Outward appearances were similar, but not the internal structure.
For example, the owners of corporations in fascism had a great personal wealth. In Stalinist USSR the richest people were not really that wealthy by current US or Russian standards.
Also, Stalinist USSR _was_ a socialistic state - during Stalin's reign conditions of work and life rose above the pre-revolution levels. In fascist Germany conditions of life fell.
My work is a part of preparation for this. We're installing and tuning a network of ultrasonic sensors for stress-monitoring system, it should detect in advance any dangerous stresses during building of the new sarcophagus.
Chernobyl now is a fairly boring place. Though wandering around the #4 block with a dosimeter is surely a unique experience:) But I'm still waiting for a chance to visit the insides of sarcophagus...
Modern implosion weapons don't have parts that are needed to keep them apart. They are almost 'solid state'. Detonation is triggered by a precisely timed chemical explosions and then detonation wave is shaped by explosive lenses.
You are thinking about 'gun-type' bomb there a slug of uranium is shot at uranium target. This kind of bombs is not produced now (the only known gun-type bomb was used in Hiroshima bombing) - they are too heavy and unreliable.
A low-yield backpack nuke is definitely possible. Critical mass for high-grade plutonium is about 10kg. The bulk of nuke's weight consists of chemical primer.
Look, I've even provided a link describing EXISTING weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition - it's about 1kt and it weights about 70kg. Salt it with, say, cobalt for additional effect. It won't bring down New-York, of course, but it surely can destroy a smaller city.
A 150kt bomb weights about 130kg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80 Are you ready to bet that it can't be scaled down further? And in any case, 130kg is still within range for 'baggage nuke'.
And I'm not afraid of 'anything nuclear'. In fact, I now work at the Chernobyl power plant.
That's totally incorrect: 1) Actually, I'm Russian. 2) I'm not (very) afraid of mini-nukes falling into terrorist hands. There's a lot of other things to be afraid of.
70kg is a reasonable weight for your baggage. Too much for airplanes (where it also needs to be weighted and so on), but not a problem if you move by train or car.
You can also move it in a diplomatic baggage if you are acting as an official of a 'rogue state'.
In D-T reaction more than 70% of fusion energy is produced in the form of fast neutrons. In p-B reactions only about 0.1% of energy is emitted is carried away by neutrons - that's why it's called 'aneutronic fusion'.
X-rays are directly emitted by a heated plasma, with bremsstrahlung as a secondary source.
In any case, neutrons alone should be quite enough...
Well, there's a small problem - all fusion reactors emit neutrons and x-rays. It should be (barely) possible to shield x-rays without making your car to be the size of a small tank. However, there's no way to effectively shield from neutrons (even submerging the reactor in a tank of boronated water won't help much).
So let's calculate how fast you'll receive a fatal dose of radiation. Let's assume the fatal dose to be 10 grays - that's 1000 joules of whole-body absorbed energy for 100kg of body weight.
Even aneutronic boron-proton fusion produces 0.1% energy in form of neutrons. Let's assume that 1% of these neutrons reaches you.
So you'll absorb 0.01% of engine's power in form of penetrating radiation. Let's assume that engine's power is 100hp, that's 75kWt in SI. So the neutron flux through your body will be about 7.5 Watts.
Maybe I'm unlucky, but I had three notebook HDs die on me without any warning. Even though I'm using 'SmartMon' program which should warn me about worsening drive condition.
Also, Google's on hard drive survey seems to come to the same conclusion: "One of those we thought was most intriguing was that drives often needed replacement for issues that SMART drive status polling didn't or couldn't determine, and 56% of failed drives did not raise any significant SMART flags"
However, a lot of people DO want to buy it. I bought it for my company, for example, because IDEA+TeamCity combination results in a real productivity boost (which will save me money).
The same thing with Jira+Confluence - there's a ton of free bugtrackers and wikis but they are far inferior compared to Jira+Confluence (in corporate environment, at least). As a result, Jira+Confluence is now 'enterprise standard'.
I can give several more examples. Good and innovative commercial software has nothing to fear. And I don't really mourn the death of mediocre software.
Slashdot Mirror
They were not the same, far from it.
Outward appearances were similar, but not the internal structure.
For example, the owners of corporations in fascism had a great personal wealth. In Stalinist USSR the richest people were not really that wealthy by current US or Russian standards.
Also, Stalinist USSR _was_ a socialistic state - during Stalin's reign conditions of work and life rose above the pre-revolution levels. In fascist Germany conditions of life fell.
Yes, that's what I mean.
The high risk of fizzle (and fairly big mass of uranium required) is the main problem.
Yes, my bad. Thanks for correction!
Not yet.
:) But I'm still waiting for a chance to visit the insides of sarcophagus...
My work is a part of preparation for this. We're installing and tuning a network of ultrasonic sensors for stress-monitoring system, it should detect in advance any dangerous stresses during building of the new sarcophagus.
Chernobyl now is a fairly boring place. Though wandering around the #4 block with a dosimeter is surely a unique experience
No, these are implosion munitions. "Gun-type" refers not to method of delivery, but to internal structure of a bomb.
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_nuclear_bomb
!!!
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the ONLY two combat nuclear weapon usages. Learn your history.
Modern implosion weapons don't have parts that are needed to keep them apart. They are almost 'solid state'. Detonation is triggered by a precisely timed chemical explosions and then detonation wave is shaped by explosive lenses.
You are thinking about 'gun-type' bomb there a slug of uranium is shot at uranium target. This kind of bombs is not produced now (the only known gun-type bomb was used in Hiroshima bombing) - they are too heavy and unreliable.
I have even provided LINK about EXISTING backpack nuke: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
A low-yield backpack nuke is definitely possible. Critical mass for high-grade plutonium is about 10kg. The bulk of nuke's weight consists of chemical primer.
Look, I've even provided a link describing EXISTING weapon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition - it's about 1kt and it weights about 70kg. Salt it with, say, cobalt for additional effect. It won't bring down New-York, of course, but it surely can destroy a smaller city.
A 150kt bomb weights about 130kg - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80 Are you ready to bet that it can't be scaled down further? And in any case, 130kg is still within range for 'baggage nuke'.
And I'm not afraid of 'anything nuclear'. In fact, I now work at the Chernobyl power plant.
Nope. It's you who's acting stupidly.
I pointed out that "mini-nukes" do exist. They can be even used as 'backpack bombs'. Small nuclear munitions can be used to level cities.
Do you disagree with any of this?
And in principle, there's nothing preventing a terrorist using a mini-nuke.
That's totally incorrect:
1) Actually, I'm Russian.
2) I'm not (very) afraid of mini-nukes falling into terrorist hands. There's a lot of other things to be afraid of.
It IS possible for a terrorist with a backpack to take down a (small) city. US army had that kind of munitions.
However, it also is very improbable, because manufacturing such munitions require a lot of high tech R&D.
It is also possible to take down a big city with a slightly larger munition, like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80
70kg is a reasonable weight for your baggage. Too much for airplanes (where it also needs to be weighted and so on), but not a problem if you move by train or car.
You can also move it in a diplomatic baggage if you are acting as an official of a 'rogue state'.
??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition are very much real.
Uhmm... Nope.
In D-T reaction more than 70% of fusion energy is produced in the form of fast neutrons. In p-B reactions only about 0.1% of energy is emitted is carried away by neutrons - that's why it's called 'aneutronic fusion'.
X-rays are directly emitted by a heated plasma, with bremsstrahlung as a secondary source.
In any case, neutrons alone should be quite enough...
See here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=584029&cid=23793709
That's aside from the fact that the only energy efficient fusion reactions were so far achieved within thermonuclear bombs.
Well, there's a small problem - all fusion reactors emit neutrons and x-rays. It should be (barely) possible to shield x-rays without making your car to be the size of a small tank. However, there's no way to effectively shield from neutrons (even submerging the reactor in a tank of boronated water won't help much).
So let's calculate how fast you'll receive a fatal dose of radiation. Let's assume the fatal dose to be 10 grays - that's 1000 joules of whole-body absorbed energy for 100kg of body weight.
Even aneutronic boron-proton fusion produces 0.1% energy in form of neutrons. Let's assume that 1% of these neutrons reaches you.
So you'll absorb 0.01% of engine's power in form of penetrating radiation. Let's assume that engine's power is 100hp, that's 75kWt in SI. So the neutron flux through your body will be about 7.5 Watts.
So you'll get the fatal dose in about 2 minutes.
Have a nice ride!
You CAN'T run car on water. That's impossible without exotic things like cold fusion (which doesn't exist).
You CAN run a car on water AND some other reagent. Like magnesium, aluminium, sodium, calcium carbide, zinc, etc.
However, you'll NEED TO REPLACE this reagent once it's spent. And guess what? It's much more expensive than simply buying gasoline.
I _HOPE_ that it happens.
Because in this case KDE agreement kicks in and the last published version of QT will be automatically relicensed under BSD license.
Maybe I'm unlucky, but I had three notebook HDs die on me without any warning. Even though I'm using 'SmartMon' program which should warn me about worsening drive condition.
Also, Google's on hard drive survey seems to come to the same conclusion: "One of those we thought was most intriguing was that drives often needed replacement for issues that SMART drive status polling didn't or couldn't determine, and 56% of failed drives did not raise any significant SMART flags"
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/18/massive-google-hard-drive-survey-turns-up-very-interesting-thing/
AFAIR, IDEA offers free (as in beer) licenses for OpenSource products. Atlassin also does this.
SMART sucks. That's just a fact - very often it kicks in when your drive has failed.
Also, there are lot of real cases where malfunctioning drive can silently write incorrect data. ZFS will help you in this case.
It probably won't be faster (and may even be slower), but it definitely will be more reliable.
ZFS uses super-paranoidal checksumming which can detect drive problems in advance.
It's obvious - they will land on the Sun at night!
Sure, you don't want to buy IDEA.
However, a lot of people DO want to buy it. I bought it for my company, for example, because IDEA+TeamCity combination results in a real productivity boost (which will save me money).
The same thing with Jira+Confluence - there's a ton of free bugtrackers and wikis but they are far inferior compared to Jira+Confluence (in corporate environment, at least). As a result, Jira+Confluence is now 'enterprise standard'.
I can give several more examples. Good and innovative commercial software has nothing to fear. And I don't really mourn the death of mediocre software.