cocoablazing

Do you have any evidence a submarine conducting normal operations has been detected with a gravimeter?

The degausser is a pier-like structure constructed at shore facilities for submarines.

Here is a degausser for the largest US submarines: https://www.google.com/maps/place/30°46'44.3%22N+81°29'30.6%...

The article previously posted concerns design of a reactor for inherent stability. What you are thinking about is called active control. Here is a paper investigating such control of a fusion torus: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/pop/21/8/10.106...

"Those with bachelor's degrees, no matter the field, earn vastly more than counterparts with some college ($1.55 million in lifetime earnings) or a high school diploma ($1.30 million lifetime), indicating that no matter the level of attainment or the field of study, simply earning a four-year degree is often integral to financial success later in life." http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/...

Nothing if you are using odeke-em's client. In my experience it's more useful than Google's desktop sync client.

I'm skeptical that this small reactor rivaled the Uranium program. If your rush 239Pu production, you end up with a product that is very difficult to purify, raises the probability of a fizzle, and generates thermal problems for the pit.

You can make a bomb out of a little of this, and a little of that. A bomb requires much more than a critical mass anyhow.

I'm a nuclear safety analyst. I need more than a powerpoint to convince me that an untested technology is safer than a technology that has seen billions of dollars of investment in enhanced technology, engineering, modeling, etc; along with decades of lessons learned. I'm not saying it couldn't be, but I think there are better ways to spend money on nuclear energy technologies right now, in terms of carbon offset and prevention of radioactivity release.

Please provide evidence that a Thorium reactor is safer. We have the means to make all the 238Pu we want. NASA just needs to pay commercial reactor operators to irradiate 237Np targets. This is a big problem, because NASA has very little funding to accomplish this, and the target material comes in a purified form suitable for direct use in nuclear weapons.

Iran was enriching Uranium, not producing Plutonium. Furthermore, this type of Plutonium is not what you desire for nuclear weapons material.

238Pu doesn't have anything to do with nuclear weapons. It is a highly unwanted contaminant of weapons-grade Plutonium.

238Pu is always going to be problematic because of the fact that the target material is only available in the US in weapons-grade form. USG moved all of it to secure storage at INL, and are very cautious about any program to transport it for 238Pu production. Hopefully they can get ATR moving and keep missions supplied.

So justify it. What is the expected number of excess cancer fatalities, given an LNT model, the known activity of NASA RTGs, and the explosion rate of deep space launches?

The people who protest these things expose themselves to orders of magnitude greater risk on their drive to the protest.

238Pu is only efficiently manufactured by activating 237Np.

Solar panels don't fit the bill for missions far from the sun.

No, the naturally abundant isotope of Thorium has 6 fewer nucleons. Why would building a special reactor for a program that has so little funding be justifiable?

To me, it appears that your argument presumes something that you believe to be false. Do you believe the devs left because of losing interest, or because of the funding of the audit, or both? Do you have a reference for the devs leaving because of anger over the funding?

They've had 0 technology for a millennium, so more properly they would be a revolutionary integral domain.

If the PRC solution was blocking the project pages, then Chinese users could just fork clones to circumvent the block. Forcing foreign organizations to anticipate some cost in supporting anti-censorship software is precisely about controlling their own citizens. Your personal attacks do nothing to support your argument. The use of these tools, at large, by the Chinese people may not be what the attack is about. It could very well be a an effort against some select group that are known users of these tools.

It could be users, contributors, time, money, or lines. Most or all of these apply to the difference between linux/git and average software. I don't accept it as an axiom that the biggest open source project in the world should be licensed the same as something in the first percentile of (pick one).

What I meant is that the software is used differently, and it is developed differently. It seems obvious to me that the ideal licensing for software that is vastly different from these examples of gargantuan/universal FOSS might not be GPL.

Three orders of magnitude.

I don't accept the argument: "Software is software". Why is GPL better than all other licenses, for all software?

Take a look at LyX.

Platforms versus modules.

The usefulness of the HP is principally in the application of the aDS/cft duality to otherwise intractable calculations. It doesn't have anything to do with the universe being virtual or computable. Perhaps you are thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics.

Some nuclear reactor instruments will respond in funny ways if you rub them. I never understood it, but some don't find it very funny.

No ABM system has demonstrated success against either MIRVs or deployed PENAIDS (much less 53T6), but more to the point BM's of any sort are not a first strike weapon (given US and RF radar nets, 24/7 US launch detection capability, and part-of-the-day RF launch detection capability).

If the US has a first strike weapon, it's a fleet of nuclear-capable stealth bombers employing GPS-guided laydown-capable munitions, coupled with a pretty nasty set of eyes in the sky to find mobile launchers. F-35 is also stealth and MAY get a B61 interface to replace NATO Tornados and F-16s, etc.

Your ICBM trade-off regarding corrections is outdated. Disarmament community has reported USN test administrators as stating latest W76-1/Mk4A LEP has introduced real-time GPS corrections throughout re-entry and terminal phase. A similar effort is underway to upgrade USAF RB's. Hypersonic aerodynamics and control research is going to pay dividends at some point, and apply to both hypersonic in-atmospheric and sub-orbital weapon control.

The "risk of nuclear payload" is only a severe problem if overflight is necessary. The RF would be able to assess that a non-overflying SLBM was not targeting RF territory as soon as it traveled through the radar nets. Obviously this is still probably a stupid weapon to use in a conventional context.

What is your reference for this range assertion? OS intelligence says that US SLBM's can strike any target in Eurasia from either ocean. What is your reference for the assertion that Trident is vulnerable to ABM? RF has no operational ABM system capable of striking RB's entering at 8 km/s. Why do submarines have to move quickly to enable a first strike? Can't they just stealthily move into the exact position necessary days prior to launch? You should review what public data is available on Trident testing, because it contradicts every one of your assertions. The Trident equipment section has been observed conducting 14 distinct warhead release maneuvers in space. The largest warhead Trident can carry is estimated to have a 500kt yield. Trident is estimated to carry a max loadout to >7e3 km, and a reduced (treaty) loadout to >11e3km. It is also estimated to exhibit the precision necessary to guarantee kills against the latest Russian silos (envelop the silo structure within the earthen blast cavity). This means that the Trident fleet can strike and neutralize every counter-force target in Eurasia from defended waters. There is no "proper air defence to take down the missiles" in existence, and there is no indication that current ABM programs have any hope of defeating a MIRV'd fleet of solid fuel launchers.

This is outdated information. FOBS are not deployed, and there are no US/NATO aircraft on alert. I don't know who you are speaking for regarding confidence in ABM's, but it's not the community of technical professionals that analyze strategic defense and deterrence. SLBM's are not a trump card, since if they are what you are relying on for counter-strike, your nation has been annihilated.