@vesuvius: I got some news today about Windows 8 that I can't talk about; but I can say, don't worry.
Look 30 minutes into this video:
Uranium: 800,000 tons of ore => 250 tons of natural uranium => 35 tons of enriched uranium + 215 tons of depleted uranium => 35 tons of spent fuel, radioactive for ~10,000 years.
Thorium: 200 tons of ore => 1 ton natural thorium => 1 ton fission products (no uranium or plutonium or other actinades) => 83% of 1 ton stable in 10 years and usable + 17% radioactive waste for ~300 years.
Thorium reactors are also dramatically safer, because they are under low pressure and much easier to stop the reaction with safety measure like "freeze plugs".
How Cloud based application security testing is different from traditional client server security testing?Aug 29, 2011 at 7:29AM
How Cloud based application security testing is different from traditional client server security testing?Aug 29, 2011 at 7:27AM
@LauraN: For one thing, you have to store the audit records in Table or Blob storage, or on premises. What other issues are you concerned about? In general everything else would stay more or less the same as an on-premises application.
@spivonious: I imagine it will become the norm someday; plus 3D printable OLEDs ... can you imagine the kinds of interfaces? Imagine if they are touch sensitive as well. A smartphone screen that stretches out to twice the size, but somehow maintains aspect ratio without distorting the video. That would be very challenging to create. The device would have to know how much each "thread" of the OLED screen was stretched, and account for curvature if necessary.
In contemplating things further, I realize that the title of the thread is misleading, and that I let it go because I figured that exaggeration was necessary to try to get people to treat the research seriously. However, it seems that it has the opposite effect. The truth is better than exaggerating the claims that the researchers are making. The data and experiment should speak for themselves, and they don't close the book on anything, but hopefully stir up more research into neglected areas.
@Dr.Herbie: I think knowing more will actually help us figure out how to mitigate cosmic rays some day and it's not something we should just accept as being unsolvable.
@AndyC: Not everyone has the same opinion on what constitutes evidence, and apparently what belief means.
@Dr Herbie & @cbae: I agree with you both on a certain level; that this is not conclusive proof one way or another, but I'm trying to emphasize the point of the research: To determine how clouds are formed, and whether the sun has an influence on it, and whether cosmic rays have an influence on it. The conclusion is that cosmic rays do indeed create the seeds needed for cloud formation. Kirkby says it doesn't prove that this has an effect on climate. Ok, it doesn't prove that cloud formation has anything to do with climate, that's true. It also doesn't prove that other factors are or are not involved.
However, who really believes that cloud formation isn't a factor in climate, and likely the biggest factor, aside from the direct effect of sunlight in terms of temperature? Saying that cosmic rays create seeds for cloud formation at such a high rate, but yet saying it doesn't prove that there's any effect on the climate is pushing the boundaries of reason.
As for the director's reported warning to the scientists, it's all political - "sensitive topic" and "politically correct" are basically the same thing. No, I don't have the actual wording Herbie, so I can drop that as an argument.
Actual physical experiments using the most advanced model we have to simulate cloud formation in controlled conditions has proven that cosmic rays create the nuclear seeds required to form water and ice droplets at significantly high rates. Pure physics and chemistry. We now know for a fact that cosmic rays actually create clouds in a lab. The idea that they don't do it in nature is denying the fundamental principle that physics is the same everywhere. The fact that the magnetic field of the sun protects us from cosmic rays is not disputed - AFAIK. The fact that the magnetic field varys with solar activity, such as sunspots and CMEs is not disputed - AFAIK. Data shows that variance in the magnetic field of the sun aligns with the formation of clouds, increasing when the magnetic field is weaker, and decreasing when it decreases. The data mapping is in question, however, and requires more research and testable predictions.
Now can we actually have more research, to answer the remaining questions? That would be great, and to be able to do it without being called an idiot, liberal, conservative, denier, or scammer woulld be even better.
How about this as a headline?
"Idiot Post Links and Thinks That Proved Something"
If this is what the thread has to devolve into, then count me out. The first to start with the personal insults loses, as far as I'm concerned.