Stellarators, etc) are a dead end concept. If you want one of those, just use the power the Sun generates, at least it is for free. Making your own is anti-economic.
Innertial Confinement Fusion may solve the density issue I suppose, but that won't come cheap either and the fact that it is an inherently pulsed device carries its own problems.
So Fission beats Fusion on nearly all criteria. Even once the Tokamaks start working properly.
Cold Fusion would be nice, but I wouldn't bet anything on it.
The solution to the energy problem must lay on a mix of sources. No single source is good enough.
So each country could easily hit well over a hundred targets with nukes using their present force. At a full load of missiles according to best specs, the UK subs could theoretically hit 768 targets, while the French subs could hit 288 targets. Just do the math.
The French are also introducing the better M51 missile, with 12 MIRVs instead of 6. That could double their number of warheads to 576 standard.
Well, having tanks that get miles per gallon rather than gallons per mile would help. If the Army didn't use fuel guzzler tanks and trucks, it wouldn't need to carry as much ressuply fuel in the first place. Those turbines in the Abrahams use waaaay too much fuel. Which is why no one else uses turbines in their tanks anymore. British, German, Israeli, etc.
IMHO it would be a better solution to actually decrease the logistics requirements of the army, so you have less transportation requirements, plus reinforcing the convoy system somehow.
I know I would buy one, if it has solid OSS drivers, performance at least comparable to the midline NVIDIA and ATI graphics and a reasonable price. I'm a strategy game buff, so I never buy top of the line graphics cards anyway.
After I finished reading Cryptonomicon (which I affectionately call "the phonebook"), I decided not to read a Neal Stephenson book again. The story was good. But all those wasted pages! I could have cut that book to a fifth its size and there would have been no real loss in plot. Just think about the poor trees man...
Yes people, I'm saying this tongue in cheek.
Ever considered *gasp* soliciting payment per task instead of per software copy?
That's what the military wants it for anyway. Dense energy storage.
You can boot from a CD too. At least that's what the OS install does.
A dead zone? A nature preserve is more like it. Since the place was irradiated and people don't go there anymore, the place is turning into a forest. Sure, the animals and plants are irradiated and that will shorten their lifespan and cause cancer, etc. Well, if people were still there most wouldn't even be living there. I wouldn't be surprised to see people living there again in 30 years once the more dangerous short half-lived elements decay. Just like in Hiroshima.
People go to spas for health reasons, yet spas are usually pretty radioactive.
Regarding Pu toxicity, I quote:
The latent effect of exposure to 239Pu was the subject of a Los Alamos National Laboratory study. This paper provides an update to an ongoing study of the health of a group of 26 young males who worked on the Manhattan Engineer District's Project at Los Alamos in 1944 and 1945. During this time, these men experienced significant contamination of 239Pu. Of the 26, 21 had left Los Alamos by 1946, one left in 1948, and none had significant additional plutonium exposure after 1945. Exposure was primarily by inhalation, though some also were exposed through cuts in the skin. The internal plutonium deposition ranged from 50 to 3,180 Bq and the effective dose ranged from 0.1 to 7.2 Sv. The median deposition and dose were 565 Bq and 1.25 Sv, respectively. The mortality of this group was compared to the mortality of U.S. white males. The standardized mortality ratio (STR), calculated by comparing the mortality of the subject group to the U.S. white male population, indicates that the exposed Los Alamos group experienced statistically significant fewer cancers and longer lives. Since this may be due to the education level of the Los Alamos group (these 26 had attained a higher level of education than the average U.S. male and this generally correlates with a healthier life style), they were also compared with a population of unexposed Los Alamos workers with comparable hire dates and general education levels. This comparison indicates that the general mortality, as well as cancer-induced mortality, of the two groups were statistically similar. Thus, the exposure of these 26 men to 239Pu did not significantly affect their health over their lifetimes.
So yes, Pu is dangerous (what isn't?), yes it should be carefully handled, but I still find it funny that some people think we should outright ban it, while its sitting in containers at special facilities, while cheerfully getting injected with Botox (botulism toxin) to remove a wrinkle...
So you are worried about what to do with excess production? Were all problems that simple to fix. BTW, France's other electric client is Italy, which dismantled its nuclear power plants in a hissy fit after Chernobyl...
2. One who opposes technical or technological change.
The meaning of that word has evolved since the XIXth century. By opposing the nuclear industry, you are only helping the coal and gas-fired lobby, since the other energy sources cannot compete with fossils (wind and hydro are not economically viable everywhere, solar is ludicrously expensive).