Intelligence is not a sign of physical prowess or instinctive behavior. I suspect such an effort gives rise to the "herding cats" cliche. Furthermore, I believe the dog has also been domesticated longer than has the cat.
Actually, both dogs and cats have shown to respond to rather large human vocabularies. The average dog, on average, is smarter than the average cat. Just the same there are plentiful examples of the smarter than average dog or cat be considerably more so. Furthermore, recent research indicates the average dog is smarter than a three year old human and cats somewhere around a two year old.
Even a visit to YouTube can show you that not only do cats hear phonetics, its possible for them to push their vocal range to the limits in an attempt to mimic the phonetic range possible by the human voice. In short, dogs, cats, and many species of birds have all shown a high aptitude for both learning and comprehending human speech. As like many young humans, they often lack clarity of context. Regardless, recognition and comprehension of their name is a skill which is exceedingly common amongst these animals. In fact, all of these animals can have human vocabularies ranging up to the thousands.
Generally when people have dumb pets its because the pet has dumb owners who in turn treat their pet as a dumb pet. Not hardly surprising. Oddly enough, the results are much the same for human children. Again, not surprising.
One of the common mistakes people have about cats is that unlike dogs, they process a large amount of communication non-verbally. A competent combination of verbal and non-verbal communication with cats goes a great distance further than does the same combination with dogs. This in turn tends to cause additional confusion with humans because they often send mixed and confusing signals; those being both verbal and non-verbal.
To paraphrase a physicists. Infinity is the creation of mathematicians. For them, it makes a lot of sense. But for physicists who are attempting to model reality, infinity is a polite way of saying, we don't have a fucking clue.
I don't have the physics background to know if such a statement is profoundly true but I always relish the notion it is. Maybe because its a physicist speaking as part of humanity rather than a physicist-priest speaking from the mountain top. I dunno.
Copy & paste, with attribution, is not nearly as bad.
Probably more accurate to say, almost as entirely as bad...almost. The difference between a link and a cut and past is likely revenue.
But hey, I'm sure a photocopy of your pay check is not nearly as bad as not receiving one.
And to continue on the soap box... People need to understand that copyright violations are harmful and often mean the difference between someone getting a paycheck and not. Its not just billion dollar companies who are harmed. So if you pirate anything, I assume, unless you are complete hypocrite, you never accept a paycheck. Otherwise, you're working hard to deprive someone else of theirs - despite their hard work.
In my opinion it makes them more likely to suffer criticism. Many computer scientists, the majority I've met, seem to chronically like in a glass house and are completely disconnected from anything but theory. So if I run with the logical conclusion, in theory, made in a clean room, he's completely right. Pragmatically, almost everything he said likely to be completely wrong.
Oddly enough, seems to more or less cover much of his and the comments and here.
Arrogant people who achieve power never give it up voluntarily. They hold onto every little bit of it for dear life.
Why must a pet project, the owner from inception, held in high regard around the entire world, which has provided both personal and professional benefit, as well as providing much prestige, be attributed to arrogance? Unless your Buddhist or some such thing, most reasonable people would argue you're foolish to give up such a thing until your damn well ready.
Really, in exchange for giving up all that, what does it get in exchange? Nothing aside from more free time, as far as I can tell.
First one to mention chernobyl not only loses, loses all credibility, but is immediately flagged for scare mongering. If you don't know why this is obvious, you clearly don't understand enough to even be invoking the name, "chernobyl".
As for much of you other comments, you clearly don't understand economics, a government's role in an economy, are a variety of other factors as to why the comment I provided resolved much of your "concerns." *cough*
I have an inexpensive CD drive (name brand) which is over five years old. I also have a cheap DVD drive (generic LG) which is over three. The combination has out lasted two hard drives. I don't see a problem with optical media or their drives.
I saw a documentary not long ago. They talked about the fact that one of our nuclear subs hadn't needed to be refueled in twenty plus years.
Nuclear is extremely cost effective so long as scaremongering twits stay out of the political spot light. As such, the reason insurance caps exists is because anti-nukers were specifically attempting to create an environment where nuclear is uninsurable. Such scare mongering is literally why "NUCLEAR MRI" was simply renamed to "MRI". Otherwise people would literally risk their health to avoid the scary "nuclear" word. When scaremongering has been so extremely abused, the government does have an important role to play for such critical infrastructure (power, not medical). To be against this means you should also be against FDIC insurance, FEMA, and even the US military; including the Coast Guard and National Guard.
This is actually one of the areas where the government should shoulder part of the burden; especially the US government. The US military is the largest single consumer of oil in the world. As such, they force the price higher for all of us. Its not unreasonable for them to shoulder some of the potential financial burden such that it then allows for the price of electricity to be not only significantly lower and safer, but also extremely reliable.
As an interesting side note, Obama could have actually stimulated the economy with massive military energy modernization projects. Some estimates suggestions as much as 50% can be saved. Which for the US is EXTREMELY huge amounts of oil and money, especially when we have active, deployed forces. You need to keep in mind, much of the US military is still running on turbines and diesel engines designed and built during the late 50s to the 70s. HUGE strides in efficiency and power have been created since then. Best of all, such programs would stimulate almost all levels of the economy (white to blue collar) while making HUGE strides to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and lower the general public's price at the pump. Good thing we got more of the same, with one exception, they called it, "change."
If someone breaks into your house, you never know if they place a bomb under the floor in a closet,
The fact you have such a mental handicap which impairs all capacity for critical thinking means this discussion is over. You're arguing over not only standard practices but security mandate. If in fact it were common for bombs to be placed following a break in, houses would always be searched and secured. And if tracks lead to all of the neighbor's houses with forced entry, they would be checked too. "Burning down", is just a statement of absurd stupidity. Period. End of discussion.
If you feel you need to further debate your completely wrong and horridly flawed position...well that brings us full circle, back to the mentally impaired comment.
I think this is private. I think that even if I do something in public, there is no reason that it should be legal to record it and use it to cross reference it.
The law doesn't even work that way. Besides, your interpretation implies almost everything is private unless you say otherwise. That would mean, for example, simply taking a picture of a birthday party at a park is illegal unless you get waivers from everyone. That's simply not reasonable.
Reprocessing is not done in the core. It can in fact be done off site, though for security reasons its often done on site. Of course, no civil reprocessing is permitted. Currently, some of our fuel is actually shipped overseas for reprocessing. I believe France receives some of it and then uses it in their own reactor. Wow! Imagine that. Reprocessed fuel is then used as any other vaiable fuel and requires nothing special on the part of the reactor.
What you don't seem to understand is, a fuel pellet is considered used when 95%-98% is used. That means waste fuel pellets still have 95%-98% viable fuel which is often then set aside in pools to decay. So its entirely accurate to say vast quantities of fuel are wasted and decaying.
As a lot of people have already stated, IT sysadmins seem to love inflating the damage figure.
He broke in, that's what he's been accused of so far. He hasn't been accused of any damage beyond that (e.g. planting trojans, or opening backdoors).
WTH?! No inflation is needed. What I stated is a statement of fact. And as someone who as followed the mandatory prescribed procedures and filled out the paper work, I did not exaggerate one bit. If he has not been charged with unauthorized access on other systems its because someone has validate, via an audit, those other systems were not compromised. Likewise, for each system which was compromised, someone has gone through the process I described. To deny this is not "damages" is to be completely disconnected from the realities of the work involved.
You can charge him with the breaking in, but not with other things.
Its called damages. Period. Seemingly you're not only disconnected but so nieve to believe that in all cases, everyone discloses all unauthorized access. Since that is absolutely not the case, anyone who isn't inept at their job must follow the prescribed and in fact mandated security procedures which are very much as I originally described. You're clearly talking out your ass and have no idea what you're saying.
The rest follows yet more ignorance. Bother to do some research before you spout off bullshit as fact. Believe it or not, your uninformed ignorance has no bearing on this case.
Regarding your third point - they had empty or default passwords. Last time I checked...err...yeah, internet facing system with empty/default passwords, that most definitely does make you incompetent.
I never said otherwise. Regardless, it has exactly nothing to do with anything. I don't understand why people pretend this has any bearing on anything. It doesn't. It shows the administrator was a fool but in no way diminishes anything else which has been stated. To believe so is nieve at best.
Wish people would stop this fallacy! The second he broke in, damage was done. As a result of his break in, lots and lots of man hours are now required to detect, document, re-install, document, fix, document, validate, document. And that's not counting related systems which must now also be validated to determine their trustworthiness. No ifs, ands, or buts, damage absolutely was done.
2) wasn't acting out of malice,
Might have a bearing on punishing. Has no bearing on prosecution unless there exists extenuating circumstances which may otherwise prevent prosecution. At this time there appears to be none.
3) was at least accomplish what he did in large part due to the incompetence of those who are, in theory, supposed to be competent in protecting themselves from such attacks.
You're making wild assumptions here. And beyond your wild assumptions, it appears to have zero applicability to prosecution and punishment. By you logic, because someone broke in through a window rather than the breaking down the door, they shouldn't be punished.
The link provided in your second post of this threat is very interesting thanks.
Just keep in mind, anyone who posts about Chernobyl instantly loses a lot of credibility because of its surrounding facts. It is in now way a valid argument for an anti-nuclear stance. It is, however, an excellent argument that stupid people should not be allowed to run nuclear plants and re-enforces that oversight by rational people, outside of normal plant operations, is required. Most (all?) Western countries have such oversight. Most (all) European countries with nuke plants have such over sight.
Mentioning Chernobyl is like argument the world should not have pointed objects because small children may run with them. So for future sake, if you want to be viewed with credibility, don't mention Chernobyl.
Based on your reply, where you focus solely on "safety", you ignore the fact that regulations go well beyond simple safety concerns. Or do so in the name of safety but accomplish no such thing. The regulations address many, many factors which make it all but impossible to build new reactors on new sites. Furthermore, if and when a new site is finally qualified, the expense of doing so adds to considerable costs, often in interest alone, affecting potential return on investments. There are also insurance factors which can not be ignored and which are also driven by regulations. So on and so on.
While your post can't be ignored, I don't see that it addresses the areas to which I originally referred. Most of the problems with the regulations to which I refer are not technology or basic construction constraints. Rather, they are social and political constraints which often serve no purpose other than to attempt to make nuclear non-cost competitive, difficult to fund and/or insure, or impossible to build in "my" backyard. Like I said, not really issues with the technology.
Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to counter the safe construction of safe reactors.
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
The same can be said for perfume. The intent of perfume is to make someone want to get closer to smell it. If you bath in it such that everyone can smell you in a 40x40 room then it implies you're trying to hide an oder which will make the average male puke. And if you can be smelled 40 feet away, there is no incentive to want to get closer. In fact, it will likely drive people away who get too close.
In fact, it wasn't so long ago that such actions would label you a whore. After all, only a whore need cover the oder of sex with fifty men; as there isn't a need to otherwise smell so strongly. A subtle oder is much desired to attract a potential mate.
Like most good things, moderation is key!
One last tip! Frequently change your perfume. Constant use of the same perfume causes your nose to effectively filter the constant source of over stimulation. As a result, women who constantly wear the same perfume almost always wear far, far too much because they can no longer effectively tell how strong the oder.
In a nut shell, DON'T SMELL LIKE A WHORE! Its not attractive!
Oh ya, some men could certainly learn from this as well!
That's what was worried about in 1968 and the misguided attempt to get around it was plutonium fast breeders. Since then reactor designs that are less fussy about fuel have been developed in places that actually do R&D.
The problem with this line of thought is that it ignores the fact that 95%-98% of all "used uranium" can in fact, be used again. Thus we have hundreds, if not thousands of years of uranium fuel (based on types of reactor fuel is in used in) just sitting and decaying. Its only because of bonehead politicians, and then primarily only in the US, that this fuel is not reprocessed and reused. Many countries in Europe do reprocess their fuel and as such, don't have huge stock piles of viable fuel waiting to be wasted and disposed.
Just imagine pouring billions of gallons of oil into huge tanks, claiming the oil is useless because it has sulfur in it. In reality, it add extra processing steps (filter) to make the oil safely usable. People would riot for the heads of these people if we didn't. Yet, that's exactly what we do with much of the world's nuclear fuel.
You can't back that up with data. Why, because the data says pick 2.
Actually, the data says an over abundance of regulation and irrational fear is what causes drastically increased costs on nuclear power. Its also the largest reason why the government must contribute so many funds to nuclear plants. You can have all three so long as needless over regulation and fear mongering is removed from the equation. I doubt that is a realistic expectation but that's hardly the technology's fault.
No it doesn't. You put fuel in at the start, and unless you put in more it eventually burns it all up (even if you remove the poisons) and stops working. (If it produced it's own fuel, it would be a perpetual motion machine.)
No one other than you made such a claim. It does make its own fuel. That's not the same as claiming it does so perpetually.
Can't they run dehumidifiers to remove a large percentage of humidity from the air to help prevent or at least slow potential sodium fires? Or do they already so that? Or is the area so large its simply not feasible? Or is the level of required humidity reduction to great to be considered practical?
And therein lies the major problem with this laser. It took several seconds to blow up a drone, which presumably isn't optically shielded (ie. shiny).
"Shiny" materials typically provide zero defense against high powered lasers. They need to be specialized materials to become effective.
Not to mention that the faster the missile travels, the greater the atmospheric cooling.
That's true to a limit. Given that most anti-ship missiles travel at multiples of mach, the friction generated at this speeds typically, considerably heats the missile's surface. Furthermore, minor deformations at such speeds can cause catastrophic aerodynamic stresses and failure.
Slashdot Mirror
Intelligence is not a sign of physical prowess or instinctive behavior. I suspect such an effort gives rise to the "herding cats" cliche. Furthermore, I believe the dog has also been domesticated longer than has the cat.
Sounds like there is an upcoming movie of great interest to you! ;)
Actually, both dogs and cats have shown to respond to rather large human vocabularies. The average dog, on average, is smarter than the average cat. Just the same there are plentiful examples of the smarter than average dog or cat be considerably more so. Furthermore, recent research indicates the average dog is smarter than a three year old human and cats somewhere around a two year old.
Even a visit to YouTube can show you that not only do cats hear phonetics, its possible for them to push their vocal range to the limits in an attempt to mimic the phonetic range possible by the human voice. In short, dogs, cats, and many species of birds have all shown a high aptitude for both learning and comprehending human speech. As like many young humans, they often lack clarity of context. Regardless, recognition and comprehension of their name is a skill which is exceedingly common amongst these animals. In fact, all of these animals can have human vocabularies ranging up to the thousands.
Generally when people have dumb pets its because the pet has dumb owners who in turn treat their pet as a dumb pet. Not hardly surprising. Oddly enough, the results are much the same for human children. Again, not surprising.
One of the common mistakes people have about cats is that unlike dogs, they process a large amount of communication non-verbally. A competent combination of verbal and non-verbal communication with cats goes a great distance further than does the same combination with dogs. This in turn tends to cause additional confusion with humans because they often send mixed and confusing signals; those being both verbal and non-verbal.
To paraphrase a physicists. Infinity is the creation of mathematicians. For them, it makes a lot of sense. But for physicists who are attempting to model reality, infinity is a polite way of saying, we don't have a fucking clue.
I don't have the physics background to know if such a statement is profoundly true but I always relish the notion it is. Maybe because its a physicist speaking as part of humanity rather than a physicist-priest speaking from the mountain top. I dunno.
Copy & paste, with attribution, is not nearly as bad.
Probably more accurate to say, almost as entirely as bad...almost. The difference between a link and a cut and past is likely revenue.
But hey, I'm sure a photocopy of your pay check is not nearly as bad as not receiving one.
And to continue on the soap box...
People need to understand that copyright violations are harmful and often mean the difference between someone getting a paycheck and not. Its not just billion dollar companies who are harmed. So if you pirate anything, I assume, unless you are complete hypocrite, you never accept a paycheck. Otherwise, you're working hard to deprive someone else of theirs - despite their hard work.
Which hardly makes them immune from criticism.
In my opinion it makes them more likely to suffer criticism. Many computer scientists, the majority I've met, seem to chronically like in a glass house and are completely disconnected from anything but theory. So if I run with the logical conclusion, in theory, made in a clean room, he's completely right. Pragmatically, almost everything he said likely to be completely wrong.
Oddly enough, seems to more or less cover much of his and the comments and here.
Yet more apropo, You got an ATM on that torso Lite-Brite?
Arrogant people who achieve power never give it up voluntarily. They hold onto every little bit of it for dear life.
Why must a pet project, the owner from inception, held in high regard around the entire world, which has provided both personal and professional benefit, as well as providing much prestige, be attributed to arrogance? Unless your Buddhist or some such thing, most reasonable people would argue you're foolish to give up such a thing until your damn well ready.
Really, in exchange for giving up all that, what does it get in exchange? Nothing aside from more free time, as far as I can tell.
So you are saying that Tchernobyl
First one to mention chernobyl not only loses, loses all credibility, but is immediately flagged for scare mongering. If you don't know why this is obvious, you clearly don't understand enough to even be invoking the name, "chernobyl".
As for much of you other comments, you clearly don't understand economics, a government's role in an economy, are a variety of other factors as to why the comment I provided resolved much of your "concerns." *cough*
I have an inexpensive CD drive (name brand) which is over five years old. I also have a cheap DVD drive (generic LG) which is over three. The combination has out lasted two hard drives. I don't see a problem with optical media or their drives.
I saw a documentary not long ago. They talked about the fact that one of our nuclear subs hadn't needed to be refueled in twenty plus years.
Nuclear is extremely cost effective so long as scaremongering twits stay out of the political spot light. As such, the reason insurance caps exists is because anti-nukers were specifically attempting to create an environment where nuclear is uninsurable. Such scare mongering is literally why "NUCLEAR MRI" was simply renamed to "MRI". Otherwise people would literally risk their health to avoid the scary "nuclear" word. When scaremongering has been so extremely abused, the government does have an important role to play for such critical infrastructure (power, not medical). To be against this means you should also be against FDIC insurance, FEMA, and even the US military; including the Coast Guard and National Guard.
This is actually one of the areas where the government should shoulder part of the burden; especially the US government. The US military is the largest single consumer of oil in the world. As such, they force the price higher for all of us. Its not unreasonable for them to shoulder some of the potential financial burden such that it then allows for the price of electricity to be not only significantly lower and safer, but also extremely reliable.
As an interesting side note, Obama could have actually stimulated the economy with massive military energy modernization projects. Some estimates suggestions as much as 50% can be saved. Which for the US is EXTREMELY huge amounts of oil and money, especially when we have active, deployed forces. You need to keep in mind, much of the US military is still running on turbines and diesel engines designed and built during the late 50s to the 70s. HUGE strides in efficiency and power have been created since then. Best of all, such programs would stimulate almost all levels of the economy (white to blue collar) while making HUGE strides to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and lower the general public's price at the pump. Good thing we got more of the same, with one exception, they called it, "change."
If someone breaks into your house, you never know if they place a bomb under the floor in a closet,
The fact you have such a mental handicap which impairs all capacity for critical thinking means this discussion is over. You're arguing over not only standard practices but security mandate. If in fact it were common for bombs to be placed following a break in, houses would always be searched and secured. And if tracks lead to all of the neighbor's houses with forced entry, they would be checked too. "Burning down", is just a statement of absurd stupidity. Period. End of discussion.
If you feel you need to further debate your completely wrong and horridly flawed position...well that brings us full circle, back to the mentally impaired comment.
I think this is private. I think that even if I do something in public, there is no reason that it should be legal to record it and use it to cross reference it.
The law doesn't even work that way. Besides, your interpretation implies almost everything is private unless you say otherwise. That would mean, for example, simply taking a picture of a birthday party at a park is illegal unless you get waivers from everyone. That's simply not reasonable.
So much ignorance.
Reprocessing is not done in the core. It can in fact be done off site, though for security reasons its often done on site. Of course, no civil reprocessing is permitted. Currently, some of our fuel is actually shipped overseas for reprocessing. I believe France receives some of it and then uses it in their own reactor. Wow! Imagine that. Reprocessed fuel is then used as any other vaiable fuel and requires nothing special on the part of the reactor.
What you don't seem to understand is, a fuel pellet is considered used when 95%-98% is used. That means waste fuel pellets still have 95%-98% viable fuel which is often then set aside in pools to decay. So its entirely accurate to say vast quantities of fuel are wasted and decaying.
As a lot of people have already stated, IT sysadmins seem to love inflating the damage figure.
He broke in, that's what he's been accused of so far. He hasn't been accused of any damage beyond that (e.g. planting trojans, or opening backdoors).
WTH?! No inflation is needed. What I stated is a statement of fact. And as someone who as followed the mandatory prescribed procedures and filled out the paper work, I did not exaggerate one bit. If he has not been charged with unauthorized access on other systems its because someone has validate, via an audit, those other systems were not compromised. Likewise, for each system which was compromised, someone has gone through the process I described. To deny this is not "damages" is to be completely disconnected from the realities of the work involved.
You can charge him with the breaking in, but not with other things.
Its called damages. Period. Seemingly you're not only disconnected but so nieve to believe that in all cases, everyone discloses all unauthorized access. Since that is absolutely not the case, anyone who isn't inept at their job must follow the prescribed and in fact mandated security procedures which are very much as I originally described. You're clearly talking out your ass and have no idea what you're saying.
The rest follows yet more ignorance. Bother to do some research before you spout off bullshit as fact. Believe it or not, your uninformed ignorance has no bearing on this case.
Regarding your third point - they had empty or default passwords. Last time I checked...err...yeah, internet facing system with empty/default passwords, that most definitely does make you incompetent.
I never said otherwise. Regardless, it has exactly nothing to do with anything. I don't understand why people pretend this has any bearing on anything. It doesn't. It shows the administrator was a fool but in no way diminishes anything else which has been stated. To believe so is nieve at best.
1) didn't cause any damage,
Wish people would stop this fallacy! The second he broke in, damage was done. As a result of his break in, lots and lots of man hours are now required to detect, document, re-install, document, fix, document, validate, document. And that's not counting related systems which must now also be validated to determine their trustworthiness. No ifs, ands, or buts, damage absolutely was done.
2) wasn't acting out of malice,
Might have a bearing on punishing. Has no bearing on prosecution unless there exists extenuating circumstances which may otherwise prevent prosecution. At this time there appears to be none.
3) was at least accomplish what he did in large part due to the incompetence of those who are, in theory, supposed to be competent in protecting themselves from such attacks.
You're making wild assumptions here. And beyond your wild assumptions, it appears to have zero applicability to prosecution and punishment. By you logic, because someone broke in through a window rather than the breaking down the door, they shouldn't be punished.
The link provided in your second post of this threat is very interesting thanks.
Just keep in mind, anyone who posts about Chernobyl instantly loses a lot of credibility because of its surrounding facts. It is in now way a valid argument for an anti-nuclear stance. It is, however, an excellent argument that stupid people should not be allowed to run nuclear plants and re-enforces that oversight by rational people, outside of normal plant operations, is required. Most (all?) Western countries have such oversight. Most (all) European countries with nuke plants have such over sight.
Mentioning Chernobyl is like argument the world should not have pointed objects because small children may run with them. So for future sake, if you want to be viewed with credibility, don't mention Chernobyl.
Yes, a conspiracy should be considered when there is a motive to ship 'bad' parts.
Dell has a motive to damage their reputation?
Umm, no, the data does not say that to me.
Based on your reply, where you focus solely on "safety", you ignore the fact that regulations go well beyond simple safety concerns. Or do so in the name of safety but accomplish no such thing. The regulations address many, many factors which make it all but impossible to build new reactors on new sites. Furthermore, if and when a new site is finally qualified, the expense of doing so adds to considerable costs, often in interest alone, affecting potential return on investments. There are also insurance factors which can not be ignored and which are also driven by regulations. So on and so on.
While your post can't be ignored, I don't see that it addresses the areas to which I originally referred. Most of the problems with the regulations to which I refer are not technology or basic construction constraints. Rather, they are social and political constraints which often serve no purpose other than to attempt to make nuclear non-cost competitive, difficult to fund and/or insure, or impossible to build in "my" backyard. Like I said, not really issues with the technology.
Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to counter the safe construction of safe reactors.
Though I know there are no girls on Slashdot, here's a tip: if I can tell you're wearing makeup, you have already failed. Proper makeup application enhances beauty, it doesn't attempt to replace it.
The same can be said for perfume. The intent of perfume is to make someone want to get closer to smell it. If you bath in it such that everyone can smell you in a 40x40 room then it implies you're trying to hide an oder which will make the average male puke. And if you can be smelled 40 feet away, there is no incentive to want to get closer. In fact, it will likely drive people away who get too close.
In fact, it wasn't so long ago that such actions would label you a whore. After all, only a whore need cover the oder of sex with fifty men; as there isn't a need to otherwise smell so strongly. A subtle oder is much desired to attract a potential mate.
Like most good things, moderation is key!
One last tip! Frequently change your perfume. Constant use of the same perfume causes your nose to effectively filter the constant source of over stimulation. As a result, women who constantly wear the same perfume almost always wear far, far too much because they can no longer effectively tell how strong the oder.
In a nut shell, DON'T SMELL LIKE A WHORE! Its not attractive!
Oh ya, some men could certainly learn from this as well!
That's what was worried about in 1968 and the misguided attempt to get around it was plutonium fast breeders. Since then reactor designs that are less fussy about fuel have been developed in places that actually do R&D.
The problem with this line of thought is that it ignores the fact that 95%-98% of all "used uranium" can in fact, be used again. Thus we have hundreds, if not thousands of years of uranium fuel (based on types of reactor fuel is in used in) just sitting and decaying. Its only because of bonehead politicians, and then primarily only in the US, that this fuel is not reprocessed and reused. Many countries in Europe do reprocess their fuel and as such, don't have huge stock piles of viable fuel waiting to be wasted and disposed.
Just imagine pouring billions of gallons of oil into huge tanks, claiming the oil is useless because it has sulfur in it. In reality, it add extra processing steps (filter) to make the oil safely usable. People would riot for the heads of these people if we didn't. Yet, that's exactly what we do with much of the world's nuclear fuel.
You can't back that up with data. Why, because the data says pick 2.
Actually, the data says an over abundance of regulation and irrational fear is what causes drastically increased costs on nuclear power. Its also the largest reason why the government must contribute so many funds to nuclear plants. You can have all three so long as needless over regulation and fear mongering is removed from the equation. I doubt that is a realistic expectation but that's hardly the technology's fault.
No it doesn't. You put fuel in at the start, and unless you put in more it eventually burns it all up (even if you remove the poisons) and stops working. (If it produced it's own fuel, it would be a perpetual motion machine.)
No one other than you made such a claim. It does make its own fuel. That's not the same as claiming it does so perpetually.
Can't they run dehumidifiers to remove a large percentage of humidity from the air to help prevent or at least slow potential sodium fires? Or do they already so that? Or is the area so large its simply not feasible? Or is the level of required humidity reduction to great to be considered practical?
And therein lies the major problem with this laser. It took several seconds to blow up a drone, which presumably isn't optically shielded (ie. shiny).
"Shiny" materials typically provide zero defense against high powered lasers. They need to be specialized materials to become effective.
Not to mention that the faster the missile travels, the greater the atmospheric cooling.
That's true to a limit. Given that most anti-ship missiles travel at multiples of mach, the friction generated at this speeds typically, considerably heats the missile's surface. Furthermore, minor deformations at such speeds can cause catastrophic aerodynamic stresses and failure.