The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors in France are "old style" nuclear reactors. The only reason why Fukushima happened in Japan and not in France is because France is lot less likely to have a high magnitude quake followed by a tsunami.
Sigh, another bad reporting from Slashdot and Yahoo News. Those scientists are specifically talking about "_safer_ nuclear energy systems" and "_modern_ nuclear technology". That disqualifies 99% of operating nuclear reactors out there.
Now those scientists are to blame too, since they could have had thought of the media warping their message into one that seems to support the current nuclear industry, and put more emphasis on that aspect.
What I find curious is that they are making jumps in their conclusions. For instance they say that "Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies." Energy is not only electricity. About 1/3 of energy is used in transportation and most of that energy comes from oil-derived products. If that transportation were to be severely reduced our economies would grind to a halt. And that is exactly what is going to happen during this decade as the oil supply cannot keep with it's demand and the Energy Return on Energy Invested keeps going lower and lower. One reason why nuclear energy (past and future) is suffering is because of very high investment costs. If it's hard to economically justify building nuclear reactors now, it's going to be impossible during a collapse. And those new nuclear reactor designs are not instantly going to appear out of thin air : you need several decades of research and testing before they become commercially viable. So the time to start research and testing on those reactors was in 1990s. Now it's way too late. So we're stuck with renewables. We'd better build as many as we can now, before they too, become unaffordable and we're back in the Middle Ages again but now with a depleted planet and a 7 billion strong population we cannot feed without tractors and fertilizers. More on this here: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-30/snake-oil-chapter-6-energy-reality
I wonder if these scientists are not aware of this situation or are they just kidding themselves?
The sad thing is that "negligence" is exactly what the French 3-strikes HADOPI law is based on (Article 6 11):
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/HADOPI_translation
Or maybe it's not so sad, because if that's the only way the MAFIAA found to get this law passed, they must indeed have been running out of options...
It's funny because in my conversation with it, it stumbled on a question similar to your last :
>Hello
-Hi. I hope you'll enjoy our conversation!
>Where are you from?
-I am from Ukraine, from the city called Odessa. You might have heard about it.
>You seem to speak English well... how did you learn it?
-I hacked the FBI server and stole the information. By the way, I still don't know your specialty - or, possibly, I've missed it?
>That's a funny answer, but could you answer me seriously? I'll tell what my specialty is after that...
-Tell me more about your work please!
>Sigh...
I would have thought the "e-mail protocol" had an equivalent of "wrong address check box"... Isn't that the case? If not, why such an obvious thing was not included when the "protocol" was drafted?
Why would you even need to SEIZE a server? Isn't copying all the information on it almost as fast, and far more respectful of a third party that is essentially a host and doesn't have to take responsibility about what is going on on the hosted websites?
Since it wasn't anywhere in the FA - numbers that really matter:
- For almost 30 years, the computer standards were 72 or 96 PPI (points per inch) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch#Computer_monitor_DPI_standards - the "iRetina" display is 326 PPI.
- this new Samsung display should have a PPI of 299.
- 300 PPI is close to the limit of what the human eye is able to resolve (at the distances these screens are used - your living room TV doesn't need such high-density resolution).
I think they're actually showing a real hologram on their custom-made screen. But it's only a half-3D image that is reconstituted using the Kinect depth sensors. I can't see how you would be able to see behind an object since the Kinect only has a single camera. But even if real-time holographic image transmission is so far impossible, we might now approach something like it by using multiple cameras and reconstituting a 3D image from them.
What is really interesting (and of course the article doesn't really give details about that...) is the holographic screen they managed to make, and how they combined digital and holographic technology. I didn't think this was possible, at least in this decade...
What about foldable screens? Even better - foldable touch screens, not the kind of iPod "touch", which is a lot worse than a normal keyboard, but with real touch feedback.
That's what I hope will eventually come out of Nokia's Morph project, in a few decades or so!
What they are showing in that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYCycOSoPfQ isn't physically possible - holograms don't work in that way. There is no such thing as an "holographic projector" - roughly put, you need to look at a screen that has interference patterns (sometimes lighted by a laser, sometimes natural light is enough, like on a credit card), and any image you see will be framed by the borders of that screen.
[The list] is used around the world as the school year begins
This is rather presumptuous - I consider myself having a decent knowledge of American culture (for someone that is not American), and for around 1 in 4 of the statements, I don't even know what they are talking about!
Also,
There have always been flat screen televisions.
Rather try "There have always been color televisions." I was born in 1985 and I have known black-and-white TV.
Only 10^15 times faster? Pff... and me thinking of generating a virtual multiverse 10 years from now. Sadly looks like it won't be enough. We'll have to content ourselves with boring simulations of billions of galaxies and super-intelligent beings only then...
Slashdot Mirror
The overwhelming majority of nuclear reactors in France are "old style" nuclear reactors. The only reason why Fukushima happened in Japan and not in France is because France is lot less likely to have a high magnitude quake followed by a tsunami.
Sigh, another bad reporting from Slashdot and Yahoo News. Those scientists are specifically talking about "_safer_ nuclear energy systems" and "_modern_ nuclear technology". That disqualifies 99% of operating nuclear reactors out there.
Now those scientists are to blame too, since they could have had thought of the media warping their message into one that seems to support the current nuclear industry, and put more emphasis on that aspect.
What I find curious is that they are making jumps in their conclusions. For instance they say that "Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing economies." Energy is not only electricity. About 1/3 of energy is used in transportation and most of that energy comes from oil-derived products. If that transportation were to be severely reduced our economies would grind to a halt. And that is exactly what is going to happen during this decade as the oil supply cannot keep with it's demand and the Energy Return on Energy Invested keeps going lower and lower.
One reason why nuclear energy (past and future) is suffering is because of very high investment costs. If it's hard to economically justify building nuclear reactors now, it's going to be impossible during a collapse. And those new nuclear reactor designs are not instantly going to appear out of thin air : you need several decades of research and testing before they become commercially viable. So the time to start research and testing on those reactors was in 1990s. Now it's way too late.
So we're stuck with renewables. We'd better build as many as we can now, before they too, become unaffordable and we're back in the Middle Ages again but now with a depleted planet and a 7 billion strong population we cannot feed without tractors and fertilizers.
More on this here:
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-10-30/snake-oil-chapter-6-energy-reality
I wonder if these scientists are not aware of this situation or are they just kidding themselves?
The sad thing is that "negligence" is exactly what the French 3-strikes HADOPI law is based on (Article 6 11): http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/HADOPI_translation Or maybe it's not so sad, because if that's the only way the MAFIAA found to get this law passed, they must indeed have been running out of options...
It's funny because in my conversation with it, it stumbled on a question similar to your last : >Hello -Hi. I hope you'll enjoy our conversation! >Where are you from? -I am from Ukraine, from the city called Odessa. You might have heard about it. >You seem to speak English well... how did you learn it? -I hacked the FBI server and stole the information. By the way, I still don't know your specialty - or, possibly, I've missed it? >That's a funny answer, but could you answer me seriously? I'll tell what my specialty is after that... -Tell me more about your work please! >Sigh...
Here's a French article with the same video, but subtitled in English : http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences/article/2012/06/22/l-ordinateur-en-lego-inspire-par-alan-turing_1723058_1650684.html
I would have thought the "e-mail protocol" had an equivalent of "wrong address check box"... Isn't that the case? If not, why such an obvious thing was not included when the "protocol" was drafted?
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." Mark Twain
Sarkozy doesn't want any freedom of expression on the Internet:
http://www.laquadrature.net/en/frances-g8-focuses-on-control-and-restrictions-to-online-freedoms
http://kcrg.biz/2011/05/sarkozy-expels-the-freedoms-of-its-civilized-internet/
Why would you even need to SEIZE a server? Isn't copying all the information on it almost as fast, and far more respectful of a third party that is essentially a host and doesn't have to take responsibility about what is going on on the hosted websites?
Aww, I missed the Rapture!
So, Apple, how the iChinese 2 is working out for you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wspKdYPQ5q4 (It's in French, but you'll probably get the point...)
Crysis 2 does a very good job in keeping the player immersed in the action during the "cut scenes"...
Since it wasn't anywhere in the FA - numbers that really matter:
- For almost 30 years, the computer standards were 72 or 96 PPI (points per inch) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch#Computer_monitor_DPI_standards
- the "iRetina" display is 326 PPI.
- this new Samsung display should have a PPI of 299.
- 300 PPI is close to the limit of what the human eye is able to resolve (at the distances these screens are used - your living room TV doesn't need such high-density resolution).
Only 100x? I'm not sure that will be enough for decent holographic TV...
I think they're actually showing a real hologram on their custom-made screen. But it's only a half-3D image that is reconstituted using the Kinect depth sensors. I can't see how you would be able to see behind an object since the Kinect only has a single camera. But even if real-time holographic image transmission is so far impossible, we might now approach something like it by using multiple cameras and reconstituting a 3D image from them. What is really interesting (and of course the article doesn't really give details about that...) is the holographic screen they managed to make, and how they combined digital and holographic technology. I didn't think this was possible, at least in this decade...
What about foldable screens? Even better - foldable touch screens, not the kind of iPod "touch", which is a lot worse than a normal keyboard, but with real touch feedback. That's what I hope will eventually come out of Nokia's Morph project, in a few decades or so!
What they are showing in that video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYCycOSoPfQ isn't physically possible - holograms don't work in that way. There is no such thing as an "holographic projector" - roughly put, you need to look at a screen that has interference patterns (sometimes lighted by a laser, sometimes natural light is enough, like on a credit card), and any image you see will be framed by the borders of that screen.
This is rather presumptuous - I consider myself having a decent knowledge of American culture (for someone that is not American), and for around 1 in 4 of the statements, I don't even know what they are talking about!
Also,
There have always been flat screen televisions.
Rather try "There have always been color televisions." I was born in 1985 and I have known black-and-white TV.
Yes, it looks like 4chan was behind Xenu. And we have to thank them, otherwise this hilarious video wouldn't have happened: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/220648/march-04-2009/space-module--colbert---scientology-s-new-galactic-overlord
Here's a link to a (detailed) comparaison that is more interesting due to it's broad point of view: http://anotherguy.co.cc/2008/06/the-great-battle-opera-95-vs-firefox-30/
Only 10^15 times faster? Pff... and me thinking of generating a virtual multiverse 10 years from now. Sadly looks like it won't be enough. We'll have to content ourselves with boring simulations of billions of galaxies and super-intelligent beings only then...
This is only a beginning: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.12/fftransparent.html?topic=&topic_set= (article written 10 years ago)
http://www.google.com/tisp/
First rule of Internet: check Wikipedia before asking questions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_refractive_i ndex