How cool would it be to stick a nano scale musical instrument into someone's ear so they chronically have a song stuck in their head. Hehehehe... Oh the future of nano pranks... Suddenly the future looks pretty bright.
I know this is a joke but wasn't it semi-recently published that "666" is thought to be an invalid translation and the correct number is really "616" and/or "665"?
I was wondering if the iChat server has gateways to other systems like AIM and Yahoo
Ultimately it doesn't matter because if it speaks Jabber, the server can communicate with a another Jabber server which does support various non-Jabber gatways(MSN, AOL, etc).
My point being, there is a striking difference between developing a new technology (high power rocket engines - what NASA did) and the evolution of an existing, proven technology (what these guys are doing - based on NASA's previous efforts). As far as I can tell, their effort is strictly evolutionary. If I'm wrong here, let me know.
And these guys are standing on the shoulders of what NASA previously did. If they were still blowing up motors at this point, they should pack up and go home. When NASA was blowing up rockets all this stuff was pretty new. At this point, you can get an education which teaches you most everything NASA had to figure out at they went. In other words, these guys are starting several legs up from where NASA was inventing and discovering how not to blow up a rocket.
While this is rocket science, they are traveling a well paved road.
I used to help make copies of audio tapes for mass distribution. If we messed up, we used the "bulk eraser" on it to reuse the tape for another cycle. The tapes were clean as a whistle after using it. Likewise, back when tape drives were common, we used "bulk erasers" on those guys too. Once again, it worked like a charm. Perhaps you have a bad unit or perhaps it does not put out a big enough EM field to erase the contents of the tape. Don't give on using these guys to erase tapes. See if you can find one that actually works. The theory is sound. I just have never used one on a modern DLT, DDS, etc...tape.
The fact that you are lost and confused by my post only underlines that you should not be commenting. Obviously you have no clue as to the political and/or economic climate of the time, otherwise, the expression and meaning would be crystal clear. Nor do you seem to understand that this is one of a long string of nuclear disasters at the hands of the Russians under the same political/economic pressures. If I talked down it is because this is slashdot and I have no idea who you are. You need to learn facts about the topic before you post. Most importantly, you need to understand where you are posting. This is not a respected journal. Obviously you don't understand the difference. Which is yet another clue you shouldn't be posting.
At this point, I think we understand each other. My dumb-down post went over your head and confused you. I think that says plenty. If you want to fire one back my way...fine; but I'm done.
It was neither a highly dangerous experiment or an order to wilfully disable safety mechanisms, but a combination of mistake from many people.
I think it is wonderful that you state I have no idea what I'm talking about while restating what I stated all the while, ignoring many important facts. You just make this stuff up as you type? Notice how my FACTS line up exactly with the wonderful post provided by TuballoyThunder's detailed post and your "facts" are well...blissfully ignorant. Let us know how your rain water tastes.
It's obvious you're happier in your blissful ignorance...please remain where you are.
First, let me say what a great post...especially for/. It's rare these days!
The turbine spin-down test that the Soviets were attempting to do was not particularly dangerous and was a reasonable test. The Soviets wanted to determine how long the generators would be turned by the turbines if the site lost power from the electrical grid and steam production was lost (low reactor power, ruptured steam line, etc). The turbine spin-down time would provide information on how long they had to bring the diesel-powered generators online.
I've seen several interviews and articles over the years which all seemed to indicate that those tests, at that given time, would never be allowed because the exact results were unknown as they were operating well outside of their published safety protocols. Which is to say, with nuclear, unknown = dangerous and not that conducting the test means the end of the world. In other words, it is very dangerous to operate a nuclear plant outside its safety protocols.
This is the first I've ever heard so much of a hint that the tests performed at Chernobyl were safe anywhere other than a research reactor so the protocols could be proved and written first.
The test director did not fully understand the safety requirements and was under pressure to complete the test before the May Day holiday.
I've seen an interview where these guys said they could say it was a bad idea but saying, "no", was not an option. Saying, "no", meant terrible things for both themselves and their families. Likewise, it was made clear the mandate or successful completion of these tests by a specific date were purely politically driven. I'm told that's why some of these sames guys later went back into Chernobyl and died in the name of "research."
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not pretending Chernobyl does not exist. Just as I'm not trying to pretend nukes don't exist. Having said that, willful destruction of a nuke does not translate into nuclear powerplant safety in the least. Willful destruction of Chernobyl (which is what it was) does not translate into nuclear powerplant safety. Chernobyl was not an accident caused by a string of human errors. Chernobyl is a disaster of human intent and denial, compounded by neglect, third world technology, and penis envy.
A crazy driver behind the wheel of a car, who injures/kills dozens, does not mean that specific car or cars in general are too dangerous for mankind. Only a fool would attempt to argue that point. That is what is commonly called fear mongering. Yet *exactly* that point that is argued everytime Chernobyl is mentioned. Having said that, refusing to accept a crazy driver that willfully injured dozens as a general point against cars, or a specific model of car, does not mean I imagine a world without cars. Likewise, I understand Chernobyl was built. But mentioning it only serves to fearmonger. Invocation of Chernobyl is not a legetimate point/counter-point unless the intent is to fearmonger.
Most of the world use a common and proven set of designs with each adding their own set of improvements and safetys. AFAIK, excluding the designs by the likes of Russia, they are generally considered safe designs.
The long of the short, there exists plenty to debate on nuclear power plants without resorting to fearmongering. Which is exactly why, the first one to mention Chernobyl is resorting to fear and ignorance rather than facts and knowledge.
Just more fear mongering is correct. There is a long list of nuclear related issues which are ripe for debate but Chernobyl has no place in such debates unless ignornace and fear mongering is the objective or the topic is how to create a WMD.
I do not oppose to nuclear energy per se, but pointing at the Russians and smugly believing that it proves nothing bad could ever happen at a western plant is what disqualifies people from discussing nuclear power.
That was not my point. My point was, citing Chernobyl in any context as it relates to western nuclear safety (or general nuclear safety) is completely off topic. Chernobyl is what happens when people purposely go out of their way to create a nuclear cloud. Period. Citing nuclear weapons tests and thinking it has some connection to nuclear power plant safety makes as much sense.
Admittedly, there were a number of issues with the RBMK reactor, and it probably wouldn't have been able to happen to common western designs, but then again it did have safety mechanisms which could have prevented what happened.
Which were disabled or never installed.
That was a dangerous state to be in, and it could have been known, but somebody had not read the fucking manual.
They did read the manual. They were ORDERED to operate as such despite informing the governing body that bad things would happen. Despite the fact that the governing body knew they had a skeleton crew. Despite the fact that the governing body knew basic safety equipment had never been installed and no backups were available. Despite the fact that the governing body knew what safetys were left would have to be disabled to operate in the mode required to conduct the tests. This was NOT human error as a result of someone not reading the manual or failing to follow procedure!
But Chernobyl is a classic example of human error and the consequences it can have.
LOL!!!! If you say so. Chernobyl has nothing to do with human error. It has everything to do with purposely trying to blow up a reactor. Did they set out to blow up a reactor that day...I have no idea...was it simple human error that caused the melt down...absoluetely not! It was 100% willful act on a reactor which should not have been running in the first place, which was knowingly ignored. Stating this is human error is like me loading a gun, pointing it to my head, and pulling the trigger. Then someone comes behind me and says, "well, that's human error. If only he had caught just one of his mistakes. Had he not loaded it...had he not pointed it...had he not pulled the trigger, he would still be alive. Had he just read the owner's manual." If you want to see the world like that, fine, but it doesn't make it any less of a willful act knowing full well that they were pulling the trigger, after they had loaded it and pointed it.
Re:Creationism
on
Caves on Mars?
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
If God created everything specifically- and we were created specifically and all that- then why create all these 'empty' planets/galaxies?
The canon reply is to test your faith. The same reason the earth is 5000 years old (or whatever) but bones, artifacts, and fossils are found which date back much further. Again, the canon reply is to test your faith.
I'm not slapping creationists in the face, but I do think you can be Christian and believe in God and Jesus or be Muslim and still believe in Allah, etc and believe that we are here by a different means albeit perahps one that [insert deity] started in motion.
Actually, let me know where the line starts. A good face slapping is what a lot of this ignornant idiots need.;)
Rule #1 when discussing anything nuclear. The first person to mention Chernobyl as an example as to how dangerous nuclear power can be is the loser. The reason? That person just admitted that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and are unfit to contribute anything to a nuclear debate. The second rule of debating nuclear power, never mention Chernobyl.
Here are the Chernobyl facts: o Chernobyl only has a single containment shell which is thinner what anyone considers safe for a single layer of a double layer containment design. In other words, any non-Russia design has two containment shells, both single layers are thicker than what Chernobly provided with its single shell. Why? Because its dangerously stupid to do it that way.
o Chernobyl has fewer safety mechanisms that is considered safe by the world, even as far back at the 1950s. Basically, all non-Russia designers have deemed Chernobyl a worst case accident waiting to happen and unfit to be built. Only in technologically inferior Russia could such a design be approved. Even by Three Mile Island standards, where some monitoring equipment was not installed, Chernobol is third world sub standard. This is important because by the time Three Mile island went online, even its monitoring equipment was considered sub standard by its opponents.
o What little was installed for Chernobyl's auxilary cooling systems were non-functional and in need of repair. They were offline. Ignoring all non-Russian operated reactors, the reactor would have been taken offline as a matter of safety protocol.
o But small penis Russia had something to prove, so they DISABLED their remaining safeties! Followed by a mandate from the Russian government that they begin a series of very dangerous tests. These tests would be considered dangerous for any fully operational, non-Russian reactor. In otherwords, basic protocols say you NEVER do these types of tests on a full scale reactor unless the reactor is specifically designed for these types of tests.
o And oh, let's make sure they do these tests while the reactor has a skeleton crew. Basically, they had so few people, they could never hope to react to any real emergency.
So in a nut shell, we have a design that is so flawed, it could NEVER contain any type of serious accident and by worldly comparison, is considered ufit and should never have been built. Most of its backup systems were never installed and what few were installed, were not operative and in need of repair. Both common sense and basic safety protocols were already violated yet they contained to run. What few safetys remain were purposely disabled by the skeleton crew to allow for a series of very dangerous tests. The tests caused a run away which any other non-Russian design would have safely handled. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume a non-Russian reactor would of failed...but all non-Russian containment shells would have properly contained the situation causing only a minimum of radioactive venting. And that's still assuming a 1960 - 1970s reactor design. Modern designs would simply melt into a slag, shutting down the runaway, preventing any and all containment loss.
Long story short, anyone that thinks Chernobyl is in any way, shape, or form an example of how dangerous nuclear power is is ignorant of the subject, and unworthy to debate it. Pointing to Chernobyl as a posterboy makes as much sense as pointing at a standard bomb and declaring nuclear is dangerous. Chernobly is a posterboy of how small Russia's penis is and nothing more. In otherwords, if one wanted to spread radioactive contamination over a huge area, you do it, by design, EXACTLY how Russia did it. Chernobyl is a posterboy of how to build a bomb while calling it a power plant.
If anything, it proves that we don't want Russia building nuclear power plants. If anything, it proves that Russia is technologically incompetent. If anything, it proves that the Russian government is unethical and immorale. If
I grew up shooting one of these. My father still has it. To this day it is my favorite weapon. Trust me, holding it correctly makes all the difference. I could put a box of shells through that thing at age twelve and barely feel it the next day.
My favorite is when they put silencers on revolvers. They don't do it so much these days but even the older Bond movies are covered up with that flaw. Reality is, silencers and pillows ONLY work when all of the exhaust gases can be channeled through the silencer; which means out the barrel. On revolvers, the gases are simply going to exit the gap between the revolver's cylinder and barrel.
For homework, get a.44 mag revolver. Wait for night fall. Shoot it. You'll observe a nice 3+' flame out the front and a 1-2' flame on each side. It's all very fun to watch. Hint, hint...for a silencer to be effective, you should not see flames anywhere except the front of the barrel.
My other pet peeve is the size of silencers they use in movies. The size of your typical silencer in the movies is simply not effective. An effective silencer is measured in 8-36 inches in length, depending on the weapon. The movie silencers which was one or two inches in size may help shave a couple db, but it certainly won't prevent someone from hearing it...and it certainly will be MUCH louder than the "psssz" noise you hear. Not to mention, the action on the gun is NEVER silenced. And heck, the action alone is often several times louder than the noise they make in the movies. Hint, you know the classic, "shoock-shoock" noise guns make when cocking in the movies...that noise doesn't go away just because a silencers is on it.
Your view of professional is very narrow in that it seems to be focusing (oh pun?) on the largest possible group; which I already said was excluded. Believe it or not, there exists a number of professionals that never see the inside of a studio. Nor do they use an assistant. These guys photograph things like buildings, building sites, sky lines, construction materials, various types of inspections, nature, etc... The closest thing they have to an assistant, is a pilot; if they are not flying themselves. Perhaps GIMP is used (again, by a subset) because this lot is certainly much more technical than your average photographer. With a bill rate ranging from hundreds to many thousands per hour (paying for fuel burn can be very expensive), these guys easily qualify as professionals.
Your mentality seems to be one of "me too" rather than "good enough".
Sure, for a large segment of professional users, Gimp isn't there yet. On the other hand, there exists a decent size subset of professionals for which Gimp works perfectly well. Claiming Gimp is not used by and unuseable by professionals is completely false. In fact, many professional users of Photoshop pass on Gimp simply because documentation and quality of tutorials on Gimp suck so badly; not because Gimp is incapable. In other words, Gimp is perfectly useable by many professionals and is frequently used by professionals. In my opinion, the only reason it is not used by more is because the lack of quality documentation, tutorials, and workshops which are geared toward the professional. Photoshop has all three; documentation, tutorials, and workshops.
I'm assuming professional photographers still qualify as "professionals"?
And BTW, I know of many public use air ports which commonly receive military traffic for fuel AND training ops. And, I know a JSF has been landed at one of those air ports. Furthermore, my brother is a helicopter pilot and it is not uncommon to leave some low ranking grunts with M4s behind on guard duty while you and the rest of the squadron take the curtesy car into town to munch on some ribs.
So long story short, nothing I stated was the least bit stretched. Obviously, I wouldn't expect an F-22 to be a common site at these airports but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities.
I do take issue to your automatic democrat reference, and how this somehow is implied to support the republicans. I really hate what the USA has become, how anything can be justified in search of kiddy-porn viewing terrorists.
What you don't understand is that I didn't make any of that up. Seriously! He literally is an internet stalker. He has been stalking me for months now. He REALLY did say those things. I'm not making anything up! If it were not true, I wouldn't be saying it without it being an obvious joke/satire. As for the gay reference, again, I'm not making that up either. HE sprews forth so much angry, homophobic, crap it is obvious he is a self loathing, repressed, homosexual. Again, I'm not making this stuff up. Thusly, it is 100% accurate to state he is a homosexual internet stalker that loves John Kerry and thinks all troops are idiots.
It's all sad but true. Feel free to browse his posts. Assuming they have not rolled off yet, you'll be able to confirm everything I've stated. If you care to look, you will find he really is a lonely, sad person.
At a minimum, they still have to navigate air space. That means a transpoder and a VHF radio. Idiot. You're so sad and dumb. If you wanted to take a pop-shot, you should have at least called me out for transposing VHF (VFH) in my previous post. I did it at least twice no less. But hey, when you're as dumb as you are, you have to take shots on things you are completely cluess and make you look like an even bigger jack ass than you normally do. LOL. That's just f-n sad.
So please, tell us more how in your imaginary world, military planes don't fly in US airspace, never land at major US airports during emergencies, never refuel at major US airports, and are somehow exempt from FAA regulations (and yes, the military complies with FAA regulations). After that, you can start to pine away at your beloved John Kerry or complain more about how you think all US troops are idiots. Not to mention, much of the world's airspace is based on the US model. Even planes stationed over seas are going to face the same type of communication requirements.
Believe it or not, military aircraft, even with top secret loads, commonly land at civilian airport facilities for fuel. Granted, they will be under guard or under supervision of the crew for the duration of the ground opps. It's done all the time. It's not like the military is trying to deny F-22s exist. And yes, during an emergency, they would much rather have an F-22 land at a public use airport than to lose a several hundred million aircraft while crashing it into a hill/home/business. Believe it or not, bird strikes (etc) are suprisingly common and even F-22s are not immune.
Idiot. LOL. Too f-n funny. Sad...but funny...
I see you're once again starting your homsexual stalking habits. You still have my pitty.
Slashdot Mirror
How cool would it be to stick a nano scale musical instrument into someone's ear so they chronically have a song stuck in their head. Hehehehe... Oh the future of nano pranks... Suddenly the future looks pretty bright.
I know this is a joke but wasn't it semi-recently published that "666" is thought to be an invalid translation and the correct number is really "616" and/or "665"?
I CLE_ID=44169
;) I saw they were topical but didn't actually read them.
:(
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ART
http://www.csad.ox.ac.uk/POxy/beast616.htm
The above are links from some quick googling.
Ya I know...it spoils the joke.
I was wondering if the iChat server has gateways to other systems like AIM and Yahoo
Ultimately it doesn't matter because if it speaks Jabber, the server can communicate with a another Jabber server which does support various non-Jabber gatways(MSN, AOL, etc).
My point being, there is a striking difference between developing a new technology (high power rocket engines - what NASA did) and the evolution of an existing, proven technology (what these guys are doing - based on NASA's previous efforts). As far as I can tell, their effort is strictly evolutionary. If I'm wrong here, let me know.
And these guys are standing on the shoulders of what NASA previously did. If they were still blowing up motors at this point, they should pack up and go home. When NASA was blowing up rockets all this stuff was pretty new. At this point, you can get an education which teaches you most everything NASA had to figure out at they went. In other words, these guys are starting several legs up from where NASA was inventing and discovering how not to blow up a rocket.
While this is rocket science, they are traveling a well paved road.
I used to help make copies of audio tapes for mass distribution. If we messed up, we used the "bulk eraser" on it to reuse the tape for another cycle. The tapes were clean as a whistle after using it. Likewise, back when tape drives were common, we used "bulk erasers" on those guys too. Once again, it worked like a charm. Perhaps you have a bad unit or perhaps it does not put out a big enough EM field to erase the contents of the tape. Don't give on using these guys to erase tapes. See if you can find one that actually works. The theory is sound. I just have never used one on a modern DLT, DDS, etc...tape.
The fact that you are lost and confused by my post only underlines that you should not be commenting. Obviously you have no clue as to the political and/or economic climate of the time, otherwise, the expression and meaning would be crystal clear. Nor do you seem to understand that this is one of a long string of nuclear disasters at the hands of the Russians under the same political/economic pressures. If I talked down it is because this is slashdot and I have no idea who you are. You need to learn facts about the topic before you post. Most importantly, you need to understand where you are posting. This is not a respected journal. Obviously you don't understand the difference. Which is yet another clue you shouldn't be posting.
At this point, I think we understand each other. My dumb-down post went over your head and confused you. I think that says plenty. If you want to fire one back my way...fine; but I'm done.
That would imply God is not perfect. Strike one. ;)
It was neither a highly dangerous experiment or an order to wilfully disable safety mechanisms, but a combination of mistake from many people.
I think it is wonderful that you state I have no idea what I'm talking about while restating what I stated all the while, ignoring many important facts. You just make this stuff up as you type? Notice how my FACTS line up exactly with the wonderful post provided by TuballoyThunder's detailed post and your "facts" are well...blissfully ignorant. Let us know how your rain water tastes.
It's obvious you're happier in your blissful ignorance...please remain where you are.
First, let me say what a great post...especially for /. It's rare these days!
The turbine spin-down test that the Soviets were attempting to do was not particularly dangerous and was a reasonable test. The Soviets wanted to determine how long the generators would be turned by the turbines if the site lost power from the electrical grid and steam production was lost (low reactor power, ruptured steam line, etc). The turbine spin-down time would provide information on how long they had to bring the diesel-powered generators online.
I've seen several interviews and articles over the years which all seemed to indicate that those tests, at that given time, would never be allowed because the exact results were unknown as they were operating well outside of their published safety protocols. Which is to say, with nuclear, unknown = dangerous and not that conducting the test means the end of the world. In other words, it is very dangerous to operate a nuclear plant outside its safety protocols.
This is the first I've ever heard so much of a hint that the tests performed at Chernobyl were safe anywhere other than a research reactor so the protocols could be proved and written first.
The test director did not fully understand the safety requirements and was under pressure to complete the test before the May Day holiday.
I've seen an interview where these guys said they could say it was a bad idea but saying, "no", was not an option. Saying, "no", meant terrible things for both themselves and their families. Likewise, it was made clear the mandate or successful completion of these tests by a specific date were purely politically driven. I'm told that's why some of these sames guys later went back into Chernobyl and died in the name of "research."
Good post. Good stuff! Thanks!
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not pretending Chernobyl does not exist. Just as I'm not trying to pretend nukes don't exist. Having said that, willful destruction of a nuke does not translate into nuclear powerplant safety in the least. Willful destruction of Chernobyl (which is what it was) does not translate into nuclear powerplant safety. Chernobyl was not an accident caused by a string of human errors. Chernobyl is a disaster of human intent and denial, compounded by neglect, third world technology, and penis envy.
A crazy driver behind the wheel of a car, who injures/kills dozens, does not mean that specific car or cars in general are too dangerous for mankind. Only a fool would attempt to argue that point. That is what is commonly called fear mongering. Yet *exactly* that point that is argued everytime Chernobyl is mentioned. Having said that, refusing to accept a crazy driver that willfully injured dozens as a general point against cars, or a specific model of car, does not mean I imagine a world without cars. Likewise, I understand Chernobyl was built. But mentioning it only serves to fearmonger. Invocation of Chernobyl is not a legetimate point/counter-point unless the intent is to fearmonger.
Most of the world use a common and proven set of designs with each adding their own set of improvements and safetys. AFAIK, excluding the designs by the likes of Russia, they are generally considered safe designs.
The long of the short, there exists plenty to debate on nuclear power plants without resorting to fearmongering. Which is exactly why, the first one to mention Chernobyl is resorting to fear and ignorance rather than facts and knowledge.
Just more fear mongering is correct. There is a long list of nuclear related issues which are ripe for debate but Chernobyl has no place in such debates unless ignornace and fear mongering is the objective or the topic is how to create a WMD.
I do not oppose to nuclear energy per se, but pointing at the Russians and smugly believing that it proves nothing bad could ever happen at a western plant is what disqualifies people from discussing nuclear power.
That was not my point. My point was, citing Chernobyl in any context as it relates to western nuclear safety (or general nuclear safety) is completely off topic. Chernobyl is what happens when people purposely go out of their way to create a nuclear cloud. Period. Citing nuclear weapons tests and thinking it has some connection to nuclear power plant safety makes as much sense.
Admittedly, there were a number of issues with the RBMK reactor, and it probably wouldn't have been able to happen to common western designs, but then again it did have safety mechanisms which could have prevented what happened.
Which were disabled or never installed.
That was a dangerous state to be in, and it could have been known, but somebody had not read the fucking manual.
They did read the manual. They were ORDERED to operate as such despite informing the governing body that bad things would happen. Despite the fact that the governing body knew they had a skeleton crew. Despite the fact that the governing body knew basic safety equipment had never been installed and no backups were available. Despite the fact that the governing body knew what safetys were left would have to be disabled to operate in the mode required to conduct the tests. This was NOT human error as a result of someone not reading the manual or failing to follow procedure!
But Chernobyl is a classic example of human error and the consequences it can have.
LOL!!!! If you say so. Chernobyl has nothing to do with human error. It has everything to do with purposely trying to blow up a reactor. Did they set out to blow up a reactor that day...I have no idea...was it simple human error that caused the melt down...absoluetely not! It was 100% willful act on a reactor which should not have been running in the first place, which was knowingly ignored. Stating this is human error is like me loading a gun, pointing it to my head, and pulling the trigger. Then someone comes behind me and says, "well, that's human error. If only he had caught just one of his mistakes. Had he not loaded it...had he not pointed it...had he not pulled the trigger, he would still be alive. Had he just read the owner's manual." If you want to see the world like that, fine, but it doesn't make it any less of a willful act knowing full well that they were pulling the trigger, after they had loaded it and pointed it.
If God created everything specifically- and we were created specifically and all that- then why create all these 'empty' planets/galaxies?
;)
The canon reply is to test your faith. The same reason the earth is 5000 years old (or whatever) but bones, artifacts, and fossils are found which date back much further. Again, the canon reply is to test your faith.
I'm not slapping creationists in the face, but I do think you can be Christian and believe in God and Jesus or be Muslim and still believe in Allah, etc and believe that we are here by a different means albeit perahps one that [insert deity] started in motion.
Actually, let me know where the line starts. A good face slapping is what a lot of this ignornant idiots need.
Rule #1 when discussing anything nuclear. The first person to mention Chernobyl as an example as to how dangerous nuclear power can be is the loser. The reason? That person just admitted that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and are unfit to contribute anything to a nuclear debate. The second rule of debating nuclear power, never mention Chernobyl.
Here are the Chernobyl facts:
o Chernobyl only has a single containment shell which is thinner what anyone considers safe for a single layer of a double layer containment design. In other words, any non-Russia design has two containment shells, both single layers are thicker than what Chernobly provided with its single shell. Why? Because its dangerously stupid to do it that way.
o Chernobyl has fewer safety mechanisms that is considered safe by the world, even as far back at the 1950s. Basically, all non-Russia designers have deemed Chernobyl a worst case accident waiting to happen and unfit to be built. Only in technologically inferior Russia could such a design be approved. Even by Three Mile Island standards, where some monitoring equipment was not installed, Chernobol is third world sub standard. This is important because by the time Three Mile island went online, even its monitoring equipment was considered sub standard by its opponents.
o What little was installed for Chernobyl's auxilary cooling systems were non-functional and in need of repair. They were offline. Ignoring all non-Russian operated reactors, the reactor would have been taken offline as a matter of safety protocol.
o But small penis Russia had something to prove, so they DISABLED their remaining safeties! Followed by a mandate from the Russian government that they begin a series of very dangerous tests. These tests would be considered dangerous for any fully operational, non-Russian reactor. In otherwords, basic protocols say you NEVER do these types of tests on a full scale reactor unless the reactor is specifically designed for these types of tests.
o And oh, let's make sure they do these tests while the reactor has a skeleton crew. Basically, they had so few people, they could never hope to react to any real emergency.
So in a nut shell, we have a design that is so flawed, it could NEVER contain any type of serious accident and by worldly comparison, is considered ufit and should never have been built. Most of its backup systems were never installed and what few were installed, were not operative and in need of repair. Both common sense and basic safety protocols were already violated yet they contained to run. What few safetys remain were purposely disabled by the skeleton crew to allow for a series of very dangerous tests. The tests caused a run away which any other non-Russian design would have safely handled. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume a non-Russian reactor would of failed...but all non-Russian containment shells would have properly contained the situation causing only a minimum of radioactive venting. And that's still assuming a 1960 - 1970s reactor design. Modern designs would simply melt into a slag, shutting down the runaway, preventing any and all containment loss.
Long story short, anyone that thinks Chernobyl is in any way, shape, or form an example of how dangerous nuclear power is is ignorant of the subject, and unworthy to debate it. Pointing to Chernobyl as a posterboy makes as much sense as pointing at a standard bomb and declaring nuclear is dangerous. Chernobly is a posterboy of how small Russia's penis is and nothing more. In otherwords, if one wanted to spread radioactive contamination over a huge area, you do it, by design, EXACTLY how Russia did it. Chernobyl is a posterboy of how to build a bomb while calling it a power plant.
If anything, it proves that we don't want Russia building nuclear power plants. If anything, it proves that Russia is technologically incompetent. If anything, it proves that the Russian government is unethical and immorale. If
I take it you live somewhere in Europe where the gun laws prevent private ownership?
Ya, I'm always waiting to hear a shell hit the ground everytime they do that.
The Hollywood force has a huge influence on the weakminded.
.44 Mags increased 18% after the movie Dirty Harry came out. Hand gun sales in other categories also slightly rised.
Sales of
I grew up shooting one of these. My father still has it. To this day it is my favorite weapon. Trust me, holding it correctly makes all the difference. I could put a box of shells through that thing at age twelve and barely feel it the next day.
My favorite is when they put silencers on revolvers. They don't do it so much these days but even the older Bond movies are covered up with that flaw. Reality is, silencers and pillows ONLY work when all of the exhaust gases can be channeled through the silencer; which means out the barrel. On revolvers, the gases are simply going to exit the gap between the revolver's cylinder and barrel.
.44 mag revolver. Wait for night fall. Shoot it. You'll observe a nice 3+' flame out the front and a 1-2' flame on each side. It's all very fun to watch. Hint, hint...for a silencer to be effective, you should not see flames anywhere except the front of the barrel.
For homework, get a
My other pet peeve is the size of silencers they use in movies. The size of your typical silencer in the movies is simply not effective. An effective silencer is measured in 8-36 inches in length, depending on the weapon. The movie silencers which was one or two inches in size may help shave a couple db, but it certainly won't prevent someone from hearing it...and it certainly will be MUCH louder than the "psssz" noise you hear. Not to mention, the action on the gun is NEVER silenced. And heck, the action alone is often several times louder than the noise they make in the movies. Hint, you know the classic, "shoock-shoock" noise guns make when cocking in the movies...that noise doesn't go away just because a silencers is on it.
Your view of professional is very narrow in that it seems to be focusing (oh pun?) on the largest possible group; which I already said was excluded. Believe it or not, there exists a number of professionals that never see the inside of a studio. Nor do they use an assistant. These guys photograph things like buildings, building sites, sky lines, construction materials, various types of inspections, nature, etc... The closest thing they have to an assistant, is a pilot; if they are not flying themselves. Perhaps GIMP is used (again, by a subset) because this lot is certainly much more technical than your average photographer. With a bill rate ranging from hundreds to many thousands per hour (paying for fuel burn can be very expensive), these guys easily qualify as professionals.
Your mentality seems to be one of "me too" rather than "good enough".
Sure, for a large segment of professional users, Gimp isn't there yet. On the other hand, there exists a decent size subset of professionals for which Gimp works perfectly well. Claiming Gimp is not used by and unuseable by professionals is completely false. In fact, many professional users of Photoshop pass on Gimp simply because documentation and quality of tutorials on Gimp suck so badly; not because Gimp is incapable. In other words, Gimp is perfectly useable by many professionals and is frequently used by professionals. In my opinion, the only reason it is not used by more is because the lack of quality documentation, tutorials, and workshops which are geared toward the professional. Photoshop has all three; documentation, tutorials, and workshops.
I'm assuming professional photographers still qualify as "professionals"?
And BTW, I know of many public use air ports which commonly receive military traffic for fuel AND training ops. And, I know a JSF has been landed at one of those air ports. Furthermore, my brother is a helicopter pilot and it is not uncommon to leave some low ranking grunts with M4s behind on guard duty while you and the rest of the squadron take the curtesy car into town to munch on some ribs.
So long story short, nothing I stated was the least bit stretched. Obviously, I wouldn't expect an F-22 to be a common site at these airports but it is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities.
I do take issue to your automatic democrat reference, and how this somehow is implied to support the republicans. I really hate what the USA has become, how anything can be justified in search of kiddy-porn viewing terrorists.
What you don't understand is that I didn't make any of that up. Seriously! He literally is an internet stalker. He has been stalking me for months now. He REALLY did say those things. I'm not making anything up! If it were not true, I wouldn't be saying it without it being an obvious joke/satire. As for the gay reference, again, I'm not making that up either. HE sprews forth so much angry, homophobic, crap it is obvious he is a self loathing, repressed, homosexual. Again, I'm not making this stuff up. Thusly, it is 100% accurate to state he is a homosexual internet stalker that loves John Kerry and thinks all troops are idiots.
It's all sad but true. Feel free to browse his posts. Assuming they have not rolled off yet, you'll be able to confirm everything I've stated. If you care to look, you will find he really is a lonely, sad person.
Have a good day!
At a minimum, they still have to navigate air space. That means a transpoder and a VHF radio. Idiot. You're so sad and dumb. If you wanted to take a pop-shot, you should have at least called me out for transposing VHF (VFH) in my previous post. I did it at least twice no less. But hey, when you're as dumb as you are, you have to take shots on things you are completely cluess and make you look like an even bigger jack ass than you normally do. LOL. That's just f-n sad.
So please, tell us more how in your imaginary world, military planes don't fly in US airspace, never land at major US airports during emergencies, never refuel at major US airports, and are somehow exempt from FAA regulations (and yes, the military complies with FAA regulations). After that, you can start to pine away at your beloved John Kerry or complain more about how you think all US troops are idiots. Not to mention, much of the world's airspace is based on the US model. Even planes stationed over seas are going to face the same type of communication requirements.
Believe it or not, military aircraft, even with top secret loads, commonly land at civilian airport facilities for fuel. Granted, they will be under guard or under supervision of the crew for the duration of the ground opps. It's done all the time. It's not like the military is trying to deny F-22s exist. And yes, during an emergency, they would much rather have an F-22 land at a public use airport than to lose a several hundred million aircraft while crashing it into a hill/home/business. Believe it or not, bird strikes (etc) are suprisingly common and even F-22s are not immune.
Idiot. LOL. Too f-n funny. Sad...but funny...
I see you're once again starting your homsexual stalking habits. You still have my pitty.
Next. LOL.