You said: Better it was we who caught hope after it was opened. I replied:Well I guess that explains your talent for deceit then.
Funny, that's what I thought when I first read your reply. You were the one who chose to use the symbolism of the story, why _the_fuck_ do I have to *explain* it to you.
Is that the only way you have to "win" an argument?
If you present an argument, then I'll have an opportunity to.
If women don't find technical roles appealing IT project management is a good way, for those interested, to go. It's very challenging and crucial role in delivering software project.
WTF? Do you understand that the media is owned by only 6 conglomerates? Do you understand that news teams have entire departments that due to cost cutting measures journalists don't have time to even verify stories let alone those on the web and read RSS feeds? It's just easier to let that happen at Slashdot. I'm sure they would like to but most of them are under such time constraints and editorial deadlines that it's easier to let Slashdotters filter the stories of interest from the same sources they would.
I have noticed in recent times that there are a lot of TV shows picking up stories from/. - so much so that it seems really obvious. To me/. is my main source of useful news which I supplement with the (hard to find) quality journalism of Lateline - who don't seem to source stories from slashdot.
I wonder how long it is before many news sources get more news from/.
We almost certainly would have had World War III by now if not for the existence of nuclear weapons.
But the option is still on the table. We can still have a Nuclear War, just not WWIII between symmetrical opponents like the US and USSR. However, as these tests demonstrate, Russia and the U.S are still maintaining their Nuclear arsenals so the threat of a Nuclear exchange is still very much on the table. There has been no dis-armament treaty between any of the big players in the U.N Security council and the threat of an asymmetrical exchange of Nuclear weapons is now a real concern.
In reality what you are saying is the threat has gone from complete and total annihilation with Nuclear weapons to partial annihilation with Nuclear weapons. The premise of Nuclear weapons that made them a deterrent was Mutually Assured Destruction (or M.A.D) but now that you have the possibility of factional control of Nuclear weapons (for example in Pakistan) you now have an actual threat of someone using a Nuclear warhead AND of that conflict escalating via the monitoring systems of the big players.
So the question isn't how much they have cost, but whether that cost has been worth it.
Well I actually question the need for Nuclear weapons *at all*. Germany was in an impossible situation and the was no Nuclear strike there and there was no way that Japan, a country without *any* usable natural resources, was going to win a long term conflict with an industrial giant like the U.S. They were doomed to defeat from the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor. Had the U.S decided to act sooner than the last 5 minutes of WWI then I question that even Germany would have gotten as far as it did. Of course this is all as speculative as saying "we would have had WWIII by now", so I'm just mentioning that these are the historical circumstances that cast doubt of the actual need for Nuclear Weapons.
I wonder how much developing them so that the enemy wasn't the only one that had them has saved us.
So you're saying the U.S is the enemy are you? Because my memory of history is that the U.S had Nuclear weapons first and then the rest of the nuclear armed nations followed.
As a warmish rather than hot chick, I think, in general, that the smarter the man the more he values intelligence. Or that's what I keep telling myself, anyway.
You would be right to. Dumb girls are downright fucking annoying, smart girls are desirable and sort after. Even if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, once someone see's it, soon after, everyone else does to.
A hot chick maybe beautiful outside and ugly on the inside and so it is fleeting, a truly beautiful woman beautiful from the inside out. Intelligence is a most desirable characteristic in a woman. That's the difference between a hot chick and a goddess.
Linux since fedora 1, 2 screens always. First using matrox cards now I use Nvidia cards and ATI in the laptop. Nowadays I just use the Nvidia drivers in the Ubuntu restriced repo because it's basically so easy. Once compiz is going and avant is installed the linux desktop is pretty damn...pretty.
In particularly I'd really like to know what replaced the SR-71. A fairly advanced UAV could probably do it now.
It more than likely has already existed for some time. While any comment on the technology implemented is speculation, it is more than likely that treaty negotiations between the US and USSR to stop manned surveillance flights over each others territory _dictates_ that any current technology implemented for that mission is a UAV. It is unlikely that the US military would allow a gap in mission capability.
It is more than likely that the cost over-runs of the B1 bomber program were actually the development costs of the SR-91 and that any UAV technology we see implemented now is actually a descendant of the "SR-91" program on a different airframe.
It's fascinating that these two words went from a +3 insightful to a -1 flamebait. It shows that the multitude of M$ fanbois out there (fighting the good fight against evil open source) fear the end is near for their beloved windows, how pathetic.
This endorsement was cited simply because Linux is immune to the three main issues of security that are primarily vectors for fraud to occur, viruses, malware/spyware and privilege escalation which are all Windows issues. I didn't need to explain what, inevitably, would have been explained by someone else. You M$ fanbois complain when someone says 'M$' and if anything that is a positive endorsement of Linux appears you mod it down, I may as well have written 'M$ Windoze$ $ux - lol' as it would have been treated the same juvenile way. You are Mind$laves.
The CAIB report directly pointed it's finger at management "converting a memory of failure into a memory of success" and that Nasa management had learned nothing from the Challenger accident where poor management decisions led to the loss of both launch vehicles.
The U.S Navy criticised Nasa heavily, citing that it had assigned 5000 Navy staff to study the loss of the Challenger so it could improve practices in it Nuclear submarine fleet, Nasa assigned none. 14 of the 17 astronauts lost were due to management failure. Seems to me that to increase launch safety Nasa Management is a fairly obvious place to start.
Even if you factor in inflation, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Connecticut Yankee, Oyster Creek and many others were cheap even by fossil fuel standards. Totally paid for in private funds and with a lower cost per kw than most combined cycle gas plants.
Yankee Rowe, a controlled shutdown of a functioning reactor, cost half a billion dollars to clean-up and it was only 137 Megawatts, less than a quarter of the size of TMI-2. You have to wait to allow the *really* radioactive elements to decay. This is because new and highly radioactive elements are created in the reactor core. It's still not something that has been addressed in an industrially proficient way yet that makes the sites safe or 'greenfeild'. Considering the 104 reactor sites around America are multi-core the United States will be looking at a conservative estimate of a quarter of a *Trillion* dollars, at todays prices, on reactor decommissioning alone. Have you factored that into your costings?
China is building AP-1000 reactors at 2 billion dollars a piece and hopes to eventually cut that in half.
Proposed new generation 'once-through' reactor series like the AP-1000 are designed with significantly reduced containment. They have been designed this way to reduce the expense of building them, as the sheer volume of concrete required to build a reactor containment is one of the highest input costs as well as the third greatest contributor of greenhouse gasses.
The AP-1000 incorporates none of the design recommendations are specifically targeted at reducing the opportunities to sabotage a nuclear reactor installation. The AP-1000 incorporates none of the design changes the industry *itself* recommends be applied to reactor facility design. AP-1000 is a rehash of the Standard Westinghouse Nuclear Utility Power Plant (SNUPPs) examples of which are installed at Wolf Creek and Callaway, you will note in the picture the uncanny resemblence to the AP-1000 design (and similar capacity).
And you think China making them 'cheaper' is a good thing.
You cannot overcome the fact that nuclear energy has a greater density and return than chemical or mechanical energy.
Indeed. Unfortunately current materials technology limit the engineering required to extract all of that energy. Nuclear power plants are only capable of using less than 0.5% of the fuel, leaving 99.5% un-utilised. Please do not launch into a lecture about potential new technology that are not practical for materials technology issues, I know about IFR etc.
Even if it were initially more expensive (which it is not), it would still be worth perusing, because only through nuclear energy can we hope to break the bounds of limited energy, create a world of plenty, journey to the stars and beyond.
The problem with the Nuclear power debate is that it is so polarised. As soon as you talk about solving it's problems your labeled as 'anti-nuclear' by the 'pro-nuclear' people for mentioning the problems and labeled as 'pro-nuclear' by the 'anti-nuclear' people for actually talking about a solution. Either way there seems to be little room for the responsible nuclear advocacy required to move the industry forward.
There is nothing wrong with developing Nuclear power (simply to deal with the huge stockpiles of U-238 and pu-239) but without a proper, geologically stable repository it is completely inappropriate to consider the constructions of ANY TYPE of commercial reactor. If you want to advocate for Nuclear power then advocate a storage facility and appropriate support infrastructure to deal with an elements that are toxic into the 100's of thousands years. Be responsible for and handle it in our generation, because it's immoral to force some future generation to do it for us.
Solar, Wind, Geothermal are what's required now and they have not had adequate funding. Even doubling alternative energy research budgets would take 1/7th of the nuclear research budget.
Nuclear power was propaganda, "Atoms for Peace" so for a while it didn't matter what it cost.
Indeed, America's guilt for bombing Japan.
Once the cost started to matter, we saw may defaults and cancellations.
Companies (read Oil companies) can get up to half a billion dollars worth of subsidies for proposing "pre-approved" reactor designs, even if they don't build it, and a 1.8 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit if they do.
Nuclear power was never and will never be practical, it was political all along.
Case in point The Price Anderson act. If the Nuclear power industry was forced to cover it's own liability and fund itself it would cease to exist.
For some reason, when Nuclear power is discussed on slashdot a rabid fanboi attitude takes over and any actual intelligent debate or objectivity is lost. I don't understand it but there is a drop in IQ when Nuclear power is discussed, even when confronted with the evidence. Gross motherhood statements are modded 'insightful' - it's like there is a twitter for Nuclear.
That's why SF is dead. The plausible future sucks.
SF isn't dead - people's imaginations have been dulled to death by this vapid, empty society. The masses are interested in entertainment that mimics fast food, cheap, tasty but ultimately unsatisfying. The plausible future only sucks because all of the interesting advancements are locked up in patent vaults of the largest corporations in the world where they are traded to maintain the status quo and market share.
Science Fiction is a discourse about possibilities, therefore it is a dangerous idea because it makes people believe change is a possibility. Change imposes a disruptive force which is associated with risk, something that modern economists demonstrated recently they have great difficulty handling competently. Worst of all Science Fiction allows the possibility of hope, which means Science Fiction is being killed.
Because hope is the biggest threat to any established power.
If you stick to black and white, you don't need a CRT mask to separately illuminate the red, green and blue phosphor dots. Without this mask, you can get some very sharp images.
Slashdot Mirror
You said: Better it was we who caught hope after it was opened. I replied:Well I guess that explains your talent for deceit then.
Funny, that's what I thought when I first read your reply. You were the one who chose to use the symbolism of the story, why _the_fuck_ do I have to *explain* it to you.
If you present an argument, then I'll have an opportunity to.
If women don't find technical roles appealing IT project management is a good way, for those interested, to go. It's very challenging and crucial role in delivering software project.
Well I guess that explains your talent for deceit then.
Unable to accept responsibility. The USSR set off Joe One four years after the US. Pandora's box was well and truly open by then.
WTF? Do you understand that the media is owned by only 6 conglomerates? Do you understand that news teams have entire departments that due to cost cutting measures journalists don't have time to even verify stories let alone those on the web and read RSS feeds? It's just easier to let that happen at Slashdot. I'm sure they would like to but most of them are under such time constraints and editorial deadlines that it's easier to let Slashdotters filter the stories of interest from the same sources they would.
Jesus. Talk about unaware.
I have noticed in recent times that there are a lot of TV shows picking up stories from /. - so much so that it seems really obvious. To me /. is my main source of useful news which I supplement with the (hard to find) quality journalism of Lateline - who don't seem to source stories from slashdot.
I wonder how long it is before many news sources get more news from /.
Congratulations.
But the option is still on the table. We can still have a Nuclear War, just not WWIII between symmetrical opponents like the US and USSR. However, as these tests demonstrate, Russia and the U.S are still maintaining their Nuclear arsenals so the threat of a Nuclear exchange is still very much on the table. There has been no dis-armament treaty between any of the big players in the U.N Security council and the threat of an asymmetrical exchange of Nuclear weapons is now a real concern.
In reality what you are saying is the threat has gone from complete and total annihilation with Nuclear weapons to partial annihilation with Nuclear weapons. The premise of Nuclear weapons that made them a deterrent was Mutually Assured Destruction (or M.A.D) but now that you have the possibility of factional control of Nuclear weapons (for example in Pakistan) you now have an actual threat of someone using a Nuclear warhead AND of that conflict escalating via the monitoring systems of the big players.
Well I actually question the need for Nuclear weapons *at all*. Germany was in an impossible situation and the was no Nuclear strike there and there was no way that Japan, a country without *any* usable natural resources, was going to win a long term conflict with an industrial giant like the U.S. They were doomed to defeat from the moment they bombed Pearl Harbor. Had the U.S decided to act sooner than the last 5 minutes of WWI then I question that even Germany would have gotten as far as it did. Of course this is all as speculative as saying "we would have had WWIII by now", so I'm just mentioning that these are the historical circumstances that cast doubt of the actual need for Nuclear Weapons.
So you're saying the U.S is the enemy are you? Because my memory of history is that the U.S had Nuclear weapons first and then the rest of the nuclear armed nations followed.
I wonder how much lives, energy and money these weapons that we should never use has cost us.
You would be right to. Dumb girls are downright fucking annoying, smart girls are desirable and sort after. Even if beauty is in the eye of the beholder, once someone see's it, soon after, everyone else does to.
A hot chick maybe beautiful outside and ugly on the inside and so it is fleeting, a truly beautiful woman beautiful from the inside out. Intelligence is a most desirable characteristic in a woman. That's the difference between a hot chick and a goddess.
Linux since fedora 1, 2 screens always. First using matrox cards now I use Nvidia cards and ATI in the laptop. Nowadays I just use the Nvidia drivers in the Ubuntu restriced repo because it's basically so easy. Once compiz is going and avant is installed the linux desktop is pretty damn...pretty.
I don't understand what this guys problem is?
It more than likely has already existed for some time. While any comment on the technology implemented is speculation, it is more than likely that treaty negotiations between the US and USSR to stop manned surveillance flights over each others territory _dictates_ that any current technology implemented for that mission is a UAV. It is unlikely that the US military would allow a gap in mission capability.
It is more than likely that the cost over-runs of the B1 bomber program were actually the development costs of the SR-91 and that any UAV technology we see implemented now is actually a descendant of the "SR-91" program on a different airframe.
It's fascinating that these two words went from a +3 insightful to a -1 flamebait. It shows that the multitude of M$ fanbois out there (fighting the good fight against evil open source) fear the end is near for their beloved windows, how pathetic.
This endorsement was cited simply because Linux is immune to the three main issues of security that are primarily vectors for fraud to occur, viruses, malware/spyware and privilege escalation which are all Windows issues. I didn't need to explain what, inevitably, would have been explained by someone else. You M$ fanbois complain when someone says 'M$' and if anything that is a positive endorsement of Linux appears you mod it down, I may as well have written 'M$ Windoze$ $ux - lol' as it would have been treated the same juvenile way. You are Mind$laves.
The CAIB report directly pointed it's finger at management "converting a memory of failure into a memory of success" and that Nasa management had learned nothing from the Challenger accident where poor management decisions led to the loss of both launch vehicles.
The U.S Navy criticised Nasa heavily, citing that it had assigned 5000 Navy staff to study the loss of the Challenger so it could improve practices in it Nuclear submarine fleet, Nasa assigned none. 14 of the 17 astronauts lost were due to management failure. Seems to me that to increase launch safety Nasa Management is a fairly obvious place to start.
Use Linux.
Yankee Rowe, a controlled shutdown of a functioning reactor, cost half a billion dollars to clean-up and it was only 137 Megawatts, less than a quarter of the size of TMI-2. You have to wait to allow the *really* radioactive elements to decay. This is because new and highly radioactive elements are created in the reactor core. It's still not something that has been addressed in an industrially proficient way yet that makes the sites safe or 'greenfeild'. Considering the 104 reactor sites around America are multi-core the United States will be looking at a conservative estimate of a quarter of a *Trillion* dollars, at todays prices, on reactor decommissioning alone. Have you factored that into your costings?
Proposed new generation 'once-through' reactor series like the AP-1000 are designed with significantly reduced containment. They have been designed this way to reduce the expense of building them, as the sheer volume of concrete required to build a reactor containment is one of the highest input costs as well as the third greatest contributor of greenhouse gasses.
The AP-1000 incorporates none of the design recommendations are specifically targeted at reducing the opportunities to sabotage a nuclear reactor installation. The AP-1000 incorporates none of the design changes the industry *itself* recommends be applied to reactor facility design. AP-1000 is a rehash of the Standard Westinghouse Nuclear Utility Power Plant (SNUPPs) examples of which are installed at Wolf Creek and Callaway, you will note in the picture the uncanny resemblence to the AP-1000 design (and similar capacity).
And you think China making them 'cheaper' is a good thing.
Indeed. Unfortunately current materials technology limit the engineering required to extract all of that energy. Nuclear power plants are only capable of using less than 0.5% of the fuel, leaving 99.5% un-utilised. Please do not launch into a lecture about potential new technology that are not practical for materials technology issues, I know about IFR etc.
The problem with the Nuclear power debate is that it is so polarised. As soon as you talk about solving it's problems your labeled as 'anti-nuclear' by the 'pro-nuclear' people for mentioning the problems and labeled as 'pro-nuclear' by the 'anti-nuclear' people for actually talking about a solution. Either way there seems to be little room for the responsible nuclear advocacy required to move the industry forward.
There is nothing wrong with developing Nuclear power (simply to deal with the huge stockpiles of U-238 and pu-239) but without a proper, geologically stable repository it is completely inappropriate to consider the constructions of ANY TYPE of commercial reactor. If you want to advocate for Nuclear power then advocate a storage facility and appropriate support infrastructure to deal with an elements that are toxic into the 100's of thousands years. Be responsible for and handle it in our generation, because it's immoral to force some future generation to do it for us.
Solar, Wind, Geothermal are what's required now and they have not had adequate funding. Even doubling alternative energy research budgets would take 1/7th of the nuclear research budget.
Indeed, America's guilt for bombing Japan.
Companies (read Oil companies) can get up to half a billion dollars worth of subsidies for proposing "pre-approved" reactor designs, even if they don't build it, and a 1.8 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit if they do.
Case in point The Price Anderson act. If the Nuclear power industry was forced to cover it's own liability and fund itself it would cease to exist.
For some reason, when Nuclear power is discussed on slashdot a rabid fanboi attitude takes over and any actual intelligent debate or objectivity is lost. I don't understand it but there is a drop in IQ when Nuclear power is discussed, even when confronted with the evidence. Gross motherhood statements are modded 'insightful' - it's like there is a twitter for Nuclear.
Thank you for posting the articles.
I wonder what Steve Ballmer would think seeing a picture of him throwing a chair.
alittle irritating.
that things are getting to be ridiculous right about now.
SF isn't dead - people's imaginations have been dulled to death by this vapid, empty society. The masses are interested in entertainment that mimics fast food, cheap, tasty but ultimately unsatisfying. The plausible future only sucks because all of the interesting advancements are locked up in patent vaults of the largest corporations in the world where they are traded to maintain the status quo and market share.
Science Fiction is a discourse about possibilities, therefore it is a dangerous idea because it makes people believe change is a possibility. Change imposes a disruptive force which is associated with risk, something that modern economists demonstrated recently they have great difficulty handling competently. Worst of all Science Fiction allows the possibility of hope, which means Science Fiction is being killed.
Because hope is the biggest threat to any established power.
You mean like this vintage colour vector star wars arcade game - now I *really* spent some time in that machine growing up - somuchfun.
I wasted a lot of time playing that game - damn it was fun.
Satellite:cherhh Broo...
And they call themselves Star Trek fans??? - I'm glad someone got the joke - cheers!!!