It seems to me that there is the common misconception to evaluate the danger of isotopes on radioactivity alone.
It's not only how much radiation you receive but also what kind and where.
Uranium isn't part of the metabolism, so it's as bad as its radiation is bad.
But Cesium is incorporated into the body.
The Cs-137 concentration nowadays is three to five times as high as the concentration before Chernobyl. Cs-134 hasn't been detected before.
The ovaries and testicles are take the main risk.
Whereas Cs is almost evenly distributed throughout the body, Strontium-90 tends to be incorporated into the bones. The concentration leads to a higher dosis on a single organ, which leads to a higher risk of cancer (in this case leukaemia).
Iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid gland and therefor tends to create cancer there. The good part is, the Iodine-131 level is as high as before Chernobyl.
So the radioactive fuel U-23X is not the prime concern, the by-product of fission are.
First, the equipement was primitive compared to today. But this means, that they had an intrinsic error of about, lets say 0.5C, which, compared to today is an awful lot. But it's certainly exact enough to determine the mean temperature over a year or a season.
Second, those "unreliable" measurements aren't the measurements taken into account in determining the process of global warming.
Analysis of ice-glaciers in different depths is one method. Another one is the growth of coral reefs. This allows us to determine the mean temperature of several centuries, year by year.
It's nothing new that (some) scientists proclaim that it's not so bad as it seems. It has been that way since the 60s and 70s. The only new about is that it seemed that (at least among meteorologists) global warming is an accepted model of the world climate.
>no we dont. no more than any other organism on this planet and I don't see them doing anything to save the rainforests.
First, they are doing all they can to save the rainforest. If you'd leave the rainforest all alone it would (hopefully) recover.
Secondly, you're suggesting that if I killed you, I'd be perfectly in my rights, since you're not capable of protecting yourself. I'd say no, since we are sentient beings.
Guess why we are shielded from UV. It's because O3 is hit by short waved em-radiation (UV) and transforms it into lower energetic light. It's a balanciated reaction. The problem is that CFCs among others do shift the balance to O2.
>What we'll have to wait and see is how long it takes before the levels of CFC's drops to a tolerable level, and I think that's going to be nigh on impossible to predict.
Hmm, maybe you should stay on a road and wait
till the mass-momentum passes a tolerable level.
Maybe take a look at Australia, they probably don't find a further reduction of the ozone layer tolerable.
But I think some companies are happy to sell you a new frig. It sometimes goes something like this:
Science:Behold, we have a solution. A new type of refrigrant.
Buisness:Surely I will sell it. IF there is a market for it.
Consumer: Oh, it's so damn expensive and I already got a working one. And since I can't see it, it can't be bad. And anyway, even if the tree-huggers are true, what does it matter what I, a single person, do?
How does the exclude the fact that humankind does reduce the ozone layer?
This colour-"enhancement" is a visualisation of concentration of O3 and the only choice of visualising a 4th dimension. (At least the only one known to me).
Obviously, you're not living in Australia.
CFCs acts as a catalysator and aids the change from O3 to O2, which leads to ozone depleation.
Try this yourself in a small contained cabin, if your in doubt.
CFCs aren't the worse ozone-"killer", but the most dispensable. Technological advanced nations don't use it anymore.
CH4 (Methane) is far more worse than CFC. (Meat, anyone?)
Geez, I've been taught that in chemistry at high school.
Statistics aren't a prove, but in combination with causal connections they nearly are.
The first amendment has its counterparts in all democratic states. And it is always restricted by laws.
In the U.S. you're not allow to publish libel and slender, among others.
In some countries, Nazi memorabilia is considered as sympathy with the ideology which can surely be considered as affront of survivors of holocaust and other regime victims.
Likewise, the imperial japanese flag is (was?) prohibited in Japan.
IANUSC, but AFAIK
Theoretically, none.
They are nominated for lifetime. Only they decide when to go.
Two (liberal) judges probably go. Currently the Supreme Court is dominated by (supposed) conservative judges. With two of the liberals gone they hold a two-third majority.
Both sides fighted for world domination. Guess why its called Cold War?
Ever heard of the domino-theory?
"If one country falls to communism others will follow."
That's the reason, the US assumed they had to "free" Vietnam. The rest is history.
What about Latin-America? E.g. Alliende, an elected socialist got assassinated by the CIA (they funded it). He dared to disseise several large American companies of their mines in Chile. Pinochet installed afterwards a military-dictatorship, strongly funded by the US. You surely know about the cruelty of his regime. Ex-CIA employers are openly confirming their participation and even think today it was rightfull.
The US overthrew many democratic-socialist goverments in South-A by supporting facist guerilla groups (money, weapons, training), resulting in totalitarian regimes.
It wasn't neither Reagan nor Bush to abolish communism and cold war. (think of SDI)
It was the work of people in communist countries who peacefully demonstrated for their rights. If you want to name a person, name Gorbatchov, who kept the extrimistic parts of the goverment in check.
Some people have problems with certain aspects of capitalism. E.g. 10% of the people owns 95% of the wealth. The very same money some children lack for food, clothes and education. Not speaking of adults and other countries.
And now don't tell me, if they'd work hard they could earn their share. How could they without any proper education?
>who have no understanding of work, the economy and wealth
Capitalism and socialism aren't opposite.
Socialism and communism aren't the same.
Capitalistic societies have collapsed, too.
(Germany, 1935 comes to mind. All communist countries have been capitalistic).
Just because someone criticises capitalism, one doesn't have to be a communist.
So you would only believe him, if he was a poor preacher in sandals?
And just because he acts like the system demands, he can't be serious about dislikeing and changing the system?
Furthermore, is voting a popularity contest?
"I vote for him because he is so nice to everyone"
I personally don't give much about the person itself, (as I don't _really_ know them anyway) I vote for ideals one person represents.
(IANA US-Citizen)
"element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process . . . even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element".
That's what I find perverted about this law.
Imagine a person with a genetic irregularity which makes him almost immune to the HIV.
The doctor who discovers it, can obtain a patent on that gene. Although its the patient's gene.
Of course, a person with the gene isn't violating the patent, only persons who artificially using the gene.
SDI is directly opposing SALT I. A contract signed 1972 by USA and Soviet-Union.
Maybe think about it, why they did agreed both about not building a defense system.
Bush wants to build it, despite the concerns of European Union, China ; ; and Russia and the contract.
What's the economical sense of SDI?
Don't you think there are projects with lasting effects for high-tech area?
Concerning Gore's statement, did you read this slashdot post (or more exactly did you follow the link contained?)?
BTW:
Why does Japan (particularly NTT) has developed the fastest transmission over optical cable?
By 10 times higher to the nearest competitor?
How did most pre-industrial painters did earn money?
Portraits, I would say. Paid by wealthy people. On demand.
What way did most musicians earn their living?
Music teacher for the aristocracy.
Most known artist did that or did have a wealthy patron.
The unknown ones did surely have led a short, harsh life begging on the streets.
Van Gogh nearly did.
What do you think is the reaction to someone saying: "I want to make money, I'll become painter/sculptor/..."
Probably a loud laugh.
Interestingly, I have to spare musicians. Why so?
Probably because their work can be easily duplicated and sold?
Without appropriate magnetic field, the solar wind is colliding with the atmosphere and heating it up.
By that means, atoms are gaining enough kinetic energy to leave the gravity field. (At least a certain percentage depending on the height).
> Of course, one could create localized magnetic deflector shields around each individual colony on the surface.
Magnetic fields aren't shields. They have north-pole and south-pole which are permeable. (Hence northern lights). We have an thick atmosphere, which are also shielding north and south pole.
Furthermore magnetism isn't localized. The fields would interact. Especially fields strong enough to avert _solar_ wind.
The ABC was a special purpose machine for Gauss elimination,
the Harvard Mark I lacked conditional branching although it featured loops.
The ENIAC was not even programmable through software: the building blocks had to be hardwired in dataflow fashion.
...
As should be clear from the tables [not printed]none of them fulfills all the necessary requirements for a universal computer. We also include the Mark 1 machine built in Manchester from 1946 to 1948, because as far as we know this was the first machine to fit our definition of a universal computer.
Regenerative-memory is not a technical merit of modern technology, it is just a necessity.
The Z1 is completed in 1937 which IRC is the construction-begin of ABC. It even employs real binary floating point encoding, whereas ABC used binary fixed point encoding.
Maybe take a look at
http://www.zib.de/zuse/Inhaltsverzeichnis/Kommenta re/Html/0683/node1.html (it's in english)
Summary:
ENIAC:...has been called the first large-scale general-purpose electronic computer in the world [Burks, Burks 81].... It solved its first problem in December 1945...
Mark I:... built by Howard Aiken at Harvard University between 1939 to 1944...
ABC:... The machine built by John Atanasoff (later called the ABC) at Iowa State College from 1938 to 1942 used vacuum tubes, but was restricted to the addition and subtraction of vectors and had an structure inappropriate for universal computation[Burks, Burks 88]...
Z1:...programmable automaton built from 1936 to 1938... In direct contrast to these three machines, the Z1 was far more flexible and was designed to execute a long and modifiable sequence of instructions contained on a punched tape. Zuse's machines were not purely electronic and were of reduced size.
Furthermore, it resembled in design to current cpus (ALU, Registers, PC, Memory, binary).
I'd say Zuse surely built the first computer, although considering Charles Babbage, I wouldn't call him the inventor.
BTW, who invented the car?:)
Slashdot Mirror
I personally do prefer a boot logo, and will install it asap, but me and you seem have to admit that it has a certain disadvantage.
Imagine your machine goes into a deadlock while booting, how do you figure out what the problem is?
Of course, you can boot again with an old known to work kernel, then check the saved messages.
But I find this slightly less inconvenient than just taking a look at the now freezed screen.
However, this rare situation doesn't hold me back to beautify my workspace. (Gont anyone some plants around?)
It seems to me that there is the common misconception to evaluate the danger of isotopes on radioactivity alone.
It's not only how much radiation you receive but also what kind and where.
Uranium isn't part of the metabolism, so it's as bad as its radiation is bad.
But Cesium is incorporated into the body.
The Cs-137 concentration nowadays is three to five times as high as the concentration before Chernobyl. Cs-134 hasn't been detected before.
The ovaries and testicles are take the main risk.
Whereas Cs is almost evenly distributed throughout the body, Strontium-90 tends to be incorporated into the bones. The concentration leads to a higher dosis on a single organ, which leads to a higher risk of cancer (in this case leukaemia).
Iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid gland and therefor tends to create cancer there. The good part is, the Iodine-131 level is as high as before Chernobyl.
So the radioactive fuel U-23X is not the prime concern, the by-product of fission are.
You are definitly wrong. In several points.
First, the equipement was primitive compared to today. But this means, that they had an intrinsic error of about, lets say 0.5C, which, compared to today is an awful lot. But it's certainly exact enough to determine the mean temperature over a year or a season.
Second, those "unreliable" measurements aren't the measurements taken into account in determining the process of global warming.
Analysis of ice-glaciers in different depths is one method. Another one is the growth of coral reefs. This allows us to determine the mean temperature of several centuries, year by year.
It's nothing new that (some) scientists proclaim that it's not so bad as it seems. It has been that way since the 60s and 70s. The only new about is that it seemed that (at least among meteorologists) global warming is an accepted model of the world climate.
>no we dont. no more than any other organism on this planet and I don't see them doing anything to save the rainforests.
First, they are doing all they can to save the rainforest. If you'd leave the rainforest all alone it would (hopefully) recover.
Secondly, you're suggesting that if I killed you, I'd be perfectly in my rights, since you're not capable of protecting yourself. I'd say no, since we are sentient beings.
Guess why we are shielded from UV. It's because O3 is hit by short waved em-radiation (UV) and transforms it into lower energetic light. It's a balanciated reaction. The problem is that CFCs among others do shift the balance to O2.
>What we'll have to wait and see is how long it takes before the levels of CFC's drops to a tolerable level, and I think that's going to be nigh on impossible to predict.
Hmm, maybe you should stay on a road and wait
till the mass-momentum passes a tolerable level.
Maybe take a look at Australia, they probably don't find a further reduction of the ozone layer tolerable.
You got the point.
But I think some companies are happy to sell you a new frig. It sometimes goes something like this:
Science:Behold, we have a solution. A new type of refrigrant.
Buisness:Surely I will sell it. IF there is a market for it.
Consumer: Oh, it's so damn expensive and I already got a working one. And since I can't see it, it can't be bad. And anyway, even if the tree-huggers are true, what does it matter what I, a single person, do?
Likewise DTD, nuclear power, fossil fuel, a.s.o.
And who thinks that a change of 3 Celsius in about 50 years should go back, too.
The last change that amounts to that rate of change was about 1 Million years ago.
The problem is that this _single_ volcanic explosion came on top of 50 years of CFC-use.
How does the exclude the fact that humankind does reduce the ozone layer?
This colour-"enhancement" is a visualisation of concentration of O3 and the only choice of visualising a 4th dimension. (At least the only one known to me).
Obviously, you're not living in Australia.
CFCs acts as a catalysator and aids the change from O3 to O2, which leads to ozone depleation.
Try this yourself in a small contained cabin, if your in doubt.
CFCs aren't the worse ozone-"killer", but the most dispensable. Technological advanced nations don't use it anymore.
CH4 (Methane) is far more worse than CFC. (Meat, anyone?)
Geez, I've been taught that in chemistry at high school.
Statistics aren't a prove, but in combination with causal connections they nearly are.
Of course, you always can choose to ignore it.
No, of course not.
It's just he doesn't want to assign failable humans with his narrow advantage.
What was his motto again: "We trust people"?
Actually, Gore et al. didn't challenged any of the oversea ballots in court for the same reasons you noted, although they could.
Standard disclaimer: IANAA
The first amendment has its counterparts in all democratic states. And it is always restricted by laws.
In the U.S. you're not allow to publish libel and slender, among others.
In some countries, Nazi memorabilia is considered as sympathy with the ideology which can surely be considered as affront of survivors of holocaust and other regime victims.
Likewise, the imperial japanese flag is (was?) prohibited in Japan.
Wrong.
It states that energy+mass*c^2 is constant and energy can be transformed to mass/matter and backwards.
IANUSC, but AFAIK
Theoretically, none.
They are nominated for lifetime. Only they decide when to go.
Two (liberal) judges probably go. Currently the Supreme Court is dominated by (supposed) conservative judges. With two of the liberals gone they hold a two-third majority.
Both sides fighted for world domination. Guess why its called Cold War?
Ever heard of the domino-theory?
"If one country falls to communism others will follow."
That's the reason, the US assumed they had to "free" Vietnam. The rest is history.
What about Latin-America? E.g. Alliende, an elected socialist got assassinated by the CIA (they funded it). He dared to disseise several large American companies of their mines in Chile. Pinochet installed afterwards a military-dictatorship, strongly funded by the US. You surely know about the cruelty of his regime. Ex-CIA employers are openly confirming their participation and even think today it was rightfull.
The US overthrew many democratic-socialist goverments in South-A by supporting facist guerilla groups (money, weapons, training), resulting in totalitarian regimes.
It wasn't neither Reagan nor Bush to abolish communism and cold war. (think of SDI)
It was the work of people in communist countries who peacefully demonstrated for their rights. If you want to name a person, name Gorbatchov, who kept the extrimistic parts of the goverment in check.
Some people have problems with certain aspects of capitalism. E.g. 10% of the people owns 95% of the wealth. The very same money some children lack for food, clothes and education. Not speaking of adults and other countries.
And now don't tell me, if they'd work hard they could earn their share. How could they without any proper education?
>who have no understanding of work, the economy and wealth
Capitalism and socialism aren't opposite.
Socialism and communism aren't the same.
Capitalistic societies have collapsed, too.
(Germany, 1935 comes to mind. All communist countries have been capitalistic).
Just because someone criticises capitalism, one doesn't have to be a communist.
So you would only believe him, if he was a poor preacher in sandals?
And just because he acts like the system demands, he can't be serious about dislikeing and changing the system?
Furthermore, is voting a popularity contest?
"I vote for him because he is so nice to everyone"
I personally don't give much about the person itself, (as I don't _really_ know them anyway) I vote for ideals one person represents.
(IANA US-Citizen)
>take an enormous risk that most people are not willing to. That's called the spirit of capitalism, people.
I thought that's called gamble?
To my eyes, the spirit of capitalism is "produce something and sell it".
Sorry to say you're wrong. The law states:
"element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process . . . even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element".
That's what I find perverted about this law.
Imagine a person with a genetic irregularity which makes him almost immune to the HIV.
The doctor who discovers it, can obtain a patent on that gene. Although its the patient's gene.
Of course, a person with the gene isn't violating the patent, only persons who artificially using the gene.
SDI is directly opposing SALT I. A contract signed 1972 by USA and Soviet-Union.
Maybe think about it, why they did agreed both about not building a defense system.
Bush wants to build it, despite the concerns of European Union, China ; ; and Russia and the contract.
What's the economical sense of SDI?
Don't you think there are projects with lasting effects for high-tech area?
Concerning Gore's statement, did you read this slashdot post (or more exactly did you follow the link contained?)?
BTW: Why does Japan (particularly NTT) has developed the fastest transmission over optical cable? By 10 times higher to the nearest competitor?How many pictures did Van Gogh sell?
How did most pre-industrial painters did earn money?
Portraits, I would say. Paid by wealthy people. On demand.
What way did most musicians earn their living?
Music teacher for the aristocracy.
Most known artist did that or did have a wealthy patron.
The unknown ones did surely have led a short, harsh life begging on the streets. Van Gogh nearly did.
What do you think is the reaction to someone saying: "I want to make money, I'll become painter/sculptor/..."
Probably a loud laugh.
Interestingly, I have to spare musicians. Why so? Probably because their work can be easily duplicated and sold?
Without appropriate magnetic field, the solar wind is colliding with the atmosphere and heating it up.
By that means, atoms are gaining enough kinetic energy to leave the gravity field. (At least a certain percentage depending on the height).
> Of course, one could create localized magnetic deflector shields around each individual colony on the surface.
Magnetic fields aren't shields. They have north-pole and south-pole which are permeable. (Hence northern lights). We have an thick atmosphere, which are also shielding north and south pole.
Furthermore magnetism isn't localized. The fields would interact. Especially fields strong enough to avert _solar_ wind.
If evolution still applies on humans.
At least in industrial states I think there is no natural selection, since there are health-care-systems.
BTW, it's not the strong will survive, it's the strong will breed.
I can happily watch english, french, spanish, portugese, and japanese OVs (among others) :)
Was the itention in joining europe and japan
to compensate us for the later releases?
:)
Regenerative-memory is not a technical merit of modern technology, it is just a necessity. The Z1 is completed in 1937 which IRC is the construction-begin of ABC. It even employs real binary floating point encoding, whereas ABC used binary fixed point encoding.
- ENIAC:
...has been called the first large-scale general-purpose electronic computer in the world [Burks, Burks 81]. ... It solved its first problem in December 1945 ...
- Mark I:
... built by Howard Aiken at Harvard University between 1939 to 1944 ...
- ABC:
... The machine built by John Atanasoff (later called the ABC) at Iowa State College from 1938 to 1942 used vacuum tubes, but was restricted to the addition and subtraction of vectors and had an structure inappropriate for universal computation[Burks, Burks 88]...
- Z1:
...programmable automaton built from 1936 to 1938 ... In direct contrast to these three machines, the Z1 was far more flexible and was designed to execute a long and modifiable sequence of instructions contained on a punched tape. Zuse's machines were not purely electronic and were of reduced size.
Furthermore, it resembled in design to current cpus (ALU, Registers, PC, Memory, binary). I'd say Zuse surely built the first computer, although considering Charles Babbage, I wouldn't call him the inventor. BTW, who invented the car?