Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Shoot It Into Space? (Score 1) 258

by InfoJunkie777 (#47801273) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go
I got an A+ in physics, admittedly in high school, so orbital mechanics were not covered. In any event, I read that the railgun package could be combined with a small rocket, enough to change the orbit to elliptical in the extreme so it would eventually fall into the sun - no? If not, no longer on earth.

Comment: Re:Shoot It Into Space? (Score 1) 258

by InfoJunkie777 (#47801243) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go
I am not "astroturfing". I am fully for nuclear and renewables and against fossil fuels for a multitude of reasons, global warming being supreme. I agree with all the reasons why nuclear has not been used as the dreamers of the 1950's envisioned (nuclear cars and planes). But the railgun idea is not crazy. Unless you think NASA is crazy as well. Link: http://www.csmonitor.com/Scien... (among many).

Comment: Re:Shoot It Into Space? (Score 1) 258

by InfoJunkie777 (#47797445) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go
I thought we in the Slashdot community were more civil. AND I quite doubt you are qualified to judge my mental health from afar. Be that as it may, if the fuel is "perfectly usable" why were they proposing to bury it in Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years??? Yes, I understand that fuel from some more modern reactors can be re-processed up to 95%. But some of this old stuff has been looking for a home for 50 years.

Comment: Re:Shoot It Into Space? (Score 1) 258

by InfoJunkie777 (#47797433) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go
A little internet research proves you are in error viperiodaenz. I had read about it in SF novels (means nothing, but sometimes the ideas are partially true). I also had read about it in scientific research, as rocket travel is expensive, dangerous and non-reusable. Same tech for 50 years. Cannot change chemical reactions. So I found a couple of links that may help. The first explores the real possibility of a electromagnetic railgun shooting small loads several times a day. If the loads were of a standard size, it would greatly speed up space exploration. One could even build a more modern space station. Here is that link: http://physics.stackexchange.c.... The other is about NASA engineers combining a railgun with a scramjet to make it sazfe for human flight. Completely re-usable. Here that link: http://www.popsci.com/technolo.... So, my idea is not as far-fetched as you thought. As to whether the load can be radioactive waste, those hazards would have to be calculated.

Comment: Shoot It Into Space? (Score 1) 258

by InfoJunkie777 (#47796711) Attached to: Feds Want Nuclear Waste Train, But Don't Know Where It Would Go
It may sound far-fetched, but an electromagnetic rail gun would be feasible. Especially if the waste could be made into smaller units. Just aim it into the sun! No more problem. As a side benefit, the technology learned from this could be used to perhaps shoot material into orbit to build spacecraft out THERE, where the high cost of escaping the gravity well of earth would not be present.

Comment: Re:not in the field, eh? (Score 1) 634

by InfoJunkie777 (#46964571) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014

Since you're mentioning Intel....doesn't Intel Fortran and Intel C++ share the same optimizer and the same code generator? I wonder what the *real* performance difference would be between those two. Latest Fortran revisions give you some extra array intrinsic operations, but C++ gives you SIMD intrinsics for tuning in some added boost in critical spots. Sounds like a draw to me.

You very well could be right K.S. I am not a programmer. Wanted to be. Too late to start I think. I was just going by what was in the article. I had hoped others would comment on the the "3 modern condenters" but the bulk of comments are in line with the article: "it just works and it is fast and has HUGE libraries and legacy code." From what I could follow Julie seemed the most interesting, but the bugs not out of it yet.

Comment: Re:not in the field, eh? (Score 3, Informative) 634

by InfoJunkie777 (#46964341) Attached to: Why Scientists Are Still Using FORTRAN in 2014
OP here. This is what the article said. Compilers are the key. They have been around a long time. Another key is that commercial compilers (like Intel for example) further increase the speed, as the manufacturers know how to optomize the code for the specific CPU at hand.

+ - 2014 And Scientists Still Using FORTRAN!->

Submitted by InfoJunkie777
InfoJunkie777 (1435969) writes "When you go to any place where "cutting edge" scientific research is going on, strangely the computer language of choice is FORTRAN, the first computer language commonly used, invented in the 1950's. Meaning FORmula TRANslation, no language since has been able to match its speed. But three new contenders are explored here in the article. Your thoughts Slashdotters?"
Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Third-party opportunity (Score 1) 216

by InfoJunkie777 (#44334811) Attached to: Yahoo Censors Tumblr Porn

The people with porn Tumblrs don't need to move, they just need an easy way to be found. Why not a retro, Yahoo-style directory? That's how lots of us found things before search engines got so good. Just start tumblrporn.com (lawyers permitting) and list all the blogs Yahoo doesn't want indexed, in categories. Sell ads. Profit!

As a person who actually USED Yahoo's original search engine, I think this is a wonderful idea, the law permitting, as you so wisely stated. And that it could actually be PROFITABLE as well is intriguing. BTW, you sig is both awesome and sadly totally correct.

Two is not equal to three, even for large values of two.

Working...