So do you know what your radiation exposure was for this machine? Since they won't tell us... or let anyone test it, I am going to say no. In which case stopping just one terrorist is absolutely *not* worth it. By that logic just ground all planes forever. It will stop one... I promise. Oh and I have this rock which will keep you safe in the mall.
The amount journals pay reviewers now is typically a token sum,
Having done a lot of reviewing myself, and off course so do my colleagues, I have *never* heard of anyone getting paid for it. Not a dime. Ever. Some editors do get paid for the big journals, but even then a lot don't.
The 3 "open access" journal publications would cost more than 12 overseas conferences
Either you get free air travel, or you publish somewhere insane, or can't do math. Even nature and Science offer open access for about 2k. That is only 6k. You can do a 12 conferences for 6k? The registration fees alone can cost more than that.
Seriously if your biggest problem is that you can't afford the ~1k to 2k for page charges since you are publishing so much. You have nothing to complain about. We are paid salaries after all which will dwarf that, hell even the air con is probably costing more.
The big desalination plants use flash distillation. Its still the better way when you need the volume, also it can use low grade waste heat from a power station too.
Well i have prepay, and i do a lot of roaming in the EU. I pay 50c per min for active talk and 20c for passive. Txt is 13c. Its cheaper than a lot of contracts. Outside the EU it gets pretty expensive, and then just getting a local prepay card is cheaper. However data roaming is still insane even in the EU.
So your saying i should have left my appendix in, and just run around more? You know I may just use a medical professionals advice over yours. And are you a Chiropractor by any chance... you got a reference for your claims on its benefits. Something with data in it preferably.
It is well recognized that you cannot have the required space time curvature without exotic matter and other such features. If you have a reference that says otherwise please provide it.
What you asked, yes wormholes are entirely based in science and the current mathematical models that we have for the universe generally state that they must be possible (in some cases, must exist). Not all, but many.
That is not correct. First of all you need exotic matter. Since no exotic matter is even postulated to exist, you are already SoL. There are a myriad of other issues with the possibility of wormholes. Yes they are an odd solution to the equations of GR. But that does not make them a physically realistic solution in any way. For starters basic wormholes permit closed timelike paths/surfaces whatever. ie time travel. Particular conservation parameters in GR that are widely held to be true are violated with wormholes (and warp drives for that matter).
Name any useful way to not have just plain silly amounts of "garbage" results for reversibility for even something as simple as calculate the standard deviation and mean of 5 billion numbers.
Non reversible is non reversible. If i hash a 1Gbyte file well that is a lot to throw out, ie about 1Gbyte. Even a simple sum of a list of numbers is the same, you don't want a 1Gig sum at the end, you want a ~64 bit number or whatever. Many if not most useful algorithms have much larger inputs to outputs. Since deleting or dev nulling or whatever all that extra information is not reversible, then these algorithms cannot be applied in a reversible way. Since its not reversible, and the argument to solve the fundamental kT cost by using reversible computation is wrong. It can't work for most cases.
So how would you implement a hash function then? Or some iterative functions? Reversible does not work for anything remotely practical. Quite simply there are more inputs than outputs.
Of course we are so far away from the kT limit per bit that we don't really need it either. At least for a very long while.
A really poor electric motor has efficiency as low as 50%. Good ones are well over 90%. In fact if you leave out storage total electrical energy efficiency can and often is in the 80-95% range (generator to motor). For example in electric-electric "gear box" of a locomotive. So replacing everything with supper conductors at best will get you a 20% gain. Not worth it if has to come from Pandora that is for sure.
However if the critical current density and magnetic field density are high enough, you get a high density and efficiency energy storage system.
I don't know where this truthiness has come from, but its false. By far the worst part of clean up is what to do with the spent fuel. It is by far the most radioactive my orders of magnitude and is the hardest to deal with chemically as well. To top things off it is by far the longest lived radioactive waste as well. Keep in mind that most of the spent fuel for the life time of the reactor is on site. The cladding is the only other thing that gets close since it is covered in spent fuel.
In comparison the activated structure is reasonably easy to deal with, fairly mildly radioactive and fairly short lived. There are other chemical considerations that also make it far easier to deal with. Spent fuel and uranium are not sprinkled all over the plant you know.
You clearly no nothing about nuclear physics and have no idea what you are talking about. The spent fuel is by far the biggest problem, by many orders of magnitude, both in longevity of the radiation and the intensity. The structure is a low grade nuclear waste, and is safe in fairly short time frames, has low radioactivity and most of that activity is over very quickly (ie less than a year). Furthermore this is typically in forms that are much harder to get into the environment and much easier to keep biologically unavailable.
The only time the "containment" structure gets difficult to deal with is in the core meltdown situation, because then it is covered in *spend fuel*.
In theory yes, but it would not be easy or fast. Tor is not completely anonymous. Turns out full anonymity is really hard to do. For example i can't in fact spend cash completely anonymously. I have to take that cash out, and then give it to someone, both these parties have data on potentially who i am. In the case of ATM machines they even have a photo!
Bitcoin is not bad from a anonymity perspective if the wallet is properly managed, use mixers or even tor. There are other options as well.
However i don't really think anonymity is a huge deal if it is symmetric. With something like bitcoin it is just as easy for me to track government spending as it is for them to track me. More or less.
This is true. However current economies are set up to always grow, and right now i don't think we can get another century of that. For example population sizes of a lot of countries is now stabilizing or even going slightly negative.
What? Bitcoin is not completely anonymous (and neither is cash for that matter). But its not far off cash either if you manage your wallet properly. Of course nodes can see IP numbers, but are not logged typically. Of course they could be, but again it is quite possible to send transactions via tor for example.
However every transaction is public and without some proper wallet management you would not be so anonymous.
I will just eat the food in my fridge, oh wait that needs electricity too. Well i can last a few days without food as long as i have water, wait without power i won't have water! My God we can't live in cites since if the power is out we all die!
Yea its a lame argument against living in cities, and its a lame argument against cashless societies. Of course no one is really suggesting giving up cash completely anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
He is not the asking for a job, he is the one that may or may not give you a job.
So do you know what your radiation exposure was for this machine? Since they won't tell us... or let anyone test it, I am going to say no. In which case stopping just one terrorist is absolutely *not* worth it. By that logic just ground all planes forever. It will stop one... I promise. Oh and I have this rock which will keep you safe in the mall.
The amount journals pay reviewers now is typically a token sum,
Having done a lot of reviewing myself, and off course so do my colleagues, I have *never* heard of anyone getting paid for it. Not a dime. Ever. Some editors do get paid for the big journals, but even then a lot don't.
The 3 "open access" journal publications would cost more than 12 overseas conferences
Either you get free air travel, or you publish somewhere insane, or can't do math. Even nature and Science offer open access for about 2k. That is only 6k. You can do a 12 conferences for 6k? The registration fees alone can cost more than that.
Seriously if your biggest problem is that you can't afford the ~1k to 2k for page charges since you are publishing so much. You have nothing to complain about. We are paid salaries after all which will dwarf that, hell even the air con is probably costing more.
The big desalination plants use flash distillation. Its still the better way when you need the volume, also it can use low grade waste heat from a power station too.
Well i have prepay, and i do a lot of roaming in the EU. I pay 50c per min for active talk and 20c for passive. Txt is 13c. Its cheaper than a lot of contracts. Outside the EU it gets pretty expensive, and then just getting a local prepay card is cheaper. However data roaming is still insane even in the EU.
Spectrum is pretty useless if everyone tries to use the same piece of it at once.
So your saying i should have left my appendix in, and just run around more? You know I may just use a medical professionals advice over yours. And are you a Chiropractor by any chance... you got a reference for your claims on its benefits. Something with data in it preferably.
It is well recognized that you cannot have the required space time curvature without exotic matter and other such features. If you have a reference that says otherwise please provide it.
What you asked, yes wormholes are entirely based in science and the current mathematical models that we have for the universe generally state that they must be possible (in some cases, must exist). Not all, but many.
That is not correct. First of all you need exotic matter. Since no exotic matter is even postulated to exist, you are already SoL. There are a myriad of other issues with the possibility of wormholes. Yes they are an odd solution to the equations of GR. But that does not make them a physically realistic solution in any way. For starters basic wormholes permit closed timelike paths/surfaces whatever. ie time travel. Particular conservation parameters in GR that are widely held to be true are violated with wormholes (and warp drives for that matter).
Name any useful way to not have just plain silly amounts of "garbage" results for reversibility for even something as simple as calculate the standard deviation and mean of 5 billion numbers.
Non reversible is non reversible. If i hash a 1Gbyte file well that is a lot to throw out, ie about 1Gbyte. Even a simple sum of a list of numbers is the same, you don't want a 1Gig sum at the end, you want a ~64 bit number or whatever. Many if not most useful algorithms have much larger inputs to outputs. Since deleting or dev nulling or whatever all that extra information is not reversible, then these algorithms cannot be applied in a reversible way. Since its not reversible, and the argument to solve the fundamental kT cost by using reversible computation is wrong. It can't work for most cases.
So how would you implement a hash function then? Or some iterative functions? Reversible does not work for anything remotely practical. Quite simply there are more inputs than outputs.
Of course we are so far away from the kT limit per bit that we don't really need it either. At least for a very long while.
A really poor electric motor has efficiency as low as 50%. Good ones are well over 90%. In fact if you leave out storage total electrical energy efficiency can and often is in the 80-95% range (generator to motor). For example in electric-electric "gear box" of a locomotive. So replacing everything with supper conductors at best will get you a 20% gain. Not worth it if has to come from Pandora that is for sure.
However if the critical current density and magnetic field density are high enough, you get a high density and efficiency energy storage system.
I don't know where this truthiness has come from, but its false. By far the worst part of clean up is what to do with the spent fuel. It is by far the most radioactive my orders of magnitude and is the hardest to deal with chemically as well. To top things off it is by far the longest lived radioactive waste as well. Keep in mind that most of the spent fuel for the life time of the reactor is on site. The cladding is the only other thing that gets close since it is covered in spent fuel.
In comparison the activated structure is reasonably easy to deal with, fairly mildly radioactive and fairly short lived. There are other chemical considerations that also make it far easier to deal with. Spent fuel and uranium are not sprinkled all over the plant you know.
It is $1 per brochure watt*.
* Actual peak panel output varies by location. Please call one of our friendly representatives for a full quote.
You clearly no nothing about nuclear physics and have no idea what you are talking about. The spent fuel is by far the biggest problem, by many orders of magnitude, both in longevity of the radiation and the intensity. The structure is a low grade nuclear waste, and is safe in fairly short time frames, has low radioactivity and most of that activity is over very quickly (ie less than a year). Furthermore this is typically in forms that are much harder to get into the environment and much easier to keep biologically unavailable.
The only time the "containment" structure gets difficult to deal with is in the core meltdown situation, because then it is covered in *spend fuel*.
In theory yes, but it would not be easy or fast. Tor is not completely anonymous. Turns out full anonymity is really hard to do. For example i can't in fact spend cash completely anonymously. I have to take that cash out, and then give it to someone, both these parties have data on potentially who i am. In the case of ATM machines they even have a photo!
Bitcoin is not bad from a anonymity perspective if the wallet is properly managed, use mixers or even tor. There are other options as well.
However i don't really think anonymity is a huge deal if it is symmetric. With something like bitcoin it is just as easy for me to track government spending as it is for them to track me. More or less.
This is true. However current economies are set up to always grow, and right now i don't think we can get another century of that. For example population sizes of a lot of countries is now stabilizing or even going slightly negative.
It's just as much controlled by the government as anything else. Why not base the currency on powder cocaine or opium gum?
Because people would "hoard it"? :D
What would you propose instead? (of the fed?)
What? Bitcoin is not completely anonymous (and neither is cash for that matter). But its not far off cash either if you manage your wallet properly. Of course nodes can see IP numbers, but are not logged typically. Of course they could be, but again it is quite possible to send transactions via tor for example.
However every transaction is public and without some proper wallet management you would not be so anonymous.
I will just eat the food in my fridge, oh wait that needs electricity too. Well i can last a few days without food as long as i have water, wait without power i won't have water! My God we can't live in cites since if the power is out we all die!
Yea its a lame argument against living in cities, and its a lame argument against cashless societies. Of course no one is really suggesting giving up cash completely anyway.
Screw the cats. Perhaps we could trade kittens?