I'm grant-wishing myself. The grant I'm currently wishing for relates to mitochondrial paternal leakage in birds. It is comforting to know that gods/sky faeries are in the same boat.
I'll be more impressed when it's capable of printing a vaccuum tube...
Printing a metal-shelled tube shouldn't be that hard.
Printing the vacuum, on the other hand.
Attach a small fan to it as an air-printing attachment, then turn the power plug 180 degrees so it runs backwards. Do I really have to think of everything around here?
True, well argued.
For there to be an energy flow, the life needs to be in a temperature range intermediate between the source and the sink. I'm still a bit worried that if there is a sufficient energy source (most likely a star or geothermal) it will raise the entire environment of the planet significantly above the ambient universal 270K.
However, it really isn't a significant issue. If 270K cosmic temperature is too high for life on planets for whatever reason, it will be comfortable a few million years later. The basic argument of 'a few million years friendly for life everywhere' still holds.
To locally decrease entropy (as life must) you need both an energy source and an energy sink (i.e. somewhere to send your waste heat.) I think this era of the universe would have problems with the energy sink bit. If the coldest available sink is 270K, life would need to be much hotter to be able to use it, which is likely too hot for complex organic reactions.
Having said that, a little bit after (say when the microwave background was at 200K) might have been pretty good for life. Now you only need a little help from a star and planetary atmosphere to get liquid water, so a star's Goldilocks zone should be much larger than at present.
It is common for the inside and outside of a BWR/PWR reactor vessel and its core structures to be manually inspected during refuelling outages, for example.
Interesting. As I understand it, typically during refuelling only a portion of the fuel rods are removed and replaced, and during this process the core and the waste fuel pool are one continuous body of water. So the person inspecting the core is a diver? And the water provides sufficient shielding from the remaining fuel rods? (Or am I just wrong about some fuel rods being left in at this point?)
The thing that has me really worried about LFTR is the removal of fission products.
In a conventional nuclear reactor, the fission products are confined within the fuel cell cladding. The only place rendered long-term insanely radioactive is the reactor core, which is mechanically pretty simple.
In a LFTR, there is a facility for removing fresh fission products from the liquid fuel. This is a combination of multiple processing steps, high temperatures, corrosive chemicals, and way too much radiation to let humans anywhere near for running or maintaining the equipment. Then the removed products either need short term storage, or to be rendered into a form suitable for long term storage - requiring still more processing.
I'll grant you that the core of a LFTR isn't going to cause an accident, but removing and dealing with those fission products on a regular basis with such a huge price on failure sounds like an engineering nightmare.
Scientific journals often charge authors; and it's more common among closed journals than open access ones. And the publication fees are not trivial sums either; Journal of Neuroscience, for instance, charges about $1000 per article. They also charge $125 just for accepting a submission, non-refundable whether you get accepted or not.
> Some folks need a paycheck
Yes. But there's no obligation on Mozilla to give everyone paychecks. If someone doesn't want to write free software for a competition, then don't enter the competition.
Mozilla should impose conditions and fund something useful.
(The values Mozilla should be following are already described in the Mozilla Manifesto. It just has to be put into practice more thoroughly.)
> In which way a bad move?
No one can reuse this code.
They're encouraging people to install and use non-free software, which doesn't help the campaigns for free drivers, video codecs, file formats, etc.
Mozilla could have used the money to encourage people to write free software.
With the exception of the "amateur" category, the games don't have to be free software. So Mozilla is paying people to write proprietary games.
Provided that a developer can find and afford a "good, modern C compiler" targeting a given platform.
The thread is about application development on general-use PCs, which means Intels compiler, the MS compiler, gcc and the like on x86 or ARM.
As an addendum to the parent (I, too, have a background in ASM programming): You're working at such low level of detail that any application of non-trivial size becomes extremely difficult to write truly effectively. You just can't keep so many details in mind at once. And when you need to work as a team, not alone, interfacing code becomes a nightmare.
So of course you abstract your assembler code. You define interfaces, develop and use libraries of common application tasks, and just generally structure your code at small and large scales.
But at that point, you are starting to lose the advantage of ASM. A good, modern C compiler is a lot better than you to find serendipitous optimization points in structured code, and it is not constrained by human memory and understanding so it doesn't need to structure the final code in a readable (but slower) way.
Small, time-critical sections, fine. Small embedded apps on tiny hardware, no problem. But ASM as a general-purpose application language? That stopped making sense decades ago.