At least one doesn't consider fusion 'nuclear power'. (He doesn't get corrected on this thread, not that I found.)
Edited on Tue Jan-05-10 04:17 AM by Occulus
There were specific research goals the Navy wanted them to achieve. That alone is very good news.
The Navy wants to develop this to use on carriers and submarines. Anything that will eliminate the possibility of nuclear material being released in a combat situation is something we should at least look into, and the Polywell project, if successful, will enable the Navy to ditch nuclear power completely. A nifty side effect is the end of the 'oil power' era, and a clean replacement for nuclear energy worldwide.
I think we all can live with that....
DU folks aren't really technically ept, but they're certainly... passionate about what they believe. Further down in the thread, there was one that wanted to see something that would vaporize capitalists. Further down, one wanted to see more remote robotic surgery/remote physician services.
Funny thing is, you don't get the latter without the former.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
The term "Nuclear power" has all the baggage of Pressurized water reactors, and the history of them. I therefore don't consider Polywell to be nuclear power in any vernacular context. Heck, I don't even consider IFRs to be either. We have "Nuclear Power" as the public conceives of it, no thanks to the naysayers, and we have the reality of potentially diverse Fusioning and Fissioning systems.
The concept of "Nuclear Power" in all its detriment && baggage is a trap set by those people whom would want the human race to suffer and die in the cold.
JLawson wrote: DU folks aren't really technically ept, but they're certainly... passionate about what they believe.
And TP folks aren't really verbally apt, but they're certainly... passionate about what they believe.
Merkin is a weird language. We got it from the Brits, then tried to fix it. Not quite innovative enough for that!!!
I just looked this up the other day in a different context, but the fact that the antonym of "apt" is "inept" instead of "inapt" (or, conversely, that the antonym of "inept" is "apt" instead of "ept") isn't an English/American thing, but dates back to the Romans, with the antonym of "aptus" being "ineptus". They gave it to the French, who gave it to the Brits.
JLawson wrote: DU folks aren't really technically ept, but they're certainly... passionate about what they believe.
And TP folks aren't really verbally apt, but they're certainly... passionate about what they believe.
Merkin is a weird language. We got it from the Brits, then tried to fix it. Not quite innovative enough for that!!!
I just looked this up the other day in a different context, but the fact that the antonym of "apt" is "inept" instead of "inapt" (or, conversely, that the antonym of "inept" is "apt" instead of "ept") isn't an English/American thing, but dates back to the Romans, with the antonym of "aptus" being "ineptus". They gave it to the French, who gave it to the Brits.
From whom we got it and still haven't been able to fix it! Guess they couldn't fix it after getting it from folks who couldn't... Maybe its just too broke.
Lol our whole language is broken. Philosopher instead of filosofer. Etc. We have a mash of spellings and structures reflecting Latin, classical Greek, Middle English, Old French, a few other direct borrowings, and the sort of ad hoc way we spell new words which you could call modern English spelling. We only use modern English when we can't find an earlier version of the word that doesn't actually sound the way it's spelled anymore.
Americans decided to try to fix a few bits and pieces: humor instead of humour, center instead of centre etc., but then just gave up. But hey, not changing the spelling means we can still read Shakespeare without too much trouble.
CaptainBeowulf wrote:Lol our whole language is broken. Philosopher instead of filosofer. Etc. We have a mash of spellings and structures reflecting Latin, classical Greek, Middle English, Old French, a few other direct borrowings, and the sort of ad hoc way we spell new words which you could call modern English spelling. We only use modern English when we can't find an earlier version of the word that doesn't actually sound the way it's spelled anymore.
Americans decided to try to fix a few bits and pieces: humor instead of humour, center instead of centre etc., but then just gave up. But hey, not changing the spelling means we can still read Shakespeare without too much trouble.
Dictionaries went and ruined it all.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
The European Commission has announced an agreement whereby
English will be the official language of the EU, rather than
German, which was the other contender. Her Majesty's Government
conceded that English spelling had room for improvement and has
therefore accepted a five-year phasing in of "Euro-English".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly,
this will make sivil servants jump for joy. The hard "c" will be
dropped in favour of the "k", Which should klear up some konfusion
and allow one key less on keyboards.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when
the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f", making words like
"fotograf" 20% shorter.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are
possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters
which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil
agre that the horible mes of the silent "e" is disgrasful.
By the fourth yer, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as
replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz yer, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords
kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer
kombinations of leters. After zis fifz yer, ve vil hav a reli
sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and
everivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer.
Ze drem of a united Urop vil finali kum tru!
Herr Schmidt
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
JLawson, to be fair, that comes off as rather colloquial, and since there exist no operating nuclear power fusion device to date, context should indicate what is meant. I'm sure the poster in question knows that fusion is nuclear, too.
Science is what we have learned about how not to fool ourselves about the way the world is.
CaptainBeowulf wrote:Lol our whole language is broken. Philosopher instead of filosofer. Etc. We have a mash of spellings and structures reflecting Latin, classical Greek, Middle English, Old French, a few other direct borrowings, and the sort of ad hoc way we spell new words which you could call modern English spelling. We only use modern English when we can't find an earlier version of the word that doesn't actually sound the way it's spelled anymore. :P
Americans decided to try to fix a few bits and pieces: humor instead of humour, center instead of centre etc., but then just gave up. But hey, not changing the spelling means we can still read Shakespeare without too much trouble. :lol:
One of my favorites is sceptic (British) vs skeptic (American and closer to the original Greek).
I like sceptic because my American friends like to tell me I can't spell. Although I did a post that I thought would be picked up (it was) and used skeptic throughout.
It is like the AGW folks in that respect. Using which ever data set makes the best argument.
==
And then there was the thread here where we discussed "tid bit" vs "tit bit". That was as close as we came to an all out sexual discussion. IIRC Poly Girl even chimed in.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
