You ask for citations but haven't provided them yourself. You freely admit to not reading the citations when that are provided. You can criticize my numbers but they were provided for people to lazy to do the work themselves. If you don't like the frame of reference I've provided, so that you have to do less thinking, provide the math yourself. You have the references, go dig out the peta joules figures for decommissioning and do the work for yourself.
Where are your numbers for AP1000 lifetime output in peta-joules?
Define 'tested'.
Go look up the NRC's definition.
We can't realistically get rid of the old reactors until we get new reactors built.
Why?
Or maybe I'm more familiar with how complex modern(ish) aircraft are.
And perhaps I am more familiar with the relevant aspects of how complex the Nuclear reactors are. You are the one who wants to talk in car analogies.
Except of course that we now have a bunch of them still operating that are older than that.
Citation please - where are this bunch of functioning 60 year old power reactors?
I think you're full of it.
Considering your last statement, that's quite ironic. If you have a valid argument, then back it up with some facts of your own.
I'm trying hard not to be as rude to you as your are being to me. Read my sig, I'm not talking about my ism's. Your welcome to your opinion however despite your numerous calls for citations, which were provided, you are yet to provide any of your own - or any work of your own whilst admitting you haven't even examine the citations you asked for in the first place.
-The kernel efivars implementation: for modeling these things as plain files with 'rm' meaning delete from firmware (you can rm/dev/* all day long, and not actually affect any of the referenced devices). Should have made removal be a special ioctl, even if otherwise normal files.
IIUC, so that when you remove the character device it doesn't allow and unlink to reach the UEFI? Is that the implementation issue you mean? Surely the kernel can abstract the access to UEFI to allow writes to pass and just remove the character special device on an unlink so the machine still boots the hardware.
I do rm -rf / more often than you would think. Sometimes I deliberately fail systems this way while they are running so I know how they fail when I loose a filesystem with a running application, it helps identify what is happening if I see the same thing occurs on live systems. It doesn't mean I want to trash the test boxes though.
This kind of explains some hardware failures of some hypervisors we had last year. We were scratching our heads at how voltage spike could take out two machines the same way through 10 of thousands worth of power conditioning gear whilst they were powered down, they both had corrupted UEFI bios, everything else was fine.
I don't think anyone is going to convince you that it's a cat's nature is to hunt and kill, no matter how big or small. Probably because you love cat's and don't want to believe they can do that much damage.
The issue is not whether cat's are or are not responsible, the issue is responsible pet ownership. Cat's are beautiful animals and wonderful companions for people, however they are not toy's and many get dumped. When they are feral, they are quite vicious and, they are as equal an issue as other introduced predatorial species.
It's not the animal's fault, it's people's fault for not controlling them. I have several friends who have cat enclosures that extend inside and outside of the house. That is them accepting the responsibly of owning a cat and the steward ship of other animals that aren't pets. I've got nothing against people owning pets and controlling them in their own home, birds in cages, cat's in houses and dogs in back yards or laundries and on a leash elsewhere.
Outside of the confines of a domestic situation they are to be destroyed, including rabbits, foxes, pythons, cane toads, minor birds and anything else humans have introduced into habitat where they don't belong. Hopefully that might give native species a bit of help surviving and adapting and it's the least we can do considering how often we have fucked up this way.
Saying any pet with predatorial instincts released into the wild won't hunt or kill is like saying they won't get hungry or use their natural instincts to survive.
Ah, problem is that this isn't a valid conversion. Electric energy is 'more valuable' than heat energy, just to start with.
What isn't a valid conversion?
The conversion from petajoules a second to Terra Watt hours was to give those too lazy to make a conversion some context. If you are in possesion of the figures for the lifetime heat output of a AP1000 in petajoules then perhaps we can discuss it in that frame of reference?
Than currently existing reactors. My view is that we're debating the safety differences between a Honda Civic and a Toyota Corolla when everybody currently on the road are driving Model T Fords.
My veiw is we are debating two types of Nuclear Reactors, one (EPR) with systems that have been used and tested and one (AP1000) with a untested design compared to (GenII) established reactors.
Cars aren't highly radioactive at the end of their service life and they don't release radionuclides in an accident, so I think reactors are too complex to be compared to cars.
Even though aircraft still aren't as complex as a nuclear reactor, do you think aviation authorities would allow an untested aircraft design to make regular service routes with passengers?
There's plenty of energetic return.
I think I'll stick with the work of the Universities around the world and the work of the Nuclear Industry itself to base my opinion, that statement has been disproved by their work. I don't think you would be able to provide a citation to back that statement up.
The way things are going, they'll still be around after 100, like the B-52.
Not unless you can change the laws of physics and stop neutrons from bombarding the inside of the reactor vessel. That is what limits the service life of a nuclear reactor to 40-60 years.
" The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change considers sulfur hexafluoride to be the most potent greenhouse gas per molecule; one ton of sulfur hexafluoride has a greenhouse effect equivalent to that of 25,000 tons of CO2."
So much for green energy...
You may not realize that considerable amounts of uranium hexafluoride is created and used in the enrichment of uranium for reactor fuel as well.
What you say is anathema in a society ruled by free market capitalism that focuses only on the next quarter.
No it isn't. It acknowledges that to succeed you must first fail. Rarely is a first attempt at anything successful otherwise you wouldn't have a saying such as 'practise makes perfect'. Incremental improvement is how many things have been developed. This is no different.
I suspect that even if there is some doubt if this project will be successful the lessons learned from doing it and operating it will provide enough operational experience so that the next effort will have fewer failures.
By doing it you learn what problems have to be overcome.
To what figure? You have been provided with a citation for these before.
I tried googling it. It's also less than a decade of operation energy for the plant.
I think you mean the decommissioning figure. It comes in at just under a third of the lifetime output of an AP1000.
Still, it seems an odd metric, most everybody else uses money.
Yeah, I've seen that too. They use money to measure industrial energy consumption and convert that to petajoules.
1. Who says TMI's thermal containment ratio is the important part? TMI's dome didn't fail. To my knowledge, the dome has never failed in any nuclear accident.
So it's probably not a good idea to skimp on them. We've seen what happens when cooling fails on them.
2. Are you seriously saying that having the concrete dome act as a heat exchanger isn't something we can simulate?
No, I'm saying that reactor systems that get put into operation are based on operational experience and then built on. That incremental design in reactors is there for a reason and that there is no operational experience with containment domes acting as heat exchanges *and* containment facilities.
That means, the basis design issues have not been exposed and the failure modes are not known.
Consider Fukushima - even with 'strong' domes they ended up with radioactive release because they had to pass water through the system in order to keep them cool enough to prevent problems. If you design the dome to be able to transmit enough heat OUT OF IT, without circulating water, that allows you to keep tighter control of the radioactive materials. Which is the important part.
Since you mentioned Fukushima, it is a good illustration to compare to AP1000. American Society of Mechanical Engineers tested the GenII design and exposed it's two main failure modes by testing a full size reactor core that had not been fueled. They based the mathematical modelling to calculate predicted events based on the behavior of the reactor under certain circumstances, which led to process to operate the reactors for the owners to use.
Keep power to the cooling and to the gate pair seals for the cooling pools. That reactor failed exactly as predicted because there was a build up of reactor operating operation experiences that came from operating reactor systems and understanding them. How many tons of water were above the spent fuel, what pressure the reactor would be at when it started producing hydrogen.
AP1000 is a scaled up AP600 design, with a lot of missing changes that I lost interest in researching. So apart from the heat exchanger issue there is missing systems that should be present to suit the increased capacity, so it should be a larger reactor.
Testing a major new design like AP1000 would require a similar effort as the GenII, only on the dome instead of the reactor core, so you could understand the failure modes. You do that because you don't get a second chance. You need to know what it will do. How do you know what failure modes to expect. No, I don't think it is something we can simulate with enough certainty.
The important part is 'appears'. When I did the math on predicted core events, AP1000 was less likely to have an accident, but a fleet of AP1000 reactors with matching capacity to a fleet of EPRs would have a very slightly higher incident rate.
and that math is based on simulated experience instead of experience. So the predicted core events appear relevant.
Still, in both cases we're looking at around a couple orders of magnitude less likelihood of an incident, which is my point.
I thought the slashdot effect and being slashdotted were by far the highest form of endorsement based on competence, the ability to attract interest as opposed to forcing it on people. Perhaps it's the business model advertising can eventually evolve into. I found it most telling when people simply weren't ready for being slashdotted, that told me something about the sincerity of the people behind the product. They had spent more resources making something cool than on annoying ads.
To frame it in the context of a once popular slashdot meme, In Soviet Russia, you annoy advertisers.
Hi Logan - Thanks to you and BIZX for being interested in our community. Are you an employee or do you have skin in this game?
I've been here since 98 in various guises and post often enough. I post a lot but I rarely get mod points since the Dice folk took over, only if I meta-moderate which I don't generally do because I like to have the context of the conversation.
One of the real spoilers is the way shills destroy intelligent conversations here using moderation, you put an effort fact checking a post, taking the time to construct a quality post only to have it modded into oblivion. A mod troll, so to speak, that makes you wonder why you bothered.
Consequently most of the interesting conversation is at 0 where I got to see the massive underlying change to the type of users that frequent the place over the years. There are the shills, the propagandists, the advertisers and the trolls. Raw/. is not what it was.
I'm not suggesting to exclude AC's, some are extremely interesting, however it is undeniable that they have had an impact on this community. If you are listening perhaps a discussion solely dedicated to how the moderations system can work better is due. Perhaps BIZX's biggest asset is the community itself knows how it should work, listening is also value on investment.
Having said that I'd like to welcome our new overlords to a Beowulf cluster of Nancy Portman's hot grits in Soviet Russia.
I don't disagree with that, but the OP was implying quite strongly that it's ambiguous whether the government actually set up the 9-11 attacks:
"Is it possible to convince a few loonies to get on a plane and fly it into buildings so there are no leaks"
"I've never seen a forensic investigation of the crime scene that was 9/11 so I doubt that we will ever know for sure on this one."
The OP was saying that the US Government is competent enough to set up such a scenario. Since there has been no forensic investigation everyone is welcome to make up their own theory about what happened and it is no less valid than anyone else's.
His first couple paragraphs (which I didn't quote for length reasons) are actually a variety of scenarios by which he claims the US government could have taken down the buildings "with no leaks."
The US Government could do what it wanted. Insert scenario here. It's irrelevant how it happened, that doesn't even matter. You only need one piece of evidence for a conspiracy: NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION
One of the scenarios involved specifically designing a new class of drone with a huge fuel tank (and nobody would have noticed that they weren't passenger aircraft with hundreds of people aboard), another was that we could have used a missile battery and then killed the entire crew (without anyone noticing a missile crew was dead).
Bad shit happens. Generally the government uses the bad shit to try to justify more powers. That does not mean the government actually directs 100% of the bad shit.
So how much% do you think they control? Geeks with knowledge of how telephony systems and computers worked told us back in the 90's how modern surveillance had evolved from Stalin's era. They were told they were being paranoid and wore tin foil hats by people who didn't even know what Echelon, SIGINT or five eyes was even called. Turns out it worked how they said it did, but was a lot larger than anyone thought.
Thinking the US Government is incompetent, is incompetent because it generalises something that has many highly competent and motivated entities. Ask yourself if the US population is controlling it, answer, no one gives a shit.
After NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION, due process was removed with the stroke of a pen and nobody even batted an eyelid turning the US constitution into a parody of all democracies everywhere so yeah, we can agree, bad shit happens. It's happening, remain glued to the TV for further updates about a sale at Macy's.
Your missing the point. It doesn't matter how the terrorist achieved their goals, it's how our governments used that to achieve their political power goals.
A failure of government security doesn't mean they should be destroying the freedoms that our democracies are built on so that more security theatre is put in place. Democracy isn't a choice between a police state and a terror state. Security theatre is a parody of freedom.
The people building the SR71 blackbird aren't the people staring at the civilian radar, nor are they they people listening to air traffic control
That is not what I am saying. Ask yourself, as a theoretical possibility, would the technical skills exist in the US in 2001 to create such a device in a large aircraft that makes it drone "pilot-able". Are sufficient organizational skills available?
Back then would it be an impossible scenario, organizing for a jet to do something expected because the air traffic controllers are busy, as opposed to being incompetent?
What about an availability of competence that takes advantage of complacency and chaos being as possible as a bunch of brainwashed hokey human rights abusers in kaftans - except more reliable. What's possible or simplest explanation don't matter because it's one thing to detect a lie, but that doesn't mean you know why it exists, only that it's possible.
That's why a formal forensic investigation, no matter how large, was warranted.
I think it's a big mistake to treat the federal government as a monolithic organization with each part as competent as the other, or even that each part communicates in any way with the others.
I wholeheartedly agree. I would suggest that it would be as great a mistake to treat the federal government as equally devoted to truth, justice and freedom or understand their motivations. We've certainly seen our share of criminal actions come from government departments. My experience of most American's I've met is that they are good people, but I would be a fool to think there are some who would not put their interests above everybody else's.
The "Good Soviets" brought the USSR down from within with their corruption and this is the very thing that America's founding fathers warned were flaws in the constitution that would lead to despotism.
IIRC, " A despotic government fit to rule a despotic people " was how Franklin described his fear of the consequences.
It's hard to believe that the same government that built the SR71 blackbird and operated it in secret convincing many "useful idiots" that 'they aren't UFO's' is so incompetent that they couldn't stop a bunch of extremists from flying a plane into the largest buildings of the largest US city. How can any other security theatre be justified as effective in the wake of such a bungle.
Rather than theorize I ask if it is possible that the US military could develop drone aircraft technology in 2001 and deploy it onto a tanker aircraft? Is it possible to order remote crews to participate in an exercise that they will run from the pentagon as the bad guys flying a simulated plane into a building. Is it possible to order a missile crew to launch a missile as part of their exercise, who don't know it is aimed at a drone crew in the pentagon. Is it possible to use a hitman to take out the missile crew so there are no leaks.
OR
Is it possible to convince a few loonies to get on a plane and fly it into buildings so there are no leaks.
Of course not, it's all just speculation. Usually the simplest explanation fits which is really appealing to the dogmatic skeptic masses who want to believe they are just a little too smart to be deceived. No one would ever do such a thing because it would provide the justification is to clamp down on *your* freedoms to protect you from the extremists who hate you having those freedoms. You would somehow have to convince everyone that brainwashing a population is impossible, which of course it is because now we have a simple mathematical model to prove it.
There certainly are plenty of conspiracy theories about other things however I've never seen a forensic investigation of the crime scene that was 9/11 so I doubt that we will ever know for sure on this one.
Freedom, democracy, accountability have been demonstrated as the ultimate weapons against *any* terrorism because you might not have anything to hide, but you sure have got a lot to loose.
And this was exactly one of the existing exposed conspiracies that was used to develop the model. Specifically the PRISM program by the NSA.
People *used* to say it was all about people wearing tin foil hats. It turned out that if you actually know the truth and the truth hurts people, then they would prefer to stay ignorant and happy.
Ever noticed that when these companies want to protected their interests they say something along the lines of how badly it will hurt someone else:
Press: So Mr PR guy, what is your companies reaction to having this highly profitable but damaging line of business made illegal?
PR guy: Oh we are fine with losing billions in revenue, we've always known it was an unfair monopoly. What we are concerned about is that this will cause millions of cute puppies to die. We don't understand why the government is so intent on killing millions of cute puppies.
Ya know, it's not fair to lay it on the cats when they're brought into a closed environment,
No one is blaming the cats, it is their nature to be a predator. Blame the owners of the cats who won't acknowledge the cats natural instinct to be a hunter and won't keep their cats from going outside without supervision and for people who dump cats in the bush where they go feral. The situation where I live is different from you and the evidence of cats driving species to extinction is plain to see.
Nor does it account for that feline populations are pretty much limited to where man has already changed the environment. Which is really responsible for previous species going away??
Ultimately humans, for introducing the cats to where they don't belong and for not keeping them indoors.
There have been studies that noted that if it weren't for feral cats keeping the rat population in check, rats would quickly exterminate urban birds, because rats climb into nests and feed on eggs and hatchlings. (This was also my observation in an area where the cats got eaten by owls and the rats got out of hand... pretty soon there were no birds left. Not even starlings.)
That would be interesting to read if you could send a link to what you mean. Where I am we have plenty of species that eat rats but few eat cats. Rats don't hunt like cats hunt. I have watched a cat chase a rabbit into a moving car and you could see the cat timing the angle and speed of the attack to produce that result of the rabbit being hit by the car. That to me indicated a pretty sophisticated predator so native species have very little chance against them here.
For what reason should a cat to be allowed to roam off the property of their owner?
Do you have a specific objection to people keeping their cats inside the house and building enclosures for them to wander in outside?
Did they see their enemies driven before them? Did they hear the lamentations of their women?
I visited a tribe of islanders about a decade ago who told me the story behind many of the ornate carved tools and axes, that people so adored, were actually tools for cannibalism (another ism!). Ornate four pronged forks looked far more gruesome when you discovered they were made for eating human eyeballs and that odd looking hook on the back of the axe was made to hook out a portion of spine so that the quarry or victim could be kept alive and wouldn't spoil as they were eaten. Full on yikes, when you discover you are hanging out with a tribe of former cannibals!
The practise had only ended 150 years earlier when christian missionaries came and showed the tribes another way.
They told me that they had basically hunted the other tribe, who were literally seen as food, to extinction and that they allowed the last remaining woman to live with them . I bet it was fun for her watching everyone she knew being eaten then being promoted from being food to sharing her lamentations for the rest of her natural life.
This film may have gotten it right. Haven't read the short story ("The Sentinel") or book, but assume those opening scenes in the film were represented in the short story by Clarke. Apparently the book of the same title was written concurrently with the film's production and released after the film's release. For the film, the screenplay was co-written by Kubrick and Clarke.
It's been a long time however IIRC it is in the short story version.
Cats do too. Yes, that is a silly piece, not to be taken too seriously, but Google cats kill for fun and see 7M results, not all humour.
And the owners are responsible for a massive species extinction because they think their cat doesn't do that. If people have to lock dogs up - why should it be different for cats. Maybe we need a war on irresponsible pet ownership!
Well there is new kernel tech for it (https://www.thomas-krenn.com/en/wiki/Linux_Multi-Queue_Block_IO_Queueing_Mechanism_%28blk-mq%29).
That is really interesting, thanks for pointing it out. I missed your question when you posted it:
When do you decide to have a system managed service (for example apache) or a/etc/init.d initscript ?
If it is a process I want to stay up, then I use inittab. Apache is a pretty good choice for an init service, another example is databases or messaging systems. However , if it is someone else's system I just do it how they do it to fit in.
For example, apache could be be set up in inittab with a 'respawn' directive, so if the process is terminated it restarts automatically, if there is a problem with the service, and it won't start then, init will disable if it is respawning too rapidly.
Slashdot Mirror
You ask for citations but haven't provided them yourself. You freely admit to not reading the citations when that are provided. You can criticize my numbers but they were provided for people to lazy to do the work themselves. If you don't like the frame of reference I've provided, so that you have to do less thinking, provide the math yourself. You have the references, go dig out the peta joules figures for decommissioning and do the work for yourself.
Where are your numbers for AP1000 lifetime output in peta-joules?
Define 'tested'.
Go look up the NRC's definition.
We can't realistically get rid of the old reactors until we get new reactors built.
Why?
Or maybe I'm more familiar with how complex modern(ish) aircraft are.
And perhaps I am more familiar with the relevant aspects of how complex the Nuclear reactors are. You are the one who wants to talk in car analogies.
Except of course that we now have a bunch of them still operating that are older than that.
Citation please - where are this bunch of functioning 60 year old power reactors?
I think you're full of it.
Considering your last statement, that's quite ironic. If you have a valid argument, then back it up with some facts of your own.
I'm trying hard not to be as rude to you as your are being to me. Read my sig, I'm not talking about my ism's. Your welcome to your opinion however despite your numerous calls for citations, which were provided, you are yet to provide any of your own - or any work of your own whilst admitting you haven't even examine the citations you asked for in the first place.
IIUC, so that when you remove the character device it doesn't allow and unlink to reach the UEFI? Is that the implementation issue you mean? Surely the kernel can abstract the access to UEFI to allow writes to pass and just remove the character special device on an unlink so the machine still boots the hardware.
I do rm -rf / more often than you would think. Sometimes I deliberately fail systems this way while they are running so I know how they fail when I loose a filesystem with a running application, it helps identify what is happening if I see the same thing occurs on live systems. It doesn't mean I want to trash the test boxes though.
This kind of explains some hardware failures of some hypervisors we had last year. We were scratching our heads at how voltage spike could take out two machines the same way through 10 of thousands worth of power conditioning gear whilst they were powered down, they both had corrupted UEFI bios, everything else was fine.
The issue is not whether cat's are or are not responsible, the issue is responsible pet ownership. Cat's are beautiful animals and wonderful companions for people, however they are not toy's and many get dumped. When they are feral, they are quite vicious and, they are as equal an issue as other introduced predatorial species.
It's not the animal's fault, it's people's fault for not controlling them. I have several friends who have cat enclosures that extend inside and outside of the house. That is them accepting the responsibly of owning a cat and the steward ship of other animals that aren't pets. I've got nothing against people owning pets and controlling them in their own home, birds in cages, cat's in houses and dogs in back yards or laundries and on a leash elsewhere.
Outside of the confines of a domestic situation they are to be destroyed, including rabbits, foxes, pythons, cane toads, minor birds and anything else humans have introduced into habitat where they don't belong. Hopefully that might give native species a bit of help surviving and adapting and it's the least we can do considering how often we have fucked up this way.
Saying any pet with predatorial instincts released into the wild won't hunt or kill is like saying they won't get hungry or use their natural instincts to survive.
What isn't a valid conversion?
The conversion from petajoules a second to Terra Watt hours was to give those too lazy to make a conversion some context. If you are in possesion of the figures for the lifetime heat output of a AP1000 in petajoules then perhaps we can discuss it in that frame of reference?
My veiw is we are debating two types of Nuclear Reactors, one (EPR) with systems that have been used and tested and one (AP1000) with a untested design compared to (GenII) established reactors.
Cars aren't highly radioactive at the end of their service life and they don't release radionuclides in an accident, so I think reactors are too complex to be compared to cars.
Even though aircraft still aren't as complex as a nuclear reactor, do you think aviation authorities would allow an untested aircraft design to make regular service routes with passengers?
I think I'll stick with the work of the Universities around the world and the work of the Nuclear Industry itself to base my opinion, that statement has been disproved by their work. I don't think you would be able to provide a citation to back that statement up.
Not unless you can change the laws of physics and stop neutrons from bombarding the inside of the reactor vessel. That is what limits the service life of a nuclear reactor to 40-60 years.
" The Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change considers sulfur hexafluoride to be the most potent greenhouse gas per molecule; one ton of sulfur hexafluoride has a greenhouse effect equivalent to that of 25,000 tons of CO2."
So much for green energy...
You may not realize that considerable amounts of uranium hexafluoride is created and used in the enrichment of uranium for reactor fuel as well.
pencil and paper
What you say is anathema in a society ruled by free market capitalism that focuses only on the next quarter.
No it isn't. It acknowledges that to succeed you must first fail. Rarely is a first attempt at anything successful otherwise you wouldn't have a saying such as 'practise makes perfect'. Incremental improvement is how many things have been developed. This is no different.
I suspect that even if there is some doubt if this project will be successful the lessons learned from doing it and operating it will provide enough operational experience so that the next effort will have fewer failures.
By doing it you learn what problems have to be overcome.
To what figure? You have been provided with a citation for these before.
I think you mean the decommissioning figure. It comes in at just under a third of the lifetime output of an AP1000.
Yeah, I've seen that too. They use money to measure industrial energy consumption and convert that to petajoules.
So it's probably not a good idea to skimp on them. We've seen what happens when cooling fails on them.
No, I'm saying that reactor systems that get put into operation are based on operational experience and then built on. That incremental design in reactors is there for a reason and that there is no operational experience with containment domes acting as heat exchanges *and* containment facilities.
That means, the basis design issues have not been exposed and the failure modes are not known.
Since you mentioned Fukushima, it is a good illustration to compare to AP1000. American Society of Mechanical Engineers tested the GenII design and exposed it's two main failure modes by testing a full size reactor core that had not been fueled. They based the mathematical modelling to calculate predicted events based on the behavior of the reactor under certain circumstances, which led to process to operate the reactors for the owners to use.
Keep power to the cooling and to the gate pair seals for the cooling pools. That reactor failed exactly as predicted because there was a build up of reactor operating operation experiences that came from operating reactor systems and understanding them. How many tons of water were above the spent fuel, what pressure the reactor would be at when it started producing hydrogen.
AP1000 is a scaled up AP600 design, with a lot of missing changes that I lost interest in researching. So apart from the heat exchanger issue there is missing systems that should be present to suit the increased capacity, so it should be a larger reactor.
Testing a major new design like AP1000 would require a similar effort as the GenII, only on the dome instead of the reactor core, so you could understand the failure modes. You do that because you don't get a second chance. You need to know what it will do. How do you know what failure modes to expect. No, I don't think it is something we can simulate with enough certainty.
and that math is based on simulated experience instead of experience. So the predicted core events appear relevant.
less likley of an incident in what?
When it first came out I remember thinking of it's acronym that way, instead of Video Graphics Array.
I thought the slashdot effect and being slashdotted were by far the highest form of endorsement based on competence, the ability to attract interest as opposed to forcing it on people. Perhaps it's the business model advertising can eventually evolve into. I found it most telling when people simply weren't ready for being slashdotted, that told me something about the sincerity of the people behind the product. They had spent more resources making something cool than on annoying ads.
To frame it in the context of a once popular slashdot meme, In Soviet Russia, you annoy advertisers.
Hi Logan - Thanks to you and BIZX for being interested in our community. Are you an employee or do you have skin in this game?
I've been here since 98 in various guises and post often enough. I post a lot but I rarely get mod points since the Dice folk took over, only if I meta-moderate which I don't generally do because I like to have the context of the conversation.
One of the real spoilers is the way shills destroy intelligent conversations here using moderation, you put an effort fact checking a post, taking the time to construct a quality post only to have it modded into oblivion. A mod troll, so to speak, that makes you wonder why you bothered.
Consequently most of the interesting conversation is at 0 where I got to see the massive underlying change to the type of users that frequent the place over the years. There are the shills, the propagandists, the advertisers and the trolls. Raw /. is not what it was.
I'm not suggesting to exclude AC's, some are extremely interesting, however it is undeniable that they have had an impact on this community. If you are listening perhaps a discussion solely dedicated to how the moderations system can work better is due. Perhaps BIZX's biggest asset is the community itself knows how it should work, listening is also value on investment.
Having said that I'd like to welcome our new overlords to a Beowulf cluster of Nancy Portman's hot grits in Soviet Russia.
I don't disagree with that, but the OP was implying quite strongly that it's ambiguous whether the government actually set up the 9-11 attacks: "Is it possible to convince a few loonies to get on a plane and fly it into buildings so there are no leaks" "I've never seen a forensic investigation of the crime scene that was 9/11 so I doubt that we will ever know for sure on this one."
The OP was saying that the US Government is competent enough to set up such a scenario. Since there has been no forensic investigation everyone is welcome to make up their own theory about what happened and it is no less valid than anyone else's.
His first couple paragraphs (which I didn't quote for length reasons) are actually a variety of scenarios by which he claims the US government could have taken down the buildings "with no leaks."
The US Government could do what it wanted. Insert scenario here. It's irrelevant how it happened, that doesn't even matter. You only need one piece of evidence for a conspiracy: NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION
One of the scenarios involved specifically designing a new class of drone with a huge fuel tank (and nobody would have noticed that they weren't passenger aircraft with hundreds of people aboard), another was that we could have used a missile battery and then killed the entire crew (without anyone noticing a missile crew was dead).
No one said anything about designing a tanker drone, just deploying the control systems to an existing tanker aircraft. Such a situation is plausible if you think those capabilities existed in 2001.
Bad shit happens. Generally the government uses the bad shit to try to justify more powers. That does not mean the government actually directs 100% of the bad shit.
So how much% do you think they control? Geeks with knowledge of how telephony systems and computers worked told us back in the 90's how modern surveillance had evolved from Stalin's era. They were told they were being paranoid and wore tin foil hats by people who didn't even know what Echelon, SIGINT or five eyes was even called. Turns out it worked how they said it did, but was a lot larger than anyone thought.
Thinking the US Government is incompetent, is incompetent because it generalises something that has many highly competent and motivated entities. Ask yourself if the US population is controlling it, answer, no one gives a shit.
After NO FORENSIC INVESTIGATION, due process was removed with the stroke of a pen and nobody even batted an eyelid turning the US constitution into a parody of all democracies everywhere so yeah, we can agree, bad shit happens. It's happening, remain glued to the TV for further updates about a sale at Macy's.
A failure of government security doesn't mean they should be destroying the freedoms that our democracies are built on so that more security theatre is put in place. Democracy isn't a choice between a police state and a terror state. Security theatre is a parody of freedom.
The people building the SR71 blackbird aren't the people staring at the civilian radar, nor are they they people listening to air traffic control
That is not what I am saying. Ask yourself, as a theoretical possibility, would the technical skills exist in the US in 2001 to create such a device in a large aircraft that makes it drone "pilot-able". Are sufficient organizational skills available?
Back then would it be an impossible scenario, organizing for a jet to do something expected because the air traffic controllers are busy, as opposed to being incompetent?
What about an availability of competence that takes advantage of complacency and chaos being as possible as a bunch of brainwashed hokey human rights abusers in kaftans - except more reliable. What's possible or simplest explanation don't matter because it's one thing to detect a lie, but that doesn't mean you know why it exists, only that it's possible.
That's why a formal forensic investigation, no matter how large, was warranted.
I think it's a big mistake to treat the federal government as a monolithic organization with each part as competent as the other, or even that each part communicates in any way with the others.
I wholeheartedly agree. I would suggest that it would be as great a mistake to treat the federal government as equally devoted to truth, justice and freedom or understand their motivations. We've certainly seen our share of criminal actions come from government departments. My experience of most American's I've met is that they are good people, but I would be a fool to think there are some who would not put their interests above everybody else's.
The "Good Soviets" brought the USSR down from within with their corruption and this is the very thing that America's founding fathers warned were flaws in the constitution that would lead to despotism.
IIRC, " A despotic government fit to rule a despotic people " was how Franklin described his fear of the consequences.
What about the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job orchestrated by the government?
They aren't competent enough to orchestrate something like that. They also weren't competent enough to stop it, despite getting plenty of notice about some of the orchestrators. That doesn't make them any less responsible.
It's hard to believe that the same government that built the SR71 blackbird and operated it in secret convincing many "useful idiots" that 'they aren't UFO's' is so incompetent that they couldn't stop a bunch of extremists from flying a plane into the largest buildings of the largest US city. How can any other security theatre be justified as effective in the wake of such a bungle.
Rather than theorize I ask if it is possible that the US military could develop drone aircraft technology in 2001 and deploy it onto a tanker aircraft? Is it possible to order remote crews to participate in an exercise that they will run from the pentagon as the bad guys flying a simulated plane into a building. Is it possible to order a missile crew to launch a missile as part of their exercise, who don't know it is aimed at a drone crew in the pentagon. Is it possible to use a hitman to take out the missile crew so there are no leaks.
OR
Is it possible to convince a few loonies to get on a plane and fly it into buildings so there are no leaks.
Of course not, it's all just speculation. Usually the simplest explanation fits which is really appealing to the dogmatic skeptic masses who want to believe they are just a little too smart to be deceived. No one would ever do such a thing because it would provide the justification is to clamp down on *your* freedoms to protect you from the extremists who hate you having those freedoms. You would somehow have to convince everyone that brainwashing a population is impossible, which of course it is because now we have a simple mathematical model to prove it.
There certainly are plenty of conspiracy theories about other things however I've never seen a forensic investigation of the crime scene that was 9/11 so I doubt that we will ever know for sure on this one.
What I do know is that in the wake of "the conspiracy that wasn't" several laws that clamp down on *your* freedoms to protect you from the extremists who hate you having those freedoms reshape democracy into autocracy. Perhaps the conspiracy was "what if we could steal democracy from the people, how would we do that?".
Freedom, democracy, accountability have been demonstrated as the ultimate weapons against *any* terrorism because you might not have anything to hide, but you sure have got a lot to loose.
And this was exactly one of the existing exposed conspiracies that was used to develop the model. Specifically the PRISM program by the NSA.
People *used* to say it was all about people wearing tin foil hats. It turned out that if you actually know the truth and the truth hurts people, then they would prefer to stay ignorant and happy.
What about the one where various three letter agencies are snooping on all of your communications. Who would believe that?
Ever noticed that when these companies want to protected their interests they say something along the lines of how badly it will hurt someone else:
Press: So Mr PR guy, what is your companies reaction to having this highly profitable but damaging line of business made illegal?
PR guy: Oh we are fine with losing billions in revenue, we've always known it was an unfair monopoly. What we are concerned about is that this will cause millions of cute puppies to die. We don't understand why the government is so intent on killing millions of cute puppies.
Ya know, it's not fair to lay it on the cats when they're brought into a closed environment,
No one is blaming the cats, it is their nature to be a predator. Blame the owners of the cats who won't acknowledge the cats natural instinct to be a hunter and won't keep their cats from going outside without supervision and for people who dump cats in the bush where they go feral. The situation where I live is different from you and the evidence of cats driving species to extinction is plain to see.
Nor does it account for that feline populations are pretty much limited to where man has already changed the environment. Which is really responsible for previous species going away??
Ultimately humans, for introducing the cats to where they don't belong and for not keeping them indoors.
There have been studies that noted that if it weren't for feral cats keeping the rat population in check, rats would quickly exterminate urban birds, because rats climb into nests and feed on eggs and hatchlings. (This was also my observation in an area where the cats got eaten by owls and the rats got out of hand... pretty soon there were no birds left. Not even starlings.)
That would be interesting to read if you could send a link to what you mean. Where I am we have plenty of species that eat rats but few eat cats. Rats don't hunt like cats hunt. I have watched a cat chase a rabbit into a moving car and you could see the cat timing the angle and speed of the attack to produce that result of the rabbit being hit by the car. That to me indicated a pretty sophisticated predator so native species have very little chance against them here.
For what reason should a cat to be allowed to roam off the property of their owner? Do you have a specific objection to people keeping their cats inside the house and building enclosures for them to wander in outside?
http://www.australiangeographi...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Did they see their enemies driven before them? Did they hear the lamentations of their women?
I visited a tribe of islanders about a decade ago who told me the story behind many of the ornate carved tools and axes, that people so adored, were actually tools for cannibalism (another ism!). Ornate four pronged forks looked far more gruesome when you discovered they were made for eating human eyeballs and that odd looking hook on the back of the axe was made to hook out a portion of spine so that the quarry or victim could be kept alive and wouldn't spoil as they were eaten. Full on yikes, when you discover you are hanging out with a tribe of former cannibals!
The practise had only ended 150 years earlier when christian missionaries came and showed the tribes another way.
They told me that they had basically hunted the other tribe, who were literally seen as food, to extinction and that they allowed the last remaining woman to live with them . I bet it was fun for her watching everyone she knew being eaten then being promoted from being food to sharing her lamentations for the rest of her natural life.
Edwin Starr summed it up pretty succinctly.
This film may have gotten it right. Haven't read the short story ("The Sentinel") or book, but assume those opening scenes in the film were represented in the short story by Clarke. Apparently the book of the same title was written concurrently with the film's production and released after the film's release. For the film, the screenplay was co-written by Kubrick and Clarke.
It's been a long time however IIRC it is in the short story version.
Cats do too. Yes, that is a silly piece, not to be taken too seriously, but Google cats kill for fun and see 7M results, not all humour.
And the owners are responsible for a massive species extinction because they think their cat doesn't do that. If people have to lock dogs up - why should it be different for cats. Maybe we need a war on irresponsible pet ownership!
Well there is new kernel tech for it (https://www.thomas-krenn.com/en/wiki/Linux_Multi-Queue_Block_IO_Queueing_Mechanism_%28blk-mq%29).
That is really interesting, thanks for pointing it out. I missed your question when you posted it:
When do you decide to have a system managed service (for example apache) or a /etc/init.d initscript ?
If it is a process I want to stay up, then I use inittab. Apache is a pretty good choice for an init service, another example is databases or messaging systems. However , if it is someone else's system I just do it how they do it to fit in.
For example, apache could be be set up in inittab with a 'respawn' directive, so if the process is terminated it restarts automatically, if there is a problem with the service, and it won't start then, init will disable if it is respawning too rapidly.