Also don't forget that NOT A SINGLE OTHER GOVERMENT has ratified the Kyoto protocol. Nay, not even Japan!
These EU hypocrites are making me sick pointing at the US (and Bush) and saying how bad we are, while breathing a huge sigh of relief that they won't have to step forward and sell their people and economies out to pass the protocol in their respective houses of goverment.
I can see the question making sense if a power outage in one area affects the broadband in that area AND other areas (unaffected by the power outage). But that can happen now anyway....
I totally disagree here. Yes there would be radiactive waste. No it would not be a large concern (it would be a larger concern from a heavy metals chemical poisoning perspective than a radioactive one). The waste would most likely be concentrated on a small area around the impact zone, maybe a few tens of meters. But think, how much radioactive waste would be generated if a nuke actually detonated? IF there was a detonation, then EMP would be a concern. It sounds to me like you believe the warhead would detonate on impact with an ABM interceptor. That is simply not going to happen. Nuclear warheads are HARD to make detonate with more than a trivial nuclear flash. They are designed that way. An external impact of more than modest force (let alone the forces of a kinetic kill) would ruin them. Theses things are *delicate*. And the idea is that they would only have to hit "a missile or two", or three or four. We are talking launches by a rogue state here, not China or Russia. Or a launch by a rogue commander in Russia or China, still only a small number of missiles.
Well I did read this (yes, I actually READ the referenced article before posting):
"Currently in beta, the site is primarily intended to demonstrate Teoma's technology to potential partners or buyers."
It states on the download page that it's not validating XML. And did you take a look at the DTD for this? It's very simple, about as simple as you can get. Basically useless for rigorous validation.
I agree your way of structuring the data is better, but I would add that many of the data items should be attributes. I mean you have elements and attributes available, why not use both? It would have made things much faster and cleaner to keep up to date and ensure all parsers can validate it quickly. Can you really see a SAX parser making use of that xml? And a DOM parser would consume an enormous amount of memory needlessly. Oh well, I'm sure they were in a big hurry to get this info available. And it'll get well cleaned up in the next few months.
I think you should have at the top of your list:
--PDA's can include intelligent code logic to give you situation specific information. E.g, the doctor who wishes to prescribe medication and the PDA says "BUZZZZ - drug interaction danger, patient XX is also taking medication YY and this conflicts with your last entry." The point here is PDA's have a CPU and paper does not. Much of course depends on the talent and effort put into the software to be used.
We use PDA's here for log taking and data taking in the field, with logic in the PDA to notify the us about out of spec items, bad data, immediate action requirements based on these, etc... VERY useful to us. And remote access to the uploaded data is useful to all kinds of other people (maintenance, engineering, etc) here. Ours don't use Linux though, I was only replying to the "never had the need" comment.
I was thinking of getting one of these and replacing my existing simple HVAC controller with it. More as a fun project than anything else. I don't need to, but it would be fun to build.
Wow, "27mm x 27mm PBGA IC package". Now I can put Linux into my Nike's and boot my win98se POS out the window....
Re:The classic catch was not addressed
on
Hotel on the Moon
·
· Score: 1
Maybe the solution to that is an electromagnetic launcher. A large rail gun might be made to work. And the Quake crowd would go ballistic (groan).
Water water nowhere and not a drop to drink
on
Hotel on the Moon
·
· Score: 5
Seem to me that the search for lunar water would be the key to everything else. Once you have a secure (on the lunar surface - hence cheap) water source you can expand into all these other ideas. But until that is done, you are going to make slow and extremely expensive progress on everything else lunar related.
Re:Preview of what's to come...
on
Internet2 Update
·
· Score: 1
I agree that advocacy can cloud your judgement. But you have to remember that some of these people have devoted their careers to this issue. You would hope they had done some homework.
Any location that will ship or receive radiactive material has to be ready to handle contamination problems. I am frankly surprised that someone was surprised that there is planning for this possibility.
Ok, time for some background from the shipping location's perspective.
To move spent fuel you have to lower a large cask (usually 100+ tons) into the spent fuel pool that the fuel is in. Now while these pools have installed purification/filtration systems, some activity (in the 1.0E-5uCi/ml to 1.0E-06uCi/ml range) will be present in the water. The surface of the metal canister will have micro pits and pores in it that can uptake this water. Then later after the cask is loaded and removed, this water will dry out, leaving a minute amount of dry smearable radioactive contamination behind. This I suspect is what the "weepage" you were referring to. Anyway, interestingly enough, if you presoak the surface of the cask with high purity water (no radiactivity), you can prevent (or at least greatly minimise) any uptake of the spent fuel pool water and it's contamination. Then later as the cask dries, the smearable contamination problem is greatly reduced. Also, the surface that comes in contact with the spent fuel pool would be inside the outer canister, so would be inaccessible in any case.
And one other point, these canisters are really freaking tough. I just can't see a way they could grossly fail. I mean they were tested to simulate a train wreck at high speed followed by a drop off a train trestle and landing on a pointy object. Like I said before, TOUGH testing.
And as for the Right Thing to happen, it seems logical (to me at least) to place the high level waste as orginally planned 30 years ago into one central federally controlled location, as opposed to the 100+ high level waste storage locations we have today.
Look at my user info, I know a little bit about this. These containers are vacuum dryed then double welded shut. There is nothing to act as a vector to enable materials to "weep" through the barriers. There are always at least two independent vapor tight barriers of high tensile steel between the contents and the environment. And believe me this steel is checked very carefully for porosity, defects, and inclusions at several points in the manufacturing and qualification process. The testing process is pretty tough indeed. And even if a container were to leak, the affected area would be measured in a few tens of meters, and could be very easily contained and cleaned up.
We have the technology to reprocess spent fuel into MOX fuel and reburn most of these isotopes. This is a PROVEN and decades mature technology. After 3-4 cycles in a reactor, all of these isotopes that would be dangerous for "tens or hundreds of thousands of years" are burned up and the waste will be benign in a few DECADES. This technology exists NOW. It was cancelled by President Carter in the '70's based on fears of Plutonium proliferation. These fears are unfounded IMO based on several factors. In any case, we have the ability to safely get rid of this stuff permanently, the decision not to use this ability was never a scientific or technical one, it was a political one.
BTW, those enormous ash piles from coal plants release 1.5 times more radioactive contamination than all 108 currently operating nuclear plants in the US. Plus a LOT of Mercury. Plus assorted other heavy metal pollutants.
Also, the US, BY FAR out produces any other nation on earth on a per capita basis. How are we going to become "more internationally competitive"?
And as for your comment on the US needing to cut down energy use through conservation, I live in California, and I really don't care if you believe it or not, (you won't because that would upset your applecart) Californian's already use less energy per capita than any other people in the industrialized world. We have cut energy use by 12% in the last year, and we are still short 6000 MW. 6000 MW is not going to be generated by any alternative energy source currently available. Not without a huge cost in money, and enviornmental impacts.
Slashdot Mirror
Also don't forget that NOT A SINGLE OTHER GOVERMENT has ratified the Kyoto protocol. Nay, not even Japan!
These EU hypocrites are making me sick pointing at the US (and Bush) and saying how bad we are, while breathing a huge sigh of relief that they won't have to step forward and sell their people and economies out to pass the protocol in their respective houses of goverment.
It looks like the story link doesn't work. At least it didn't work for me. Here is the one that worked for me.
I can see the question making sense if a power outage in one area affects the broadband in that area AND other areas (unaffected by the power outage). But that can happen now anyway....
Did you ever bother to think that my post was before the flamebait moderation?
Just because you do not seem to use your brain for more than profanity, do not assume no else does either.
Idiot.
Why does a post like this get modded up?
Sometimes I just do not understand the thought process of moderators. This post is utterly misguided, naive, and uninformed. Sigh.
I'm sure I'll get modded down as a troll now, how droll.
Someone mod this up please. It's extemely accurate and insightful.
BTW, since you mention ad hominem statements, I notice that most of your reply also qualifies as conversational terrorism. :)
I totally disagree here. Yes there would be radiactive waste. No it would not be a large concern (it would be a larger concern from a heavy metals chemical poisoning perspective than a radioactive one). The waste would most likely be concentrated on a small area around the impact zone, maybe a few tens of meters. But think, how much radioactive waste would be generated if a nuke actually detonated? IF there was a detonation, then EMP would be a concern. It sounds to me like you believe the warhead would detonate on impact with an ABM interceptor. That is simply not going to happen. Nuclear warheads are HARD to make detonate with more than a trivial nuclear flash. They are designed that way. An external impact of more than modest force (let alone the forces of a kinetic kill) would ruin them. Theses things are *delicate*. And the idea is that they would only have to hit "a missile or two", or three or four. We are talking launches by a rogue state here, not China or Russia. Or a launch by a rogue commander in Russia or China, still only a small number of missiles.
But the silly rhetoric in the referenced article aside, the comments on the SA-10's missile and such were quite interesting.
Question: Where does the definition of a high performance, high altitude SAM end, and the definition of an ABM begin?
That was my point. I should have been more clear, oh well.
Way way bigger lead over what we have. The USSR (gone now - but not forgotten) has had an operational national ABM system since 1980. Read this.
returning a previously stolen concrete PC. /. story)
(See previous
Well I did read this (yes, I actually READ the referenced article before posting):
"Currently in beta, the site is primarily intended to demonstrate Teoma's technology to potential partners or buyers."
It states on the download page that it's not validating XML. And did you take a look at the DTD for this? It's very simple, about as simple as you can get. Basically useless for rigorous validation.
I agree your way of structuring the data is better, but I would add that many of the data items should be attributes. I mean you have elements and attributes available, why not use both? It would have made things much faster and cleaner to keep up to date and ensure all parsers can validate it quickly. Can you really see a SAX parser making use of that xml? And a DOM parser would consume an enormous amount of memory needlessly. Oh well, I'm sure they were in a big hurry to get this info available. And it'll get well cleaned up in the next few months.
the oil left on the /. omelet after cooking?
I think you should have at the top of your list:
--PDA's can include intelligent code logic to give you situation specific information. E.g, the doctor who wishes to prescribe medication and the PDA says "BUZZZZ - drug interaction danger, patient XX is also taking medication YY and this conflicts with your last entry." The point here is PDA's have a CPU and paper does not. Much of course depends on the talent and effort put into the software to be used.
Yeah well, real nerd geeks who can spell "hackers" correctly wear Duffs..... :)
We use PDA's here for log taking and data taking in the field, with logic in the PDA to notify the us about out of spec items, bad data, immediate action requirements based on these, etc... VERY useful to us. And remote access to the uploaded data is useful to all kinds of other people (maintenance, engineering, etc) here. Ours don't use Linux though, I was only replying to the "never had the need" comment.
I was thinking of getting one of these and replacing my existing simple HVAC controller with it. More as a fun project than anything else. I don't need to, but it would be fun to build.
Wow, "27mm x 27mm PBGA IC package". Now I can put Linux into my Nike's and boot my win98se POS out the window....
Maybe the solution to that is an electromagnetic launcher. A large rail gun might be made to work. And the Quake crowd would go ballistic (groan).
Seem to me that the search for lunar water would be the key to everything else. Once you have a secure (on the lunar surface - hence cheap) water source you can expand into all these other ideas. But until that is done, you are going to make slow and extremely expensive progress on everything else lunar related.
Don't forget the FPS and MMORPG's......
I agree that advocacy can cloud your judgement. But you have to remember that some of these people have devoted their careers to this issue. You would hope they had done some homework.
Any location that will ship or receive radiactive material has to be ready to handle contamination problems. I am frankly surprised that someone was surprised that there is planning for this possibility.
Ok, time for some background from the shipping location's perspective.
To move spent fuel you have to lower a large cask (usually 100+ tons) into the spent fuel pool that the fuel is in. Now while these pools have installed purification/filtration systems, some activity (in the 1.0E-5uCi/ml to 1.0E-06uCi/ml range) will be present in the water. The surface of the metal canister will have micro pits and pores in it that can uptake this water. Then later after the cask is loaded and removed, this water will dry out, leaving a minute amount of dry smearable radioactive contamination behind. This I suspect is what the "weepage" you were referring to. Anyway, interestingly enough, if you presoak the surface of the cask with high purity water (no radiactivity), you can prevent (or at least greatly minimise) any uptake of the spent fuel pool water and it's contamination. Then later as the cask dries, the smearable contamination problem is greatly reduced. Also, the surface that comes in contact with the spent fuel pool would be inside the outer canister, so would be inaccessible in any case.
And one other point, these canisters are really freaking tough. I just can't see a way they could grossly fail. I mean they were tested to simulate a train wreck at high speed followed by a drop off a train trestle and landing on a pointy object. Like I said before, TOUGH testing.
And as for the Right Thing to happen, it seems logical (to me at least) to place the high level waste as orginally planned 30 years ago into one central federally controlled location, as opposed to the 100+ high level waste storage locations we have today.
Look at my user info, I know a little bit about this. These containers are vacuum dryed then double welded shut. There is nothing to act as a vector to enable materials to "weep" through the barriers. There are always at least two independent vapor tight barriers of high tensile steel between the contents and the environment. And believe me this steel is checked very carefully for porosity, defects, and inclusions at several points in the manufacturing and qualification process. The testing process is pretty tough indeed. And even if a container were to leak, the affected area would be measured in a few tens of meters, and could be very easily contained and cleaned up.
We have the technology to reprocess spent fuel into MOX fuel and reburn most of these isotopes. This is a PROVEN and decades mature technology. After 3-4 cycles in a reactor, all of these isotopes that would be dangerous for "tens or hundreds of thousands of years" are burned up and the waste will be benign in a few DECADES. This technology exists NOW. It was cancelled by President Carter in the '70's based on fears of Plutonium proliferation. These fears are unfounded IMO based on several factors. In any case, we have the ability to safely get rid of this stuff permanently, the decision not to use this ability was never a scientific or technical one, it was a political one.
BTW, those enormous ash piles from coal plants release 1.5 times more radioactive contamination than all 108 currently operating nuclear plants in the US. Plus a LOT of Mercury. Plus assorted other heavy metal pollutants.
Also, the US, BY FAR out produces any other nation on earth on a per capita basis. How are we going to become "more internationally competitive"?
And as for your comment on the US needing to cut down energy use through conservation, I live in California, and I really don't care if you believe it or not, (you won't because that would upset your applecart) Californian's already use less energy per capita than any other people in the industrialized world. We have cut energy use by 12% in the last year, and we are still short 6000 MW. 6000 MW is not going to be generated by any alternative energy source currently available. Not without a huge cost in money, and enviornmental impacts.