kolmapäev, märts 29, 2006

Kellelgi 5000$ vedeleb kuskil?

Kui ma nüüd ütlen teile, et miski firma lasi välja 64 gigase fläsh-ketta, siis te üllatute. Kui ma aga ütlen, et see fläsh-ketas on tegelikult hoopis freakkin USB-PULK?


Nää. Kotkas. Video kotkast pesas. On ikka staatiline, mis? Nii, aga tegelikult on see live striim, see värk mis näha on, just praegu juhtubki kuskil usas. Vahel tasub pilk peale visata, tundub et lind praegu haub mune, äkki hakkavad mingi hetk kooruma? Aga kuna ma linnuspetsialist ei ole (lennukispetsailst pigem) siis ega ma täpselt ei tea.

[Edit:] Jah, kotkas tõusis püsti. Ta haub tõesti kahte muna.

laupäev, märts 11, 2006

kolmapäev, märts 08, 2006


Inglise keele kirjand tuumaenergia kohta, kes tahavad, lugege, mul pohh.

Nuclear energy

During the quite short period of walking the earth, man has grown strong relations with combustion. Once upon a time tens of thousands of years ago, probarbly in a cold place, lightning hit ground somewhere near our ancestors, and they, soon after seeing fire lighting up, noticed that fire gave heat. We do not know how long it took before man noticed other fire?s properties: it frightened wild animals, the fact that it generated heat made it usable for keeping warm, and that fire used up fuel, which was mainly wood. At one point people decided to hang out around the forest fire for a while. When the fire started to die, one man, the greatest thinker of all time, took a burning stick and went back to camp with it. There they put additional pegs on the burning stick and they caught fire. Fire had been domesticated! In some time, people learned to produce artificial fire themselves, using wood or flintstones.

Millenniums passed, but the utilization of combustion stayed the same. People did not depend on it so much, they were perfectly able to live without it. Sure, with more people came more fire, but the amount was not drastic.

With larger wars, however, came the use of fire in war. Fortifications could be destroyed by lighting them on fire, and whole forts were often burnt down.

Some two thousand years ago, the chinese learned to use burning powder for fireworks. They did not, however, realise that it could be used for militaristic reasons. But with the discovery of gunpowder in early medieval Europe, wars changed drastically. I will, however, not go into the details of this.

The first steam engine was patented in 1698 and with it came over two centuries of man?s extensive use of coal. Transportation began to evolve with awesome speed, and the steam engine soon became too unefficient for transportation to evolve further. Gas was attempted to be used, but without enough luck for the projects to succeed. In the late 19th century, Gottlieb Daimler and Carl Benz separately came up with the idea of an internal combustion engine that ran on gasoline, and both were successful. Today, most cars use gasoline. There are over 500 million cars in the world, and 99.9(9) percent use fossil fuels. But humans still need heat, and in the last hundred years, we have also grown fond of electricity. Both are mostly produced of fossil fuels. But fossil fuels, also called nonreproducable resourves, are not reproducable. And they are running out. So, the first thing we have to do is to cut our energy consumption. But this is not enough, we must use alternative energy resources. In the future, it seems certain that the main powersource will be nuclear fusion, but today the technology for it is not advanced enough for it to pay, but even today a fusion plant is being built that will itself generate enough electricity to power itself. But we are still decades away from extensive use of fusion plants, so we have to settle with other powersources.

Wind and water has been utilized to work for us for thousands of years, but they, as combustion, are not too efficient. In recent years, solar power has been used more and more, but the efficiency is not not near to perfect there either.

At 05:29:45 on July 16, 1945, a bright flash in New Mexico, USA, demonstrated that the world had reached the nuclear age. In a few months, two atomic bombs, one plutonium and one uranium, were dropped on Japan. But it had already been understood that a nuclear reactor, in addition to its military use of creating plutonium, can be used to produce power. On December 20, 1951, electric power from a nuclear powered generator was produced for the first time at Experimental Breeder Reactor-I located near Arco, Idaho. On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant for a practical, commercial purpose began operations at Obninsk, Russia. Today, there are 441 commercial nuclear reactors worldwide.

About 24 nuclear powerplants are to be built or reconditioned during the next five years in Canada, China, several European Union countries, India, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and South Africa. But with new nuclear power plants comes the question: is it the ?right? way to obtain power? Nuclear reactors can ?meltdown?, which means that the uranium rods catch fire, and the temperature skyrockets. This can lead to a nuclear explosion, although the structural differences between a real nuclear bomb and a reactor means that the explosion would be a small one. There have been only a handful of core accidents, and most were partial meltdowns (and a few more in Soviet submarines). There have actually been three partial meltdowns in the United States, and one in the former Soviet union (with a few more around the rest of the globe). But the one in the soviet union, the Chernobyl incident, is the only one which was a full meltdown and where radioactive matter was released into atmosphere. The nearby population was evacuated, but still suffered from the irradiation. The bizarre fact about Chernobyl is that the evacuated area is today, as man has left, the cleanest part of Ukraine. The surrounding area is still contaminated, though not very much as it is still being cleaned up.

This year, the Chernobyl accident turns 20. Since then, nothing has happened. The three last accidents happened in 1986, 1979 and 1967. So there?s quite a large timegap between any incidents. Most of the incidents with nuclear reactors are due to human error, mainly lack of cooling. With todays technology, the computers backing us up, this human error factor should be suppressed as low as it can go, so this problem has almost ceased to exist (even if you wanted, it would probarbly not be easy to trigger meltdown. The computers in the plants are really fool-proof).

We should think about the fact that traditional, coal- and oil-based plants are definitely not safe either. Let us assume that one nuclear plant produced the power of five coal-based plants. Now we must consider how many workers are killed during the mining of all the coal that is needed, one ton of uranium contains the energy of millions of tons of coal. And the emissions that are created by the coalplants are not safe either. The problem is that traditional powerplants DO create emissions, but the only certain emission of nuclear plants is dihydrogenmonooxide, which, as we know, is water, and it is not ?produced? either, it is taken from nature and released there too, as vapour. Of course there is nuclear waste, but 1/3 of it is plutonium, which can be reused, and the rest is buried deep underground, where nothing escapes. And it DOES actually decompose, in the long run.

There is always a possibility of sabotage at the plant, for example with a bomb. The only ?problem? with that is that the reactor is shielded, by reinforced concrete blocks, weighing thousands of tonnes. A test was carried out, essentially a crash-test with a figthter aircraft (the F-4 Phantom) that was launched at a simulated, protected reactor at 600 knots. The reactor survived perfectly. So, to get the lid off, to get the fuel, to make atomic or ?dirty? bombs, you quite literally need another atomic bomb to blow it up.

I am a passionate supporter of atomic energy, and I would like to see more people like me.

pühapäev, märts 05, 2006


Kõigepealt minge vaadake seda vannituba.

No tore eks.

Aint et seda ei ole olemas, see on 100% arvutiga tehtud.


Simpsonite avamis...asi on kujunenod omamoodi ikooniks. Mingid suht lootusetud friigid tegid valmis selle pärisversiooni.

Kahjuks ei lennand keegi lõpus õhku...

reede, märts 03, 2006

Mis juhtub kui iseendale elektrilöögiaparaadist särtsu anda?

Nõme tõlge, ma tean.

Miks ma ammu kirjutanud ei ole? Asi ei ole selles et ma ei viitsiks, ma LIHTSALT EI VIITSI KOGU AEG KRRT.

Pocket Taser Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife.
This was the advertisement in Larry?s Pistol & Pawn Shop window next to the condo we rented last month in Florida. So I went in to check it out. I saw something that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 30th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Gisele. What I came across was a 100,000 volt, pocket/purse-sized taser.
The effects of the taser were suppose to be short lived, with no long-term adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety?. WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two triple A batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button AND pressed it against a metal surface at the same time; I?d get the blue arch of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs. Awesome!!! Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Gisele what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave. Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn?t be all that bad with only two triple-a batteries,. right?!!! There I sat in my recliner, my cat Tabby looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target. I must admit I thought about zapping Tabby (for a fraction of a second) and thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised. Am I wrong? So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, taser in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fish out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries. All the while I?m looking at this little device measuring about 5? long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference; pretty cute really and loaded with two itsy, bitsy triple-a batteries, thinking to myself, ?no possible way!? What happened next is almost beyond description, but I?ll do my best?..
I?m sitting there alone, Tabby looking on with her head cocked to one side as to say, ?don?t do it master,? reasoning that a one-second burst from such a tiny little ole thing couldn?t hurt all that bad.. I decided to give myself a one-second burst just for the heck of it. I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and HOLY MOTHER, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION@!@$@$%!@ *!!!I?m pretty sure Jessie Ventura ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs. The cat was standing over me making meowing sounds I had never heard before, licking my face, undoubtedly thinking to herself, ?do it again, do it again!?
Note: If you ever feel compelled to ?mug? yourself with a taser, one note of caution: there is no such thing as a one-second burst when you zap yourself. You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor. A three second burst would be considered conservative. SON-OF-A-.. that hurt like he**!!! A minute or so later (I can?t be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace. How did they up get there??? My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I?m still looking for my testicles? I?m offering a significant reward for their safe return.