Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 258

No, a RTG is distinctly different from a nuclear reactor in almost every single way. They do not involve chain reactions. They do not involve neutrons to any significant degree. Moderation, cross section calculations, etc don't even come into play. It's just a ball of material that stays hot due to capturing its own alphas. RTGs are not considered nuclear reactors. There is no wiggle room on this; they're an entirely different class of spacecraft power systems.

RTGs scale down quite well. They're also, however, about as far on the opposite side of the affordability spectrum as you could possibly get.

There have been actual nuclear reactors used on spacecraft in the past, as I wrote, primarily by the Soviets. But they're anything what you'd consider a cost effective design for civilian power generation.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 258

Higher fissile number density = higher enrichment = nonstarter. Fine for submarines, not for civilian power. Re, reflector, you still have to deal with free path issues when determining overall reactor size. The more you're spending on inert mass relative to how much power you're getting, the worse your economics. Plus your reflector is contributing to (n, gamma) and other neutron consuming reactions (although it's possible to use a moderator that you need anyway (say graphite) as a reflector... although there are issues with that as well to deal with)

You'll note that I mentioned and agreed with the mass production argument - if fission power is going to have an actually sustainable renaissance, I would expect modular reactors to be the means. But I nonetheless questioned whether that could be enough to overcome the basic issues on top of the additional challenges that a small modular reactor imposes.

Comment Were the users randomized? (Score 4, Insightful) 137

I mean, I'm sure our Linux users overall require the least tech support. But that's a function of who they are more than what they're using.

I don't doubt that Macs require less support, but 40% vs 5% says that something else is going on - and I doubt that sort of ratio will hold once people are converted in bulk.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 258

Energy density (with respect to time) - J/m^2-s or equivalent.

As for "Who cares?" The GP for one. Me for two. Most people on Earth as well. The more land that is used up, the less you have for other purposes, be that for humans (agriculture, forestry, mining, grazing, etc) or natural habitat. It hits doubly that reservoirs target land defined most notably by the following characteristics:

1) Large river
2) Deep ravine/basin
3) Significant altitude change

In short, they often tend to be the areas most important to wildlife, often locally-unique habitats, as well as the most scenic areas within a given location - areas responsible as well for significant mobilization of sediment and oxygenation of water.

Solar, by contrast benefits most from environments full of endless identical flat wastelands. The more mundane and barren, the better.

Comment Re:They both look the same from here (Score 1) 10

Wow, where to start with this one.

The claim that monarchies are legitimate so that makes them non-fascist is total bullshit - those monarchies didn't just naturally evolve - there was a lot of blood spilled in the process.

Oh shut up. Now you're picking random potentially totalitarian things out of the air as if Fascism is a generic term of really bad totalitarian governments.

Monarchies are a completely ridiculous diversion and no, they're not the same. They're not even the same type of thing. Fascism is an ideology, not a constitutional system of government. And nobody would argue that monarchies are "legitimate" so that makes them "non-fascist", because the term has no meaning here. Are fascist governments not "legitimate"? I'm pretty sure Mussolini was the legitimate leader of Italy until the Italians found a new use for meathooks.

Nor is this a discussion of totalitarianism, and we're not trying to define totalitarianism. We're discussing Fascism, a specific ideology, created by Benito Mussolini in the 1920s, and expanded upon by Adolf Hitler and others after that.

Europe in the 1920s and 1930s is precisely relevant to defining Fascism. That's when the first Fascists appeared. And almost from the beginning, Mussolini was adamant about "protecting" the "Aryan race". Between his own rhetoric, and Hitler's influence, this culminated in the Manifesto of Race on the Italian side. I don't need to tell you what it culminated in on the German side.

If you reject the inventor of the term "fascism" as being somehow unconnected to his own ideology, and decide to ascribe completely unrelated movements and constitutional systems (!!!) to Fascism purely because they're totalitarian, then again you're just plain not addressing the term.

And to circle back to the topic, I called Trump a fascist. Not a communist. Not a king. Not a totalitarian. Not a dictator. A fascist.

He's a racist who demonizes and dehumanizes non-whites, and scapegoats them for America's "problems". He has contempt for democracy. He directly and actively promotes violence against his political rivals. He wants to use the law to punish those who oppose him, from politicians to the free media.

I don't like Clinton, but she's none of those things. And you have to be those things to be a fascist.

Comment Re:this can't be (Score 2) 28

..and Amazon will likely retain its lead in supporting large and/or public facing websites.

But there's a lot of businesses, usually non-IT focused ones, who will remain Microsoft shops. For them, hosting their internal, B2B, and smaller public applications on Azure makes a lot of sense, and it's going to be a growth area for MS for a while. Yes you can host your .NET applications lots of places, but all the Azure nonsense is baked into Visual Studio and so, to the extent it basically works, it's going to be the path of least resistance for a lot of people.

In a lot of ways, MS is in a different market than other cloud vendors.

Comment Re:About time. (Score 1) 412

Christ, the kooks do come out when the topic of vaccination comes around.

As with all fucking morons, they seem to believe that just because they have some opinion, no matter how retarded that opinion is and no matter how much it proves them to be worthless contemptible creatures, they think that opinion is enough to create a "controversy".

They are indeed the most disgusting worthless vile things that have ever existed.There are simple worms with barely any kind of gut at all who have more right to live, and more neurons.

Comment Re:Cheap? (Score 1) 258

The "billions of dollars in budget overruns" are self-inflicted by the ridiculous mess of bureaucracy that's in place. Material and labor costs for a nuclear plant really aren't that much different than any other power plant. Construction time (again, taking out the bureaucracy) takes about a year or two more. Actually getting one approved however requires billions of dollars up front before so much a s a shovel touches the ground, and something just short of an act of god.

The problems with nuclear power are caused by people.

Comment Re:Don't use Facebook (Score 1) 72

There are ways to publish such videos without such insane restrictions.

Of course, but that is hardly the issue here. They are trying to promote important health awareness information as widely as possible, and facebook is, regrettably, popular. It is a real shame that unenlightened prudishness shall stand in the way of such a noble purpose. And as the saying goes, all things are pure to the innocent; or in other words, the more prudish you are, the more you have to be ashamed of, clearly.

Comment Re:6.8 Billion (Score 1) 258

US or Russian naval officers would disagree with you.

See what I wrote above. You can make a reactor of any size. But you lose efficiency - both neutron efficiency and cost efficiency - the more you scale down. Nuclear sub reactors' scaledowns are aided by the use of highly enriched uranium as fuel, something you don't want to do with civilian nuclear plants. And note that even nuclear subs' reactors aren't "small". A Los Angeles class, for example, uses a 165MW reactor. And nuclear power plants, unlike subs, generally need to have multiple reactors so that they can be taken down for maintenance / fueling.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Marriage is like a cage; one sees the birds outside desperate to get in, and those inside desperate to get out." -- Montaigne