There's no real point in continuing the conversation here, since it's obvious that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what happened back then.
The problem with the control rods is where they should have read the manual, because it was documented, and we know now that it was a mistake to have the reactor operating with control rods pulled out. It was neither a highly dangerous experiment or an order to wilfully disable safety mechanisms, but a combination of mistake from many people. Somebody decided it would be easier to use up a few monitoring channels, another somebody decided that it would be easier to disable a safety mechanism than to reconfigure it, somebody else decided to pull control rods, some other guys hadn't read the manual which would have told them that that isn't safe, and when the reactor got to a worrying power level, somebody decided to do an instant shutdown.
Blame the poor safety regulations if you want, but don't try to paint a picture of the evil commie empire trying to blow up the world because it makes you feel better. Otherwise, go back to drinking rain, for fear of fluoridated water, and give us all a laugh.
I do not oppose to nuclear energy per se, but pointing at the Russians and smugly believing that it proves nothing bad could ever happen at a western plant is what disqualifies people from discussing nuclear power. Admittedly, there were a number of issues with the RBMK reactor, and it probably wouldn't have been able to happen to common western designs, but then again it did have safety mechanisms which could have prevented what happened.
There weren't any "series of very dangerous tests", but a simple test to check whether the turbine would provide power long enough for the backup generators to start up, if the reactor was shut down. To do this somebody decided that they could spare a few of the channels normally used to monitor the reactor, so they could observe the test.
They then powered down the reactor to a very low level of power, but had trouble keeping the output constant. When they got it to the desired performance, a number of control rods were completely removed. That was a dangerous state to be in, and it could have been known, but somebody had not read the fucking manual.
Then, when they were about to conduct the tests, the reactor went crazy, and the operator decided to do an emergency shutdown of the reactor, but it was precisely this what caused the accident, as the rods, which were supposed to shut down the reactor, initially caused the water to boil, which lead to a fast boost in reactor power, and thereby caused the explosion.
There were a number of reasons why it was able to come to what it did, including the design and the lack of the kind of "safety culture" that many western plants have (although there are a number of western examples with bad records which haven't been shut down because of it) But Chernobyl is a classic example of human error and the consequences it can have. Mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket? Leading to chain reaction? That's a crazy thing to do, yet it happened in a "safe" Japanese plant! Pretending that everything is absolutely safe and that there's nothing to worry about because no "penis Russians" are involved is ignoring the numerous stupidities and accidents that have happened in the past, which is a truly ignorant thing to do. The biggest threat to safety comes from workers doing thing's they shouldn't, which is why reactor safety is sometimes synonymous with "fool-proof".
2. Reaction No fundamental problems here, just handling dangerous materials, have to be careful. The good thing is that you'll actually reduce the amount of radioactive material in the reactor.
Handling volatile radioactive fuel? Potential outbrake of uncontrolled chain reaction? Numerous points of failure? Some people with an almost complete lack of respect for regulations and instructions? The reaction process is dangerous, just look at Chernobyl. Although nuclear power has been relatively safe, but no one can deny that it is potentially highly dangerous, and risks can never completely be eliminated. The biggest problem has been human carelessness, and that is something you're never going to be able to prevent unless you insist on tighter regulations.
As far as reducing radioactivity: You know it doesn't work like that. Heck, Plutonium doesn't even occur naturally. Only an extremely small fraction of the fuel is converted anyway, which you first had to concentrate to use at all. You also have a cocktail of other materials, in some ways even nastier than your Uranium.
You could even put it in one of those trenches on the bottom of the ocean. Then it would naturally transported to the earts core, mixed through the magma and only resurface in a few milion years or so...
Before which the container would break, spilling a cloud of radioactive material in one of the planets most sensitive ecosystems.
Sorry, my mistake.
I just found something on their page about a a single-axis gyro that's in development.
But then, how come this gets a story? An blog entry by a lego enthusiast, about an idea of using a future product to try something cool? I want to see something.
From what I can see on the Hitechnic page, it isn't a real gyroscope but just a "tilt sensor", which would limit it's capability. I'd like to see something working.
Water Cycle != Carbon Cycle Also, read up on cloud albedo. (Hint: water condenses)
And in future, inform yourself about something you wish to give a smart-ass answer about, instead of thinking you know more than the worlds climatologists.
The Api's for Miis haven't been released yet, but you can your life you'll see 3rd party games using them before Sony gets this service up and running.
The PS3 also plays PS1 and PS2 games, thus making it's "good game library" much larger.
Is that really worth the price of a PS3, especially if you already have the two other systems? Plus, if I had to choose, I would much rather play a "Top 10" of GameCube games than PS2 games, but let's not go there any further.
And it runs Linux that'll give you Nethack.
I guess not having access to the systems accelerated graphics must suck, but does that really mean you should throw out 600 bucks for NetHack?
Actually, it pretty much is. It involves excitation of electrons in the shell, which is what plays the role in chemical reactions, and to the particle physicist, anything "up there" is "chemical".
That's because your fist has already gathered an impulse. If someone were to run up really quickly, and then kick the guy in the chest, it would be possible to stay where you are, but often the kick happens from a standstill. It would also work if you had a good support on the floor, either by kicking at an angle which would give you slightly better grip, or stepping on some gum.
"Radioactive" almost always means radiation emitted from nuclear decay, and that is always alpha, beta or gamma radiation. Something that emits exclusively in the visible spectrum has to be from a chemical process. So, while it's true that radioactive materials can glow under circumstances, it always means that there's a chemical process involved.
Let's see: Enforcement of speed limits: Police watch out for offenders, and fine people who break the law. Enforcement of copyrights: Known copyright infringements are punished according to relevant copyright laws.
That's how it's done, and always has been. The RIAA will still have a legal basis for suing single mothers-of-three for a zillion dollars, which seems to be their favourite hobby.
Well technically, the wording of the DMCA makes even that illegal. QTFair can be used to let iTunes decrypt a song, and reord the decrypted stream. Fairplay is a system to protect content. So anything that can be used to open it is technically illegal.
But I guess in the same way, Quiktime is illegal, because it cab be used to help circumvent the protection scheme.
Not too big, but considering that it only gets 25 tons to orbit it isn't something you'd like. For the first two flights the external tanks were painted white, but they scrapped that because they could save over half a ton of payload.
Now there's a possibility of someone taking someone else's copyrighted work and publishing it as her own work. That is criminal whether registration is required or not. When someone copies without permision they can have all sorts of explanations: they believed they had permission, they believed it's in the public domain etc. These excuses don't apply to registering someone else's work as your own.
No it isn't, and that's the point. Copyright is the only thing that prevents people from "stealing" other peoples work. If something isn't copyrighted, they have no such protection, and nobody can stop anyone from claiming it's theirs.
From what I've heard the rumours about the disc spinning constantly or backwards compared to normal drives were myths from the GameCube discs, which turned out to be regular DVDs with a slightly different encoder or something.
European Wii's have an option for 480p Qutput, aswell as the 576i PAL resolution. On the GameCube 480i was a pretty much standard option for Nintendo games (Metroid Prime 2 even required it). Depending on the games, the performance could change. (I remember in Rogue Leader there were a few slow-downs that didn't happen in the slower 50Hz mode.)
I assume you mean free as in Beer(no copyright, copy it from whatever you like).
The advantage popular artists have would only get worse though. With the current system, anybody can publish their own CD, or have an Indy label do it, get their CD sitting in store shelves, along with the big labels, have their songs on iTunes, and make some money from it. If they're good, they might become successful and well-known, or simply satisfy a small niche. With a patronage system, they would have to build up significant mindshare before they can make anything at all.
And generally, people will be bad at giving money for something they would get for free later anyway.
If I buy a CD and find out that it sucks only after I've actually listened to it, do I get my money back? No.
You can ask to sample the CD before you buy it, or you might hear the song on the radio. Basically, it shouldn't have to be a complete gamble when you decide to buy a CD.
The thing is that for a lot of people, registering for a copyright wouldn't necessarily be the first thing to come to mind, wheras the real pros will just do it for anything they make (just look at the way Microsoft applies for patents) What if an author wrote a manuscript, but couldn't get it published, and later found out somebody copied his work and registered it? He has evidence that he created the work, but without the registering it isn't worth a thing. Or a band writes a song, plays it a few times, and then hears that somebody has copyrighted it, meaning they can no longer play it.
The problem with requiring to register is the shear amount of content produced, and it would have no advantage whatsoever, only create unnecessary work. Anything worth using will have been registered anyway, which means you still have the same problem with the licensing. Fair use deals with the problems you mentioned. Quoting is explicitly allowed. Parodies are also possible, wheras direct derivatives do infringe on copyright. Hence, you can't sell a Harry Potter book that reads as a sequel to the existing ones, but the parody "Barry Trotter" is possible without any licensing.
Also, if you were to require a fee, that would mean an end to the open-source model (all the stuff is copyrighted), and that the "little guys" wouldn't register their content, so that it could be seized by big corporations.
You've got some good Ideas there. In my opinion, the best would be a standard copyright of something between 10 and 30 years, with no differences between corporations and individuals.
Registering copyright is crap though, because it hurts the little guy. Citations can be used freely, and a lot can be done with fair use.
That system would be begging for abuse. Do I get money back if it turns out crap? How likely is it that out of hundreds of thousand of musicians, good ones will be picked out before they actually create any content?
Doesn't this system make more sense: Artists can create whatever they like. Good stuff and crappy stuff. They can devote their own effort to it, or pay people to write their lyrics etc. If people like it, they can buy a copy of their work off them. The better their work is, the more people are interested, and the more they make.
I'm not saying they should have such long rights to their work as they currently do, but that the basic idea is great.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no real point in continuing the conversation here, since it's obvious that you have absolutely no clue whatsoever what happened back then.
The problem with the control rods is where they should have read the manual, because it was documented, and we know now that it was a mistake to have the reactor operating with control rods pulled out.
It was neither a highly dangerous experiment or an order to wilfully disable safety mechanisms, but a combination of mistake from many people. Somebody decided it would be easier to use up a few monitoring channels, another somebody decided that it would be easier to disable a safety mechanism than to reconfigure it, somebody else decided to pull control rods, some other guys hadn't read the manual which would have told them that that isn't safe, and when the reactor got to a worrying power level, somebody decided to do an instant shutdown.
Blame the poor safety regulations if you want, but don't try to paint a picture of the evil commie empire trying to blow up the world because it makes you feel better. Otherwise, go back to drinking rain, for fear of fluoridated water, and give us all a laugh.
I do not oppose to nuclear energy per se, but pointing at the Russians and smugly believing that it proves nothing bad could ever happen at a western plant is what disqualifies people from discussing nuclear power.
Admittedly, there were a number of issues with the RBMK reactor, and it probably wouldn't have been able to happen to common western designs, but then again it did have safety mechanisms which could have prevented what happened.
There weren't any "series of very dangerous tests", but a simple test to check whether the turbine would provide power long enough for the backup generators to start up, if the reactor was shut down. To do this somebody decided that they could spare a few of the channels normally used to monitor the reactor, so they could observe the test.
They then powered down the reactor to a very low level of power, but had trouble keeping the output constant. When they got it to the desired performance, a number of control rods were completely removed. That was a dangerous state to be in, and it could have been known, but somebody had not read the fucking manual.
Then, when they were about to conduct the tests, the reactor went crazy, and the operator decided to do an emergency shutdown of the reactor, but it was precisely this what caused the accident, as the rods, which were supposed to shut down the reactor, initially caused the water to boil, which lead to a fast boost in reactor power, and thereby caused the explosion.
There were a number of reasons why it was able to come to what it did, including the design and the lack of the kind of "safety culture" that many western plants have (although there are a number of western examples with bad records which haven't been shut down because of it)
But Chernobyl is a classic example of human error and the consequences it can have.
Mixing nuclear fuel in a bucket? Leading to chain reaction? That's a crazy thing to do, yet it happened in a "safe" Japanese plant!
Pretending that everything is absolutely safe and that there's nothing to worry about because no "penis Russians" are involved is ignoring the numerous stupidities and accidents that have happened in the past, which is a truly ignorant thing to do.
The biggest threat to safety comes from workers doing thing's they shouldn't, which is why reactor safety is sometimes synonymous with "fool-proof".
2. Reaction
No fundamental problems here, just handling dangerous materials, have to be careful. The good thing is that you'll actually reduce the amount of radioactive material in the reactor.
Handling volatile radioactive fuel? Potential outbrake of uncontrolled chain reaction? Numerous points of failure? Some people with an almost complete lack of respect for regulations and instructions?
The reaction process is dangerous, just look at Chernobyl.
Although nuclear power has been relatively safe, but no one can deny that it is potentially highly dangerous, and risks can never completely be eliminated.
The biggest problem has been human carelessness, and that is something you're never going to be able to prevent unless you insist on tighter regulations.
As far as reducing radioactivity: You know it doesn't work like that. Heck, Plutonium doesn't even occur naturally. Only an extremely small fraction of the fuel is converted anyway, which you first had to concentrate to use at all. You also have a cocktail of other materials, in some ways even nastier than your Uranium.
You could even put it in one of those trenches on the bottom of the ocean. Then it would naturally transported to the earts core, mixed through the magma and only resurface in a few milion years or so...
Before which the container would break, spilling a cloud of radioactive material in one of the planets most sensitive ecosystems.
Sorry, my mistake. I just found something on their page about a a single-axis gyro that's in development. But then, how come this gets a story? An blog entry by a lego enthusiast, about an idea of using a future product to try something cool? I want to see something.
From what I can see on the Hitechnic page, it isn't a real gyroscope but just a "tilt sensor", which would limit it's capability.
I'd like to see something working.
Water Cycle != Carbon Cycle
Also, read up on cloud albedo. (Hint: water condenses)
And in future, inform yourself about something you wish to give a smart-ass answer about, instead of thinking you know more than the worlds climatologists.
You paid for the PS2 Linux kit? Your really are insane.
The Api's for Miis haven't been released yet, but you can your life you'll see 3rd party games using them before Sony gets this service up and running.
The PS3 also plays PS1 and PS2 games, thus making it's "good game library" much larger.
Is that really worth the price of a PS3, especially if you already have the two other systems? Plus, if I had to choose, I would much rather play a "Top 10" of GameCube games than PS2 games, but let's not go there any further.
And it runs Linux that'll give you Nethack.
I guess not having access to the systems accelerated graphics must suck, but does that really mean you should throw out 600 bucks for NetHack?
Actually, it pretty much is. It involves excitation of electrons in the shell, which is what plays the role in chemical reactions, and to the particle physicist, anything "up there" is "chemical".
That's because your fist has already gathered an impulse. If someone were to run up really quickly, and then kick the guy in the chest, it would be possible to stay where you are, but often the kick happens from a standstill.
It would also work if you had a good support on the floor, either by kicking at an angle which would give you slightly better grip, or stepping on some gum.
"Radioactive" almost always means radiation emitted from nuclear decay, and that is always alpha, beta or gamma radiation. Something that emits exclusively in the visible spectrum has to be from a chemical process. So, while it's true that radioactive materials can glow under circumstances, it always means that there's a chemical process involved.
Let's see:
Enforcement of speed limits: Police watch out for offenders, and fine people who break the law.
Enforcement of copyrights: Known copyright infringements are punished according to relevant copyright laws.
That's how it's done, and always has been. The RIAA will still have a legal basis for suing single mothers-of-three for a zillion dollars, which seems to be their favourite hobby.
Not to mention the countless DRM-free records and CD's published in the past.
Well technically, the wording of the DMCA makes even that illegal. QTFair can be used to let iTunes decrypt a song, and reord the decrypted stream. Fairplay is a system to protect content. So anything that can be used to open it is technically illegal.
But I guess in the same way, Quiktime is illegal, because it cab be used to help circumvent the protection scheme.
I know, it's a crappy law.
Not too big, but considering that it only gets 25 tons to orbit it isn't something you'd like. For the first two flights the external tanks were painted white, but they scrapped that because they could save over half a ton of payload.
Why does it want me to register?
The guy's full of hot air, and a lot of Iran seems to agree.
No it isn't, and that's the point. Copyright is the only thing that prevents people from "stealing" other peoples work. If something isn't copyrighted, they have no such protection, and nobody can stop anyone from claiming it's theirs.
Got a source?
From what I've heard the rumours about the disc spinning constantly or backwards compared to normal drives were myths from the GameCube discs, which turned out to be regular DVDs with a slightly different encoder or something.
European Wii's have an option for 480p Qutput, aswell as the 576i PAL resolution. On the GameCube 480i was a pretty much standard option for Nintendo games (Metroid Prime 2 even required it). Depending on the games, the performance could change. (I remember in Rogue Leader there were a few slow-downs that didn't happen in the slower 50Hz mode.)
The advantage popular artists have would only get worse though. With the current system, anybody can publish their own CD, or have an Indy label do it, get their CD sitting in store shelves, along with the big labels, have their songs on iTunes, and make some money from it. If they're good, they might become successful and well-known, or simply satisfy a small niche.
With a patronage system, they would have to build up significant mindshare before they can make anything at all.
And generally, people will be bad at giving money for something they would get for free later anyway.
You can ask to sample the CD before you buy it, or you might hear the song on the radio. Basically, it shouldn't have to be a complete gamble when you decide to buy a CD.
The thing is that for a lot of people, registering for a copyright wouldn't necessarily be the first thing to come to mind, wheras the real pros will just do it for anything they make (just look at the way Microsoft applies for patents)
What if an author wrote a manuscript, but couldn't get it published, and later found out somebody copied his work and registered it? He has evidence that he created the work, but without the registering it isn't worth a thing.
Or a band writes a song, plays it a few times, and then hears that somebody has copyrighted it, meaning they can no longer play it.
The problem with requiring to register is the shear amount of content produced, and it would have no advantage whatsoever, only create unnecessary work. Anything worth using will have been registered anyway, which means you still have the same problem with the licensing.
Fair use deals with the problems you mentioned. Quoting is explicitly allowed. Parodies are also possible, wheras direct derivatives do infringe on copyright. Hence, you can't sell a Harry Potter book that reads as a sequel to the existing ones, but the parody "Barry Trotter" is possible without any licensing.
Also, if you were to require a fee, that would mean an end to the open-source model (all the stuff is copyrighted), and that the "little guys" wouldn't register their content, so that it could be seized by big corporations.
You've got some good Ideas there. In my opinion, the best would be a standard copyright of something between 10 and 30 years, with no differences between corporations and individuals.
Registering copyright is crap though, because it hurts the little guy. Citations can be used freely, and a lot can be done with fair use.
That system would be begging for abuse. Do I get money back if it turns out crap? How likely is it that out of hundreds of thousand of musicians, good ones will be picked out before they actually create any content?
Doesn't this system make more sense: Artists can create whatever they like. Good stuff and crappy stuff. They can devote their own effort to it, or pay people to write their lyrics etc. If people like it, they can buy a copy of their work off them. The better their work is, the more people are interested, and the more they make.
I'm not saying they should have such long rights to their work as they currently do, but that the basic idea is great.