Slashdot Mirror

Fukushima and Chernobyl both exploded.

Those were nuclear power plants built in the 1960s and 1970s. You know what was also built at that time? A lot of things, I know that. What comes to mind are the De Haviland Comet and Ford Pinto. The Comet was known to fall from the sky without explanation, and the Ford Pinto of the time was known to burst into flames with minor accidents. Does this mean we should stop flying jets and driving cars?

We don't build nuclear reactors today like we used to in the 1970s, just like the planes and cars we build today aren't like what we used to build in the 1970s. There's a lot of old nuclear reactors from the 1970s operating today, and it would be nice to see them replaced with something more efficient and safer. It would be so much easier to do so if we didn't have idiots that thought nothing has changed in nuclear power since Bee Gees released "Stayin' Alive".

Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. Safer than even wind and solar. That doesn't mean we should rely on nuclear as our only energy source, but it does mean we should make it part of our energy solution.

Why I like nuclear power:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Get a damn clue.

Then clue me in. I asked a very honest question with sincere curiosity. Germany has stated an intent to reduce its CO2 output by closing coal fired power plants. I see that is happening. What is also happening is the construction of new coal fired power plants. What is the capacity of these old plants compared to the new? Is this just closing down two coal plants only to build a new one that's twice their size, and therefore changing nothing in how much coal is burned?

I cannot take a nation's commitment to reduce CO2 output when that same nation has a commitment to abandon nuclear power. While it may be possible to do both it will be quite difficult as shown on this web page:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

And this website:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...

And this website:
https://www.withouthotair.com/

And here:
https://www.brightnewworld.org...

I see plenty of people on Slashdot talking about how solar power is inexpensive today, but no one seems to actually say how much it costs. Let's see some numbers. But first I'd like to see the numbers on coal power, because that's the biggest producer of CO2. Replace coal with most anything else and CO2 output is reduced. I'm not seeing Germany even doing that, and if someone could help me find some numbers then I'd appreciate that. Numbers of plants closed and opening is meaningless without knowing the size of the plants. Put it numbers my 11 year old nephew can understand, he wants to be an engineer some day.

2. Renewable energy can't provide a significant proportion of the energy we need. Clearly it can, especially in areas of high growth like India and China and Africa.

For me to take this seriously I'll need to hear how you define renewable energy. Here's the definition of renewable energy I found in my dictionary app:

energy from a source that is not depleted when used

Taken strictly nothing meets this definition since even solar energy is being depleted when used, as is it's derivative forms in wind and water, since the sun is expected to run out in a few billion years. If we mean "renewable" to mean energy that is so plentiful that we could not expect to run out in millions of years then that means wind, sun, water, and nuclear.

Yes, I include nuclear power as a renewable energy source.

Just in the seawater alone there are billions of tons of uranium, and meeting all the energy needs of the planet today would mean several thousand tons of uranium per year. There's far better places to get uranium than from the sea but for any nation with access to the sea means access to an effectively unlimited supply of energy in uranium. Any nation that can mine coal can also mine uranium and thorium for nuclear power. In fact in many cases just mining coal ash for uranium and thorium would mean getting far more energy than was obtained from burning the coal.

Take a look at the charts on this web page:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

From there I can see that nuclear power has the lowest CO2 output of any other energy source available. Nuclear power takes far less resources than any other energy source. Also, from those charts, you can see that nuclear power causes far fewer fatalities per energy produced. From there I can also see that solar power is a very bad idea.

I like wind and hydro because at least those are relatively inexpensive compared to solar. When talking about developing nations, where they lack much in the ability to produce and maintain the electronics needed for photovoltaic systems, they can at least build wind and hydro in spite of the extra resources needed over nuclear. Wind and hydro are very low tech energy sources, with low CO2, relatively reliable, and far safer than coal or oil. Solar power compared to any other energy source is very complex, resource intensive, expensive, and unreliable. Hydro power is also has by it's very nature the means to store energy inexpensively. Wind power doesn't have to turn a generator to produce useful work, it can pump water to a reservoir behind a dam for drinking water and/or electricity, and do so with centuries old technology.

When considering a country that is just now learning how to harness energy from coal, oil, and hydro, it seems to me that nuclear is far easier of an energy source to harness than solar. If a nation can build massive concrete dams to hold back a river, build boilers for coal, harness steam and running water to turn a turbine, then they have most everything they need technologically and in infrastructure to harness nuclear power.

Solar power is near worthless for a developing country. With solar power we'd be handing them a bunch of batteries and PV panels like fish, from which they can eat for a day. Hand them wind, hydro, and nuclear, and they can get their own fish and eat forever.

Small reactors have all the same problems as large reactors without any economy of scale. Consequence, they cost more per Wh and therefore will never proliferate.

Then put multiple small modular reactors on a single site. You do that and you spread out the engineering costs that used to be for 1 or 2 reactors and now have it spread over 6 or 8. With multiple reactors on one site you'll then also share overhead like engineering, maintenance, administration, security, and so on. Do that and watch nuclear power "proliferate".

Nuclear power is barely profitable as it is,

Do you know why that is? Because EVERYTHING is "barely profitable".

If nuclear power demanded too much in profit then they'd go out of business, just like anything else. Profit margins on a lot of the products we buy are very low, but they make it up in volume. This goes for nuclear power, the profit margin on every kWh produced is very small but when a single reactor produces 1.21 GW for 8000 hours in a year that adds up to a lot of money.

and like coal it's already only profitable if you get to ignore externalities like the environmental impact of uranium mining, and of waste disposal.

What's the externalities on wind and solar? Here's a web page that gives some idea on that.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Go look at how much mining has to be done for wind and solar compared to nuclear power. You think that doesn't have an impact? One thing we found out is that as we mine for the materials needed for wind and solar we get a lot of radioactive material in the tailing piles. That's because common dirt is mildly radioactive and if you take out the not radioactive stuff for making concrete, steel, aluminum, copper, and so forth, that concentrates the radioactive stuff in what's left over. What do you propose we do with that? Australia figured this out, they sell the radioactive leftovers to other nations for them to refine as fuel. It would be nice to see Australia build their own nuclear power instead of selling this uranium to China and Japan but at least they aren't making piles of radioactive dirt.

Then look at the fatalities caused by each energy source. Notice anything? That tiny little bar on the graph next to "nuclear"? That's right, nuclear is safer than any energy source we have. They even included some disputed deaths from past nuclear accidents to get the number that high.

And decommissioning has fixed costs as well as scaled costs, and already consistently costs more than estimated (and budgets) at construction time. Now multiply the number of reactors, and see how costs expand...

If costs keep going up, and even higher estimates don't account for that, then what happens if they estimate the cost to be negative? I've wondered about that.

The reason costs keep rising is this concept of ALARA. That's "as low as reasonably achievable". This means they take a reading on how radioactive something is and make note of that. The next time this is done they ask, "can you get lower radiation than you did before?" Which of course the answer is always yes, because it's always possible to get lower radiation, it just costs more. So with every iteration the costs go up, the radiation goes down, and now we have "radioactive sites" with lower radiation than Grand Central Terminal. The granite blocks that they used to build a train station is more radioactive than the "radioactive areas" at some of these sites.

There's another concept in radiation safety, NORM. That's "naturally occurring radioactive material", which is regulated differently than other radioactive material. I guess because "natural" radiation is safer than "artificial" radiation. This is bullshit of course, a gamma is a gamma and an alpha is an alpha. Because the people that mine coal and the rare

Try a couple Pascal ones such as Toro or Ultibo. Or try a couple of Rust ones such as Redox or Nebulet. OSDev is a good resource for operating system starting points in various languages. You can take one of their bare bones OS examples and build from there.

IOW, less than what 1/10 of what your system will cost.

No, read the study. Here's the link again:
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...

The STORAGE needed for a wind and solar solution would cost at least double the PRODUCTION of the nuclear solution. With wind and solar the production would cost at least what the storage costs. That's four times what nuclear costs with just storage and production. Then there are issues of needing a "smart grid" to move all this energy around to where it is needed, and the land it would take to put these windmills and solar collectors.

I'll also bring this back again, nuclear power has a lower CO2 output than wind and solar.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Why is anyone so opposed to nuclear power? It's safe, clean, inexpensive, reliable, and domestically sourced.

For the same cost we can build pumped storage plants, and let the consumer worry about the generation side.

Same costs? How? Nuclear takes the least material to produce power than any energy source available to us, and with the least CO2 produced. Did you even click on the link? Here it is again:
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

The ramp-up rate on homeowners choosing to go solar before Juche-Trumpism would be enough to replace a lot of the shortfall, except for the storage problem.

That "storage problem" is not trivial. That's a sixteen TRILLION dollar problem.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...

That kind of expenditure does not make it impossible, I will admit that. What it does do is make the storage problem alone a greater expense in time, money, effort, and materials, than if the energy was produced with far more reliable nuclear power. Nuclear power, as it is done today, will need some storage for load following and perhaps even seasonal variation but far far less of it. That "storage problem" is many times more than the cost of building an all nuclear grid of PRODUCTION. I'll emphasize that, the storage needs alone for wind and solar exceed the cost of producing that electricity from even old style nuclear power.

Rather than building a new massive hub and spoke infrastructure, we should be investing in to a truely distributed grid with localized storage facilities to help balance the load

I agree. Let's build many "small" nuclear power plants of about 5 GW generation each (that would be probably 6 current reactors or about a dozen small modular reactors) and spread them about over 200 different sites. Add in some storage from batteries and hydro to keep the grid stable and manage for losses of grid connections, and have some on-site backup generation at vital sites like hospitals, police stations, military bases, airports, and so on. But we have such backup already, or at least we do if we're smart. There's also plenty of hydro storage too in a lot of places. Wherever we need storage for nuclear then we can draw from the same well this storage would draw from as if we did solar and wind.

There is a very important reason we use this "hub and spoke" infrastructure, economy of scale. It's this aversion to building large nuclear power plants that has driven up costs in people to run engineering, administration, security, maintenance, and so on. Put 4 or 6 reactors on a site and watch prices fall.

Meltdown proof until one actually melts down. :)

The latest reactors are safer but no reactor is meltdown proof, just less likely to meltdown.

Can you explain to me how a molten salt reactor would melt down?

A molten salt reactor is still a prototype and so I'll give you that the reactors we use today are not meltdown proof but great care has been taken to prevent a repeat of meltdown like at Fukushima. What happened at Chernobyl will simply never happen again. That was a reactor made from known flawed drawings and built without correcting them. The materials used in construction did not meet even these flawed specs. The reactor was operated in an unsafe manner, and when the inevitable happened there was no containment dome over the core.

Third generation reactors, those being built today, are exceedingly safe. They are able to be rendered safe even in the case of a power loss, unlike the second generation reactors at Fukushima. Should there be a highly unlikely meltdown then the floor under the reactor is designed to prevent the molten core from maintaining fission, and made of material capable of containing the heat from radioactive decay. This is also unlike at Fukushima. There the floor was relatively common concrete and the water within it was able to reflect enough neutrons back to keep fission going. It was only by burning through enough concrete to dilute the fuel did fission stop. New reactors will have materials that remove neutrons and heat immediately to stop this from happening again.

And they are not immune from natural disasters.

That's true. As third generation reactors are built today a tsunami like what hit Fukushima would have likely rendered it out of commission for a long time, but reparable. A more severe quake may render a modern reactor irreparable but no loss of radioactive material would occur. If there is something that can both crack open a modern reactor and overwhelm the safety systems then you have bigger things to worry about than the reactor.

Also, nothing is immune from natural disasters. We've seen nuclear power plants operate through hurricanes, tornadoes, and most anything nature can throw at it. Earthquakes are probably their greatest weakness but, as I stated earlier, we now know how to render them safe in such cases. Compare this to power sources like coal. A coal plant needs large quantities of coal to operate. If it's piled under enough snow and ice that can be a problem. Earthquakes and tsunamis can damage coal power plants too. Windmills will shut down if the wind is too low, or too high. It's also vulnerable to ice, lightning, and other natural events. Solar power is certainly vulnerable, with it's delicate PV collectors or reflecting mirrors.

Nothing is perfect. Given the choices we have it would seem that making nuclear power a large portion of our electric generation capacity would be wise. Given the massive quantity of materials needed for wind and solar for the same energy we don't have much choice but to build more nuclear.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

Nuclear is just another unsustainable tech.

Here's someone that disagrees with you.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

And another.
http://environmentalprogress.o...

Here's a couple more.
http://www.roadmaptonowhere.co...

And another.
https://www.brightnewworld.org...

I assume you can cite someone to make your claim? Perhaps you have a doctorate in some relevant field that makes you an expert on this?

We're running out of options, if we haven't already. We will need nuclear power. We need it now.

North America and Western Europe have zero to negative growth in energy demand, so they don't need new nukes anyway.

That's an insane statement to make. The USA gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear power. These nuclear power plants have an average age of about 40 years. That average age is about the same as the intended operational life span of these reactors. Fortunately these reactors were overbuilt with just crazy safety margins. This means that as more was learned the operators were able to figure out how to get more out of what they had. Through improved techniques and upgrades over time the output of nuclear power increased over time even as older reactors were shut down and not replaced.

This continued extension of the lifespan of these aging reactors cannot continue indefinitely. They will have to be shutdown, and relatively soon, and replaced with something. That something must be new nuclear power.

Here's a recent article on why nuclear power is a good choice.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

There is 1000 GW, give or take, of electrical generation capacity in the USA right now. About 100 GW of that is nuclear. The observant might now be asking how 10% of generating capacity being nuclear can provide 20% of the electricity we consume. The answer is that nuclear power plants are operating 90% of their maximum capacity while other generating sources are getting half that, more or less. More generating capacity with coal and natural gas, less than half maximum generating capacity from wind, solar, hydro, and others.

Now coal is not only "bad" (whether that be politically, economically, environmentally, or whatever) they are often old. We will need new generating capacity to replace these coal plants that are scheduled for shutdown. As it is now the US federal government expects to see 20 GW of new natural gas generation installed by the end of this year. We can keep doing that until all the roughly 300 GW of coal is replaced, and the 100 GW of aging nuclear as well, or we can try something else.

We can install more wind and solar but as the article I linked to above from the "A Cubic Mile of Oil" blog, the resources needed for wind and solar are orders of magnitude higher. We're talking a few hundred tons of material per TWh produced versus 10,000 or 15,000 tons. Then there is the issue of CO2 produced and that is laid out in the last paragraph of that article.

The prospect of climate change and ocean acidification are real, and the long time it takes to implement corrective measures means that we must rapidly decarbonize our energy systems. Our fears of radiation are largely unfounded and have had the deleterious effect of continued use of fossil fuels. Even as we deploy wind and solarâ"the nominally low-carbon sourcesâ"the absence of large scale storage systems have forced us into using natural gas power for back up. The design of natural gas power plants used as spinning reserves are selected on the rapidity with which they can be brought online. These designs are among the least efficient of gas-fired plants, with thermal efficiencies around 33%, and thus high carbon emissions. Gas-fired power plants that operate with a combined steam cycle have thermal efficiencies in excess of 50%. Analysis by Larsen and Rez shows that we would do better in terms of carbon emissions if instead of installing low capacity factor wind or solar systems and backing them with natural gas, we simply used a combined cycle natural gas plant.

Wind and solar do not reduce our CO2 output and they will not until we have a sufficient supply of low CO2 storage online. Building natural gas plants up to now only reduced CO2 because it was replacing coal. With added wind and solar more of that natural gas is consumed in inefficient peaker power generators that in the end do not reduce CO2. If we assume no future growth

Part of the problem is that is costs more to recycle plastic than it does to simply manufacture new plastic. Otherwise there would already be a market for non-subsidized plastic, the way there is a market for aluminum and scrap steel. Also, since most of the cost for recycling is energy, and most off that energy comes from fossil fuels, you aren't really saving anything by recycling plastic (challenge: for anyone who says use renewable energy, calculate the carbon footprint of a solar panel, nuclear power plant, or windmill, plus add the added carbon necessary in economic activity to pay for its higher cost).

I had a chemistry professor comment in one of his lectures that recycling plastics is stupid. People should just burn them. I recall he mentioned this because at the time there was a debate on building a waste burning power plant in the area.

When it comes to doing the calculations you ask, it appears someone did do that.
http://cmo-ripu.blogspot.com/2...

If someone is going to look for an energy source to recycle this plastic, synthesize it, reduce it to it's constituent elements, or whatever you wish to do to lower the carbon emitted, then look closely at nuclear power. Nuclear power is low carbon, safe, and just generally a good idea. If someone wants to raise issues of the waste problem then I'll just say that it appears that any problems on the safety of the waste was included in those calculations. The author, Dr. Ripu Malhotra, also made a powerpoint presentation where he points out that next generation nuclear will consume much of the existing waste.
https://drive.google.com/file/...

When it comes to replacing petroleum based transportation fuel, and presumably also petroleum based feedstock for making Lego blocks, there's the US Navy program on developing a hydrocarbon synthesis device. A device that they intend to power with nuclear reactors.
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-...

One complaint I keep hearing is the costs of nuclear power. Well, a single reactor does cost a lot of money but it produces lots of energy, it will produce energy at a cost that's at least competitive with any source available today. We know this because of past performance. There's a lot of room for improvement with economies of scale and, in the USA at least, there is sufficient demand to allow for this economy of scale. The US government expects to see 20 GW of new natural gas electrical generation capacity this year. A typical nuclear power reactor produces 1 GW of electrical capacity. We could build a new nuclear reactor every month and still need to build more electrical generation capacity from natural gas, wind, or whatever, to keep up with demand. The USA saw reactors being built at this rate once before and there's no reason to expect we can't do it again. This is especially true given the much greater material needs for the alternatives like wind and solar.

... as many pictures as I damned well please.

https://symbionticism.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-history-of-science-when-was-word.html

Also note that at the time of the coining 'scientists' were, in the words of the referenced article "talented amateurs"; perhaps more like today's hackers, makers, and 'citizen scientists' than degreed professional academics ( who in the terms of the article would probably be more properly called 'philosophers')

... and stupidity of society. I don't mean it to say gaming is bad, gaming is just the latest scapegoat.

Many men checked out because well, men have been mistreated and abandoned. When men are seen as tools and to be used as cheap labour for the rest of society. Why wouldn't they check out? Videogames is the latest scapegoat for a society so up its ass in predatory business practices and corporate lawlessness. Our entire society is just one giant highschool of stupid human predatory bullshit. I don't blame the poor and downtrodden for checking out. Especially after the big bank bailouts of 2008, and our corporate masters trying to scrub the internet of their plutonomy memo's...

https://politicalgates.blogspo...

I have heard from a nuclear engineer that a nuclear power plant takes no more materials or engineering than nuclear power.

This was probably meant to be "no more materials than a coal plant", and if you set nuclear and coal plants side by side, it is blindingly obvious. See pages 48-52 for such a comparison of coal with advanced nuclear.

Never mind that conventional nuclear already uses a tiny fraction of the resources of renewables, so the comparison with advanced nuclear is even more stark.

Form History Control, https://formhistory.blogspot.c... is one way to preserve comment composition forms when FF crashes or is accidentally closed.

This is mainly because idiots do not know what Location History is. Location History is the little spots that show up in "Timeline" in Google Maps, Timeline used to be called Google Location History. Since 2009 you have been able to have your phone track where you've been to build a custom map of where you've been, Location History is the setting that turned that on and off.

It was never about every single Google service no longer tracking your location at all, although some services do depend on it to work.

Location History is not the same as location sharing. The AP reported that if you turned off Location History, Google still stored your location. This is a "Duh" thing.

Location History is what "Timeline" on the map used to be called, and if you turn off location history it stops filling in entries on that timeline - as expected. Some other features also do not work if it is off because they rely on it.

Location History was announced in 2009 as part of Latitude. It was literally "Google Location History" and would show you a personal map of everywhere you went. That's it, that's all the option has ever been for. The AP article was a non story.

How does it stop someone from taking a photo of your displayed e-mail with another device?

Google seems to have missed the opportunity to make this system really secure: format the text of a confidential message like a damn captcha. Take as many pictures of the screen as you like, the whole thing is still unreadable.

People get paid based on the value they produce

Just like those bank bailouts in 2008? Citigroup had an army of lawyers trying to scrub the internet of their internal documents saying the modern economy is a plutonomy (aka servers the oligarchy). So in a nation where the laws are bought and paid for. You are clueless.

Citigroup banks Plutonomy memo

US distribution of wealth

https://imgur.com/a/FShfb

Wealth in america

The business life cycle has existed as long as capitalism has existed. . . Please read and correct your own post based on newly attained knowledge. Thank you.

Tesla has NEVER been profitable. Even though it's existed since 2003 doesn't necessarily make it mature either.

Yes, so you are agreeing with me that Tesla is in the "growth" stage of its business life cycle?

creating a cult of incredibly naive

I think "naive" people tend to write confusing posts where they seem to be both insult you and support your point at the same time. . . why not learn some basic finance before complaining about other people being naive?

people who believe they are going to save the planet by destroying the environment

I bought a Tesla because its a kickass car, and I love to effortlessly smoke old-timers like yourself when the light turns green. Saving the planet is a side benefit. . . and the fact that you think electric vehicles are destroying the planet shows that finance is not the only area of expertise that you are severely lacking in. . .

going to do to the market in general when reality finally hits and all those people are wiped out. Most will never invest in anything ever again nor trust honest executives.

So says the poster lacking even a remedial grasp of finance. . . Do tell. . . how does taking Tesla private "wipe out" investors?

Heres all the links i have bookmarked. Im sure you can make it work. The performance is basically bare metal. you have to pull some fuckery with the conf file for nvidia cards or you get error 53 i believe, because theyre cocksuckers that want to milk everybody. but thats a different issue. i hope these work for you.

https://www.pugetsystems.com/l...
https://davidyat.es/2016/09/08...
https://ubuntuforums.org/showt...
https://lime-technology.com/fo...
https://www.reddit.com/r/VFIO/...
https://bufferoverflow.io/gpu-...
http://vfio.blogspot.com/2015/...
https://www.se7ensins.com/foru...
https://forums.lime-technology...
https://www.reddit.com/r/linux...
http://blog.quindorian.org/201...

The four ounce chunk of metal doesn't matter - the entire gun will show up on the x-ray. This article specifically shows the infamous "invisible" Glock 7 in a conventional x-ray; this page shows how to detect metal, plastic, and organic (e.g., explosives) items in a color coded airport x-ray device.

[Other sources do indicate that it is possible to crank the power up and/or modify the sensitivity enough to ignore plastics, but did not supply comparison images. Also, the minimal detection law specifically requires that airport type scanners be used.]

That's nothing compared to France, the hexagon.

https://lawsofsilence.blogspot...

Too late...the fake news already ginned up support for the president. Mission accomplished.

I didn't know where to step into this, but your comment feels in pretty good sync... Afterthought: Unless you're snarking. Are you snarking? If so, sorry! *grin*

Back circa 2008 I was told I would possibly be moving "real South" of the border so I started following news down there. Part of that follow includes something called Inca Kola News (IKN) in Peru.

He had some interesting observations that included noting the wife seemed almost smiley and that there appeared to be a remarkably short recovery time between the attack and press releases, case solvation, yada-etc..

The Nicolás Maduro "assassination attempt" in Venezuela today looks like a false flag set-up

Devil's Advocate-wise relative to the recovery time... Violence of that type is somewhat the way of that geographical area so it could possibly be easier to step back up into the speed of Life faster in the aftermath of something that violent....

Maybe.

?. :)

Tanking enrolment means less profit for the university.
http://sappingattention.blogsp...

Only enrolment in Gender Studies remained stable. No surprise there. They cry the loudest to get "diversity programme" running. There are lucrative (although parasitic) jobs for that segment.

https://www.rnc8.org/ https://kadinlarsite.blogspot.... https://www.akupunktur.xyz/

That's a wonderful story full of moral hazard that the news loves to tell about the 2008 crash. The problem is that the data doesn't back it up at all. The supposed over-lending to low-income homeowners simply didn't happen. It was just used as an excuse for horrible policy. Which happened to have the side-effect of transferring huge amounts of wealth away from low-income home owners.

Anyone with a milling machine can already build a gun. Besides, the cat is already out of the fucking bag, you retarded government motherfuckers. No, really, WAY the fuck out of the bag. Ignoring all that, the First and Second Amendments do not allow any wiggle room for restrictions, so all laws restricting firearm ownership and speech (this touches both) are unconstitutional, full stop.

So, if the professors are not being paid more, the students are not using 10 times as many professors... where is the money going? [...] A lot of administrators and non-essential spending can be cut without impacting the quality of education for the students.

The money has gone mostly to non-teaching administrative staff. And it can definitely be cut because those administrators didn't exist 30+ years ago, and nobody has complained about the quality of college education decreasing since then.

The same problem also afflicts our health care system.

This might sound evasive, but I think the problem with that line of thinking is that it's still looking at the problem from the perspective of what we know now and how things are now. But maybe it's fair since we're also discussing a problem that doesn't actually exist yet. :)

It seems like you could put your finger anywhere on the timeline of human history and have more or less the same situation - technological advancements will soon eliminate or reduce some burden off the shoulders of humans, freeing them up to do other stuff. Given our general inability to correctly predict what that new stuff would be (I mean, this cartoon was a great joke in its time, but now that's really a thing), I'm just really skeptical that this time it will be any different, especially since the technology that will supposedly make it different doesn't really exist yet.

You managed to remind me of this one titled "Couch Potatoes of the World, Unite!": http://eco-epistemology.blogsp...

It's not paranoia, it's been demonstrated on real systems in real time, there was even a good GUI example. These attacks extract useful data at very high rates as these things go, although this initial proof of concept network example is an exception for its slow rate of extraction ... but lots of these proofs of concepts have been sped up as they get explored. That it can be done at all is a big wakeup call.

If you read and understand the previously mentioned original Google Project Zero paper, "Variant 1: Bounds check bypass" "Theoretical explanation", you'll understand that the cache is just a tool, used for timing side channel attacks. The data of interest is in main memory, the attacks probe protected main memory a bit or so at a time, by performing actions only allowed by speculative execution that either place other data in the cache, or don't. Then they read that data, if they get it back quickly, it was in the cache, if not, it wasn't, each read determining based on the timing whether a bit in main memory was set or not.

Your misunderstanding seems to come from not groking that the cache is just a tool for timing side channel attacks, the memory of interest effectively stays in main memory the whole time (in truth, it's of course fetched into the cache hierarchy in the first part of the probing cycle, but that's not relevant to the attack). You must understand this concept, or take the papers on faith, or not, as you choose.

You use the smashed stack to execute the gadgets, their being picked as such because they're executable bits of code that can be strung together with the smashed stack into what you want. And since you can execute Turing complete programs using ROP, you can probably arrange for something interesting to be unveiled in cache timing attacks, side channels created by speculative execution that out of order CPUs use to run fast.

You use your ROP code to arrange stuff to be in the cache, or not, and then read that memory and time the access. In the example I looked at in detail, just one bit at a time of the data of interest, see the original Google Project Zero paper, the "Variant 1: Bounds check bypass" "Theoretical explanation", it's a nice, very clear example.

Sorry, nothing I can share, my work has an internal video seminar put together by some of the developers some years ago.

This excellent blog on LaTeX hasn't been updated in many years, but the information is bite-sized tips relevant for typical office tasks.

There is a 6 part series on LaTeX designed for mathematics students that is helpful as well. It's not amazing or anything, but walks you through the basics and gives quite a bit of background to someone completely new.

Running something like TeXStudio helps too, it will prompt you as you type to help you fill in tags.

This wiki thing is composed by a large number all things considered and generally fluctuating accreditations. That is superb. Numerous are specialists on just a single theme and exceptionally present. Numerous approach special wellsprings of data

That's a terrible example of a nobody who never built a notable SV company.

This is a much a better example

Steve "Abdulfattah Jandali" Jobs, telling reporter he doesn't know any Lisa. Who's Lisa?

Steve Abdulfattah Jabs looking like a 70s porn star

How do they know? With Finns you can generally work out that they're somewhere between suicidally depressed and ecstatically happy but it's difficult to be more precise than that.

http://picforfuns.blogspot.com...

(ftboAr: He does that driving thing. Like Indy but the cars can turn both ways)

http://neutrinodreaming.blogsp...

wow toko mesin

I took it as a Calvin and Hobbes reference.

It's a Calvin and Hobbes reference, as are the replies.

There is a rational reason. It is to make people wake up with the sun, more or less.
Here: http://gpinzone.blogspot.com/2...

This... For the love of Crom, this.

I live in lovely Barkshire in England. Its mid summer here, the sun came up at 4:12 this morning and wont go down until 22:05. Without DST, the sun would come up at 3:12.

"B-B-B-B-But why not just use DST the whole year round then" I hear a droll and dreary voice say... Because in winter it is dark by 17:00 and having it dark at 16:00 will be a whole lot worse.

BTW, the heatwave here is killing all the grass and it's making me depressed because it reminds me of Perth... I want my verdant hills of England damn it.

There is a rational reason. It is to make people wake up with the sun, more or less.
Here: http://gpinzone.blogspot.com/2...

It is a religion that started with Russian Cosmism.

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/te...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Z92t...

http://cloud-109.blogspot.com/...

Well, we can try to account for the concrete in wind turbines.

First, nuke plants are about 400,000 cubic yards of concrete:

http://timjervis.blogspot.com/...

And an internet search says about wind turbines:

"Depending on the height of a tower (which can range from 215 to 265 feet), each uses 250 to 420 cubic yards of concrete. In addition, there can be three or four substations, each requiring 1000 cubic yards of concrete.Aug 10, 2009 - Internet Google search."

Another intenet google search yields:

Wind Energy Facts at a Glance
U.S. Wind Energy Capacity Statistics
Total number of operating utility-scale wind turbines: >52,000
Number of U.S. states with operating utility-scale wind energy projects: 41 plus Guam and Puerto Rico
U.S. installed wind capacity in 2016: 8,203 MW
12 more rows
Wind Energy Facts at a Glance - AWEA

So, 52,000 wind turbines multiplied by a minimal 250 cubic yards of concrete per wind turbine is 13,000,000, or 13 million cubic yards of concrete.

That seems to be more than the 400,000 cubic yards of concrete per nuke plant, eh?

Oh, wait... the installed base of wind turbines comes to only 8203 megawatts, which would be 8.2 Gigawatts.

Yet another google search reveals:

"Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (TEPCO) Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Japan is currently the world's largest nuclear power plant, with a net capacity of 7,965MW. "

So, the largest nuke plant in the world, for which probably in the neighborhood of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete were poured, approximately equals the power output of our entire installed base of wind turbines in the USA, and is far less a consumer of concrete than the above-mentioned 13 million cubic yards of concrete. And of course the nuke plant will produce electricity 24/7/365, while the wind turbines will only produce when there is wind blowing, which is not 24/7/365.

The clear win seems to belong to the nuke plant.

He's always wanted to be above all the other space cadets. Here's a picture from his youth.

Private companies are MORE motivated to keep things safe as they are libel for accidents, government has a long histroy of making just about everything worse; and when they go 'public' it's the lowest bidder, not who can do the job best.

As for the food stamps:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Psu8...