Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Star in a Bottle

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 162 posts

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#71

Post by dragonwriter »

mathattack wrote: post #67
r00fus wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are some who propose that Iraq was invaded in response to Saddam's switch to use Euros rather than Dollars as reserve currency [1]. From a plutocratic viewpoint, that might well be a considered as vile an act as say, using bio-weapons on the Kurdish separatists. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/22/the-usa-attacked-iraq...

Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started. I think they (like most who start wars) dramatically underestimating the costs and complexity. I'm less inclined to believe that it has to do with gassing their own people (why start caring now?) or going to the Euro. But I do agree with the above points that we spend an awful lot of time fighti…

> Call me naive, but I think it was Junior surrounding himself with folks who wanted him to finish the job that Pops started.

Given that those same people spent much of the Clinton Administration advocating for war on Iraq from outside of government, its a pretty good bet that that was part of the reason.

Though, to be fair, there's plenty of reason to consider that the "job that Pops started" was itself about oil, and that insofar as Iraq was targetted as an example to others, one of the reasons the particular example was chosen is because Iraq -- to borrow one of those vary same Bush II war cheerleaders description of why North Korea was treated differently than Iraq -- "floats on a sea of oil".

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#72

Post by Florin_Andrei »

aqme28 wrote: post #18
ck2 wrote: post #16

LHC didn't make me nervous and I laughed somewhat at the people who sued to keep it off for fear it might end the world. This one however, I dunno. Sounds like things could go wrong with that much energy. When they made the first atomic bomb, they had theories about what might happen but not 100% sure and there were some surprises. But I'll take death from this over death from fracking.

It's actually a lot less energy than it sounds like. The temperatures will hit 10-100 times the temperature of the sun, but the density inside will be very very low. This thing couldn't vaporize a car. Remember, this is only a 500 megawatt device, and the reaction is so unstable that if it somehow escapes the containment of the device it dies instantly. It can't "run away" like some fission reactions can. edit: Not a…

> but the density inside will be very very low

The density is not that low, but the total amount of ultra-hot matter is pretty small. If magnetic confinement is lost, the plasma will expand and cool; there is no sustained fusion without the confinement. The core would probably be wrecked, but that's about it.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#73

Post by JackFr »

r00fus wrote: post #62
slacka wrote: post #51

It's crazy that the US blew over 4 Trillion and countless lives for oil in Iraq. Yet, we spend practically nothing on technology that could offer clean, safe, energy independence. I'm happy to see any money going into fusion research, but it does seem that Focus Fusion has a much better chance of delivering in the near term. If you're unfamiliar with the technology, check out the Google tech talk below. http://www.yo…

There are some who propose that Iraq was invaded in response to Saddam's switch to use Euros rather than Dollars as reserve currency [1]. From a plutocratic viewpoint, that might well be a considered as vile an act as say, using bio-weapons on the Kurdish separatists. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/22/the-usa-attacked-iraq...

Linked article is not very sensible. It purposely conflates the dollar's role as a reserve currency and its role as the numeraire in international oil transactions. The first is a decision any central bank can make, and most keep a number of currencies on hand, though dollars predominate. The other is a decision made by OPEC in the 1970's which they have not seen fit to revisit, and frankly not something Iraq could do unilaterally.

Beyond that, the idea that there is any action Iraq could have taken which would have caused the dollar to fall in value 40-50% is ludicrous at its face. The economy of Iraq compared to that of the United States is tiny. The dollar reserves held by Iraq are tiny. And frankly while the oil production of Iraq is not tiny, Saudi Arabia could make up the difference without breaking a sweat. (Saudi Arabia produces well below capacity to manage the price.)

Finally, I don't think that a decline in the dollar of 50% would have quite the effect described in the article. As the largest external holder of dollar denominated debt, China would smart, but even more than the paper loss on there debt, their exports would no longer be competitive in the US, and they would lose their leading customer. (Which is why China would not let it happen...) On the other hand, American manufacturing and natural resources would once again more become competitive as real wages and costs fell. Such a decline in the currency would lead to a real decline in quality of life no doubt, but its quite possible, that rather than a recession, you'd see very low unemployment.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#74

Post by Florin_Andrei »

ck2 wrote: post #19

a cryogenics plant, which will produce liquid helium Wait, they are manufacturing helium? Thought that wasn't possible? Or just converting gas to liquid?

> Or just converting gas to liquid?

Bingo.

Liquid helium is extremely cold, and hence not the easiest thing to transport. If you need liquid He, you need to make your own, from regular He gas.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#75

Post by nickstinemates »

sitkack wrote: post #65
occam65 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That made me legitimately chuckle! Though think about how popular of a communications platform that WhatsApp is, particularly in parts of Asia and Africa. It's transformed the communications industry in those areas! That still may not account for the relatively small difference between the two, but it helps put into perspective exactly why WhatsApp was so valuable.

I think WhatsApp is great, but is something that _didn't need to exist_. And by that I mean, the carriers structured their SMS fees in a way that did not mirror technical reality. "Data" was billed a more realistic rate as opposed to hyper-inflated SMS rates and allowed SMS type-traffic to flow over the data channel. Had carriers priced themselves properly, WhatsApp would have never had a foothold.

Not a SMS pricing issue. I believe it's the fact that it costs anything at all. When wifi is free, and you have a method that enables communication without a phone plan.. that's goodness.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#76

Post by cwal37 »

parasight wrote: post #44
benjamta wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fascinating seeing it progress (albeit from afar), true cathedral scale engineering.

I can't seem to find any current pictures using Google. Can someone provide a link or is it prohibited to take pictures of the construction site.

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=ITER

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#77

Post by cwal37 »

pilom wrote: post #50
Flammy wrote: post #34

Obviously the tech is really awesome, but I was curious how the projected power level compares (500 megawatts) Comparison to existing powerplants: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=500+megawatts TL;DR: We already have significantly bigger plants. ('average' coal and nuclear plant produces about twice as much power)

For those curious, the Three Gorges Dam in China is the largest powerplant in the world and has a maximum power rating of 22,500 MW (22.5 GW).

To be fair, Three Gorges (like any large hydro) is comprised of many turbines, 32 700MW turbines in this case.

To counter, the biggest nuclear power plant, Kashiwazaki-Kariwa, has 7 generating units which are each above 1 GW. Two of those units are at ~1.3GW, nearly double a Three Gorges turbine.

For more perspective, the smallest nuke in the States is Fort Calhoun which has a single reactor at 502MW.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#78

Post by geetee »

No one knows iter’s true cost, which may be incalculable, but estimates have been rising steadily, and a conservative figure rests at twenty billion dollars—a sum that makes iter the most expensive scientific instrument on Earth.

And WhatsApp cost how much?

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#79

Post by sitkack »

nickstinemates wrote: post #75
sitkack wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think WhatsApp is great, but is something that _didn't need to exist_. And by that I mean, the carriers structured their SMS fees in a way that did not mirror technical reality. "Data" was billed a more realistic rate as opposed to hyper-inflated SMS rates and allowed SMS type-traffic to flow over the data channel. Had carriers priced themselves properly, WhatsApp would have never had a foothold.

Not a SMS pricing issue. I believe it's the fact that it costs anything at all. When wifi is free, and you have a method that enables communication without a phone plan.. that's goodness.

Correct, but that is a failure of the carriers not supporting their customers. Cellular carriers should be supporting VOIP over data (3g,4g) and internet wifi. But since they are rent seeking, they won't disrupt their voice and sms traffic, enabling plays like WhatsApp.

Re: A Star in a Bottle

#80

Post by Symmetry »

slacka wrote: post #51

It's crazy that the US blew over 4 Trillion and countless lives for oil in Iraq. Yet, we spend practically nothing on technology that could offer clean, safe, energy independence. I'm happy to see any money going into fusion research, but it does seem that Focus Fusion has a much better chance of delivering in the near term. If you're unfamiliar with the technology, check out the Google tech talk below. http://www.yo…

If we had wanted oil out of Iraq then Saddam would have been quite happy to give it to us as the price of remaining in power. Heck, we could have just lifted the embargo and all of Iraq's oil would have gone onto the world market and we'd be able to buy more for cheap.

If you want to say that the US invaded Iraq because the embargo was going to fail anyways, and this way Iraqi oil production would be delayed by years causing oil production in Texas to be more profitable at least then you'd have a conspiracy theory that made sense.

But really it was mostly Saddam overestimating US intelligence capabilities, assuming we'd know that he didn't have any nukes despite what he was telling his supporters, while really the US was relying on the reports from those of Saddam's supporters who defected.

Cui Bono doesn't work in a world where there are multiple equally intelligent forces trying to fool each other.

Post reply on HN