All solar energy is area dependent and will scale linearly in a similar manner.
Indeed it is area dependant however I think you are referring to photovoltaic as opposed to Solar thermal which has line and point modes of collection. IIRC the output of point mode stations quadruple as the size of the station doubles because the higher temperatures achieved at the point.
Obviously there are limits to the largest size, however we are nowhere near that yet.
1. The military hardly uses plutonium. Enriched Uranium was eventually where it's at
Any form of your 5th point would use plutonium.
2. We haven't seen lots of exploration for new uranium sources because we've been running off the military stockpiles for the last 20 or so years. It's depressed the market enough that expanding mining wasn't worth it. That source is coming to an end, ergo more mining operations are starting up.
The biggest problem with the mining of uranium is the amount of energy required to extract the ore from the rock...
3. Even without expansion of exploration like we've seen with oil/gas, we have enough Uranium within about double the current price to last several hundred years.
...and all of the new sources coming on line are all from harder ores i.e. it takes more enrgy to extract from the granite ore bodies than it does from sandstone ore bodies. This means the energetic output of your reactor is soaked up by the energy you used to get the fuel in the first place.
4. Before price increases would make the fuel costs for a nuclear plant 'significant', IE something you'd actually see in your electricity bill, we'd be able to filter the stuff out of sea water profitably.
Again this becomes an issue of how much energy goes into getting the uranium out of the seawater, you would probably look to extracting uranium from coal station smoke stacks or from the fly ash before turning to seawater
5. Breeder reactors allow much more complete burn up, which means that about 80-90% of all the 'waste' we currently have sitting around can be turned into new fuel.
Well you probably mean 'burner' reactors at that rate, and they have to acheive 20% (and then it's fuel reprocessing - but thats the integral bit) and then provided we have the materials technology to build that reactor. Sure the prototype IFR is very promising but after all the other factors are accounted for, like burn up rate (even at 20% as compared to the current 0.3%), reactor availability you are still left with a reactor that has to be decommissioned after 50 years and then you use up even more energy because you can't demolish it like any normal building.
So these other factors are also considerations when weighing up the energetic viability of the fuel cycle.
Harvesting the energy around houses and decentralizing the grid will have an impact on the IT industry to develop technology to manage it. It seems to me that adopting wind and solar would present some really interesting challenges and opportunities for manufacturing as well.
With politicians crapping on about jobs growth but not where it is coming from it seems to me this is the elephant in the room.
Longer sentences don't matter. Never have, never will. Especially not for white collar crime. You could put the death penalty, or lifetime in prison, behind it and it wouldn't make a difference.
Copying movies isn't really white collar crime though where peoples life savings are often defrauded from them. I'd like to see the courts *enforce* penalties against those who ruin the lives of so many for their own compulsive greed so that they are in prison for ten years.
Bur not people who copy movies.
Correction, it may change shit: People would actually cry out against the law because the alleged crime is very visibly in no relation whatsoever to the punishment. It already is. It just is way less public.
For sure. It's ridiculous that this is even an issue when corruption in corporate and government areas are treated as trivial when they affect a lot of peoples lives. Where are copying movies is affecting a few peoples lives, so existing punishments are not really equitable.
There isn't one solution. But every decision you make shapes the world, and the beginning is to be conscious of that.
Which is why the best thing we can do to help is probably just watch the doc and be aware of the situation so we can apply pressure to the Indian government to address the issues.
When the government insists that women are at fault for their own rapes, then there is provably an actualculture of rape. Period, the end.
Oh, there is no doubt about that however it's not the only problem that exists there. For a moment imagine driving on the roads of a country where the people can learn to drive but they can't read the road rules. Our perception of India is based on our perception of our own countries where as it should be based on barely controlled chaos that for some strange reason, works.
You do anything you would do in any western country but it's three times bigger than America's populace and still a democracy. Wonderful and dangerous at the same time. I wouldn't say uncivilised but it is wild.
Islam has the same issues with womens rights and rape, how can we fix it? The men of those cultures have to fix it the same way western cultures had to deal with domestic violence and rape in the 1970s.
I'll also point out that the case of the Australian girl is different from the one mentioned in this story.
When these things can happen in public and no one gets in trouble, there is a culture of rape.
The fact that a small minority of Indians are protesting against it doesn't change the fact that they live in a culture which protects and even encourages rape.
You're right, I agree and I think a lot of *educated* Indian men would agree - but they are in the minority. But what do you want the culture to do - get a lynch mob and tear the rapists apart? It already happens to people in vehicle accidents and you will find dealing with the police there a rather unpleasant experience. Of which I can tell you, from experience, is something you would rather avoid as it is very corrupt, more opportunists only this time with automatic weapons.
I was in Pune when a report of a rape of an Australian girl in New Dehli came through. Basically they dragged her into a bus and a mob raped her on the bus while they drove around the city, they threw her out at a hospital but she died from her injuries.
A week later another one happened to an American girl, a photographer who was with a guide. They beat up the guide and tied him up while 5 raped her over two days in a run down factory in Mumbai. What was pretty fucked up is that somehow the police made out that it was her fault...somehow. The police are corrupt and they have automatic weapons.
A quizzed some of my Indian colleagues and they hated the rapists and were ashamed that such a thing happened, who wouldn't? So when I walked around the city and found myself in some of the rougher parts of town I got a real idea of why. So many people, everywhere is a mass of annonimity. When I realised where I was and that I was looking a a phone to navigate I realised that I was a real target for being robbed. I put the phone away, held my head high and thought 'c'mon sisterfuckers'. I'm 200lbs and have been training a variety of martial arts for 20years plus - but I knew that some of these guys were prepared to have a go - even if they could tell some of them would be hospitalised. Being street smart in your own country is nothing compared to being street smart on Indian streets but it helps. The little people sleep in the rain and it's no place for a western woman who is a gora.
I did eventually get robbed, during Ganesha by two kids who hit me with a whip on the leg, dived for my pockets and grabbed the cash I had there - even waved it in my face - I let them go saying 'ok ok - you got me - now fuck off'. Everyone is trying to make a buck and it's not that Indian men are all rapists but I think the poor have to be master opportunists to survive and some of them are rapists.
I was treated for this when I was a child not using eye patches but eye exercises that were optical illusions. I'm in my 40's now and I'm only just now is the lazy eye returning.
If you can compose, out of your head, in under five minutes, a find -prune command that executes a gawk script that selectively runs bash commands, and successfully run that script against a 10 million node filesystem on a heavily loaded mission critical box, and nothing breaks, you are linux skilled.
Yeah, funny thing is I had to do that not so long ago but filling in the change request takes a whole lot longer!
Sure, but those VMs don't exactly create a ton of job opportunities (which is why they're so popular - you don't need a huge staff to run a server farm of VMs). Companies go to VMs in "the cloud" because it's cheaper - fewer people on the payroll. So, they lay off most of their linux workers and hire one VM specialist. Sounds like many linux jobs are in danger.
Whilst it is a perception that I can agree with my experiences are that the underlying issues created by using VM infrastructure is that it creates new classes of issues that frustrate organizations from utilizing the VM infrastructure that they get. Few people understand these issues until they come up to configuring CPU and IO schedulers in virtual environments.
It may be easy to build a VM but you have to configure it differently or it has an effect on other VMs that you didn't intend - some of those failure modes are difficult to detect and replicate (and the results are sometimes as amusing as they are annoying).
That said, Openstack and Xen are two really interesting technologies.
...is pretty important, and you should refactor when needed if only just for that. It'll spread all over rest of the code in many ways, in good ways.
Exactly, and that good way is reliability which is something I observe the study doesn't measure so whilst it's good to challenge the current wisdom, there seems to be a few holes here.
First up I don't think 4500 lines of code is a good was to asses the interaction complexity of applications where the codebase exceeds 10 or 20 times that number. Second I may write a functional prototype of code knowing full well that I or someone else will refactor later when we have a better idea of how things are functioning.
Unexpected failure modes are going to exist in the software. The whole point of doing things the 'Agile' way is to provide incremental improvement so things get better. The paper talks of XP but what if you are using DSDM instead of programming pairs, in that case you are *expecting* to refactor often as you explain the domain or new concepts are introduced. That's not scope creep, it's being honest and admitting you don't know everything.
In my experiences the most powerful concept is the vocabulary you build as you begin to understand the domain better. I've found refactoring is the opportunity to 'put things in the right place' to define the vocabulary which makes things easier on myself and my colleagues a year or two later when someone asks if they can have this extra feature. Sure we should be using certain design patterns when implementing code from the beginning however I'm certain I'm not alone in confronting a codebase and wondering why certain methods are implemented in the controller instead of an information expert and spending the next week refactoring to avoid peoples heads exploding when methods are duplicated...but they don't work the same.
Accept this, as you have uncovered something they didn't know and can potentially damage them.
I did this with a government tax office and tried to alert them by calling the very number they advertised to handle this sort of issue. The response went like this:
Yeah there is a number you can call for this
There is a what in our what?
please provide you contact details
The problem is, you want to help them and all they can see is 'random person the phone saying we have a problem' so it is easier to solve you. If the company is responsible enough to have a CERT team and a reporting mechanism you may stand a chance but it is more likely you will draw their ire because you can hurt the companies reputation.
If you can't change institutions then you should consider establishing what their data privacy policies are, hire a lawyer and then frame legal action to protect your own data whilst seeking damages to the value of your life earnings for exposing you to identity theft and fraud. You should be pissed off.
They won' t play nice so neither should you. Seek legal advice about the possibility for damages because you have been exposed to fraud. Leave it to them to discover the mechanism, because if they are that bad there are probably more.
Huh, how brains work isn't interesting! Just because it's popular doesn't make convincing yourself that you're indifferent any cooler.
I suppose you are right and I don't mean it that way. The stuff about the brain interpreting colours is interesting but I find that when hollywood gets involved in geek stuff they make it lame and uninteresting.
First up, thanks for staying rational with your reply.
Once you get to know radioactivity a bit better most people start to think it's cute and cuddly because it isn't all that radioactive. This is the phase many/. posters seem to be in. Next thing some find out is that uranium is toxic, as a chemical.
That's about the time they discover there is a difference between radiation and radio isotopes, that one is an emission and the later is an emitter. After that they find out that particular radio isotopes appear to be particular micro-nutrients to metabolisms and bio-accumulate in the foodchain. After that they discover there is multiple pathways for radio-isotopes to get into the body via inhalation/food/water. Then they discover that once the radio isotope is in the human body the energetic alpha/beta/gamma emissions take about six years to gestate cancer in the body.
Hopefully more/.ers will realize this and start to understand what the issues are.
Chemical problems, not radioactive.
Indeed. Though the science I've been reading says that the effects of radiation emitted from DU are unclear on humans. I'll refer you to my earlier post for my summary of the science. Apologies for some of the language dealing with the troll.
The type of radioactivity in nukes is not relevant if you're not busy getting the mass to critical. The DU in Iraq is spread over a large surface area. It's nowhere near going critical.
DU has an unusual property where it has spontaneous fission and its energetic emissions jump from 4 to 240Mev (I think its the alpha emissions) whilst it decays. However that is not the point I was trying to make.
Ergo the radiation source of a nuclear bomb is not relevant to the discussion.
The point I am trying to make is not the source of radiation but a source of radio isotopes. That a nuclear bomb lets its energy out all at once and leaves much less than the original mass (~50Kg) as fall-out in the form of radio-isotopes.
In comparison with DU of which there is almost 2 tons spread around the country as a ceramic aerosol.
The world is a playground and the US is the strongest kid.
Deep down Americans are also just people. I don't believe that American citizens would allow this behavior to continue if they understood the consequences would attach them to such shame.
FUN FACT: Under the 2005 energy act nuclear protesters and local residents cannot affect or interfere with the deployment of a nuclear reactor BY LAW. Nuclear power isn't being deployed because it's a risky investment that no one wants to put money into.
I just had to change that presumption, however I'll go into it a bit deeper shortly. I am a software developer who is also songwriter, producing music with a group of musicians - we are predominately a live act. I'm not criticizing you btw, I am interested in the though processes that created these conclusions though.
Why do artists expect to be paid at all for recordings of their music?
For the same reason that anyone expects to get paid for their work. If a software house sells a license to a compiled version of their software, they expect to get paid. In the same way musicians should be paid for the music they record and *render* through a production process. The tracking, mixing, production and mastering of music is a very expensive time consuming process, even today. It used to be more so but now it's at least accessible and roughly the same effort as producing software.
The only difference is that musicians aren't seeking to engage in a contract with the listener because they want to listen. For a similar piece of software there are terms and conditions for you to be able to pay to use the result of the software developers performance. Why is music any different?
For a very brief period in history, making money off of recordings was made possible by a coincidental combination of technology and artificial scarcity caused by the cumbersome nature of physical media.
The process of recording the music is demanding. Just because the cumbersome media is gone doesn't mean the cumbersome production process is gone and someone has to pay for that. It was that delivery mechanism that enabled the music industry to be created. Now its relationship to the artist is parasitic.
The scarcity now, is music that is worth paying for and, that's why mp3s are good advertising. Part of the confusion is the industry has moved on from analogue production and distribution process to a new business model of digital production and distribution. As many in IT have said, the music industry is a failing business model that treats it's customers like thieves and it's talent like slaves.
Musicians and IT folk have a lot in common, many do IT because they love the work. The music industry would have you believe that they should profit on the rescue of that production system or that software you wrote because you love it to do it. They would have you believe that they own the copyright on the application you developed and are entitled to the profits of the software business you built.
Before the advent of physical recordings, musicians had to make money by performing.
This is the 21st century, why isn't a recorded work a performance?
I can most certainly assure you that when my friends record we are seeking a performance that is as close to perfect as we can possibly get. It's not just a performance, it's THE performance. However most people haven't been through a recording session, actually most musicians haven't so they can't tell you what it's like. The ones that can, without cracking under the pressure whilst producing a performance good enough to be recorded, mixed, produced and mastered deserve to be paid for it because it is really hard work. Much like any Agile software project.
The only difference is a software developer doesn't pay $50,000 for the privilege of working an agile project, to work harder than anyone does in their day job to produce a recording that most people might not pay for however, that is what musicians are being asked to do.
Like any other business, the musician takes a risk to build a music business out of a relationship with an audience. Why is that any different from any other business who has product to move trying to earn a return on their investment in a project?
After the advent of digital recordings, musicians will once again have to make money by performing.
Why are you being an asshole to me? Have I offended you personally by having an opinion?
Uranium is a heavy metal. Don't ingest those.
Friend, you say that as if these people have a choice. They don't. It burns at 3000-6000 degrees and oxidizes into an insoluble ceramic aerosol. As an aerosol it is in their air and it is in their drinking water. How do you suggest they avoid ingesting them?
Also a heavy metal. Nothing to do with radioactivity,
Yes, others have pointed that out. However you also said the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead when its toxicity is still being evaluated in veterans and proving to be quite a serious issue for those exposed to it. So whilst your claim of no one cares about the uranium in granite countertops might be true I'm sure people would feel differently about it being in their air and water supply. Wouldn't you?
I'm sure this is one of the reasons the UN does not sanction their use.
because U238 isn't meaningfully radioactive.
Well I checked this and the science I read doesn't say anything about 'meaningfully radioactive', it says that the effects of U238 radioactivity as an emitter in the body are unclear and there hasn't been a large enough sample size of human beings exposed to U238 to understand the effects it has, on humans.
And to what isn't U238 'meaningfully' radioactive to? How do you know? Did you check the evidence? Because I did.
In the independent research with the most citations it seems that one of the cruelest deception played on the veterans is that uncovering *which* of the symptoms are caused by DU because they were also exposed to other heavy metals in pesticides and herbicides; in vaccines, including anthrax and botulinum toxin; in nerve agents: sari n, cyc losari n, tab un, som an, VX, multip le se ven, and no vac huks (nov ich oks); and in chemicals released from the Kamasiyah toxic chemical depot, which was destroyed by bombing and also subjected to petroleum products from the oil well fires.
So what has this got to do with u283 radiation? It turns out that because veterans were exposed to so many sources of heavy metal toxins it is preventing legal recognition of the harm caused by radiation, not that it isn't 'meaningfully radioactive'. A particularly salient and sobering paragraph from that paper:
Influential papers by physicists and several semi-official governmental organizations have attempted to eliminate DU from consideration by just such analyses (4â"8). These studies are not really independent, since each follows the guidelines, methodology, and risk estimates recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (9).
As usual, I'll do the thinking here and join the dots to make it easier to understand the ramifications. As a final act of contemptuous betrayal of the soldiers what the ICRP was attempting to do was set up a research framework that led to the conclusion that the veterans suffering was all in their head. This is news to me too, even I didn't think the Nuclear Industry was that fucking despicable.
That is where your 'claim' that du is not 'meaningfully radioactive' comes from, so perhaps you should check the papers you read for ICRP influence.
How incredibly fortunate for us then, to have such a large sample size to study over the coming years in the populations of Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan and establish what the true radiological effect of depleted uranium is on a population.
No, I'm not going to teach you basic science. This is/., you're expect to do that work yourself.
That sounds like usual cop out for those suffering the effects of of social proof not being able to challenge their belief system with any evidence. I present the science, you say its is b
Slashdot Mirror
All solar energy is area dependent and will scale linearly in a similar manner.
Indeed it is area dependant however I think you are referring to photovoltaic as opposed to Solar thermal which has line and point modes of collection. IIRC the output of point mode stations quadruple as the size of the station doubles because the higher temperatures achieved at the point.
Obviously there are limits to the largest size, however we are nowhere near that yet.
1. The military hardly uses plutonium. Enriched Uranium was eventually where it's at
Any form of your 5th point would use plutonium.
2. We haven't seen lots of exploration for new uranium sources because we've been running off the military stockpiles for the last 20 or so years. It's depressed the market enough that expanding mining wasn't worth it. That source is coming to an end, ergo more mining operations are starting up.
The biggest problem with the mining of uranium is the amount of energy required to extract the ore from the rock...
3. Even without expansion of exploration like we've seen with oil/gas, we have enough Uranium within about double the current price to last several hundred years.
...and all of the new sources coming on line are all from harder ores i.e. it takes more enrgy to extract from the granite ore bodies than it does from sandstone ore bodies. This means the energetic output of your reactor is soaked up by the energy you used to get the fuel in the first place.
4. Before price increases would make the fuel costs for a nuclear plant 'significant', IE something you'd actually see in your electricity bill, we'd be able to filter the stuff out of sea water profitably.
Again this becomes an issue of how much energy goes into getting the uranium out of the seawater, you would probably look to extracting uranium from coal station smoke stacks or from the fly ash before turning to seawater
5. Breeder reactors allow much more complete burn up, which means that about 80-90% of all the 'waste' we currently have sitting around can be turned into new fuel.
Well you probably mean 'burner' reactors at that rate, and they have to acheive 20% (and then it's fuel reprocessing - but thats the integral bit) and then provided we have the materials technology to build that reactor. Sure the prototype IFR is very promising but after all the other factors are accounted for, like burn up rate (even at 20% as compared to the current 0.3%), reactor availability you are still left with a reactor that has to be decommissioned after 50 years and then you use up even more energy because you can't demolish it like any normal building.
So these other factors are also considerations when weighing up the energetic viability of the fuel cycle.
In short: The solar future doesn't look as bright once you start to scale it.
I think you will find that Solar thermal generation doesn't scale in the way you have assumed.
Harvesting the energy around houses and decentralizing the grid will have an impact on the IT industry to develop technology to manage it. It seems to me that adopting wind and solar would present some really interesting challenges and opportunities for manufacturing as well.
With politicians crapping on about jobs growth but not where it is coming from it seems to me this is the elephant in the room.
Legitimate intelligence gathering is a good thing. Intelligence operations that hide corruption or incompetance is not.
Copying movies isn't really white collar crime though where peoples life savings are often defrauded from them. I'd like to see the courts *enforce* penalties against those who ruin the lives of so many for their own compulsive greed so that they are in prison for ten years.
Bur not people who copy movies.
For sure. It's ridiculous that this is even an issue when corruption in corporate and government areas are treated as trivial when they affect a lot of peoples lives. Where are copying movies is affecting a few peoples lives, so existing punishments are not really equitable.
Nope. Violence is the problem, not the solution.
Exactly!
There isn't one solution. But every decision you make shapes the world, and the beginning is to be conscious of that.
Which is why the best thing we can do to help is probably just watch the doc and be aware of the situation so we can apply pressure to the Indian government to address the issues.
When the government insists that women are at fault for their own rapes, then there is provably an actual culture of rape. Period, the end.
Oh, there is no doubt about that however it's not the only problem that exists there. For a moment imagine driving on the roads of a country where the people can learn to drive but they can't read the road rules. Our perception of India is based on our perception of our own countries where as it should be based on barely controlled chaos that for some strange reason, works.
You do anything you would do in any western country but it's three times bigger than America's populace and still a democracy. Wonderful and dangerous at the same time. I wouldn't say uncivilised but it is wild.
Islam has the same issues with womens rights and rape, how can we fix it? The men of those cultures have to fix it the same way western cultures had to deal with domestic violence and rape in the 1970s. I'll also point out that the case of the Australian girl is different from the one mentioned in this story.
When these things can happen in public and no one gets in trouble, there is a culture of rape.
The fact that a small minority of Indians are protesting against it doesn't change the fact that they live in a culture which protects and even encourages rape.
You're right, I agree and I think a lot of *educated* Indian men would agree - but they are in the minority. But what do you want the culture to do - get a lynch mob and tear the rapists apart? It already happens to people in vehicle accidents and you will find dealing with the police there a rather unpleasant experience. Of which I can tell you, from experience, is something you would rather avoid as it is very corrupt, more opportunists only this time with automatic weapons.
Very bad business.
I was in Pune when a report of a rape of an Australian girl in New Dehli came through. Basically they dragged her into a bus and a mob raped her on the bus while they drove around the city, they threw her out at a hospital but she died from her injuries.
A week later another one happened to an American girl, a photographer who was with a guide. They beat up the guide and tied him up while 5 raped her over two days in a run down factory in Mumbai. What was pretty fucked up is that somehow the police made out that it was her fault...somehow. The police are corrupt and they have automatic weapons.
A quizzed some of my Indian colleagues and they hated the rapists and were ashamed that such a thing happened, who wouldn't? So when I walked around the city and found myself in some of the rougher parts of town I got a real idea of why. So many people, everywhere is a mass of annonimity. When I realised where I was and that I was looking a a phone to navigate I realised that I was a real target for being robbed. I put the phone away, held my head high and thought 'c'mon sisterfuckers'. I'm 200lbs and have been training a variety of martial arts for 20years plus - but I knew that some of these guys were prepared to have a go - even if they could tell some of them would be hospitalised. Being street smart in your own country is nothing compared to being street smart on Indian streets but it helps. The little people sleep in the rain and it's no place for a western woman who is a gora.
I did eventually get robbed, during Ganesha by two kids who hit me with a whip on the leg, dived for my pockets and grabbed the cash I had there - even waved it in my face - I let them go saying 'ok ok - you got me - now fuck off'. Everyone is trying to make a buck and it's not that Indian men are all rapists but I think the poor have to be master opportunists to survive and some of them are rapists.
I'll be happy if I can use this software to help.
If you can compose, out of your head, in under five minutes, a find -prune command that executes a gawk script that selectively runs bash commands, and successfully run that script against a 10 million node filesystem on a heavily loaded mission critical box, and nothing breaks, you are linux skilled.
Yeah, funny thing is I had to do that not so long ago but filling in the change request takes a whole lot longer!
Sure, but those VMs don't exactly create a ton of job opportunities (which is why they're so popular - you don't need a huge staff to run a server farm of VMs). Companies go to VMs in "the cloud" because it's cheaper - fewer people on the payroll. So, they lay off most of their linux workers and hire one VM specialist. Sounds like many linux jobs are in danger.
Whilst it is a perception that I can agree with my experiences are that the underlying issues created by using VM infrastructure is that it creates new classes of issues that frustrate organizations from utilizing the VM infrastructure that they get. Few people understand these issues until they come up to configuring CPU and IO schedulers in virtual environments.
It may be easy to build a VM but you have to configure it differently or it has an effect on other VMs that you didn't intend - some of those failure modes are difficult to detect and replicate (and the results are sometimes as amusing as they are annoying).
That said, Openstack and Xen are two really interesting technologies.
Within the weird world of weplicated wetware widgets.
lols :) - thanks!
Inside the Weird Wobbly World of 3D Printed Body Parts
this is pretty wow to me!!
...is pretty important, and you should refactor when needed if only just for that. It'll spread all over rest of the code in many ways, in good ways.
Exactly, and that good way is reliability which is something I observe the study doesn't measure so whilst it's good to challenge the current wisdom, there seems to be a few holes here.
First up I don't think 4500 lines of code is a good was to asses the interaction complexity of applications where the codebase exceeds 10 or 20 times that number. Second I may write a functional prototype of code knowing full well that I or someone else will refactor later when we have a better idea of how things are functioning.
Unexpected failure modes are going to exist in the software. The whole point of doing things the 'Agile' way is to provide incremental improvement so things get better. The paper talks of XP but what if you are using DSDM instead of programming pairs, in that case you are *expecting* to refactor often as you explain the domain or new concepts are introduced. That's not scope creep, it's being honest and admitting you don't know everything.
In my experiences the most powerful concept is the vocabulary you build as you begin to understand the domain better. I've found refactoring is the opportunity to 'put things in the right place' to define the vocabulary which makes things easier on myself and my colleagues a year or two later when someone asks if they can have this extra feature. Sure we should be using certain design patterns when implementing code from the beginning however I'm certain I'm not alone in confronting a codebase and wondering why certain methods are implemented in the controller instead of an information expert and spending the next week refactoring to avoid peoples heads exploding when methods are duplicated...but they don't work the same.
that's my 2 cents...
Accept this, as you have uncovered something they didn't know and can potentially damage them.
I did this with a government tax office and tried to alert them by calling the very number they advertised to handle this sort of issue. The response went like this:
The problem is, you want to help them and all they can see is 'random person the phone saying we have a problem' so it is easier to solve you. If the company is responsible enough to have a CERT team and a reporting mechanism you may stand a chance but it is more likely you will draw their ire because you can hurt the companies reputation.
If you can't change institutions then you should consider establishing what their data privacy policies are, hire a lawyer and then frame legal action to protect your own data whilst seeking damages to the value of your life earnings for exposing you to identity theft and fraud. You should be pissed off.
They won' t play nice so neither should you. Seek legal advice about the possibility for damages because you have been exposed to fraud. Leave it to them to discover the mechanism, because if they are that bad there are probably more.
Can we now sue corporations for influencing the political process with lobbying.
Huh, how brains work isn't interesting! Just because it's popular doesn't make convincing yourself that you're indifferent any cooler.
I suppose you are right and I don't mean it that way. The stuff about the brain interpreting colours is interesting but I find that when hollywood gets involved in geek stuff they make it lame and uninteresting.
and then I realized I just don't care.
That's about the time they discover there is a difference between radiation and radio isotopes, that one is an emission and the later is an emitter. After that they find out that particular radio isotopes appear to be particular micro-nutrients to metabolisms and bio-accumulate in the foodchain. After that they discover there is multiple pathways for radio-isotopes to get into the body via inhalation/food/water. Then they discover that once the radio isotope is in the human body the energetic alpha/beta/gamma emissions take about six years to gestate cancer in the body.
Hopefully more /.ers will realize this and start to understand what the issues are.
Indeed. Though the science I've been reading says that the effects of radiation emitted from DU are unclear on humans. I'll refer you to my earlier post for my summary of the science. Apologies for some of the language dealing with the troll.
DU has an unusual property where it has spontaneous fission and its energetic emissions jump from 4 to 240Mev (I think its the alpha emissions) whilst it decays. However that is not the point I was trying to make.
The point I am trying to make is not the source of radiation but a source of radio isotopes. That a nuclear bomb lets its energy out all at once and leaves much less than the original mass (~50Kg) as fall-out in the form of radio-isotopes.
In comparison with DU of which there is almost 2 tons spread around the country as a ceramic aerosol.
Deep down Americans are also just people. I don't believe that American citizens would allow this behavior to continue if they understood the consequences would attach them to such shame.
FUN FACT: Under the 2005 energy act nuclear protesters and local residents cannot affect or interfere with the deployment of a nuclear reactor BY LAW. Nuclear power isn't being deployed because it's a risky investment that no one wants to put money into.
FUN FACT: Chernobyl released ~5000000000 recurrent fatal cancer doses in the form of pu239 radio isotope alone.
For the same reason that anyone expects to get paid for their work. If a software house sells a license to a compiled version of their software, they expect to get paid. In the same way musicians should be paid for the music they record and *render* through a production process. The tracking, mixing, production and mastering of music is a very expensive time consuming process, even today. It used to be more so but now it's at least accessible and roughly the same effort as producing software.
The only difference is that musicians aren't seeking to engage in a contract with the listener because they want to listen. For a similar piece of software there are terms and conditions for you to be able to pay to use the result of the software developers performance. Why is music any different?
The process of recording the music is demanding. Just because the cumbersome media is gone doesn't mean the cumbersome production process is gone and someone has to pay for that. It was that delivery mechanism that enabled the music industry to be created. Now its relationship to the artist is parasitic.
The scarcity now, is music that is worth paying for and, that's why mp3s are good advertising. Part of the confusion is the industry has moved on from analogue production and distribution process to a new business model of digital production and distribution. As many in IT have said, the music industry is a failing business model that treats it's customers like thieves and it's talent like slaves.
Musicians and IT folk have a lot in common, many do IT because they love the work. The music industry would have you believe that they should profit on the rescue of that production system or that software you wrote because you love it to do it. They would have you believe that they own the copyright on the application you developed and are entitled to the profits of the software business you built.
This is the 21st century, why isn't a recorded work a performance?
I can most certainly assure you that when my friends record we are seeking a performance that is as close to perfect as we can possibly get. It's not just a performance, it's THE performance. However most people haven't been through a recording session, actually most musicians haven't so they can't tell you what it's like. The ones that can, without cracking under the pressure whilst producing a performance good enough to be recorded, mixed, produced and mastered deserve to be paid for it because it is really hard work. Much like any Agile software project.
The only difference is a software developer doesn't pay $50,000 for the privilege of working an agile project, to work harder than anyone does in their day job to produce a recording that most people might not pay for however, that is what musicians are being asked to do.
Like any other business, the musician takes a risk to build a music business out of a relationship with an audience. Why is that any different from any other business who has product to move trying to earn a return on their investment in a project?
Why? The lo
Friend, you say that as if these people have a choice. They don't. It burns at 3000-6000 degrees and oxidizes into an insoluble ceramic aerosol. As an aerosol it is in their air and it is in their drinking water. How do you suggest they avoid ingesting them?
Yes, others have pointed that out. However you also said the scare-mongering over depleted uranium being somehow seen as more toxic than lead when its toxicity is still being evaluated in veterans and proving to be quite a serious issue for those exposed to it. So whilst your claim of no one cares about the uranium in granite countertops might be true I'm sure people would feel differently about it being in their air and water supply. Wouldn't you?
I'm sure this is one of the reasons the UN does not sanction their use.
Well I checked this and the science I read doesn't say anything about 'meaningfully radioactive', it says that the effects of U238 radioactivity as an emitter in the body are unclear and there hasn't been a large enough sample size of human beings exposed to U238 to understand the effects it has, on humans.
And to what isn't U238 'meaningfully' radioactive to? How do you know? Did you check the evidence? Because I did.
In the independent research with the most citations it seems that one of the cruelest deception played on the veterans is that uncovering *which* of the symptoms are caused by DU because they were also exposed to other heavy metals in pesticides and herbicides; in vaccines, including anthrax and botulinum toxin; in nerve agents: sari n, cyc losari n, tab un, som an, VX, multip le se ven, and no vac huks (nov ich oks); and in chemicals released from the Kamasiyah toxic chemical depot, which was destroyed by bombing and also subjected to petroleum products from the oil well fires.
So what has this got to do with u283 radiation? It turns out that because veterans were exposed to so many sources of heavy metal toxins it is preventing legal recognition of the harm caused by radiation, not that it isn't 'meaningfully radioactive'. A particularly salient and sobering paragraph from that paper:
Influential papers by physicists and several semi-official governmental organizations have attempted to eliminate DU from consideration by just such analyses (4â"8). These studies are not really independent, since each follows the guidelines, methodology, and risk estimates recommended by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (9).
As usual, I'll do the thinking here and join the dots to make it easier to understand the ramifications. As a final act of contemptuous betrayal of the soldiers what the ICRP was attempting to do was set up a research framework that led to the conclusion that the veterans suffering was all in their head. This is news to me too, even I didn't think the Nuclear Industry was that fucking despicable.
That is where your 'claim' that du is not 'meaningfully radioactive' comes from, so perhaps you should check the papers you read for ICRP influence.
How incredibly fortunate for us then, to have such a large sample size to study over the coming years in the populations of Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan and establish what the true radiological effect of depleted uranium is on a population.
That sounds like usual cop out for those suffering the effects of of social proof not being able to challenge their belief system with any evidence. I present the science, you say its is b