On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And consider the explosive force stored in a 350-700 bar (your
>>>>>> AI's number) pressure vessel that becomes brittle enough to go "bang".
>>>>>> That's one hell of a bang, even without the hydrogen itself explosively
>>>>>> combusting as part of the pressure release.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've seen the results of a 200-bar scuba tank letting go.
>>>>> And that's just a little 80-cubic foot tank filled with air.
>>>>
>>>> How did this happen? In sweden, there is an epidemic of bombings for the
>>>> past couple of years, since crazy drug dealing arabians are waging some
>>>> kind of war with hand grenades, and car battery bombs in the bigger
>>>> cities.
>>>>
>>>> Would using scuba tanks be a cheaper way for them to bomb each other?
>>>
>>> Likely not as cheap as a car battery. I see a 2.3L mini scuba tank on
>>> Amazon for $299 (no idea how big a 2.3L mini tank really is). I can
>>> get a car battery for about $100 at the local auto-store.
>>>
>>> And the scuba tank will not also spray sulfuric acid over everyone when
>>> it goes "bang". And short of an armor peircing slug, it is probably
>>> more difficult to get a new scuba tank to go "bang" vs becoming a brief
>>> high speed rocket or spinner.
>>>
>>>> Also, how does a car battery bomb work?
>>>
>>> Perhaps google would answer your question... Or perhaps google would
>>> report you to the authorities for even asking the question?
>>
>> I did, and my conclusion was that a pipe bombs with gun powder would be
>> lighter, cheaper and more dangerous.
>>
>> So that's why I ask you knowledgeable guys, since to me, it seems there
>> are _way_ better ways to cause mayhem than car battery bombs.
>
> Maybe try over on "alt.terrorists.r.us" :)
>
> Unless one of the lurkers is also playing in this field (and willing to
> speak up) you'll likely get "I dunno" as the answer from the rest of
> us. There's probably "some" reason, but you might have to infiltrate a
> cell to actually find out, and when you did, the "reason" may seem
> totally crazy in and of itself.

;)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:22:54 +0100, D wrote:

> Very interesting! So safety then depends on excellent supply chain
> management and quality control, coupled with perhaps changing the
> containers early to avoid any possibility of leakage.

Yup... That will work until Suzie Suburban screws in the nozzle with a
leaking i-ring, butt hanging from her lips.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 09/12/2024 20:50, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/12/2024 09:53, D wrote:
>>>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
>>>> nuclear power in 10 years.
>>>>
>>>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>>>
>>> I'm not so sure.
>>> At the moment Rolls Royce is going through the red tape box ticking
>>> exercise on their reactors.
>>> They want to deploy the first ones by 2030.
>>> The Czech Republic is working with RR on this as well
>>>
>>> There is a huge potential market for the first companies to put together
>>> scalable small modular reactors that are in mass production.
>>>
>>> Build your concrete structures, pop in a boiler and turbines and some
>>> generators and ship a complete reactor in, and plug it in to a factory
>>> produced control system, and that's it.
>>>
>>> 5 years top's is the aim
>>
>> This is the government. No SMR:s in sight. They are thinking about "safe"
>> traditional ones.
>>
>> If they get it done in 10 years, and if they dare to explore SMR:s, I will
>> be happily proven wrong.
>
> Sweden is small enough to be reasonably governed by people who don't get too
> puffed with self importance.
>
> I think the salient points for Europe are:-
>
> - Net Zero is pie in the sky. It ain't gonna happen.
> - Renewable energy is pie in the sky, and massively expensive overall. It
> ain't gonna happen either.
> - further reliance on fossil fuels is fraught with danger since by and large
> Western Europe doesnt have any.
> - All the Nordic hydro is pretty much exploited as well as alpine and in the
> Iberian peninsula.
> - All that is left is nuclear, and the point of SMR is to reduce build time
> and hence cost.
>
> We have to use what fossil is left to bootsrtap the nuclear economy.
>
> Note I didn't use the phrase 'climate change' anywhere above. It is
> *supremely irrelevant.'
>
> The greater issue is the growing scarcity of fossil fuel

Amen! But I don't think the fossil fuel scarcity is too much of a problem,
and that there's enough left for at least a generation or two.

But it won't be a big bang, plenty of technologies exist to bridge the
gap.

Would be cool if I could finally have a nuclear powered car that I bought
full, and would never have to refuel. ;)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 09/12/2024 20:51, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>
>>> If they had simply taxed carbon fuels  we would be all nuclear by
>>> now...and be making synthetic diesel
>>
>> Is electricity the primary cost driver of synthetic diesel?
>>
> I think it would be, yes.
>
>
> Lets say you can get to a 30% conversion ration of whatever energy drives the
> synthesis, to the final diesl.
>
> Diesel and natural gas is around (UK money) 50p a litre or 5p /kWh
>
> Expected renewable electricity is 3-4 times that
> Historic nuclear is a bit less - say 4p /kWh
>
> That puts synthetic diesel at a minimum of around 12p/kWh Which is what we
> pay at the pumps but that is all tax.

Ahh, yet another thing we don't have to worry about then. =)

>> Germany managed to help the extreme left and the extreme right with their
>> ridiculous nuclear policy. Given their history, I'm surprised they didn't
>> see it coming. ;)
>
> The trouble with Germany is that the Greens got into coalition, and the price
> of that was Germany's energy policy.
> The problem seems to be that the broad political choice is between neo
> Marxists and pro Russian Neo Nazis.

Yes!

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 09/12/2024 21:35, D wrote:
>> I could argue that solar is great in the sahara, but that does not make it
>> feasible at scale, so bad example.
>
> Not at night.
>
> And, guess what, no one lives in the sahara. So what is the point?

To illustrate that Carlos argument was bad. You got it! ;)

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 09/12/2024 21:40, D wrote:
>> We currently do not have the technology, so it would be refreshing if the
>> EU socialist nobility could stop pissing away our money. But that's not
>> likely to happen any time soon. I am happy that the UK left, and I do hope
>> that after Starmer has failed, that the UK can work to become the financial
>> power house of the world again.
>
> I read that Spain decided not to subsidise its windfarms as directed by the
> EU, as it was cheaper to pay the fine the EU imposed. Except they haven't
> paid that, either.
> I think some other country did the same.
>
> Germany has revoked Shengen. Not the EU. Finland and Sweden joined NATO.
> Not the EU.
>
> People are finding the EU is simply not as appropriate as individual nations
> behaving as if they were sovereign are letting the EU go fuck itself.
>
> Euratom is the agency in charge of preventing new nuclear plants being built.

Yes, I think the EU will eventually collapse under its own weight. I'm
just waiting for Orban or some other little dictator to break away,
humiliating the EU even more.

Draghis "innovation report" was hilarious! The EU is falling behind in
innovation, what should we do? Surprise! The EU must invest billions in
green tech!

Oh my god. How do those guys ever reach those positions? =/

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 10/12/2024 01:02, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:53:54 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
>>> nuclear power in 10 years.
>>>
>>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>>
>> If Sweden is like the US it will still be in litigation in 10 years.
>
> Fortunately Sweden is not.
>
> There seem to be (compared with the UK and US) people who can count beyond
> ten with their socks on in government
>
> They are still singing the renewable hymn sheet but money is going into
> piloting nuclear power.

Really? Not in sweden. What I have seen is that there is debate currently
around the funding. The Green tech companies are furious of course,
because they see the government teet being withdrawn.

The government owner power company at first refused to consider nuclear,
since it was not economically feasible. The CEO was switftly removed by
the new government, or she was forcefully instructed behind closed doors
(don't remember which actually) and all of a sudden they reluctantly
agreed to consider it.

The socialist/eco-fascist deep state surely runs deep in sweden. But it is
a small country, so much easier to change and adapt than a big country.

> IIRC the majority of many European countries are now in principle not opposed
> to nuclear if the price is right.
>
> And once one country goes nuclear, the rest will get lost in a crush to
> follow.
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 10/12/2024 13:34, D wrote:
>> I did, and my conclusion was that a pipe bombs with gun powder would be
>> lighter, cheaper and more dangerous.
>>
> A bit, but gunpowder is by no means the best explosive.
>
> Ammonium nitrate is way better.
>
> As is nitroglyerine - although that is notoriuously unstable.

This is the truth! I was just going by what I coud, at that time, easily
acquire or make myself.

>> So that's why I ask you knowledgeable guys, since to me, it seems there are
>> _way_ better ways to cause mayhem than car battery bombs.
>
>

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:22:54 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Very interesting! So safety then depends on excellent supply chain
>> management and quality control, coupled with perhaps changing the
>> containers early to avoid any possibility of leakage.
>
> Yup... That will work until Suzie Suburban screws in the nozzle with a
> leaking i-ring, butt hanging from her lips.
>

Gas station attendant to the rescue! Did you actually think you would be
allowed to refill your own vehicle in the future? ;)

On 2024-12-10, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/12/2024 01:02, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:53:54 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
>>> nuclear power in 10 years.
>>>
>>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>>
>> If Sweden is like the US it will still be in litigation in 10 years.
>
> Fortunately Sweden is not.
>
> There seem to be (compared with the UK and US) people who can count
> beyond ten with their socks on in government

I think that when it comes to politicians, the appropriate phrase is
"can count to 21 with their fly zipped".

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 10/12/2024 20:17, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2024 20:50, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 09/12/2024 09:53, D wrote:
>>>>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new,
>>>>> working nuclear power in 10 years.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not so sure.
>>>> At the moment Rolls Royce is going through the red tape box ticking
>>>> exercise on their reactors.
>>>> They want to deploy the first ones by 2030.
>>>> The Czech Republic is working with RR on this as well
>>>>
>>>> There is a huge potential market for the first companies to put
>>>> together scalable small modular reactors that are in mass production.
>>>>
>>>> Build your concrete structures, pop in a boiler and turbines and
>>>> some generators and ship a complete reactor in, and plug it in to a
>>>> factory produced control system, and that's it.
>>>>
>>>> 5 years top's is the aim
>>>
>>> This is the government. No SMR:s in sight. They are thinking about
>>> "safe" traditional ones.
>>>
>>> If they get it done in 10 years, and if they dare to explore SMR:s, I
>>> will be happily proven wrong.
>>
>> Sweden is  small enough to be reasonably governed by people who don't
>> get too puffed with self importance.
>>
>> I think the salient points for Europe are:-
>>
>> - Net Zero is pie in the sky. It ain't gonna happen.
>> - Renewable energy is pie in the sky, and massively expensive overall.
>> It ain't gonna happen either.
>> - further reliance  on fossil fuels is fraught with danger since by
>> and large Western Europe doesnt have any.
>> - All the Nordic hydro is pretty much exploited as well as alpine and
>> in the Iberian peninsula.
>> - All that is left is nuclear, and the point of SMR is to reduce build
>> time and hence cost.
>>
>> We have to use what fossil is left to bootsrtap the nuclear economy.
>>
>> Note I didn't use the phrase 'climate change' anywhere above. It is
>> *supremely irrelevant.'
>>
>> The greater issue is the growing scarcity of fossil fuel
>
> Amen! But I don't think the fossil fuel scarcity is too much of a
> problem, and that there's enough left for at least a generation or two.
>
I used to think so, but I think that the Arab states at least are very
close to empty, and we don't want to buy Russian oil - the price is too
high.

> But it won't be a big bang, plenty of technologies exist to bridge the gap.
>
> Would be cool if I could finally have a nuclear powered car that I
> bought full, and would never have to refuel. ;)

Its almost possible. The problem is all that lead makes it even heaver
than a BEV and you have to stop to fill up the water just as often.
There is no device that turns heat into electricity better than a steam
turbine, sadly.

--
When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over
the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that
authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

Frédéric Bastiat

On 10/12/2024 20:54, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 09/12/2024 21:40, D wrote:
>>> We currently do not have the technology, so it would be refreshing if
>>> the EU socialist nobility could stop pissing away our money. But
>>> that's not likely to happen any time soon. I am happy that the UK
>>> left, and I do hope that after Starmer has failed, that the UK can
>>> work to become the financial power house of the world again.
>>
>> I read that Spain decided not to subsidise its windfarms as directed
>> by the EU, as it was cheaper to pay the fine the EU imposed. Except
>> they haven't paid that, either.
>> I think some other country did the same.
>>
>> Germany has revoked Shengen.  Not the EU. Finland and Sweden joined
>> NATO. Not the EU.
>>
>> People  are finding the EU is simply not as appropriate as individual
>> nations behaving as if they were sovereign are letting the EU go fuck
>> itself.
>>
>> Euratom is the agency in charge of preventing new nuclear plants being
>> built.
>
> Yes, I think the EU will eventually collapse under its own weight. I'm
> just waiting for Orban or some other little dictator to break away,
> humiliating the EU even more.
>
> Draghis "innovation report" was hilarious! The EU is falling behind in
> innovation, what should we do? Surprise! The EU must invest billions in
> green tech!
>
> Oh my god. How do those guys ever reach those positions? =/

Bribery and corruption.

--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

On 10/12/2024 20:57, D wrote:
> The socialist/eco-fascist deep state surely runs deep in sweden. But it
> is a small country, so much easier to change and adapt than a big country.

And that is the truth. One country will break first, everybody will
watch and when all the companies and data centres start moving there to
take advantage of cheap energy, the rest will follow like lemmings, and
the EU will finally declare that nuclear energy is 'renewable' (let's
face it the nuclear powered sun drives wind and solar) so it was always
their intention etc blah blah blah.

--
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

On 10/12/2024 21:07, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:22:54 +0100, D wrote:
>>
>>> Very interesting! So safety then depends on excellent supply chain
>>> management and quality control, coupled with perhaps changing the
>>> containers early to avoid any possibility of leakage.
>>
>> Yup...  That will work until Suzie Suburban screws in the nozzle with a
>> leaking i-ring, butt hanging from her lips.
>>
>
> Gas station attendant to the rescue! Did you actually think you would be
> allowed to refill your own vehicle in the future? ;)

Green job creation.

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On 10/12/2024 22:49, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-12-10, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2024 01:02, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 10:53:54 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Swedens government has now decided that sweden shall have new, working
>>>> nuclear power in 10 years.
>>>>
>>>> I would bet several hundred euros against this being done on time.
>>>
>>> If Sweden is like the US it will still be in litigation in 10 years.
>>
>> Fortunately Sweden is not.
>>
>> There seem to be (compared with the UK and US) people who can count
>> beyond ten with their socks on in government
>
> I think that when it comes to politicians, the appropriate phrase is
> "can count to 21 with their fly zipped".
>
They have flies?

--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:07:32 +0100, D wrote:

> Gas station attendant to the rescue! Did you actually think you would be
> allowed to refill your own vehicle in the future?

There may be other states but Oregon is one where you can't pump your own
gas. The exceptions are the counties in the very sparsely populated
eastern part of the state.

BREAKING NEWS:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2023/08/07/after-72-years-oregon-
finally-legalizes-pumping-your-own-gas/

I haven't been in Oregon for quite a while and don't plan any trips. Even
when the law was in effect if you were on a bike the attendant would look
the other way. There are laws then there is spilling gas on a Hells
Angel's custom painted gas tank.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 21:57:36 +0100, D wrote:

> The government owner power company at first refused to consider nuclear,
> since it was not economically feasible. The CEO was switftly removed by
> the new government, or she was forcefully instructed behind closed doors
> (don't remember which actually) and all of a sudden they reluctantly
> agreed to consider it.

That will be a hurdle in the US; quite a few nuclear plants were
decommissioned because they proved to be economically unfeasible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station

There was great weeping when Rancho Seco shut down and SMUD had to
restructure their generation capacity. That was replaced by sighs of
relief when SMUD realized they would have been destroyed by the energy
deregulation fiasco.

On 2024-12-10, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 10/12/2024 21:07, D wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:22:54 +0100, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very interesting! So safety then depends on excellent supply chain
>>>> management and quality control, coupled with perhaps changing the
>>>> containers early to avoid any possibility of leakage.
>>>
>>> Yup...  That will work until Suzie Suburban screws in the nozzle with a
>>> leaking i-ring, butt hanging from her lips.
>>
>> Gas station attendant to the rescue! Did you actually think you would be
>> allowed to refill your own vehicle in the future? ;)
>
> Green job creation.

Or just job creation. The city next door to us has banned
self-serve for years.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 2024-12-11, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 22:07:32 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> Gas station attendant to the rescue! Did you actually think you would be
>> allowed to refill your own vehicle in the future?
>
> There may be other states but Oregon is one where you can't pump your own
> gas. The exceptions are the counties in the very sparsely populated
> eastern part of the state.
>
> BREAKING NEWS:
>
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2023/08/07/after-72-years-oregon-
> finally-legalizes-pumping-your-own-gas/
>
> I haven't been in Oregon for quite a while and don't plan any trips. Even
> when the law was in effect if you were on a bike the attendant would look
> the other way. There are laws then there is spilling gas on a Hells
> Angel's custom painted gas tank.

As Forbes reports, Oregon now has legalized self-service gasoline
pumping state-wide. FINALLY!!!!! I have not heard recently
whether New Jersey might have also legalized it.

Although I had pumped my own gas in a state other than Oregon for
the first several years I could drive a car, after ~40 years of
Oregon requiring me to let the pump jockey drizzle gasoline down
the side of my vehicle, it still felt a little (but only a
little) odd to be pumping my own gas again.

IIUC, my wife chooses to let the station employee do the deed.

--
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)

On 12/10/24 3:01 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 01:54:05 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
>> Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff'
>
> How about that bubble memory?

Fizzy !!! :-)

There may be modern updates - not magnetic bubbles
but some kinds of -ons or -ions. Functional equivs,
flash fakes it, but isn't that robust - and the
ferroelectrics are too low density.

On 12/10/24 8:38 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> On 12/9/24 8:25 PM, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 13:58:47 -0800, John Ames wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any chance of this conversation returning to anything even *slightly*
>>>> more relevant to *nix, computers in general, or, like, *anything* else?
>>>> Maybe I should dig up some old Francis E. Dec rant for a more coherent/
>>>> relevant refresher course...
>>>
>>> Feel free to start a thread.
>>
>>
>>  Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
>>  Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff'  :-)
>>
>>  Was HOPING for discussion/insight into 'alternative'
>>  schemes for 'CPU's and such derived from older solutions.
>>
>>  Houston, we have a problem .............
>>
>
> Your thread was perhaps not interesting enough? Try again! ;)

Awwww .... OUGHT to be an interesting topic, especially
as we're bumping up against Moore's end-point. One or
two more gens and we're literally at the atomic scale ;
where to go from there ?

Better innovate SOMETHING, otherwise we're gonna see
'peak computing' when it's become clear we need thousands
of times that for the Really Cool Stuff.

On 12/9/24 1:14 AM, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 00:07:04 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> However to get good efficiency you couldn't burn the hydrogen - huge
>> FUEL CELLS would be required.
>> Even then, considerable loss.
>
> It has infrastructure problems but Toyota's fuel cell vehicle is feasible.
> Excluding catastrophic tank failure I don't think hydrogen would be more
> of a problem than propane.

Look and calc again - BIG BIG problem.

On 12/10/24 6:47 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 10:30:02 +0100, D wrote:
>
>> I guess it's the spirit of the age. Our elite politicians have lost
>> touch with the people and have pissed them off too much. The people
>> then, naturally, overreact. The rest of the chain of causation is left
>> as an exercise for the reader. ;)
>
> But not a reader here, because you and your ilks' political missives
> have fsck-all to do with Linux.

I've mentioned this.

The Bit-Slice topic was kinda an attempt to split
from what's annoying you. Didn't work.

Alas some of these 'other topics' ARE compelling
to many. Comp/OS threads drift towards 'other' as
if magnetically attracted.

SOME has to do with the current US elections and
world affairs. If that all calms down so will the
threads. There's plenty to know/do with Linux/Unix
so there OUGHT to be material.

The only good thing ... some of these 'alternate'
topics seem to have revealed unrealized common
interests and compatibility between people who
normally just sniped at each other over trivia.

So, it's not ALL bad.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:45:06 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/10/24 3:01 AM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Dec 2024 01:54:05 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>>
>>> Ummmmm ... I just TRIED with the "Bit-Slice" topic.
>>> Jumped IMMEDIATELY back to 'non-OS/Computer stuff'
>>
>> How about that bubble memory?
>
> Fizzy !!! :-)
>
> There may be modern updates - not magnetic bubbles but some kinds of
> -ons or -ions. Functional equivs,
> flash fakes it, but isn't that robust - and the ferroelectrics are
> too low density.

Somehow bit slice abd bubble memories are cataloged side by side in my
brain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PALM_processor

There is another golden oldie. The 5120 was a strange beast, selectable
for either BASIC or APL. It's successor, the System/23, had an 8085 rather
than IBM's homebrew but had a similar look. Familiarity with the 8085 was
one of the factors for using the 8088.

What i never could figure out is the 5100, 5120, and 5120 were all the
PALM, whue the System/23 went to 53xx. Then they went back to 5150 for the
PC that had absolutely nothing in common with the 5120.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 07/12/2024 18:24, Rich wrote:
>> Nighttime is the big one. Until the world's electric grids are
>> sufficiently interconnected that power generated in the Saraha Desert
>> at noon can be shipped to the other side of the world where it is dark
>> to supply power to that location there*must* be some storage, somehow,
>> to account for night/twilight/a run of 14+ overcast days/etc.
>>
> When I did all these calculations years ago the answer that came up
> every time was 'nuclear is simply cheaper, more reliable, more self
> sufficient and in every way better'

As it happens an Australian report with contradictory conclusions
has been all over the local media:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-09/nuclear-power-plant-twice-as-costly-as-renewables/104691114
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost

More sunny here than most places, of course.

>> And, even if the world's electric grid was interconnected sufficient to
>> ship solar power from Africa to the other side of the globe, we measly
>> humans would simply use those interconnnects to try to enforce
>> geopolitical rules on other locations we don't like by attempting to
>> deny them "night time power".
>
> Or the Russians would cut the cable anyway, just for kicks.

There's a project to export solar power from Australia to Singapore
through an undersea cable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41825-020-00032-z

I wouldn't bet on it myself though.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#