On 12/11/24 1:05 AM, rbowman wrote:
> 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

Well, historically parallel ...

FOR THE TIME both bit-slice and bubble were
pretty good.

But what about The Future ?

> 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.

Umm ... 5120 came well after the 8088. Got yer
numbers right ?

The 8085 was a pretty fair predecessor for the 8088
however. Not THAT much diff. However, for the time,
the Z80 was maybe a tad better.

Would still like to get my hands on a working S-100
Z80 system .....

> 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.

Did some work with PALMs - not the worst platform
for the time. Some 3rd-party stuff made 'em very
versatile.

The idea of CPUs with some higher-level lang in ROM
is kinda interesting - and even in The Future.

Wouldn't pick BASIC or APL these days however, probably
Python. Integrate the interpreter well enough and they
could be very fast and useful. I can see lots of
'industrial'/control apps. The current Py3 is good
enough for 20+ years fer sure.

On 12/9/24 7:56 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 14:15:21 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>> I still do not know why you are talking this and not Linux in a Linux
>> group, but for your info, there are countries that sell more electric
>> cars than IC, so it works for them.
>
> Desktop Linux works for many people including myself. However, Windows
> remains the dominant OS.

Dominant because of manipulative sales tactics - NOT merit.

Win is a MESS - a messy mess. At SOME point they're gonna
have to do like Apple and just FLUSH it - make a seem-alike
system on top of some kind of Unix.

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

> 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.

Sigh... ok, a ship then! ;)

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

> 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.

Yes... it certainly isn't skill or brains.

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

> 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.

Of course!

If it is one thing I have learned, it's that reality and markets always
trump politics. The sad thing is that it can take many decades until
politics is forced to give up its dreams and return to reality, but
reality always wins in the end.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher 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.

Touché!

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, rbowman 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.
>

Wow, had no idea!

But I would be careful if I were you. Isn't oregon a democrat stronghold?
It you go there and they find you out, you might not be able to leave. ;)

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:

> 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.
>

Lo and behold... (or talking about the trolls, to imperfectly translate a
swedish saying...) from todays mainstream news on the topic of swedish
nuclear:

"The planned new nuclear power reactors at Ringhals cannot be accommodated.
In any case, not if the nature reserve on the Väröhalvön is to continue.

Now Vattenfall is taking the unusual step of applying to cancel the reserve.

Already when Vattenfall began sketching new reactors on the Värö
Peninsula, it was clear that it would be difficult to manage without
encroaching on the Biskopshagen nature reserve. Among other things, the
reserve is set up for recreational areas for the public.

- Those regulations, we see, will be difficult to fulfill. So therefore
the procedure will be that we apply to cancel the entire nature reserve,
says Desirée Comstedt, head of new nuclear power at Vattenfall.

The impact is greatest during the construction period itself. Then the
hope is that parts of the area can become a nature reserve again.

- A small part of the nature reserve will also be a future industrial
area. But the greater part of the encroachment on the nature reserve is
during the construction phase, she says.

Otherwise, the plans are progressing roughly as planned. The next step is
to submit documents for the consultation that Vattenfall will have with
local authorities and the public in late winter. In addition, the number
of suppliers of the reactors themselves will be scaled down further in the
"near future", according to Comstedt.

Recently, an investigation put forward the risk-sharing model with the
state that Vattenfall believes must be in place. It is now being fully
evaluated, but management thinks it is largely good.

- There we see that there are good conditions for that model to be able to
provide a basis for an investment decision, says Desirée Comstedt.

Vattenfall has also not put its foot down regarding the type of reactors
to be built, conventional large, or smaller, so-called SMR.

- For us, the technology decision is not the big thing, but it is more
about the commercial offer that the various suppliers have, says Comstedt.

Whether there will be time to sod before the end of the current
government's term of office, as the government promised early on, is
highly uncertain. Many pieces of the puzzle remain, including
environmental permits, which often take time."

So there apparently are tiny steps in the right direction.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> 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 ?

Quantum computing of course! Otherwise, we'll just continue to scale out I
assume.

Is there an established Moores end point?

I would imagine once we hit that end point in terms of regular cpus, the
only direction left would be purpose built cpus on other technologies for
niche use cases such as biological computing, quantum computing, optical
etc.

Could regular cpu:s get some extended life by a change of materials or
some other tweaks to the current design?

> 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 Wed, 11 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 12/9/24 7:56 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 14:15:21 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>
>>> I still do not know why you are talking this and not Linux in a Linux
>>> group, but for your info, there are countries that sell more electric
>>> cars than IC, so it works for them.
>>
>> Desktop Linux works for many people including myself. However, Windows
>> remains the dominant OS.
>
> Dominant because of manipulative sales tactics - NOT merit.
>
> Win is a MESS - a messy mess. At SOME point they're gonna
> have to do like Apple and just FLUSH it - make a seem-alike
> system on top of some kind of Unix.

Also note that due to Apple, chromebooks and linux, windows has been
losing market share, although very, very slowly.

On 11/12/2024 10:06, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Lo and behold... (or talking about the trolls, to imperfectly translate
> a swedish saying...) from todays mainstream news on the topic of swedish
> nuclear:
>
> "The planned new nuclear power reactors at Ringhals cannot be
> accommodated. In any case, not if the nature reserve on the Väröhalvön
> is to continue.
>
....
Sizewell nuclear power station is right next door to a major bird
sanctuary (Minsmere)
It's due to have another big reactor built alongside.

You can cite that if you like... at any hearings.

--
Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!

On 11/12/2024 10:08, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> 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 ?
>
> Quantum computing of course! Otherwise, we'll just continue to scale out
> I assume.
>
> Is there an established Moores end point?
Yes. The equation relates power consumption, clock speed, and number of
transitors to technology size.

Ass the fabrication limits dropped, the power use and to an extent the
clock speed could go up and the number of transistors massively increase.

But the technology is approaching atomic scales, and the clock speed
cannot get much higher as propagation delays across the chip make the
clock a different beats on different parts of the chip.

How long have Intel been struggling with 7nm?

>
> I would imagine once we hit that end point in terms of regular cpus, the
> only direction left would be purpose built cpus on other technologies
> for niche use cases such as biological computing, quantum computing,
> optical etc.
>
For some years the only improvement has been on chip cache and multiple
cores..

> Could regular cpu:s get some extended life by a change of materials or
> some other tweaks to the current design?
>
Not really.

>>  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.
>>
Well not peak computing, but a mature technology where chip types
stabilise and do not evolve.

Many of the early analogue ICs are still in production today, for example.
We could still be using Z80s, as it only ceased production last year.

--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 11/12/2024 09:58, D wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>
> Sigh... ok, a ship then! 😉

Not only possible, has been done and is almost certainly the global
freight and possibly passenger transport of the future.

--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 2024-12-08, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> Toyota never bought into BEVs and favored hybrids. The Mirai is impressive
> but it points out the problem at this time.
>
> https://www.hydrogeninsight.com/transport/toyota-sued-over-lack-of-
> hydrogen-availability-for-fuel-cell-cars-in-california/2-1-1676965
>
> "A class action lawsuit alleges false advertising and misrepresentation
> over promises that H2 refuelling stations would be widely available"
>
> Hydrogen will need a real PR campaign. A company I worked for had a
> contract to produce the glass tubes for strobe lights. It was a glass
> blowing operation to form the corkscrew shape. Soda glass can be worked
> with oxy-acetylene but quartz glass needs a oxy-hydrogen flame. We had to
> get a permit to have a hydrogen tube trailer spotted on the premises
> despite hydrogen being safer than acetylene. I could see the fire marshall
> thinking 'bomb' when we said 'hydrogen'.
>
> The tanks have improved. In the '70s the weight of hydrogen in a tube
> trailer was ridiculously small compared to the wieght of the trailer. New
> materials reduce the tank weights and the DOT has increased the allowable
> pressure but it's still a transportation problem.
>
> Then there is the problem that most hydrogen comes from processing natural
> gas rather than green alternative energy sources.

I don't have the references handy, but IIRC, Toyota accepted a
significant US (or CA?) government subsidy for the development of the
Mirai with the proviso that a certain number of Hydrogen cars had to be
sold by a certain date (10,000 by the end of 2023?) with a proportional
penalty for any shortfall.

As the deadline approached, they were far behind (8000 or so?) and
offered a promotional deal where they essentially gave the cars away
(pay $45,000 but get a lifetime free fuel card).

I looked at it, but although there is a hydrogen fueling station
within a mile of my house, Yelp reviews said it was frequently out of
fuel for days at a time, and the second nearest is 60 miles away.
Not really an option for a daily driver "round town".
--
Lars Poulsen

On 11/12/2024 09:58, D wrote:
D>> Sigh... ok, a ship then! 😉

On 2024-12-11, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
[Nuclear powered ships]
> Not only possible, has been done and is almost certainly the global
> freight and possibly passenger transport of the future.

I fondly remember the NS Savannah visiting Copenhagen sometime around
1964. I was 14 and traveled to visit it. Very impressive. But according
to Wikipedia:

Savannah was deactivated in 1971 and after several moves was moored
at Pier 13 of the Canton Marine Terminal in Baltimore, Maryland in
2008. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah)

I highly recommend the Wikipedia article.

On 2024-12-08, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> And once you create it, and pump it into the car's pressure tank
> (you'll need a pressure vessel unless the car has a cryo-cooler on
> board, and the energy expended by the cryo-cooler would dwarf the
> energy needed to propel the car), you are right back to the
> 'embrittlement' problem again.
>
> 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.
>
> Plus, the walls of the pressure vessel quite effectively become a
> 'fragmentation grenade' in the process of going bang.

How are these issues addressed in the Toyota Mirai and its equivalents?

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> 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.

True, and the precursor chemicals are likey on a 'watch for purchasers'
list somewhere, like a lot of otherwise useful chemicals from the past
are now. So if one starts buying up enough precursors, one likely ends
up with a visit from men in dark suits, wearing dark sunglasses, and
driving blackout windowed black SUV's.

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.

Last I saw, New Jersey is another with the "no-self-serve" for gas
pumps. But New Jersey also has a number of refineries too, so the
"no-self-serve" may be the result of "oil money lobbying" rather than
any logical saftey thought.

Robert Riches wrote:

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

I only recently learned that it didn't allow it, so no.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 11/12/2024 10:06, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Lo and behold... (or talking about the trolls, to imperfectly translate a
>> swedish saying...) from todays mainstream news on the topic of swedish
>> nuclear:
>>
>> "The planned new nuclear power reactors at Ringhals cannot be accommodated.
>> In any case, not if the nature reserve on the Väröhalvön is to continue.
>>
> ...
> Sizewell nuclear power station is right next door to a major bird sanctuary
> (Minsmere)
> It's due to have another big reactor built alongside.
>
> You can cite that if you like... at any hearings.

I don't live in the country since many years, so not a problem of mine. I
do follow current events though.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 11/12/2024 09:58, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Sigh... ok, a ship then! 😉
>
> Not only possible, has been done and is almost certainly the global freight
> and possibly passenger transport of the future.

Yes! It would be a shame of subs and aircraft carriers would be the only
ones to have this.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, Rich wrote:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> 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.
>
> True, and the precursor chemicals are likey on a 'watch for purchasers'
> list somewhere, like a lot of otherwise useful chemicals from the past
> are now. So if one starts buying up enough precursors, one likely ends
> up with a visit from men in dark suits, wearing dark sunglasses, and
> driving blackout windowed black SUV's.

This is the truth, but the chemicals for those are more difficult for me
to acquire. Coal is easy, I think I extracted sulfur from some kind of
pesticide (don't remember exactly), and potassium nitrate can be bought en
masse in the form of stump remover (?). Easy as pie!

What I did not test was to buy some alcohol to purify the gun powder. I
also had bad quality coal as well, so that's something I would change til
next time.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 00:51:47 -0500
"186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> wrote:

> 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.

I've long been of the opinion that things're gonna get Real Interesting
when Moore's Law finally his the wall and "throw a beefier rig at it!"
is no longer a viable pitch for any "your X isn't delivering Y fast
enough for project Z!" problems.

On 11/12/2024 16:17, D wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/2024 09:58, D wrote:
> steam turbine, sadly.
>>>
>>> Sigh... ok, a ship then! 😉
>>
>> Not only possible, has been done and is almost certainly the global
>> freight and possibly passenger transport of the future.
>
> Yes! It would be a shame of subs and aircraft carriers would be the only
> ones to have this.

There is an international group of shipping people looking into what
stands in the way. Regulations mostly...

The economics are somewhat unclear. The rising cost of bunker oil has
made cruising at lower speeds the optimal balance. With nuclear, uranium
costs are negligible so full speed at whatever the weather will allow
may be optimal leading to less ships being needed overall.

Probably a large container or cruise ship could top out at 50mph (80kph)
or so. So something like a 3 day transatlantic crossing time.

I think that is very acceptable as part of a holiday package.

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 08:43:03 -0800
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

> his the wall

* hits