Friend of a friend story but probably true. A friend of mine, his sister and his sister's stoner boyfriend went to Latvia after the Russians moved out and they could reconnect with family etc. The stoner was astonished with hemp growing all over the place and he collected and dried a lot of it. It turns out that with the variety there and the short growing season he was effectively just smoking rope because whatever process forms THC just didn't get time to happen.
It's one of the reasons France gave the USA the finger and you guys decided to hate the nation that used to be admired - France still has a large and legal hemp industry for fibre production. They refused to shut it down as part of the "war on drugs". India grows a vast amount of the stuff for fibre. There's a few other places that didn't decide to wipe out an industry as collatoral damage in the "war on drugs" distraction.
Just because California is run as if on drugs does not mean that the idea of regulation is a bad one in all circumstances. Kneejerk reactions like the one above should not be laughed at because they are merely a demonstration of too much focus on an aspect of a thing and not the whole, and the act of extrapolating it to the whole is merely laziness instead of the abject stupidity that it first appears to be.
begin construction and perform damage mitigation later
Mining is often done with a promise or funds put aside to do rehabilitation later. Maybe their act needs to be amended to allow it to be extended to other cases like this in general instead of in specific cases.
No transition period? We are about fifteen years into that transition period, and it has sucked immensely with things like the requirement of man in the middle stuff like Skype just to get VoIP to work on an internet infested with NAT.
Many new home routers are ready but a lot of people haven't bought a router in years
When they or their kids discover bittorrent or Facebook jumps the shark in the number of connections per page even more than it has they'll find that the net just will not behave as nicely for them anymore with their old router that wasn't designed to be hit that hard. When they get their new cheap and nasty bottom of the range Chinese device they'll find it can both vastly outperform their old thing and later it will handle IPv6 for them.
And at least where I am, there aren't any home ISPs who even have IPV6 on the roadmap.
The US still has a few addresses floating about but Asia had a smaller pool to play with so the people that make your stuff are already using it on IPv6. Even in the US phones are getting on IPv6 so since everyone wants their site to actually work on an iPhone the content hassles are being worked out before the US home consumers arrive.
do I want to hire the guy who gets stuff right the first time
That guy is the one that is just lucky or takes credit for the work of others and is going to start making his first mistakes on your time later. Even a damn good prototype that gets a job done generally sucks compared with what you can do with even a little more work on the rough edges. If you want instant perfection of something new the people pretending to be perfect win over someone that is really approaching it.
and instead bleats about how we can "roll back" servers with the click of a button in a virtual environment.
Meanwhile I'd like to be able to turn clusters into a virtual server instead of having to codes specificly for clusters. Something like OpenMosix was starting to do before it imploded. Make serveral machines look like one big machine to applications designed to only run on single machines.
That actually sounds quite lucid. Have you given up on your "the US government faked 9/11, set fire to a building next to ground zero, and there was no plane at the Pentagon" conspriracy theories?
Clear lines of separation between different modules
That's pretty well how it is and has been for decades in thermal power generation. A turbine doesn't care what makes it's steam, just that there is enough of it. There's even solar pre-heating in at least one coal fired power station.
but you still kept on about "lots of little reactors" being a bad idea
With respect I suggested exactly that thing in parallel with the example of pebble bed was a good idea. Lose one and you still get enough steam to get something out of a turbine rotor. I think there's a power station in China that has implemented such a thing with small reactors supplied by a German company collectively feeding large turbine rotors. If the pressure drops there are still plently of turbine blades on the rotor designed to get something out of lower pressure steam.
What I intended to say is that you should be able to replace or service the turbine module without digging into the reactor cite module,
Since they will be separated by probably close to one hundred metres or more of space that's what happens, things are worked on independantly, however there is nowhere for the steam to go while the turbine is shut down so the reactor gets shut down as well. They are very different modules but since it's a linear process if you shut down one thing there's no point having anything else wasting fuel in the process. The alternative is to have a spare for everything but the capital costs for another unit plus additional interconnecting pipework would not be trivial for something that would be very rarely used.
That first guy doesn't exist unless he's had others make the mistakes for him, taken credit for the work of others or kept quiet about the development process. That bridge of a new type that doesn't fall down was not designed flawlessly overnight. The nice thing with engineering is we can make a lot of mistakes on paper and fix them before construction commences.
When it gets down to it these Congressmen are protecting Russian industry by messing about this way. I wonder how they would handle being confronted by that unintended consequence given the current sabre rattling by and against Putin? If they want to escalate into stupid games then rub their noses in the stupid consequences.
Modular means steam from one reactor core piped to different turbines,
Since everything runs at around full rated capacity that means you need a spare of every portion of the process to be able to do such a thing - so an entire spare unit. Does that make sense yet? If you've got an entire spare unit then you have the capacity to shut down the one with problems anyway instead of a bit at a time. That's why the mulitple inputs make little sense, if something's at 100% what do you do with the extra steam? You can't use it unless there's an idle turbine somewhere in your complex network.
Also your modular idea doesn't help in situations like this where everything in the plant that can make steam is being taken offline due to a potential fault in all reactors.
Of course I know what it means but the pressure and scales involved make it very unlikely to have that degree of redundancy at realistic capital costs. It's a process with stuff upstream and downstream. I suggest you read what I've written above instead of just skim until you hit a key word to get some idea why instead of getting all condescending about an issue outside of your area of awareness. I tried to clarify things without sounding like I was dumbing it down too much and being condescending so I would appreciate it if you would do the same and avoid being condescending even if your misunderstanding makes you think I don't know what your post was about. This dictionary shit is getting old.
Modular means steam from one reactor core piped to different turbines,
Such levels of complexity are seen as accidents waiting to happen with MPa of steam even with enormous valves to isolate each boiler unit.
It's simple - consider when a type of aircraft is grounded and checjed as an example. Now apply that to a specific type of reactor or for a not necessarily nuclear example a specific model of turbine. A monoculture increases the impact of such a situation.
Would be nice at the sub-unit level but take a look at a thermal power station to get some idea that the scale makes it impractical once you have enough steam to spin a turbine. Big turbines with lots of high pressure steam get the job done far better than little ones. Of course you could have something like a lot of little pebble bed reactors making steam in parallel on the boiler side making it possible to just shut down one reactor, but after the stuff is boiled it's pretty well the whole unit goes down for just about anything.
Notice that I used the word "unit". A thermal power station can be made up, for example, of eight units, with eight turbine rotors, eight boilers (nukes would include reactors at that bit) and each unit using half a cooling tower each. You can take 1/8 of the plant down without impacting on the rest and that's what's done with scheduled maintanance. However it looks like this situation is like grounding all of a type of aircraft when a fault is found, so it's thought of being serious enough to check out all the reactors of that type at once and being worth shutting down every unit of that type. So modularity is not going to save you so long as at least one part subject to the "recall" is required by each unit.
The French had this a few times and had to shut down all of their commercial nuclear power plants at once on occasion but it's not a nuclear thing, it's the drawback of a monoculture.
It's things like this that are the answer to the "just build a standard reactor everywhere and have an economy of scale" folks. The other answer is that since nuclear power, more than all other alternative energies, is still in a process of improvement so it makes little sense to have a fifteen year plan to build a lot of identical reactors when there could be a vast improvement in ten years.
It's trying to be both an iPad and iMac to "bury the competition", but while that may sound simple as a boardroom rant implementation is not so easy and people actually want to use it as a product instead of a vector of market dominance. So the two things it's trying to be at once is sadly not that useful to the end user.
The real problem is the cost of license compliance.
I had some shakedown artist apparently "approved by Microsoft" hassle me about compliance last year (2013) and their evidence was a licence for NT4 purchased in 1998 which expired in 2000. Sorting out licencing shit from fifteen years ago is almost something to call in geologists to deal with.
Trying something and not following through. In the meantime they proved once again that you can't be market leader in a new segment by killing the existing market leader and wearing the skin you've peeled off it.
As for 3, maybe it's an early warning of high blood pressure when your retina scan doesn't work any more, or prostate trouble when fingerprints go. They can take my biometrics from my cold, dead hands. Passwords/passphrases are a different story.
Slashdot Mirror
Friend of a friend story but probably true.
A friend of mine, his sister and his sister's stoner boyfriend went to Latvia after the Russians moved out and they could reconnect with family etc. The stoner was astonished with hemp growing all over the place and he collected and dried a lot of it. It turns out that with the variety there and the short growing season he was effectively just smoking rope because whatever process forms THC just didn't get time to happen.
It's one of the reasons France gave the USA the finger and you guys decided to hate the nation that used to be admired - France still has a large and legal hemp industry for fibre production. They refused to shut it down as part of the "war on drugs". India grows a vast amount of the stuff for fibre. There's a few other places that didn't decide to wipe out an industry as collatoral damage in the "war on drugs" distraction.
Just because California is run as if on drugs does not mean that the idea of regulation is a bad one in all circumstances. Kneejerk reactions like the one above should not be laughed at because they are merely a demonstration of too much focus on an aspect of a thing and not the whole, and the act of extrapolating it to the whole is merely laziness instead of the abject stupidity that it first appears to be.
Mining is often done with a promise or funds put aside to do rehabilitation later. Maybe their act needs to be amended to allow it to be extended to other cases like this in general instead of in specific cases.
The i7 Yoga is nice but not cheap. It may be usable for long enough that the price won't matter so much.
All it takes is for Australia Post to lose a few letters and it's Austria Post.
No transition period? We are about fifteen years into that transition period, and it has sucked immensely with things like the requirement of man in the middle stuff like Skype just to get VoIP to work on an internet infested with NAT.
When they or their kids discover bittorrent or Facebook jumps the shark in the number of connections per page even more than it has they'll find that the net just will not behave as nicely for them anymore with their old router that wasn't designed to be hit that hard. When they get their new cheap and nasty bottom of the range Chinese device they'll find it can both vastly outperform their old thing and later it will handle IPv6 for them.
The US still has a few addresses floating about but Asia had a smaller pool to play with so the people that make your stuff are already using it on IPv6. Even in the US phones are getting on IPv6 so since everyone wants their site to actually work on an iPhone the content hassles are being worked out before the US home consumers arrive.
That guy is the one that is just lucky or takes credit for the work of others and is going to start making his first mistakes on your time later. Even a damn good prototype that gets a job done generally sucks compared with what you can do with even a little more work on the rough edges.
If you want instant perfection of something new the people pretending to be perfect win over someone that is really approaching it.
Cool, I'll definitely look into that. I thought that line of thought had been abandoned.
Meanwhile I'd like to be able to turn clusters into a virtual server instead of having to codes specificly for clusters. Something like OpenMosix was starting to do before it imploded. Make serveral machines look like one big machine to applications designed to only run on single machines.
That actually sounds quite lucid. Have you given up on your "the US government faked 9/11, set fire to a building next to ground zero, and there was no plane at the Pentagon" conspriracy theories?
That's pretty well how it is and has been for decades in thermal power generation. A turbine doesn't care what makes it's steam, just that there is enough of it. There's even solar pre-heating in at least one coal fired power station.
With respect I suggested exactly that thing in parallel with the example of pebble bed was a good idea. Lose one and you still get enough steam to get something out of a turbine rotor. I think there's a power station in China that has implemented such a thing with small reactors supplied by a German company collectively feeding large turbine rotors. If the pressure drops there are still plently of turbine blades on the rotor designed to get something out of lower pressure steam.
Since they will be separated by probably close to one hundred metres or more of space that's what happens, things are worked on independantly, however there is nowhere for the steam to go while the turbine is shut down so the reactor gets shut down as well. They are very different modules but since it's a linear process if you shut down one thing there's no point having anything else wasting fuel in the process. The alternative is to have a spare for everything but the capital costs for another unit plus additional interconnecting pipework would not be trivial for something that would be very rarely used.
That first guy doesn't exist unless he's had others make the mistakes for him, taken credit for the work of others or kept quiet about the development process.
That bridge of a new type that doesn't fall down was not designed flawlessly overnight. The nice thing with engineering is we can make a lot of mistakes on paper and fix them before construction commences.
When it gets down to it these Congressmen are protecting Russian industry by messing about this way. I wonder how they would handle being confronted by that unintended consequence given the current sabre rattling by and against Putin?
If they want to escalate into stupid games then rub their noses in the stupid consequences.
Since everything runs at around full rated capacity that means you need a spare of every portion of the process to be able to do such a thing - so an entire spare unit. Does that make sense yet? If you've got an entire spare unit then you have the capacity to shut down the one with problems anyway instead of a bit at a time.
That's why the mulitple inputs make little sense, if something's at 100% what do you do with the extra steam? You can't use it unless there's an idle turbine somewhere in your complex network.
Also your modular idea doesn't help in situations like this where everything in the plant that can make steam is being taken offline due to a potential fault in all reactors.
Is that clear enough yet?
They were selling more phones than anyone else on the planet before Microsoft got involved by sending them Elop so what else do you call them?
I suggest you read what I've written above instead of just skim until you hit a key word to get some idea why instead of getting all condescending about an issue outside of your area of awareness. I tried to clarify things without sounding like I was dumbing it down too much and being condescending so I would appreciate it if you would do the same and avoid being condescending even if your misunderstanding makes you think I don't know what your post was about. This dictionary shit is getting old.
Such levels of complexity are seen as accidents waiting to happen with MPa of steam even with enormous valves to isolate each boiler unit.
It's simple - consider when a type of aircraft is grounded and checjed as an example. Now apply that to a specific type of reactor or for a not necessarily nuclear example a specific model of turbine. A monoculture increases the impact of such a situation.
Would be nice at the sub-unit level but take a look at a thermal power station to get some idea that the scale makes it impractical once you have enough steam to spin a turbine. Big turbines with lots of high pressure steam get the job done far better than little ones. Of course you could have something like a lot of little pebble bed reactors making steam in parallel on the boiler side making it possible to just shut down one reactor, but after the stuff is boiled it's pretty well the whole unit goes down for just about anything.
Notice that I used the word "unit". A thermal power station can be made up, for example, of eight units, with eight turbine rotors, eight boilers (nukes would include reactors at that bit) and each unit using half a cooling tower each. You can take 1/8 of the plant down without impacting on the rest and that's what's done with scheduled maintanance.
However it looks like this situation is like grounding all of a type of aircraft when a fault is found, so it's thought of being serious enough to check out all the reactors of that type at once and being worth shutting down every unit of that type. So modularity is not going to save you so long as at least one part subject to the "recall" is required by each unit.
The French had this a few times and had to shut down all of their commercial nuclear power plants at once on occasion but it's not a nuclear thing, it's the drawback of a monoculture.
It's things like this that are the answer to the "just build a standard reactor everywhere and have an economy of scale" folks. The other answer is that since nuclear power, more than all other alternative energies, is still in a process of improvement so it makes little sense to have a fifteen year plan to build a lot of identical reactors when there could be a vast improvement in ten years.
It's trying to be both an iPad and iMac to "bury the competition", but while that may sound simple as a boardroom rant implementation is not so easy and people actually want to use it as a product instead of a vector of market dominance. So the two things it's trying to be at once is sadly not that useful to the end user.
I had some shakedown artist apparently "approved by Microsoft" hassle me about compliance last year (2013) and their evidence was a licence for NT4 purchased in 1998 which expired in 2000. Sorting out licencing shit from fifteen years ago is almost something to call in geologists to deal with.
Trying something and not following through. In the meantime they proved once again that you can't be market leader in a new segment by killing the existing market leader and wearing the skin you've peeled off it.
As for 3, maybe it's an early warning of high blood pressure when your retina scan doesn't work any more, or prostate trouble when fingerprints go.
They can take my biometrics from my cold, dead hands. Passwords/passphrases are a different story.