Actually, if you put the whole thing in a tube that you put on big posts so it floats up in the air will still allow the land below to be used for farming..
The farmer would probably be quite happy getting paid for those small chunks of land where the posts go..
The farmer will probably not be too happy when he realizes that the maglev train will cut his farmland in two and he will have to drive for 30 minutes to get to the other side.
Bitflips on HDD's are more common than you think, especially when the data is not read (to allow the disk firmware to detect the degradation and rewrite the data).
Only way to keep safe from this is to use a checksumming filesystem + having more than 1 copy of the data.
Possible setups with a BTRFS filesystem: (probably possible with ZFS or any of the other filesystems with checksumming support)
Option 1: One HDD with two partitions. BTRFS setup as raid1 between the partitions and files are copied here. for history create a snapshot before copying the next round of data. Option 1 protects against bit-flips and general corruption in the filesystem, but you are required to "scrub" the filesystem every time you do a backup..
Option 2: Two HDD's. BTRFS setup as raid1. The rest is the same as option 1. Option 2 protects against one backup-device having a hardware failure.
Option 3: Two HDD's. BTRFS setup as raid1. The rest the same as option 1. After each backup you take one of the disks and store it offsite and add a fresh disk to the raid1. Swapping between 3 disks (one local, one in transit and one stored remotly) could be an idea too. Option 3 protects against hw failure of the backup and at the same time protects against data-loss due to a breakin or a fire.
Crap.. first laptop stopped working because of some automatic upgrade crap... Bring out our spare!... Oh crap it also started doing the automated install!
Android have reached, and passed, 300 million users. Think the last number was 1.3 billion.. I group Android/iOS/OSX/Windows into one chunk since many people use tablets/phones as their main "desktop" today
For "pure" linux distributions (debian/ubuntu/arch etc) for laptops/stationary machines i think the world-wide number was somewhere around 85 million.
And going to government at any level for service would probably (from experience) result in below average service, poor customer service, increasing prices, and a genuine risk of introducing regulations worse than what we have now. Has no one considered whether a municipal Internet provider could be forced to filter objectionable content? Some would be pretty obvious, but some not so much. Porn in Utah? Gun blogs in Malibu?
In Sweden we have had this for quite some time. What is done is basically that the city builds a network but then allow house-owners to connect their houses to it for a fee. What then happens is that you have multiple ISP's offering service on this network where you get to choose from several different operators. This allows competition to be fair for both small and large ISP's and the ISP's only pay for maintenance etc of the city-network for their connected customers. So in terms of filters it would be no more than what ISP's already does.
(it's a bit complex than this in reality, and it may differ from city to city, but this is the basic description anyway.)
For me a non-metered 100/100Mbit connection, including IP-phone, is about $14/month. Cost of upgrading my service to 1000/1000Mbit is about $30 extra..
The basic idea about this is that the city could start a non-profit organisation that would build a network and allow different ISP's to provide their service thru it or the city could just see this the same as any other utility like water/power.. Doing this as a city is more viable than as a standalone ISP... The city still have to dig up streets to fix pipes and/or lay new asphalt.. When the street is already torn up just dig down a few pipes where they can install fibers later on... It will take a few years before everything is connected, but that's the price you pay for getting a cheap installation.
And that "90 years of uranium left".. It's only for *known* deposits and using it in reactors with less than 1% efficency.. We also have loads of uranium all over the world but that is low-grade deposits that are currently not economical to mine.
40 years ago using reactors with less efficiency than our sub 1% efficiency we have today.... reprocessing it would allow for at least 10-20% efficiency.. Ie it would last for *at least* 24*5 years and possibly 24*20 years. With more efficient reactors we could reach ~99% efficiency ie 24*99 years. And to mix it up even more, taking other fissionable material into consideration, we could go with nuclear-power for a much longer time.
So no, we would not have run out. And it can help with global-warming..
The nuclear fuel recycling process is straightforward. It involves converting spent plutonium and uranium into a “mixed oxide” that can be reused in nuclear power plants to produce more electricity.
Please read the table titled "Inventory of separated recyclable materials worldwide" and you can see the distribution after reprocessing.. (and it ofcourse depends on what was put into the reactor to start with)
Just because the new recycled fuel contains plutonium also does not magically remove the unused uranium.
And since you seem to go back to earlier posts to try to find the smallest misstake lets look at what you have written.. 1. It's illegal. - No it's not.. 2. We will run out of uranium. - No we will not within our lifetime. Current estimates is that we have enough uranium, in known deposits, to last around 90 years. http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... Combine this with reprocessing, and more efficient reactors, and we can probably last for at least (speculation since we do not know how our energy-needs will go up) 3 times as long... This will be long enough for us to provide our current energy-need and time to refine alternatives.
If we widen our view to also include other possible fissionable material we can start talking thorium. Then U.S. have enough, stockpiled(!!!), to last the them for 500-1000(!!) years.. Reason why they have it stockpiled you say.. it was a byproduct that was not useful at the time.
Please go out and get a clue... Buy one if nobody wants to donate you one.
In October 1976,[8] concern of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle, and to encourage other nations to follow the USA lead.[9] After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.[10]
And with nuclear-plants it because of people like you that we are stuck with decade old nuclear-plants instead of newer plants that would increase safety and reduce the amount of waste.
Reprocessing and reuse? Less than 1% of the fuel has been used in the fuel-rods..
Build new plants (Breeder-reactors?) that can use the existing spent fuel-rods as fuel and reduce the storage-time to ~300 years? (instead of ~100000 years)
We can plan and build something that would be safe for 300 years.. We could probably build that on-site instead of having to transport it to some remote location.
The direct costs of the Fukushima disaster will be about $15 billion in clean-up over the next 20 years and over $60 billion in refugee compensation. Replacing Japan’s 300 billion kWhs from nuclear each year with fossil fuels has cost Japan over $200 billion, mostly from fuel costs for natural gas, fuel oil and coal, as renewables have failed to expand in Japan. This cost will at least double, and that only if the nuclear fleet is mostly restarted by 2020.
With a self-driving car *everything* happening around it would be recorded.. There would be no question in who broke the rules and caused the accident.
Steer by wire This kind of system will provide steering control of a car with fewer mechanical components/linkages between the steering wheel and the wheels.[4] The control of the wheels' direction will be established through electric motor(s) which are actuated by electronic control units monitoring the steering wheel inputs from the driver. This is currently used in electric forklifts and stockpickers and some tractors. The first production vehicle to implement this was the Infiniti Q50.[5] Its implementation in road vehicles is limited by concerns over reliability although it has been demonstrated in several concept vehicles such as ThyssenKrupp Presta Steering's Mercedes-Benz Unimog, General Motors' Hy-wire and Sequel, Saabs Prometheus and the Mazda Ryuga. A rear wheel SbW system by Delphi called Quadrasteer is used on some pickup trucks but has had limited commercial success. This is not to be confused with Electric Power Steering. Electric Power Steering can be considered as a stage of evolution from mechanical steering to steer by wire systems.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you put the whole thing in a tube that you put on big posts so it floats up in the air will still allow the land below to be used for farming..
The farmer would probably be quite happy getting paid for those small chunks of land where the posts go..
The farmer will probably not be too happy when he realizes that the maglev train will cut his farmland in two and he will have to drive for 30 minutes to get to the other side.
Bitflips on HDD's are more common than you think, especially when the data is not read (to allow the disk firmware to detect the degradation and rewrite the data).
Only way to keep safe from this is to use a checksumming filesystem + having more than 1 copy of the data.
Possible setups with a BTRFS filesystem: (probably possible with ZFS or any of the other filesystems with checksumming support)
Option 1: One HDD with two partitions. BTRFS setup as raid1 between the partitions and files are copied here. for history create a snapshot before copying the next round of data.
Option 1 protects against bit-flips and general corruption in the filesystem, but you are required to "scrub" the filesystem every time you do a backup..
Option 2: Two HDD's. BTRFS setup as raid1. The rest is the same as option 1.
Option 2 protects against one backup-device having a hardware failure.
Option 3: Two HDD's. BTRFS setup as raid1. The rest the same as option 1. After each backup you take one of the disks and store it offsite and add a fresh disk to the raid1. Swapping between 3 disks (one local, one in transit and one stored remotly) could be an idea too.
Option 3 protects against hw failure of the backup and at the same time protects against data-loss due to a breakin or a fire.
Would like to moderate this post with "Tasty"...
Watch out for the reefer madness!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Just you wait... there will soon be a flashlight and laser-pointer licence.....
There is a big difference between a update and a upgrade...
cannot spell today :P
Sorry buy all user input was disabled at the time of the GPS taking control.. Did you not read and understand the 200 page EULA?
Crap.. first laptop stopped working because of some automatic upgrade crap... Bring out our spare!... Oh crap it also started doing the automated install!
Android have reached, and passed, 300 million users. Think the last number was 1.3 billion..
I group Android/iOS/OSX/Windows into one chunk since many people use tablets/phones as their main "desktop" today
For "pure" linux distributions (debian/ubuntu/arch etc) for laptops/stationary machines i think the world-wide number was somewhere around 85 million.
Listen buddy, I hate snow much more than dislike dinosaurs and toxic levels of O2
And going to government at any level for service would probably (from experience) result in below average service, poor customer service, increasing prices, and a genuine risk of introducing regulations worse than what we have now. Has no one considered whether a municipal Internet provider could be forced to filter objectionable content? Some would be pretty obvious, but some not so much. Porn in Utah? Gun blogs in Malibu?
In Sweden we have had this for quite some time. What is done is basically that the city builds a network but then allow house-owners to connect their houses to it for a fee. What then happens is that you have multiple ISP's offering service on this network where you get to choose from several different operators.
This allows competition to be fair for both small and large ISP's and the ISP's only pay for maintenance etc of the city-network for their connected customers.
So in terms of filters it would be no more than what ISP's already does.
(it's a bit complex than this in reality, and it may differ from city to city, but this is the basic description anyway.)
For me a non-metered 100/100Mbit connection, including IP-phone, is about $14/month.
Cost of upgrading my service to 1000/1000Mbit is about $30 extra..
The basic idea about this is that the city could start a non-profit organisation that would build a network and allow different ISP's to provide their service thru it or the city could just see this the same as any other utility like water/power..
Doing this as a city is more viable than as a standalone ISP... The city still have to dig up streets to fix pipes and/or lay new asphalt.. When the street is already torn up just dig down a few pipes where they can install fibers later on... It will take a few years before everything is connected, but that's the price you pay for getting a cheap installation.
And that "90 years of uranium left".. It's only for *known* deposits and using it in reactors with less than 1% efficency.. We also have loads of uranium all over the world but that is low-grade deposits that are currently not economical to mine.
40 years ago using reactors with less efficiency than our sub 1% efficiency we have today.... reprocessing it would allow for at least 10-20% efficiency..
Ie it would last for *at least* 24*5 years and possibly 24*20 years. With more efficient reactors we could reach ~99% efficiency ie 24*99 years.
And to mix it up even more, taking other fissionable material into consideration, we could go with nuclear-power for a much longer time.
So no, we would not have run out. And it can help with global-warming..
Then post the math-proof.
You make statements that you cannot prove over and over... When someone outs you you start making excuses.
This started with your claim: "We'd be out of uranium in your scenario."
And even in the scenario where we would have started using many times more uranium we would still not run out for *many* years..
When you make claims like that please back them up with a source.. If not it's just your opinion that you are pushing...
And what's wrong with you....... Uranium is still a big part of what's left....
http://world-nuclear.org/infor...
The nuclear fuel recycling process is straightforward. It involves converting spent plutonium and uranium into a “mixed oxide” that can be reused in nuclear power plants to produce more electricity.
Please read the table titled "Inventory of separated recyclable materials worldwide" and you can see the distribution after reprocessing.. (and it ofcourse depends on what was put into the reactor to start with)
Just because the new recycled fuel contains plutonium also does not magically remove the unused uranium.
And since you seem to go back to earlier posts to try to find the smallest misstake lets look at what you have written..
1. It's illegal. - No it's not..
2. We will run out of uranium. - No we will not within our lifetime. Current estimates is that we have enough uranium, in known deposits, to last around 90 years.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i...
Combine this with reprocessing, and more efficient reactors, and we can probably last for at least (speculation since we do not know how our energy-needs will go up) 3 times as long... This will be long enough for us to provide our current energy-need and time to refine alternatives.
If we widen our view to also include other possible fissionable material we can start talking thorium. Then U.S. have enough, stockpiled(!!!), to last the them for 500-1000(!!) years.. Reason why they have it stockpiled you say.. it was a byproduct that was not useful at the time.
Please go out and get a clue... Buy one if nobody wants to donate you one.
And this comment just shows how uninformed you are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In October 1976,[8] concern of nuclear weapons proliferation (especially after India demonstrated nuclear weapons capabilities using reprocessing technology) led President Gerald Ford to issue a Presidential directive to indefinitely suspend the commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in the U.S. On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel. The key issue driving this policy was the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle, and to encourage other nations to follow the USA lead.[9] After that, only countries that already had large investments in reprocessing infrastructure continued to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.[10]
Nope we will not... And we always have the possibility to reprocess the spent fuel-rods.. Less than 1% of the fuel has been used..
... http://www.scientificamerican....
that one actually describes the issues...
And with nuclear-plants it because of people like you that we are stuck with decade old nuclear-plants instead of newer plants that would increase safety and reduce the amount of waste.
Reprocessing and reuse? Less than 1% of the fuel has been used in the fuel-rods..
Build new plants (Breeder-reactors?) that can use the existing spent fuel-rods as fuel and reduce the storage-time to ~300 years? (instead of ~100000 years)
We can plan and build something that would be safe for 300 years.. We could probably build that on-site instead of having to transport it to some remote location.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
The direct costs of the Fukushima disaster will be about $15 billion in clean-up over the next 20 years and over $60 billion in refugee compensation. Replacing Japan’s 300 billion kWhs from nuclear each year with fossil fuels has cost Japan over $200 billion, mostly from fuel costs for natural gas, fuel oil and coal, as renewables have failed to expand in Japan. This cost will at least double, and that only if the nuclear fleet is mostly restarted by 2020.
With a self-driving car *everything* happening around it would be recorded.. There would be no question in who broke the rules and caused the accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Steer by wire
This kind of system will provide steering control of a car with fewer mechanical components/linkages between the steering wheel and the wheels.[4] The control of the wheels' direction will be established through electric motor(s) which are actuated by electronic control units monitoring the steering wheel inputs from the driver.
This is currently used in electric forklifts and stockpickers and some tractors. The first production vehicle to implement this was the Infiniti Q50.[5] Its implementation in road vehicles is limited by concerns over reliability although it has been demonstrated in several concept vehicles such as ThyssenKrupp Presta Steering's Mercedes-Benz Unimog, General Motors' Hy-wire and Sequel, Saabs Prometheus and the Mazda Ryuga. A rear wheel SbW system by Delphi called Quadrasteer is used on some pickup trucks but has had limited commercial success.
This is not to be confused with Electric Power Steering. Electric Power Steering can be considered as a stage of evolution from mechanical steering to steer by wire systems.
Yubikey 4 supports 4096 bit keys.