Yeah, and if I had points I would delete you from the/. data base.
Facepalm.
Your parent is right and you are to uneducated to grasp it.
But feel free to show us how bright you are and give us a few examples where a SQL based DB (actually they are called "relational", but I guess you know that...) is superior to a NoSQL DB.
Actually you would not use a DB for that. The prime mistake of plenty of such endeavors is that they use a DB...
If you want to call it a DB, then yo use a "main memory DB". Obviously you have to shard it by solar system or clusters of some systems. But you would keep all state in memory. Only write stuff to disk to be able to recover from a crash.
That is a pretty dumb question... sorry to say that as I'm usually a protagonist who says: "there are no dumb questions, but only dumb answers".
To answer your dumb question: you don't use MongoDB in scenarios where you need transactional consistency or fine-grained permissions
Facepalm
Use the right tool for the job, and stop pretending that other tools have no right job where they are useful or more useful than the tool you use for your job.
NoSQL DBs don't lose transactions and while they are in the process of doing one, they can roll back as any other DB can. Otherwise it would not be a DB... get a clue.
Yes, they did that 1940. But that is hardly an "rolling tanks all over Europe". The number of tanks they had was rather low... and Germany had none left... so go figure;D
And something that is already faster than the speed of sound does not create one... and "sound wave" it has in its wake is only a few percentages of the strength of a real sonic boom.
As I said before: calling it a shock wave is misleading at best: or simply wrong.
A "shock wave" can be of any strength. It's just an instantaneous change (in pressure, temperature, etc.). If you want to put it like this:D
You could only claim that if it would not emmit virtual particles, which is one of the possible explanaitions. That stupib 'does violate conservation of momentum' crowd should stop finally.
If it moves it does obviously not violate LoCoM. And if it does not move aka does not work, it obviously does it neither!
As I said several times several posts back: most european forces are "self defense" or as I coined it "home defense" forces. They are somewhat special designed to be anti tank on ground and anti "big ship" on sea.
While the Russians have impressive troops, e.g. plenty of "special forces" no one else has on the planet (combat ready parachute dropped tanks e.g.), a large scale tank attack would run into defenses that are on purpose build to exactly counter that.
So I doubt the "rolling tanks over all Europe" part, the parent mentioned, will ever happen again. Right now we have a shift to drones... now imagine an AWACS and a few tanking ships that command a few hundred drones. We don't have it "yet", but soon we will.
Tanks are an obsolete weapon. Especially if the enemy is superior in anti tank forces. See e.g. Iraq War II.
OTOH politically the situation is like: we keep peace in Europe but fight to the nails all over, e.g. Syria. So no idea how this planet will shift. I'm retiring to an pacific island, besides global warming;D
Erm, you forgot to name the device you talk about or to link it. Because a detachable touch screen from a laptop running Linux or Hackintosh would be interesting.
You have no idea what reprocessing is... why don't you read it up?
But I give you a small example how it works, up to you to get a clue.
Typical reactor fuel is enriched uranium, which has about 5% U-235, the rest is U-238. lets call this: 100 units of "fuel", which is chemical an uranium oxide. When a bit more than half of the U-235 has decayed, the "fuel" is spent and the reactor can no longer run. Now we have 97 units of unusable "fuel" that still contain 2 units of U-235. And it contains 3 units of decay products. The stuff that is "created" when a U-235 core is split. Lets call them "waste"
Now... the goal of a perfect refueling would be: remove the 3 units of "waste", and replace them with 3 units of perfect pure U-235.
So far I hope, you agree.
So, how do you remove the 3 units of waste? Hm? Any idea? You use acids to dissolve the bunch of 97 units of reusable "fuel" and 3 units of "waste". For a ton of "spent fuel" you need about 100 tons of acids. After you are done and removed the waste, you either have 97 units of "fuel", that can not be used as it is spent. Or you have a block with 47 units of U-238 and a 50 units block consisting out of 95% U-238 + 5% U-235. The first block, you throw away. Because to make it into a working 50 units block, you have to add 3 units of perfect pure U-238. Which you wont have (because it would not make any sense produce pure U-235 in another plant to add it to your wasted U-238. You rather make a 95/5 mixture in that plant).
So: you always have to throw away 47 units of unusable U-238. You also have to store the 3 units of "waste"
And now comes the catch: you have also to throw away and store the thousands of tons of contaminated acids, salts and what ever came into contact during the process and has to be removed, like trivial stuff as broken tools.
To reprocess 1 ton of uranium, which is perhaps a cube of a bit more than a foot. You produce "real waste" in the order of 1000 tons. Hard to handle chemicals that are on top of it highly radioactive, and if not diluted enough simply boil while you look at them.
The shockwave the space shuttle creates during reentry: is no sonic boom. And a sonic boom is not really a shockwave either.
And yes, in the example regarding a Concord or the new plane in this article: if they are so far away as we talked about the, sonic boom is to dim to be heard. I lived 20 air bases, I have a pretty good idea how far a plane is away when you hear it or its sonic boom.
A sonic boom, as I said above, is not really a shockwave. That is a layman's explanation or just a coined term. A sonic boom is created like this: Lets assume a plane is 10 "sound seconds" away. It flies directly at you with exact speed of sound (could be a few percent above or below, would only minimal change the effect). Now, the sound it produces at -10 seconds will reach you in exactly 10 seconds. The plane as well, but that is irrelevant. The sound produced at -9 seconds will reach you after exactly 9 seconds, obviously. And so on when the plane has distance 1 second, the sound it produces will reach you after one second.
So: which "piece of sound" does reach you first? The one produced when the plane was 1 second away, or the one produced when the plane was 10 seconds away?
Obviously all the sound produced of the course of time when the plane was 10 seconds away till it is over you: reaches you at the same time. This is a sonic boom. And if it is "hard enough", then it can be a shockwave.
The sonic boom goes in all directions, the shockwave is focused into the direction the plane is flying.
And beyond the fact that it is VERY LOUD in short distances, up to 5 miles or more hearable: it vanishes with the square of distance like any other sound.
So: a plane breaking the sound barrier in 45,000 feet, that is roughly 15km, which is roughly 45 sound seconds is to far away to be heard. The sound needs 3 quarters of a minute to even reach you. So far away it is (not taking into account the thin air up there, most likely that makes it a distance of over one minute)
A windows laptop runs windows. So it not replacing a Mac Book Pro with OS X but is a lame alternative, if it is at all.
If you don't like Mac OS X anymore, go for Linux or if you must Open Solaris... how a professional can work with windows is beyond me... OTOH Mac OS X is going downhill and approaching windows ugliness and clumsiness quite quickly over the resent years.
50,000 feet is about 17km, which is about 12miles.
Over ten miles you hear no boom. To far away. And if it is in the "hight" the distance when you can't hear anything is far less as air density/pressure decreases with hight. And that means the distance sound travels is much shorter....increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 results in only small changes in shock wave strength...
That is not a sonic boom. Sonic booms only appear when the "noise generator" is very close to the speed of sound, does not matter if slightly below or slightly above or just right.
A plane flying mach 1.3 or 2.0 or 10.x does not create/track a sonic boom.
Average life span of a deer is a bit more than 10 years. No one even realizes if it dies to cancer because of radiation.
The area around Chernobyl just "prospers" because there are no humans. Actually a no brainer.
Or is it more radioactive there than right around Chernobyl itself? That question makes no sense.
There is no "radioactivity". There is radioactive material spread all over Europe. Depending on distance the material is a different one, e.g. Plutonium versus Cesium.
laws that declare the "safe" level of radioactivity to be so low that the level is impossible to achieve? Without a nuclear catastrophe they are easy to achieve. What is your question? Should we make two control groups in south germany? Force feed one with "contaminated" mushrooms, the other one only gets normal mushrooms? So we know in 50 years after comparing the two groups if we were paranoid or right? What about those who hate mushrooms? Or are allergic? How do we make the study?
Did you actually grasp that we are talking about EATING and not walking around in a forrest? I guess you believe you grasp the difference?
You did not fix anything. You are just an idiot. There are regulations how much radioactivity nutritions might contain. Mushrooms and game are above the safety regulations.
But feel free to come over and collect mushrooms and eat them, moron.
Oh, and saying something that is so factually that it is basically wrong: how would you call that? Base load: the minimum load all plants together feed into the grid. That is most likely not what you meant when you said "night time base load with nuclear plants". As contrast to base load would be load following. Contrast to night time would be day time. Unfortunately the base load at night and at day time is the same, otherwise it would not be called "base load".
Erm, no. France is not reprocessing any waste. That is impossible, there is nothing in waste that is usefull for anything. What france and others are doing is: reprocessing a mediocre amount of spent fuel, producing a tiny amount of reuseable new fuel and a huge amount of waste.
And what exactly does your tautology mean? Countries that have nuclear power most likely cover all their night time base load with nuclear power aleady. There is no point in building more except you want a few for day time load following...
Slashdot Mirror
EM drives have nothing to do with perpetium motion machines. /. always claiming otherwise?
Why are the idiots on
Yeah, and if I had points I would delete you from the /. data base.
Facepalm.
Your parent is right and you are to uneducated to grasp it.
But feel free to show us how bright you are and give us a few examples where a SQL based DB (actually they are called "relational", but I guess you know that ...) is superior to a NoSQL DB.
We are waiting ...
Actually you would not use a DB for that. ...
The prime mistake of plenty of such endeavors is that they use a DB
If you want to call it a DB, then yo use a "main memory DB". Obviously you have to shard it by solar system or clusters of some systems. But you would keep all state in memory. Only write stuff to disk to be able to recover from a crash.
E.g. http://www.prevayler.org/
That is a pretty dumb question ... sorry to say that as I'm usually a protagonist who says: "there are no dumb questions, but only dumb answers".
To answer your dumb question: you don't use MongoDB in scenarios where you need transactional consistency or fine-grained permissions
Facepalm
Use the right tool for the job, and stop pretending that other tools have no right job where they are useful or more useful than the tool you use for your job.
NoSQL DBs don't lose transactions and while they are in the process of doing one, they can roll back as any other DB can. Otherwise it would not be a DB ... get a clue.
Care to point out which NoSQL DBs are not ACID, that would be helpful.
Yes, they did that 1940. ... and Germany had none left ... so go figure ;D
But that is hardly an "rolling tanks all over Europe". The number of tanks they had was rather low
I explained you how a sonic boom is created.
And something that is already faster than the speed of sound does not create one ... and "sound wave" it has in its wake is only a few percentages of the strength of a real sonic boom.
As I said before: calling it a shock wave is misleading at best: or simply wrong.
A "shock wave" can be of any strength. It's just an instantaneous change (in pressure, temperature, etc.). :D
If you want to put it like this
You could only claim that if it would not emmit virtual particles, which is one of the possible explanaitions.
That stupib 'does violate conservation of momentum' crowd should stop finally.
If it moves it does obviously not violate LoCoM. And if it does not move aka does not work, it obviously does it neither!
There is no rewrite of any single text book necessary.
There is a small chapter added to quantum mechanics, that's it.
As I said several times several posts back: most european forces are "self defense" or as I coined it "home defense" forces. They are somewhat special designed to be anti tank on ground and anti "big ship" on sea.
While the Russians have impressive troops, e.g. plenty of "special forces" no one else has on the planet (combat ready parachute dropped tanks e.g.), a large scale tank attack would run into defenses that are on purpose build to exactly counter that.
So I doubt the "rolling tanks over all Europe" part, the parent mentioned, will ever happen again. Right now we have a shift to drones ... now imagine an AWACS and a few tanking ships that command a few hundred drones. We don't have it "yet", but soon we will.
Tanks are an obsolete weapon. Especially if the enemy is superior in anti tank forces. See e.g. Iraq War II.
OTOH politically the situation is like: we keep peace in Europe but fight to the nails all over, e.g. Syria. So no idea how this planet will shift. I'm retiring to an pacific island, besides global warming ;D
Erm, you forgot to name the device you talk about or to link it. Because a detachable touch screen from a laptop running Linux or Hackintosh would be interesting.
Dude, the one who is lying is you.
You have no idea what reprocessing is ... why don't you read it up?
But I give you a small example how it works, up to you to get a clue.
Typical reactor fuel is enriched uranium, which has about 5% U-235, the rest is U-238. lets call this: 100 units of "fuel", which is chemical an uranium oxide.
When a bit more than half of the U-235 has decayed, the "fuel" is spent and the reactor can no longer run.
Now we have 97 units of unusable "fuel" that still contain 2 units of U-235. And it contains 3 units of decay products. The stuff that is "created" when a U-235 core is split. Lets call them "waste"
Now ... the goal of a perfect refueling would be: remove the 3 units of "waste", and replace them with 3 units of perfect pure U-235.
So far I hope, you agree.
So, how do you remove the 3 units of waste? Hm? Any idea?
You use acids to dissolve the bunch of 97 units of reusable "fuel" and 3 units of "waste". For a ton of "spent fuel" you need about 100 tons of acids.
After you are done and removed the waste, you either have 97 units of "fuel", that can not be used as it is spent. Or you have a block with 47 units of U-238 and a 50 units block consisting out of 95% U-238 + 5% U-235. The first block, you throw away. Because to make it into a working 50 units block, you have to add 3 units of perfect pure U-238. Which you wont have (because it would not make any sense produce pure U-235 in another plant to add it to your wasted U-238. You rather make a 95/5 mixture in that plant).
So: you always have to throw away 47 units of unusable U-238. You also have to store the 3 units of "waste"
And now comes the catch: you have also to throw away and store the thousands of tons of contaminated acids, salts and what ever came into contact during the process and has to be removed, like trivial stuff as broken tools.
To reprocess 1 ton of uranium, which is perhaps a cube of a bit more than a foot. You produce "real waste" in the order of 1000 tons. Hard to handle chemicals that are on top of it highly radioactive, and if not diluted enough simply boil while you look at them.
So: get a clue.
The shockwave the space shuttle creates during reentry: is no sonic boom.
And a sonic boom is not really a shockwave either.
And yes, in the example regarding a Concord or the new plane in this article: if they are so far away as we talked about the, sonic boom is to dim to be heard. I lived 20 air bases, I have a pretty good idea how far a plane is away when you hear it or its sonic boom.
A sonic boom, as I said above, is not really a shockwave. That is a layman's explanation or just a coined term. A sonic boom is created like this:
Lets assume a plane is 10 "sound seconds" away.
It flies directly at you with exact speed of sound (could be a few percent above or below, would only minimal change the effect).
Now, the sound it produces at -10 seconds will reach you in exactly 10 seconds. The plane as well, but that is irrelevant.
The sound produced at -9 seconds will reach you after exactly 9 seconds, obviously.
And so on when the plane has distance 1 second, the sound it produces will reach you after one second.
So: which "piece of sound" does reach you first? The one produced when the plane was 1 second away, or the one produced when the plane was 10 seconds away?
Obviously all the sound produced of the course of time when the plane was 10 seconds away till it is over you: reaches you at the same time. This is a sonic boom. And if it is "hard enough", then it can be a shockwave.
The sonic boom goes in all directions, the shockwave is focused into the direction the plane is flying.
And beyond the fact that it is VERY LOUD in short distances, up to 5 miles or more hearable: it vanishes with the square of distance like any other sound.
So: a plane breaking the sound barrier in 45,000 feet, that is roughly 15km, which is roughly 45 sound seconds is to far away to be heard. The sound needs 3 quarters of a minute to even reach you. So far away it is (not taking into account the thin air up there, most likely that makes it a distance of over one minute)
A windows laptop runs windows. So it not replacing a Mac Book Pro with OS X but is a lame alternative, if it is at all.
If you don't like Mac OS X anymore, go for Linux or if you must Open Solaris ... how a professional can work with windows is beyond me ... OTOH Mac OS X is going downhill and approaching windows ugliness and clumsiness quite quickly over the resent years.
Using the 'git environment' is actually what I do most of the time when I'm forced to use Windows.
Exocets are supposed to have several ways how to deactivate them. OTOH it might be just a rumor/urban myth and I exaggerated.
Exocets are radar seeking, they are supposed to shut down when they detect a NATO radar. The other option is an anti Exocet beacon on the ships.
In "Iraq War I" none of the fired Exocets even reached the target ... they all got disabled mid flight.
they've done it before).
No they have not.
It was the Germans who rolled their tanks all over Europe.
No idea, I would say the "facts" are wrong :D
50,000 feet is about 17km, which is about 12miles.
Over ten miles you hear no boom. To far away. And if it is in the "hight" the distance when you can't hear anything is far less as air density/pressure decreases with hight. And that means the distance sound travels is much shorter. ...increasing speeds above Mach 1.3 results in only small changes in shock wave strength...
That is not a sonic boom. Sonic booms only appear when the "noise generator" is very close to the speed of sound, does not matter if slightly below or slightly above or just right.
A plane flying mach 1.3 or 2.0 or 10.x does not create/track a sonic boom.
Average life span of a deer is a bit more than 10 years. No one even realizes if it dies to cancer because of radiation.
The area around Chernobyl just "prospers" because there are no humans. Actually a no brainer.
Or is it more radioactive there than right around Chernobyl itself?
That question makes no sense.
There is no "radioactivity". There is radioactive material spread all over Europe. Depending on distance the material is a different one, e.g. Plutonium versus Cesium.
laws that declare the "safe" level of radioactivity to be so low that the level is impossible to achieve?
Without a nuclear catastrophe they are easy to achieve. What is your question?
Should we make two control groups in south germany? Force feed one with "contaminated" mushrooms, the other one only gets normal mushrooms? So we know in 50 years after comparing the two groups if we were paranoid or right? What about those who hate mushrooms? Or are allergic? How do we make the study?
Did you actually grasp that we are talking about EATING and not walking around in a forrest? I guess you believe you grasp the difference?
I hope you do.
You did not fix anything.
You are just an idiot.
There are regulations how much radioactivity nutritions might contain.
Mushrooms and game are above the safety regulations.
But feel free to come over and collect mushrooms and eat them, moron.
Oh, and saying something that is so factually that it is basically wrong: how would you call that?
Base load: the minimum load all plants together feed into the grid.
That is most likely not what you meant when you said "night time base load with nuclear plants".
As contrast to base load would be load following. Contrast to night time would be day time.
Unfortunately the base load at night and at day time is the same, otherwise it would not be called "base load".
Erm, no.
France is not reprocessing any waste. That is impossible, there is nothing in waste that is usefull for anything.
What france and others are doing is: reprocessing a mediocre amount of spent fuel, producing a tiny amount of reuseable new fuel and a huge amount of waste.
And what exactly does your tautology mean? ...
Countries that have nuclear power most likely cover all their night time base load with nuclear power aleady.
There is no point in building more except you want a few for day time load following
Chernobyl was not localized.
In south germany and south sweden you still can not eat mushrooms harvested from the woods and game is unsafe to eat.