| ||||||
| 2008/5/13-16 [Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:49936 Activity:nil |
5/13 Ronald Reagan is GOD. -Conservative
\_ Blasphemy. Ronald Reagan was a Prophet. |
| 2008/5/13-16 [Consumer/Camera] UID:49937 Activity:nil |
5/13 Dear Nikon guys, I'm the D80 flash guy. I just ordered a SB-800 and
hope to do lots of remote flash (with diffuser + bounce) photography
soon. I'm tired of harsh tones I keep getting from the built in
flash which is really useless, and I hope my new SB-800 (plus a book
entirely on this topic) will make night time photography more pleasant
again. I could have bought a SB-600 since my D80 has built in
Commander, but I have extra $$$ to burn anyways so why the heck not.
Besides, I'll probably buy multiple flash units in the future
like 2 more SB-600, so it's all good. Will let you guys know how
it goes. -Nikon D80 guy
\_ If you haven't ran across it yet, check out http://strobist.com
\_ Oh my, what an expensive hobby you have!
\_ cheaper than strip club
\_ Bonus information for the OP. If you use rear-sync (also known
as second curtain sync), but do manual preflash step (known as
FEL--Flash Exposure Lock in the Canon land), it won't do the
double flash on the actual shutter release. So, just telling the
subjects to ignore the first manual flash should help keep them
steady during the actual exposure. I have no idea how Nikon's
system works, but I hear Nikon's flash system is better designed
overall than Canon's flash system.
\_ Canon: great quality lens without the ridiculous price
of a genuine Nikkor
Nikon: CLS system in 2003 has been one of the most
revolutionary flash/lighting systems since
the 70s.
\_ A decade ago during my N70 days, the comparison was like this:
Canon: IS lenses, whereas Nikon didn't have VR lenses.
Nikon: The 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill Flash was a
revolutionary flash system, whereas Canon's flash
system was no match.
Nikon: 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill Flash (or whatever it
was called) was a revolutionary flash system, whereas
Canon's flash system was no match. |
| 2008/5/13-16 [Science/Space] UID:49938 Activity:low |
5/13 Why do nuclear power plants require so much fresh water? Can't you
just recycle the cooling water? Certainly you could use salt water,
right? (For example, nuke subs)
\_ Swedish hot bath. Free hot water. Free tea. Sauna. Etc.
\_ They do use salt water if the plant is near the coast.
\_ They create power via steam generators. The vast majority of
water in a nuke plant isn't cooling water.
\_ "The plant, as they conceived it, would produce something like one
to three gigawatts of power, which is enough to serve a medium-sized
city. The reactor core would be no more than several metres wide and
about ten metres long. It would be enclosed in a sealed, armored box.
The box would work for thirty years, without need for refuelling.
Wood's idea was that the box would run on thorium, which is a very
common, mildly radioactive metal. (The world has roughly a
hundred-thousand-year supply, he figures.) Myhrvol's idea was that
it should run on spent fuel from existing power plants. 'Waste has
negative cost,' Myhrvold said. 'This is how we make this idea
politically and regulatorily attractive. Lowell and I had a monthlong
no-holds-barred nuclear-physics battle. He didn't believe waste
would work. It turns out it does.' Myhrvold grinned. 'He
concedes it now.'"
to three gigawatts of power, which is enough to serve a medium-
sized city. The reactor core would be no more than several metres
wide and about ten metres long. It would be enclosed in a sealed,
armored box. The box would work for thirty years, without need for
refuelling. Wood's idea was that the box would run on thorium,
which is a very common, mildly radioactive metal. (The world has
roughly a hundred-thousand-year supply, he figures.) Myhrvol's
idea was that it should run on spent fuel from existing power
plants. 'Waste has negative cost,' Myhrvold said. 'This is how we
make this idea politically and regulatorily attractive. Lowell and
I had a month-long no-holds-barred nuclear-physics battle. He
didn't believe waste would work. It turns out it does.' Myhrvold
grinned. 'He concedes it now.'"
\_ What I don't understand is that, why don't they use the waste heat
to do something useful, e.g. desalinate the sea water? -- !OP
to do something useful, e.g. cook poridge or miso soup? -- !OP
\_ oh yeah, what're you going to do with nuclear-desalinated water?
I'm sure that'd be a real popular addition to the drinking or
agricultural water supply.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Water says the
water remains uncontaminated by radioactivity. No? (Yeah I
know Wikipedia might not be reliable and so on, and I
wouldn't bet my health on one line in Wikipedia.)
\_ I'm pretty sure it would be a huge scandal if the water
became contaminated, so I think Wikipedia is right on
this one. -!pp
\_ I'm sure they can spare the waste heat to distill the
water to purity levels only used in clean rooms. People
would still be afraid to drink it, or consume produce
where it was used for irrigation.
\_ You have no idea how a nuke plant works do you?
Let me give you a hint. The steam is vented
INTO THE AIR.
\_ I know how it works. they usually have several
cycles of cooling water, the last of which usually
involves evaporating water into the air. Its the
most efficient way to get rid of a ton of waste
heat. If they were to condense that somehow (
and would need another way to dump the waste heat
that releases), they still wouldn't get people to
drink it or eat crops grown with it. Somehow its
easier to get the public to accept just breathing
the air said water dissipates into.
\_ I don't know, i think a good ad campaign might
fix the problem. Drink Atomic Water (TM)!
\_ A lot of the waste heat from the plant goes to evaporating water,
which goes up the cooling tower and out into the environment.
Can't exactly 'reuse' that. Sure, they could do more intelligent
things with all that waste heat, but they're all more expensive
and/or unpopular.
\_ How about using that waste heat to run a Stirling engine? |
| 2008/5/13-16 [Finance/CC] UID:49939 Activity:nil |
5/13 I just found that if I make a donation to Red Cross by credit card,
the credit card company still charges Red Cross for processing fees.
http://american.redcross.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_faq#11
\_ Why wouldn't they? You think they aren't gonna take a cut just
because Red Cross is a charity?
\_ Free market at work. A consumer should shop around and decide
what is the best for himself. Self help encouranges competition
thus everyone will benefit. |