> I wonder if they have another OCO sitting as backup somewhere? Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch.
You may be confusing building pairs with first building an Engineering Model first (to be hacked around, tested, re drilled etc) with the final version that is launched. The former is typically kept after launch to help with on-ground analysis of problems seen on-board.
The Engineering Model can be later cannibalized, along with spares being used: eg S/C 1 for Cluster 2 after the first launch failed.
> Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close.
I am not sure how, nor if it could apply to Hubble, but ERS-2 has been flying giroless for some time now.
> If you actually read the links you would have seen that the spent fuel for those reactors has half-lives in the tens of years, not thousands.
I confess I did not read the links before my first reply (!!), but I now have as what you say looks interesting.
But I could not find a 10s-of-years half life for waste quoted: I see "the waste will decay to a value less than that of the original uranium ore in about 200 years" but is even this safe without special storage (and 200 years, whilst much better then 100,000+, is still a 'gift' to our grandchildren).
I found the Wikipedia article very confusing: eg: "the remaining radioactive waste isotopes are fission products, which have half lives of either 90 years (Sm-151) and less, or 211,100 years (Tc-99) and more" but then it quotes the 200 years mentioned above.
> That's why as soon as the U.S. NRC gave an early permit in 2007 companies have lined up to apply for so many reactors?
The articles do not say whether or not the companies will be liable for the results of accidents, or if they will have tax-payer backed wavers ?
> Spent fuel can be buried and then dug back up when it is cost effective.
Yer, nice present for the grandchildren (sorry son, we where unable to live within our means so here is some deadly shit for you to either fix or look after for 100,000 years).
> Give people the permits to build the reactors and the market can take care of this efficiently.
The markets *have* spoken. E.g. when the power infrastructure in the UK was privatisied "the market" refused to take nuclear power so it was split off and kept by the government. AFAIK the only way nuclear power can win in "the market" is through government subsidies: eg covering/exempting the insurance cost so that any accident is covered by the taxpayer or exempting companies from the full cleanup costs of normal (non-accident) waste.
> In other words, it's fine to steal things as long as they're of low value. I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
The analogy used in the article is even worse: as every Slashdotter knows file sharing is not *stealing* (under the legal terms of most countries (IANAL etc).
In fact, as I understand it, the legal system regards stealing a bar of soap (a *criminal* offence) as more serious than file-sharing (a *civil* offence).
> If your goal is to improve energy efficiency, economists have figured out a remarkably simple and efficient method: tax electricity use.
This wins on simplicity, but the problem is, for example, someone struggling to heat a small flat with electricity gets a price hike they can not afford, whilst the target Mr-I-do-not-give-a-**** (sorry: I would guess it is usual Mr who buys big TVs, not Mrs) just pays a little more and does not even notice it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax/).
It is good to know that weapons grade plutonium is being logged and tracked safely to ensure it does not get either into the hands of terrorists, nor into the environment until it decays to a 'safe' level. O, wait... (I wonder if all weapons grade plutonium is subject to the same strict guidelines ?)
> This sort of saving it getting to be pretty typical of a lot of "green marketing". Make a big deal out of the very tiny savings and ignore the big stuff. Save the 1W or so, but ignore the fact that the computer as a whole uses a lot of power.
From a "Green" point of view it is not the power rating, but the energy used over time that counts (e.g. 1W standby for 23 hours is "less green" than 20W running for 1 hour).
> The claim that Windows itself is a monopoly is complete and utter bollocks.
Under the European legal definition of "monopoly" MS do have : tried, convicted and fined. I am sure MS did not loose from lack of good legal advice !!
> Where is the border between something being a part of an OS and things that aren't? Next thing will be for them to want Microsoft to remove the Text editor, the file manager, the GUI and the Image Viewer from Windows
An OS handles device drivers, multi-tasking, resource management etc. Other components should be drop-in replaceable and sit on top of the OS. Using your examples I can replace the Text Editor or Image Viewer with a variety of others. It should also be possible with a browser.
I assume the idea is *not* to level the load from fridges alone, but to cut it at peak times: e.g. just before everyone switches on their kettle, flushes the loo etc during the advert break of a blockbuster movie on TV you ask *all* fridges to take break for 15 minutes to help flatten the peak.
> Why must we tag EVERYTHING correlationisnotcausation.
Because words have agreed-on meanings, and the study shows correlation, and the researchers explicitly point at that their study does not show causation.
> Does/. suddenly have a patent disregard for statistics in it entirety?
How so ? The statistics show correlation, not causation. I guess the next step would be a different study aimed at proving/disproving causation.
So yet me see: - teenager plays Halo 3 for weeks/months/years: does not kill anyone. - same teenager *stops* playing said game for 1 day: shoots both parents.
So does that mean that playing the game *stopped* him killing real people ?
Except I did not say anything about not consuming energy. I just pointed out that the above mentioned activities emit some carbon, i.e. an error of *fact* in the GPs post.
(FWIW I know I consume carbon producing energy, but I can try to reduce it, I can certainly try to avoid "waste" (as opposed to "use") (a light bulb on in an unoccupied room is waste, a light in an occupied room is use)).
> Once we transition to electric vehicles then transportation can be zero carbon.
How ? The power is not zero carbon, nor is the manufacture. *Low* carbon yes, better, maybe. But these are different statements !!
> We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power.
None of these are 0 carbon if you look at the full life cycle: building, transporting the materials (and fuel and waste), storing the waste and then decommissioning. What you try to do is *reduce* the carbon output. And not consuming energy is the best for that. And the quickest.
> Its also ironic that the greenies always try to inhibit the green power they always go on about.
There is nothing ironic about it: "greenies" are not some kind of homogeneous blob: they are different people with different priorities and ideals, same as all groups of people.
Slashdot Mirror
> Nothing is soft when you are moving that fast.
Yes: I know. It was just my (poor) attempt at a global warming joke :-(
> I wonder if they have another OCO sitting as backup somewhere? Satellites are usually built in pairs just in case one of them fails during launch.
You may be confusing building pairs with first building an Engineering Model first (to be hacked around, tested, re drilled etc) with the final version that is launched. The former is typically kept after launch to help with on-ground analysis of problems seen on-board.
The Engineering Model can be later cannibalized, along with spares being used: eg S/C 1 for Cluster 2 after the first launch failed.
> the craft crashed into the ocean just short of Antarctica.
So luckily it had a softer landing by hitting water instead of some of that hard ice.
Oh. Wait !!
> Thats why every delay to this service mission is so critical - if another couple of gyros go, it won't even be able to orient itself well enough to allow the astronauts to get up close.
I am not sure how, nor if it could apply to Hubble, but ERS-2 has been flying giroless for some time now.
> If you were planning on running Linux, I'd have to ask why? It's no problem with a mod chip,
Last time I checked the graphics chip on the 1.6 board was not properly supported under linux :-(
(But XBMC works fine)
> If you actually read the links you would have seen that the spent fuel for those reactors has half-lives in the tens of years, not thousands.
I confess I did not read the links before my first reply (!!), but I now have as what you say looks interesting.
But I could not find a 10s-of-years half life for waste quoted: I see "the waste will decay to a value less than that of the original uranium ore in about 200 years" but is even this safe without special storage (and 200 years, whilst much better then 100,000+, is still a 'gift' to our grandchildren).
I found the Wikipedia article very confusing: eg: "the remaining radioactive waste isotopes are fission products, which have half lives of either 90 years (Sm-151) and less, or 211,100 years (Tc-99) and more" but then it quotes the 200 years mentioned above.
> That's why as soon as the U.S. NRC gave an early permit in 2007 companies have lined up to apply for so many reactors?
The articles do not say whether or not the companies will be liable for the results of accidents, or if they will have tax-payer backed wavers ?
What: no mention of poor old Planck, Herschels tandem partner ? :-)
Or is the measuring of background less "sexy" than looking at galaxies forming ?
> Spent fuel can be buried and then dug back up when it is cost effective.
Yer, nice present for the grandchildren (sorry son, we where unable to live within our means so here is some deadly shit for you to either fix or look after for 100,000 years).
> Give people the permits to build the reactors and the market can take care of this efficiently.
The markets *have* spoken. E.g. when the power infrastructure in the UK was privatisied "the market" refused to take nuclear power so it was split off and kept by the government.
AFAIK the only way nuclear power can win in "the market" is through government subsidies: eg covering/exempting the insurance cost so that any accident is covered by the taxpayer or exempting companies from the full cleanup costs of normal (non-accident) waste.
>> "Certainly more often than Vista does."
> This is what gives Slashdot a bad name...
Are you kidding: these grossly sweeping, biased and potentially inaccurate, but FUNNY, statements are what keep me coming back to Slashdot :-)
> Don't the Canadians pay a small tax on black CD/DVD media for a similar reason?
Google gave the answer (and for many other countries to) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy/
> In other words, it's fine to steal things as long as they're of low value. I'm fairly certain the hotel *could* have me arrested for stealing their soap, it's just not usually worth their time.
The analogy used in the article is even worse: as every Slashdotter knows file sharing is not *stealing* (under the legal terms of most countries (IANAL etc).
In fact, as I understand it, the legal system regards stealing a bar of soap (a *criminal* offence) as more serious than file-sharing (a *civil* offence).
Unless CEOP's CEO works for free on this worthy cause then why does he think other people should ?
> If your goal is to improve energy efficiency, economists have figured out a remarkably simple and efficient method: tax electricity use.
This wins on simplicity, but the problem is, for example, someone struggling to heat a small flat with electricity gets a price hike they can not afford, whilst the target Mr-I-do-not-give-a-**** (sorry: I would guess it is usual Mr who buys big TVs, not Mrs) just pays a little more and does not even notice it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax/).
It is good to know that weapons grade plutonium is being logged and tracked safely to ensure it does not get either into the hands of terrorists, nor into the environment until it decays to a 'safe' level.
O, wait...
(I wonder if all weapons grade plutonium is subject to the same strict guidelines ?)
> This sort of saving it getting to be pretty typical of a lot of "green marketing". Make a big deal out of the very tiny savings and ignore the big stuff. Save the 1W or so, but ignore the fact that the computer as a whole uses a lot of power.
From a "Green" point of view it is not the power rating, but the energy used over time that counts (e.g. 1W standby for 23 hours is "less green" than 20W running for 1 hour).
But does it run under WINE ?
> The claim that Windows itself is a monopoly is complete and utter bollocks.
Under the European legal definition of "monopoly" MS do have : tried, convicted and fined. I am sure MS did not loose from lack of good legal advice !!
> Seriously, Firefox is up to more than 20% marketshare. IE doesn't have a monopoly.
The argument is that the OS is a monopoly on the Desktop, not the browser.
> Where is the border between something being a part of an OS and things that aren't? Next thing will be for them to want Microsoft to remove the Text editor, the file manager, the GUI and the Image Viewer from Windows
An OS handles device drivers, multi-tasking, resource management etc. Other components should be drop-in replaceable and sit on top of the OS. Using your examples I can replace the Text Editor or Image Viewer with a variety of others. It should also be possible with a browser.
I assume the idea is *not* to level the load from fridges alone, but to cut it at peak times: e.g. just before everyone switches on their kettle, flushes the loo etc during the advert break of a blockbuster movie on TV you ask *all* fridges to take break for 15 minutes to help flatten the peak.
> Why must we tag EVERYTHING correlationisnotcausation.
Because words have agreed-on meanings, and the study shows correlation, and the researchers explicitly point at that their study does not show causation.
> Does /. suddenly have a patent disregard for statistics in it entirety?
How so ? The statistics show correlation, not causation. I guess the next step would be a different study aimed at proving/disproving causation.
So yet me see:
- teenager plays Halo 3 for weeks/months/years: does not kill anyone.
- same teenager *stops* playing said game for 1 day: shoots both parents.
So does that mean that playing the game *stopped* him killing real people ?
> With an attitude of not consuming energy...
Except I did not say anything about not consuming energy. I just pointed out that the above mentioned activities emit some carbon, i.e. an error of *fact* in the GPs post.
(FWIW I know I consume carbon producing energy, but I can try to reduce it, I can certainly try to avoid "waste" (as opposed to "use") (a light bulb on in an unoccupied room is waste, a light in an occupied room is use)).
> Once we transition to electric vehicles then transportation can be zero carbon.
How ? The power is not zero carbon, nor is the manufacture. *Low* carbon yes, better, maybe. But these are different statements !!
> We need to use non carbon emitting sources such as nuclear power, solar and wind power.
None of these are 0 carbon if you look at the full life cycle: building, transporting the materials (and fuel and waste), storing the waste and then decommissioning. What you try to do is *reduce* the carbon output. And not consuming energy is the best for that. And the quickest.
> Its also ironic that the greenies always try to inhibit the green power they always go on about.
There is nothing ironic about it: "greenies" are not some kind of homogeneous blob: they are different people with different priorities and ideals, same as all groups of people.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7812353.stm