One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel, so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore doesn't matter to them, or they can use retired or stockpiled weapon material, or even some kinds of waste.
How have we been completely wrong when you yourself say in the same post that we were right?
We never said "Current reactor designs can use nuclear waste as fuel." What we've been saying is "Nuclear waste could be used as fuel."
Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say "nuclear waste" is "nuclear fuel." The current view of "spent" fuel is akin to refining crude oil to make gasoline and then having to store all the waste diesel, fuel oil and other petroleum byproducts until the end of time.
If we can manage to make parachutes and aerobraking work in the thin Martian atmosphere, I'm sure we can manage balloons. There have been some serious studies into sending balloon probes to Mars, I think by the ESA in particular.
The Dyna-Soar was a prototype of the mistakes NASA would make with the Shuttle just a few years later - trying to leap too far too fast in a single bound
Ok, so let's back up, get back to basics with the old-school, time-tested rockets and capsule techniques that took us to the moon before...
The 1.5 board upgrade would be nice, but I don't think they will make it available. If you check the couple of places that sell XO repair parts, they don't even have the 1.0 boards.
There is supposed to be a couple of netbooks coming this year using the Pixel Qi screen, but they've been saying that for a couple of years, too. If somebody would make something like the Touchbook (http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/) with this type of screen technology, I'd be in heaven.
When away from the house, I read on my OLPC XO running Ubuntu 8.10 with FBReader. I have Calibre on my desktop to convert anything FBReader can't handle into MOBI files that also work on my wife's 1st generation Kindle.
Yeah, it's not for everyone, requires a little hacking, and good luck finding one, but the dual-mode screen is great for reading outdoors, even in direct sunlight. It's also tough enough that I can take it anywhere without worrying about it and can charge it from almost any power source.
When I'm at home, I mostly read on paper. Call me old-fashioned.
Lots of places do that. I know for sure that I will never be lacking Windows XP and Vista keys. They're all even unused keys, as every machine gets wiped as soon as it arrives and has a bulk-licensed image installed. We even have an unwritten rule of putting a little check mark on the sticker when you snag it to make sure nobody else grabs that one, too. Now I just need them to buy some new computers with Windows 7 keys on them.
I feel that if they are going to ban liquids because somebody tried to make a bomb with liquids, they need to look at a far greater risk... solids. Every single bomb every brought aboard an airliner, except that one particular liquid bomb, was made from solid materials. They present a clear and consistent danger to all travelers and therefore must be prohibited from aircraft cabins. All solid materials that cannot fit into a single quart-sized bag must be removed from the passenger before passing through security and placed in their checked baggage. There is no valid reason that anyone would need more solid materials than that aboard an airplane.
You were in a discussion with someone else about PayPal. Remember?
(Note: The actual content of your discussion is irrelevant. Please stop asking me to "support my position" in that discussion, as I never took one. Now, to continue...)
You cited a Wikipedia article to support your position. I simply pointed out that you shouldn't do that, and explained why. You apparently still can't grasp, even after repeated attempts to point this out to you, that a document that anyone can alter at will is unsuitable for citations. It may support your position right now, but in 5 minutes somebody else may have changed that article so that it no longer supports your position. That's how wiki's work. They change frequently, sometimes radically. That article may support your position right now but will it tomorrow? Do I need to actually go in and edit the article you cited so that you see it happen yourself? I can make it say anything I want it to say. That alone should make it crystal clear that Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference and should not be used as one. Heck, Wikipedia's own page on citations cautions against using it as anything more than a broad overview or to find leads to actual authoritative references. (Or, at least it did the last time I looked at it. Who knows what it says now? Wiki's change.)
Anyway, I'm done beating the dead horse for you. Go ahead and cite Wikipedia all you want. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you do it, or think that it gives your position any validity.
I'm not providing any references because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My personal opinion of this topic (or any topic, for that matter) is completely irrelevant in regards to whether or not you can cite Wikipedia to "prove a point."
If you fail to comprehend why a reference that anyone can alter to say anything they want at any time is not valid for citations, I suggest you stay out of debates that require evidence to support your position.
Converting PDFs is hit or miss even with Calibre. The converted file often isn't much better than a PDF. The best results I've had seem to have come with "Linearize Tables", "Preprocess Input File to Improve Structure Detection" and "Line Unwrapping Factor: 1.0" settings. I still can't always get rid of hard-coded line-breaks in the converted files, which really screws up the flow. I usually end up selecting a font size that breaks each original line of the PDF into an even number of lines on-screen to conceal the breaks.
Honestly, I consider converting from PDF to be the last resort and only do it if I can't find a copy in any other format.
The real key to usable PDFs is reader software that can take the text from an image file and resize/reflow the content in accordance with your preferences. The Calibre reader does a great job with this. FB Reader isn't as good with files converted from PDF, but does a great job with everything else. Of course, on dedicated eReader hardware, you're stuck with whatever the manufacturer provides. Calibre does have some preset modes to optimize the output files for various readers, though. You could try the "Sony Reader" option and see if it's any better.
I don't know much about the 505, but the Wikipedia entry says the 1.1 firmware update adds support for reflowing and enlarging the font size of PDF files. Do you have that?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with your "point" is that you are saying I'm wrong for saying what you're saying now before you said it.
Where have I insulted or trolled you? Hell, it looks like you're trolling ME.
It isn't fuel now but emerging technologies will be able to use it as fuel later, and that's a pretty exciting development.
Yeah, exactly. That's precisely what we've been telling you for decades.
Thus for years the argument was complete bullshit
Only to people who can't foresee any future technological advances beyond the current state of the art.
Thanks for playing!
But you've been completely wrong
One of the things about some newer designs is they are nowhere near as fussy about their fuel, so a shortage of high purity Uranium ore doesn't matter to them, or they can use retired or stockpiled weapon material, or even some kinds of waste.
How have we been completely wrong when you yourself say in the same post that we were right?
We never said "Current reactor designs can use nuclear waste as fuel." What we've been saying is "Nuclear waste could be used as fuel."
Thank you for finally admitting we were right.
...not a demo at all. That's paying to be a beta tester.
Some of us have been saying for decades that another way to say "nuclear waste" is "nuclear fuel." The current view of "spent" fuel is akin to refining crude oil to make gasoline and then having to store all the waste diesel, fuel oil and other petroleum byproducts until the end of time.
Nope.
PayPal doesn't need to try to be evil... It just comes naturally.
If we can manage to make parachutes and aerobraking work in the thin Martian atmosphere, I'm sure we can manage balloons. There have been some serious studies into sending balloon probes to Mars, I think by the ESA in particular.
Great. I can hop on Facebook and chatter away with the world, but I still can't load Gmail to email my wife.
Fucking brilliant.
The Dyna-Soar was a prototype of the mistakes NASA would make with the Shuttle just a few years later - trying to leap too far too fast in a single bound
Ok, so let's back up, get back to basics with the old-school, time-tested rockets and capsule techniques that took us to the moon before...
Blotting out the sun from orbit would surely be an effective way to control global warming.
And yet robot-destroying mines are old-hat.
The 1.5 board upgrade would be nice, but I don't think they will make it available. If you check the couple of places that sell XO repair parts, they don't even have the 1.0 boards.
There is supposed to be a couple of netbooks coming this year using the Pixel Qi screen, but they've been saying that for a couple of years, too. If somebody would make something like the Touchbook (http://www.alwaysinnovating.com/touchbook/) with this type of screen technology, I'd be in heaven.
When away from the house, I read on my OLPC XO running Ubuntu 8.10 with FBReader. I have Calibre on my desktop to convert anything FBReader can't handle into MOBI files that also work on my wife's 1st generation Kindle.
Yeah, it's not for everyone, requires a little hacking, and good luck finding one, but the dual-mode screen is great for reading outdoors, even in direct sunlight. It's also tough enough that I can take it anywhere without worrying about it and can charge it from almost any power source.
When I'm at home, I mostly read on paper. Call me old-fashioned.
Lots of places do that. I know for sure that I will never be lacking Windows XP and Vista keys. They're all even unused keys, as every machine gets wiped as soon as it arrives and has a bulk-licensed image installed. We even have an unwritten rule of putting a little check mark on the sticker when you snag it to make sure nobody else grabs that one, too. Now I just need them to buy some new computers with Windows 7 keys on them.
I feel that if they are going to ban liquids because somebody tried to make a bomb with liquids, they need to look at a far greater risk... solids. Every single bomb every brought aboard an airliner, except that one particular liquid bomb, was made from solid materials. They present a clear and consistent danger to all travelers and therefore must be prohibited from aircraft cabins. All solid materials that cannot fit into a single quart-sized bag must be removed from the passenger before passing through security and placed in their checked baggage. There is no valid reason that anyone would need more solid materials than that aboard an airplane.
If 2D BluRay comes on a flat disc, does 3D BluRay come on a sphere?
[sigh]
I'll try to walk you through this.
You were in a discussion with someone else about PayPal. Remember?
(Note: The actual content of your discussion is irrelevant. Please stop asking me to "support my position" in that discussion, as I never took one. Now, to continue...)
You cited a Wikipedia article to support your position. I simply pointed out that you shouldn't do that, and explained why. You apparently still can't grasp, even after repeated attempts to point this out to you, that a document that anyone can alter at will is unsuitable for citations. It may support your position right now, but in 5 minutes somebody else may have changed that article so that it no longer supports your position. That's how wiki's work. They change frequently, sometimes radically. That article may support your position right now but will it tomorrow? Do I need to actually go in and edit the article you cited so that you see it happen yourself? I can make it say anything I want it to say. That alone should make it crystal clear that Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference and should not be used as one. Heck, Wikipedia's own page on citations cautions against using it as anything more than a broad overview or to find leads to actual authoritative references. (Or, at least it did the last time I looked at it. Who knows what it says now? Wiki's change.)
You actually want me to give you a citation asserting that Wikipedia is unsuitable for citations? Ok, fine. Here you go: http://secondlanguage.blogspot.com/2008/12/dont-cite-wikipedia.html
Anyway, I'm done beating the dead horse for you. Go ahead and cite Wikipedia all you want. Just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you do it, or think that it gives your position any validity.
I'm not providing any references because I'm not trying to convince you of anything. My personal opinion of this topic (or any topic, for that matter) is completely irrelevant in regards to whether or not you can cite Wikipedia to "prove a point."
If you fail to comprehend why a reference that anyone can alter to say anything they want at any time is not valid for citations, I suggest you stay out of debates that require evidence to support your position.
I haven't even read that entry. I don't need to, because I already know all about PayScam.
If I disagreed with the entry, I would change it. Note: That is precisely why Wikipedia is useless for citations.
In that case, the GPL is illegal in the US. I'm pretty sure law trumps licensing.
Since when is a document anyone can alter at will a citable reference?
Thank you, Mr. Diamond!
That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.
I believe this is actually how they plan to push all web-servers out of the US.
Converting PDFs is hit or miss even with Calibre. The converted file often isn't much better than a PDF. The best results I've had seem to have come with "Linearize Tables", "Preprocess Input File to Improve Structure Detection" and "Line Unwrapping Factor: 1.0" settings. I still can't always get rid of hard-coded line-breaks in the converted files, which really screws up the flow. I usually end up selecting a font size that breaks each original line of the PDF into an even number of lines on-screen to conceal the breaks.
Honestly, I consider converting from PDF to be the last resort and only do it if I can't find a copy in any other format.
The real key to usable PDFs is reader software that can take the text from an image file and resize/reflow the content in accordance with your preferences. The Calibre reader does a great job with this. FB Reader isn't as good with files converted from PDF, but does a great job with everything else. Of course, on dedicated eReader hardware, you're stuck with whatever the manufacturer provides. Calibre does have some preset modes to optimize the output files for various readers, though. You could try the "Sony Reader" option and see if it's any better.
I don't know much about the 505, but the Wikipedia entry says the 1.1 firmware update adds support for reflowing and enlarging the font size of PDF files. Do you have that?