"The Large Hadron Collider is the world's biggest science experiment. When spinning, it reportedly generates up to six gigs of data per second. Today's six-terabyte tape cartridges fill rapidly when you're creating that amount of material. The Economist reports that despite the advances in SSDs and hard drives, tape still seems to be the way to go when you need to store massive amounts of digital assets."
Asia is playing catch up very very fast, and before long, they might even get ahead of you guys !
Good. It's about time they started pulling their own weight.
Maybe they will even innovate some new tech instead of recycling old western ideas.
Then, their citizens will start becoming more educated, making more money, and trying to end the human rights abuses at home.
It's never been clear to me why the US is expected to always be the leader in space research and why other countries can't spend more of their own GDP to advance our knowledge of space.
Engineers at Duke University say they've constructed a device that can collect stray wireless signals and convert them into energy to charge batteries in devices such as cell phones and tablets.
It may seem like stray signal until they start stealing your packets!
-- Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment. There's ways you can relieve the burden on society, too.
Life imprisonment is harsher on anyone who who has to come into contact with lifers. A lifer has no incentive to behave in a reasonable way. If someone says the wrong word a lifer may kill them. The lifer is already subject to the harshest penalty possible. What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?
I lifer is a danger to every guard and inmate they come into contact with. The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.
In the US, the only part of a gun that is controlled is the receiver. What are the laws in the UK?
It's hard to believe that making or owning a trigger is illegal in the UK since low-power pellets guns (which use triggers) are legal. That said, UK gun laws are so restrictive, that I am sure they try to control high-capacity magazines. (UK high-capacity meaning more than two rounds.)
I just jumped on to FB and tried to like a post to see if it was true. Interesting results I received a "Please try again - An error occurred. Please try again in a few minutes.", tried to post a "Test post to confirm Facebook is broken" message was met with a similar error message.
Seems like the report is easy verify. Were you just too lazy to try it yourself and would rather spend your time raging against/.?
It's hard to verify for those of us that don't have facebook accounts!
Also, your reply is a bit snarky given that the article does read like a (poor) trouble ticket.
Base salary is only a fraction of the compensation. I work for one of the top 5 and the base plus stock per year for a fresh COLLEGE GRADUATE engineer is higher than the "average" salary listed for the company.
Yeah, it's not "bad data." That's what the article said:
"But it’s important to remember that base salaries don’t tell the whole story, says Scott Dobroski, Glassdoor’s community expert. “For example, while Facebook ranks ninth for average annual base salary on this report, Facebook employees receive larger bonuses and more stock options than some other tech companies on this list,” he said via email."
"Something else to consider: Because Glassdoor only includes companies where at least 50 engineers have submitted salaries, there are some high-paying companies that didn’t make the list."
You're clearly too busy making money to read articles that you are commenting on!
He should call it radiation pressure, not light pressure, because of the different wavelength of x-rays. But the problem is the same, physically he is correct.
The X-rays ablate the hohlraum walls. Those walls, which are not any form of radiation but rather ionized solid material, implode on the fuel and compress it. You could replace the lasers with some other source to ablate the hohlraum.
Thus, all compression is from the imploding hohlraum, not radiation and the statement "Doubt it. Light pressure is what compresses and heats the fuel." is incorrect.
The lasers only irradiate the inner walls of the hohlraum which generate X-rays. When those X-rays are absorbed by the outer wall of the hohlraum, it implodes and compresses the fuel.
X-Rays are photons. So the statement, "Light pressure is what compresses and heats the fuel." is correct.
Not really. The imploding hohlraum compresses and heats the fuel. The X-rays cause the hohlraum to implode.
As the hohlraum is not an X-ray, it does not directly compress or heat the fuel. Thus your statement is imprecise and misleading. You might as well say that electricity or burning coal compresses and heats the fuel.
FTFA: "Soon after, the $3.5bn facility shifted focus, cutting the amount of time spent on fusion versus nuclear weapons research - which was part of the lab's original mission."
Makes you wonder where we'd be now if we stopped pissing about on weapons research.
Doubt it. Light pressure is what compresses and heats the fuel.
Not true!
The lasers only irradiate the inner walls of the hohlraum which generate X-rays. When those X-rays are absorbed by the outer wall of the hohlraum, it implodes and compresses the fuel.
Light pressure would not be uniform enough to generate a uniform compression profile.
An F-16 can carry 4 2,000-lb bombs at the absolute most (and anything after two is risky on the wings).
It has 9 hard-points to hang ordinance on, but two of those (1 and 9) are wingtip rails, which means AIM-9 missiles. It will usually have 1-3 "bags" (fuel pods) hanging off of stations 4, 5 (centerline, under the fuselage), and 6. You'll need them in some combination to get any kind of real combat range (otherwise you're stuck with ~900lbs of internally-stored fuel, which ain't jack.) The big bombs would hang off of stations 3 and 7.
Now anti-personnel and fragmentary bombs? You can pack a buttload of 'em on that, and add in two AIM-9 Air-Groung missles to do some damage (which is what most ground-attack configured F-16's carry).
I am curious if they can slave in a LANTIRN pod kit onto the things and use that to get all-weather capability... though I can't remember if they retrofitted any of the A/B model jets to carry those.
You don't need as much fuel for a one-way trip. And a one-way trip is more acceptable if there is no pilot to lose.
Did anything change as a result? Did iPhone users suddenly wake up and not use their iPhones? Or switch to Android (ha ha, same privacy concerns, different companies)?
They got caught, took a few licks from the press, but ultimately the future refused to change.
Well, Steve Jobs died. Is that a good enough punishment for you?
Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Bullshit. You, sir, have apparently never been to a track day. I may not hit 200mph, but I regularly get my Ducati 1098 (another example of Italian looks-good-goes-fast technology) to a buck eighty-five. There are three pro tracks within a two-hour ride (one is only forty-five minutes away) from my house that have track days nearly every weekend of the year. For a fee ranging from $40 to about $150 per day, I can drag a knee at 120mph and tuck in for a speed run on the straight-away for hours on end. There are plenty of racing venues that cater to well-heeled speed freaks so we can ride fast in a controlled, reasonably safe environment for a trivial amount of scratch. So fuck you, coward -- too bad you will never get to enjoy the thrill of piloting an exquisitely engineered machine at the edge of its performance envelope. That takes money and balls, two (three?) things you obviously lack.
Impressive! You first acknowledge that the AC's statement was right in your third sentence and then proceed to insult him?
Let iran and syria claim the west was scared. the USA has literally marched and rolled over countries in the blink of an eye.
The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?
The problem is not the initial strike and devastating military blow but the aftermath. the long term engagement planning. the USA simply doesn't plan for more than 6 months into the future. It is why we keep getting bogged down into quagmires. We remember the revolutionary war and bam George washington was president, and we had a constitution. What is often forgotten is the articles of confederation lasted for the better part of ten years before we got it right and we didn't have Britain, or France breathing down our backs trying to "help" us. while the French supported us we forced the british out we started the fight and we finished the fight. you can not build nation from the outside it must be built inside. these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other. Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other. You can't change their mind so you might as well not get your hands bloody.
I think what you are trying to say is that the US military is really good at devastating an enemy's infrastructure, but that the US government is inept at nation (re-)building.
The US should only be getting in wars that it intends to win via annihilation of the opponent's military capability. The US hasn't yet mastered the art of regime change, so it should avoid it. I don't mean this as an insult, Russia can't do it either. In fact, killing part of population and then attempting to convince the survivors to do what you say during an occupation may just not be a tractable approach to nation building.
With the US's currently capabilities, it's really a binary choice: completely destroy or leave alone.
TFA is full of hype but one interesting point that is often missed is worth noting. The earthquake itself damage the plant, and even without the tsunami there would have been a serious accident.
Really?
The official line from, well, everyone, is that the reactors would have been fine had the emergency generators been able to operate. They were unable to operate because they were flooded by the tsunami. Also note that the emergency generators did turn on after the earthquake, before they were destroyed by the subsequent tsunami. Even then, secondary backup batteries kept the cores cool for 8 hours until the batteries were depleted.
If the emergency generators were not flooded, they could have been operated as long as they could be kept fueled with diesel. Additionally, efforts to connect portable power generation equipment to the reactors were hindered by the flooding.
So there really would have been no problem from just the earthquake without the tsunami. The reactors were SCRAMed and would have been kept cool by the (redundant) backup generators for an indefinite length of time.
"Doing a good review (a review which really helps the authors to improve the quality of their research) is a lot of hard work. I still don't understand why mostly it's unpaid."
Even though doing a good review is indeed a lot of hard work (my goal is to improve the paper even if I disagree with it), the idea of getting paid for it would lead to even worse abuses. I would refuse such money if it were offered. If you can't see ways in which such a financial incentive could be abused, then you aren't being imaginative enough (e.g., citing the paper yourself to boost the amount you'll get paid, or if that's not allowed because it is too obvious, asking other people to do so). The paper should be published based on merit. Merit should be evaluated independent of any financial concerns.
Interesting line of logic.
Should we also stop paying scientists to do research? Because they also have personal financial incentive to abuse their analysis.
When I review a paper, it can take a day or more to do a properly documented, thorough review. Why should I not be compensated for that if I do it on my own time? Do you think I enjoy trying: (1) to figure out what the researchers did, (2) to get them to reference the 20 prior related studies that they ignored, (3) correcting their language syntax, and (4) actually evaluating their science. I don't. In fact, I hate it. The only reason I do it is because other people do it for my papers. But the journals make a TON of money off of the publishing process, while getting free reviews!
Also, on a related subject: Is it fair for my employer to have to pay for me for the time it takes me to to review someone else's paper? Would you, as a taxpayer, be OK with government scientists taking your tax dollars to review papers all day instead of doing their jobs? If so, where is the limit? I probably get 25 requests to review a year.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Large Hadron Collider is the world's biggest science experiment. When spinning, it reportedly generates up to six gigs of data per second. Today's six-terabyte tape cartridges fill rapidly when you're creating that amount of material. The Economist reports that despite the advances in SSDs and hard drives, tape still seems to be the way to go when you need to store massive amounts of digital assets."
I don't think that the LHC spins.
Why not just put a security camera on the condo poop spaces?
It might help with crime too.
Asia is playing catch up very very fast, and before long, they might even get ahead of you guys !
Good. It's about time they started pulling their own weight.
Maybe they will even innovate some new tech instead of recycling old western ideas.
Then, their citizens will start becoming more educated, making more money, and trying to end the human rights abuses at home.
It's never been clear to me why the US is expected to always be the leader in space research and why other countries can't spend more of their own GDP to advance our knowledge of space.
Engineers at Duke University say they've constructed a device that can collect stray wireless signals and convert them into energy to charge batteries in devices such as cell phones and tablets.
It may seem like stray signal until they start stealing your packets!
-- Life imprisonment, while costly for society, seems to me the harsher punishment. There's ways you can relieve the burden on society, too.
Life imprisonment is harsher on anyone who who has to come into contact with lifers. A lifer has no incentive to behave in a reasonable way. If someone says the wrong word a lifer may kill them. The lifer is already subject to the harshest penalty possible. What are they going to do? Throw the lifer in jail?
I lifer is a danger to every guard and inmate they come into contact with. The number of guards and other inmates killed by lifers far outweigh the few innocent suspects killed by the system.
Sounds great, as long as you aren't the innocent!
Is printing gun components illegal in the UK?
In the US, the only part of a gun that is controlled is the receiver. What are the laws in the UK?
It's hard to believe that making or owning a trigger is illegal in the UK since low-power pellets guns (which use triggers) are legal. That said, UK gun laws are so restrictive, that I am sure they try to control high-capacity magazines. (UK high-capacity meaning more than two rounds.)
I just jumped on to FB and tried to like a post to see if it was true. Interesting results I received a "Please try again - An error occurred. Please try again in a few minutes.", tried to post a "Test post to confirm Facebook is broken" message was met with a similar error message.
Seems like the report is easy verify. Were you just too lazy to try it yourself and would rather spend your time raging against /.?
It's hard to verify for those of us that don't have facebook accounts!
Also, your reply is a bit snarky given that the article does read like a (poor) trouble ticket.
Base salary is only a fraction of the compensation. I work for one of the top 5 and the base plus stock per year for a fresh COLLEGE GRADUATE engineer is higher than the "average" salary listed for the company.
Yeah, it's not "bad data." That's what the article said:
"But it’s important to remember that base salaries don’t tell the whole story, says Scott Dobroski, Glassdoor’s community expert. “For example, while Facebook ranks ninth for average annual base salary on this report, Facebook employees receive larger bonuses and more stock options than some other tech companies on this list,” he said via email."
"Something else to consider: Because Glassdoor only includes companies where at least 50 engineers have submitted salaries, there are some high-paying companies that didn’t make the list."
You're clearly too busy making money to read articles that you are commenting on!
In my country, 20% of my income goes to health care, and everyone finds it normal.
It's the Americans that are weird.
Wow! You should really move to the US and save some money!
He should call it radiation pressure, not light pressure, because of the different wavelength of x-rays. But the problem is the same, physically he is correct.
You need to educate yourself: https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nic/icf/how_icf_works.php
The X-rays ablate the hohlraum walls. Those walls, which are not any form of radiation but rather ionized solid material, implode on the fuel and compress it. You could replace the lasers with some other source to ablate the hohlraum.
Thus, all compression is from the imploding hohlraum, not radiation and the statement "Doubt it. Light pressure is what compresses and heats the fuel." is incorrect.
The lasers only irradiate the inner walls of the hohlraum which generate X-rays. When those X-rays are absorbed by the outer wall of the hohlraum, it implodes and compresses the fuel.
X-Rays are photons. So the statement, "Light pressure is what compresses and heats the fuel." is correct.
Not really. The imploding hohlraum compresses and heats the fuel. The X-rays cause the hohlraum to implode.
As the hohlraum is not an X-ray, it does not directly compress or heat the fuel. Thus your statement is imprecise and misleading. You might as well say that electricity or burning coal compresses and heats the fuel.
FTFA:
"Soon after, the $3.5bn facility shifted focus, cutting the amount of time spent on fusion versus nuclear weapons research - which was part of the lab's original mission."
Makes you wonder where we'd be now if we stopped pissing about on weapons research.
Probably part of Russia, Japan or Germany!
Doubt it. Light pressure is what compresses and heats the fuel.
Not true!
The lasers only irradiate the inner walls of the hohlraum which generate X-rays. When those X-rays are absorbed by the outer wall of the hohlraum, it implodes and compresses the fuel.
Light pressure would not be uniform enough to generate a uniform compression profile.
At least this emergency is happening somewhere that will not interrupt any actual work!
I'm pretty sure they won't shut down the IRS. :-)
Actually, DHS is considered an essential service that will not be shut down, while IRS auditing will be shut down!
On the last car I bought, "painted door handles" was listed as a "feature."
And these guys are worried about deceptive marketing practices? There's the pot calling the kettle black...
An F-16 can carry 4 2,000-lb bombs at the absolute most (and anything after two is risky on the wings).
It has 9 hard-points to hang ordinance on, but two of those (1 and 9) are wingtip rails, which means AIM-9 missiles. It will usually have 1-3 "bags" (fuel pods) hanging off of stations 4, 5 (centerline, under the fuselage), and 6. You'll need them in some combination to get any kind of real combat range (otherwise you're stuck with ~900lbs of internally-stored fuel, which ain't jack.) The big bombs would hang off of stations 3 and 7.
Now anti-personnel and fragmentary bombs? You can pack a buttload of 'em on that, and add in two AIM-9 Air-Groung missles to do some damage (which is what most ground-attack configured F-16's carry).
I am curious if they can slave in a LANTIRN pod kit onto the things and use that to get all-weather capability... though I can't remember if they retrofitted any of the A/B model jets to carry those.
You don't need as much fuel for a one-way trip. And a one-way trip is more acceptable if there is no pilot to lose.
Did anything change as a result? Did iPhone users suddenly wake up and not use their iPhones? Or switch to Android (ha ha, same privacy concerns, different companies)?
They got caught, took a few licks from the press, but ultimately the future refused to change.
Well, Steve Jobs died. Is that a good enough punishment for you?
Who cares? You're never going to actually drive it that fast.
Bullshit. You, sir, have apparently never been to a track day. I may not hit 200mph, but I regularly get my Ducati 1098 (another example of Italian looks-good-goes-fast technology) to a buck eighty-five. There are three pro tracks within a two-hour ride (one is only forty-five minutes away) from my house that have track days nearly every weekend of the year. For a fee ranging from $40 to about $150 per day, I can drag a knee at 120mph and tuck in for a speed run on the straight-away for hours on end. There are plenty of racing venues that cater to well-heeled speed freaks so we can ride fast in a controlled, reasonably safe environment for a trivial amount of scratch. So fuck you, coward -- too bad you will never get to enjoy the thrill of piloting an exquisitely engineered machine at the edge of its performance envelope. That takes money and balls, two (three?) things you obviously lack.
Impressive! You first acknowledge that the AC's statement was right in your third sentence and then proceed to insult him?
good let someone else do something for a change.
Let iran and syria claim the west was scared. the USA has literally marched and rolled over countries in the blink of an eye.
The full on assault of Libya, and Iraq took 14-20 days. and we rolled over their defenses with minimal to no losses of our own. Do you honestly think iran would last longer than 30 days againist a full on military strike?
The problem is not the initial strike and devastating military blow but the aftermath. the long term engagement planning. the USA simply doesn't plan for more than 6 months into the future. It is why we keep getting bogged down into quagmires. We remember the revolutionary war and bam George washington was president, and we had a constitution. What is often forgotten is the articles of confederation lasted for the better part of ten years before we got it right and we didn't have Britain, or France breathing down our backs trying to "help" us. while the French supported us we forced the british out we started the fight and we finished the fight. you can not build nation from the outside it must be built inside. these muslim countries don't want freedom and democracy they want Ayatollah's and dictators.
Stay the fuck out of syria. Let them use chemical weapons on each other. Islam is heading for a full on civil war between shia and sunni's. It is going to make the Spanish inquisition the protestant reformations look peaceful. Stay the fuck out of the area and let them kill each other. You can't change their mind so you might as well not get your hands bloody.
I think what you are trying to say is that the US military is really good at devastating an enemy's infrastructure, but that the US government is inept at nation (re-)building.
The US should only be getting in wars that it intends to win via annihilation of the opponent's military capability. The US hasn't yet mastered the art of regime change, so it should avoid it. I don't mean this as an insult, Russia can't do it either. In fact, killing part of population and then attempting to convince the survivors to do what you say during an occupation may just not be a tractable approach to nation building.
With the US's currently capabilities, it's really a binary choice: completely destroy or leave alone.
I advocate a full Nuclear Strike; It makes as much sense as everything else.
Well, it IS the only way to be sure.
TFA is full of hype but one interesting point that is often missed is worth noting. The earthquake itself damage the plant, and even without the tsunami there would have been a serious accident.
Really?
The official line from, well, everyone, is that the reactors would have been fine had the emergency generators been able to operate. They were unable to operate because they were flooded by the tsunami. Also note that the emergency generators did turn on after the earthquake, before they were destroyed by the subsequent tsunami. Even then, secondary backup batteries kept the cores cool for 8 hours until the batteries were depleted.
If the emergency generators were not flooded, they could have been operated as long as they could be kept fueled with diesel. Additionally, efforts to connect portable power generation equipment to the reactors were hindered by the flooding.
So there really would have been no problem from just the earthquake without the tsunami. The reactors were SCRAMed and would have been kept cool by the (redundant) backup generators for an indefinite length of time.
"Doing a good review (a review which really helps the authors to improve the quality of their research) is a lot of hard work. I still don't understand why mostly it's unpaid."
Even though doing a good review is indeed a lot of hard work (my goal is to improve the paper even if I disagree with it), the idea of getting paid for it would lead to even worse abuses. I would refuse such money if it were offered. If you can't see ways in which such a financial incentive could be abused, then you aren't being imaginative enough (e.g., citing the paper yourself to boost the amount you'll get paid, or if that's not allowed because it is too obvious, asking other people to do so). The paper should be published based on merit. Merit should be evaluated independent of any financial concerns.
Interesting line of logic.
Should we also stop paying scientists to do research? Because they also have personal financial incentive to abuse their analysis.
When I review a paper, it can take a day or more to do a properly documented, thorough review. Why should I not be compensated for that if I do it on my own time? Do you think I enjoy trying: (1) to figure out what the researchers did, (2) to get them to reference the 20 prior related studies that they ignored, (3) correcting their language syntax, and (4) actually evaluating their science. I don't. In fact, I hate it. The only reason I do it is because other people do it for my papers. But the journals make a TON of money off of the publishing process, while getting free reviews!
Also, on a related subject: Is it fair for my employer to have to pay for me for the time it takes me to to review someone else's paper? Would you, as a taxpayer, be OK with government scientists taking your tax dollars to review papers all day instead of doing their jobs? If so, where is the limit? I probably get 25 requests to review a year.
It seems like Galileo's and delle Colombe's arguments both had some elements of applicability over certain regimes.
They just were both so pigheaded that they were unwilling to accept that both of their ideas had partially captured some physics.
Less combativeness and more teamwork might have integrated the buoyancy and surface tension effects into a unified theory in their debate.
I thought that pulsars emitted a beam of energy that was very narrow in angular size and located on a specific rotation axis.
What if you travel off the beam's axis while traveling large distances between astronomical objects?