Slashdot Mirror

The link

The link includes Nielsen's figures, the search returns lots of 5's and 4's and 3's. Nielsen's figure is 4.

You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day [google.com], already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day? What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.

You do know that cordcutters who use their streaming subscriptions, HD at 3GB/hr, four hours a day, already blows that cap, right? That that's just for one person at less than the national average video usage per day?

What they're doing is stifling competition that hasn't really gotten traction yet. There's a term for that: monopolizing the market. It makes things scarce, it makes them expensive, and it makes them bad.

Is coming... https://fiber.google.com/about...

Nailed it.
Also if you look at their graphs, there's nothing in there that is high power and efficient.

https://sites.google.com/site/...

Their efficiency metric- watts divided by fps- is a pretty odd spec (the unitless efficiency is output power over input power, so you'd at least expect a high efficiency number to mean something is more efficient, not less).

The bigger part is this: it shows that computers that use more power deliver more performance, and that there aren't really any exceptions to this. The top performer is the most power using guy. The bottom performer uses the least power. Trying to sort by "efficiency" is noble, but not helpful.

A gamer will buy the best machine he can afford. It would be interesting if, for a given level of performance, the site could pick out something that, while possibly costing more, would save you money over a year. Again, FOR A GIVEN LEVEL OF PERFORMANCE. The performance needs to be the benchmark, and the performance for a given dollar is also important- you might be willing to pay more upfront for something more efficient, if that was offered, but ONLY if it was as fast as the other options.

Additionally, a lot of gamers will assemble a box based on off the shelf components. Often, they will pick a much bigger power supply than needed, which decreases efficiency- but I do this and feel it to be totally and completely rational. Because the bigger power supplies are generally more reliable, that slight inefficiency is just a small insurance policy (and costs almost nothing). If you are picking an efficient and big power supply, you are probably already doing things correctly.

Parts of the site are noble- while the power supply comparison is helpful, you're probably going to look at efficiency when buying one anyway. Meanwhile, it's much harder to suss out 'efficiency' from CPUs- they mostly just use clock speed. In practice, you'll buy the best CPU you can afford, trading off between CPU and graphics card based on the types of games you play.

The meat of the comparison points is the graphics card. That's the crown jewel of any gaming PC. But is "watts per teraflops" going to really answer which one you should grab? Lets say you are in the market to spend 300-350 on a graphics card, and you are considering a GTX 970. That's a strong pick, can we get more efficient? Well, the GTX 980 is more efficient, but the metric changes from 33 watts per teraflop to 36.3 watts per teraflop. Ok, what does that translate to in dollars?

Well, the two in question are already pretty goddamned efficient by the standards of graphics cards, using 145 and 165 watts. The higher performing card even has the 145 watt signature! Ok, so that's 20 watts. Lets assume that this guy is on and running hard for 15 solid days out of a month, a ludicrous assumption. If you pay a high price of 20 cents per kwh, this is... a buck fifty of savings per month.

But the 970 costs like 350, and the 980 like 650. You'll never make that cost difference up in the lifetime of the product.

If you're building your own PC, this site is useful to help you pick out good quality components, which also seem to have a lot of efficiency and can push frames. That's nice, but I suspect that the difference between using this site and not is pretty small.

From the article (I know, I know, but I was curious):

"The huge bottom line here is that gamers don't have to sacrifice performance to save energy," Mills said. "You can have your cake and eat it too. In fact, the efficient systems run cooler and quieter, both of which are desirable attributes among gamers."

...and...

They were able to achieve a 50 percent reduction in energy use while performance remained essentially unchanged. Additional energy savings were achieved through operational settings to certain components, yielding total savings of more than 75 percent.

Which is to say, quite right, it sounds like they are talking about diminishing performance a bit, but if they've figured out some decent ways to cut the amount of energy the system is using, it would sound to me like they may have created some additional headroom for overclockers dealing with overheating. After all, a cooler system may indicate you're leaving untapped potential on the table.

Having looked through their site, it appears that all they've really done is calculate the cost per watt for the performance offered by various components, and have made some swaps to get similarly- or better-performing components that operate at lower wattages, but their research is far from comprehensive. For instance, they posted a market survey that covers the efficiency of 9 PSUs, but PSUs are already rated based on their efficiency (e.g. Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze), and there are significantly more comprehensive lists out there that address the topic of how well the PSUs live up to their claimed standard (and that are also updated regularly as new PSUs hit the market). Likewise, you can find similar work done for other components.

If their site had done a better job of pulling those various resources together so as to provide a better bang-for-your-buck on your utility bill list and was comprehensive enough that I didn't feel like they were leaving out the vast majority of the products aimed at gamers, I'd have been much more favorably-inclined towards them, but this kinda seems like a weekend project done by a father and son team who have environmental aspirations. Merit worthy, certainly, but not worth much consideration from gamers (yet?).

Yes, the last thing about solar panels is pretty context-sensitive.

I wrote up a fully risk-analyzed, funded, well-computed Citizen's Dividend. It's essentially just replacing all our welfare (not medicare/medicaid) with an expansion of social security in which everyone starts getting paid at age 18.

The whole thing is worked off the actual market cost of everything. For example: I paid $725/mo for a 700sqft apartment, and a lot of people are paying less per square foot (I've seen rents as low as 64 cents per square foot in nicer areas, which is ludicrous). I took the $1/sqft number, computed from a market where the typical margin was 33 cents profit on the dollar, and added a 33 cent risk margin ($1.33/sqft). Worked out how to put together a good 224sqft apartment (I can do better: 100sqft capsule apartments) for $300. That means we can definitely supply this, we can supply it for a profit, and we can make an assload of money doing it.

Carry the same out for food, clothing, utilities, and so forth, and you come up with surprisingly little. After piling it all together, I added an 8% risk margin (I want a 15% margin; that will come with time) on top of the total in 2013 computations. It came out actually under $600 for the market economy to make a large profit supporting a single individual--note that's $600 per individual for merchants and landlords to make themselves rich as all fuck, not $600 for a person to go out, today, and find some non-subsidized housing and food. Because the people who pounce on setting up the infrastructure fastest will find themselves richer than Warren Buffet in about 3 years, I expect the magical hand of the Free Market will become the immensely greedy hand of give-me-that-shit-now in this particular case (in the same way I expect a cat to eat a bowl of tuna if I leave it near a thousand cats).

17% happens to be the viability number for 2013. In 1950, it'd have to be a 120%-135% income tax; obviously, that's more income than actually existed at the time, so not viable. At the time, welfare cost 1.5% (including social security OASDI). As of 2013, the total cost of welfare made up 17.2% of the total IRS reported AGI, while the total cost of a viable Citizen's Dividend came to 17%. State welfare services to support immigrants and children (neither of whom receive a dividend; it's only for natural-born, resident, adult, American citizens) would shrink to a tiny fraction of their current size, providing the risk control for obvious fallout of either eliminating such welfare or just handing out money every time people had babies (the latter strategy is not only an insanely bad idea, but an unaffordable one).

The CD gets cheaper over time, because of how wealth works (work in progress). For complex reasons, I contemplate fixing the number at 17%. The first obvious reason is to get that risk margin up to 15% (in case we have another 2007 Great Recession--the upcoming automation crisis will be worse); and the second is to ensure that, while any income represents a substantial improvement in quality-of-life, the quality-of-life of the poorest continues to improve right along with the wealth of society. I also just don't want bureaucrats and politicians tinkering.

It's fairly involved and requires a lot of transitional planning and a lot of built-in risk controls. Once it's set, it doesn't require any bureaucratic tinkering; all it takes is some administration to collect money and send out ACH, which is kind of "we keep the pumps running" and not "we decide who gets what." The fact that it's cheaper than modern welfare also helps.

Nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising. ... [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-25]

Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?

... Projections like: rising sea levels. (23 years later: nope. Nothing measurable.) ... [Jane Q. Public, 2013-11-15]

(I won't mention to the other party that some other sources say there has been no measurable overall rise at all.) [Lonny Eachus, 2014-01-21]

Later, Lonny Eachus linked to yet another "PSI Sky Dragon Slayer" blog post which cites Mörner (2012) and claims that after excluding "distorting effects" the "sea-level trend is zero." "Mörner (2012)" seems to be (summarized by?) a blog post called "Sea Level Is Not Rising" which (SPOILER ALERT!!) concludes that "sea level is not rising" and we're facing "a very grave, unethical 'sea-level-gate'."

So as Jane/Lonny Eachus might say, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising."

"Sea level has not risen in 50 years," says Swedish sea-level expert Nils-Axel Mörner. goo.gl/UoGx3K
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. [JunkScience, retweeted by Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-30]

Wow. Once again, it's VERY hard to believe that Jane/Lonny believes himself when he says "nobody is claiming the ocean is not rising" considering that he's also retweeting an article by creationist Christopher Booker titled "Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'".

Dr. Mörner also tilts graphs (p33) as "evidence that sea level is not rising" and gave an interview: "Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud". Check out Mörner's clumsily (and hilariously ironic!) doctored photographic "evidence" on page 35, which Anthony Watts uncritically regurgitated. What a charming conspiracy theory. Dr. Mörner also believes in that "dowsing" nonsense so strongly that he embarrassed himself on TV by trying and (unsurprisingly) failing

(german translation) https://translate.google.com/t...

Why? Batteries have been researched for hundreds of years and is limited to mixing chemicals with known electric potentials.

The difference is in the amount of research that is going on. Between the laptop industry, the mobile phone industry, and the electric car industry, the amount of money and man-hours being invested into commercial battery technology over the last 5 years dwarfs the previous efforts. Advances in battery technology are being discovered every week.

they could just give their environmental regulators the authority to enforce their existing environmental laws.

In the film Under the Dome, Chinese journalist Chai Jing astonishes a Chinese audience with a film clip from California where Cal DoT stops a truck and actually checks that it has all the mandatory safety and emissions equipment. That never happens in China. China has tough emissions standards on paper, but the law is written so that the regulators don't have any enforcement powers. So Chinese manufacturers simply slap stickers on vehicles claiming they have all the mandatory emissions equipment without installing any of it. Technically this is a crime, but the law's written so there's literally nothing anyone can do about it.

And if you don't think environmental regulations make a difference, this is what New York looked like in 1970. Note that that isn't a sepia tinted black and white photo, it's true color. Granted it shows an exceptionally bad day, but before the Clean Air Act got strengthened in the mid 70s bad smog was pretty common. If you look at pictures of American cities from the 70s you'd think that photo technology of the day put a blue or yellow haze on stuff in the distance (like this). It wasn't the film, cities actually looked that way a lot of the time.

Predicting bad pollution days isn't "fighting" pollution, it's living with it. If you want to fight pollution you've got to stop people from polluting. You've got to catch them at it, fine them, and in some cases throw them in jail. Pollution like they have in China is nothing short of manslaughter on a national scale. 1.6 million people die every year from it.

It's not even funny how grotesque this is.

Windows 95 copied system 7, and the Start Menu copied a system 7 extension called the Hierarchial menu which allowed you to put folders of apps, or just normal directory folders under the apple menu and navigate through them.

Lets just ignore the fact that much of this was in development at Xerox Parc. All you need to do is look at the design elements (including hierarchical menus) from that time and you see the same in Windows and Mac OS. Both companies took the base model and innovated in their own ways. I'm also pretty sure that as their products evolved each influenced the other and both have borrowed from other 3rd party products...

It's like harping that Jeep has a blind spot warning system in their cars when Volvo had it first... Get over it, everyone borrows from everyone else and the only way to stay on top is to continue innovating. It's one of the reasons why Microsoft took a chance on the Metro UI. Yes, people hated it. But not because it's bad, but because Microsoft made it difficult for non-touch users to get to the desktop. The jury is still out whether it will succeed or not.

Wow, I can't believe that I found this piece of nostalgia about Windows 95 comparing it to Mac OS 7. It also includes an article on ID's Doom....
https://news.google.com/newspa...

here is the logo he designed.

slashdot editors are seriously slacking off.

They are often not the absolute latest and greatest, but they tend to be close, and they do often cost a bit more than a non-ruggedized phone, but they are sub-$1000 and run fairly current versions of Android. Google for IP67 or IP68 Android. Some of them also include things like programmable 2-way radios and so forth. https://www.google.com/search?...

https://www.google.com/search?...

Son you can't even keep track of what's happening NOW. Take your Windows 98 technology and go the fuck home.

You are wrong.

E.g. https://www.google.com/search?...

The RF noise during the power up of most devices and during operation of many causes a "whine" that I can both hear and feel that is distinct from any actual sound.

No, what you're hearing is sound, just at or near the limits of your hearing. I hear the same thing from lots of appliances, it's just magnetostriction or similar effects caused by resonance in some of the parts or components.

For example, I can hear the whine of a flyback transformer in older TV sets, but I'm not hearing the actual electromagnetic field, I'm hearing sound produced by the transformer windings and core resonating at 15.5khz, along with some of the harmonics at varying frequencies.

Trust me, you cannot "hear" electromagnetic fields unless they'll producing sound as a byproduct of their operation.

Not in British politics.

Try this link : https://www.google.com/finance...

Notice anything interesting ? HTML5 for the win, yes

don't buy property here.

As of 2014, IPv4 still carries more than 99% of worldwide Internet traffic. By any definition, that is a fiasco.

You appear to misunderstand the nature of IPv6 deployment. It was never intended to be a sudden switchover, but a gradual phasing out of the old and bringing in of the new, occurring as old equipment gets upgraded and as new IP address blocks are requested. Nobody was ever going to be kicked off IPv4 while they have valid IPv4 addresses and while it still works for them.

You should also have quoted the whole paragraph from which you selected the 99% figure, because your partial quote is merely showing that previously installed IPv4 systems are still working, not that IPv6 hasn't been deployed:

As of 2014, IPv4 still carries more than 99% of worldwide Internet traffic. As of 20 July 2015, the percentage of users reaching Google services with IPv6 surpassed 8.0% for the first time, growing at about 3.8 percentage points per year, although varying widely by region. As of 18 April 2015 Deployment of IPv6 on web servers also varied widely, with over half of web pages available via IPv6 in many regions, with about 13% of web servers supporting IPv6.

That's a bit different, don't you think? And while we're at it, ponder this from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...:

As of September 2013, over 33% of all users on Verizon had IPv6.

Considering that World IPv6 Launch didn't happen until June 6, 2012, that's some pretty impressive progress in IPv6 deployment, and its exponential growth continues unabated. Your alleged "fiasco" is nowhere to be seen.

Dwarf Fortress!!!!!!!!!1!!!1eleventy!!!!!

Here's a pretty cool article about Tarn Adams. His lifestyle sounds pretty similar to the guy in the cabin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance-of-dwarf-fortress.html

Try something a little more esoteric and you might be surprised at the results. For example, I wanted to see if there was a way to check my Chromebook's file system for problems, so I searched for: chromebook check disk consistency

The top results were missing the word "chromebook", and were completely useless because they were all for Windows. I modified the search by putting quotes around "chromebook" and a plus sign in front of it. The result? No change. Even turning on "Verbatim" results in the Search Tools gives me top results without the word "chromebook" in it. I can find no way to actually search for the exact terms that I entered.

Yes. Google has become nearly worthless for many searches.

I was searching for a particular video. No matter how I entered the query I didn't get anything even remotely close to what I was searching for. I don't mind not being able to find it -- it's old and obscure and it is possible that it just doesn't exist on the Internet. But in that case, I should get zero search results. Not thousands of meaningless and completely wrong results.

Try something a little more esoteric and you might be surprised at the results. For example, I wanted to see if there was a way to check my Chromebook's file system for problems, so I searched for: chromebook check disk consistency

The top results were missing the word "chromebook", and were completely useless because they were all for Windows. I modified the search by putting quotes around "chromebook" and a plus sign in front of it. The result? No change. Even turning on "Verbatim" results in the Search Tools gives me top results without the word "chromebook" in it. I can find no way to actually search for the exact terms that I entered.

Well, here in Moscow area they tell that speeding cameras (the actual boxes on the streets, not the desktop in the police department) run Windows XP. Presumably unpatched, because OS updates must be "certified" by the Russian NSA, and the agency just doesn't think "up-to-date" is a word. The media reported these computers were hacked in February 2013. And then they reported that in January 2014 the second time. Haven't received a single speeding ticket since the second news.

And, well, what's with the data? The media didn't even think about that. I even skimmed the comments (in Russian; Google translate is really bad at informal language) on the most popular "news for Russian-speaking nerds" site: a small thread on possible tampering and validity of tickets (well, no one thinks the court is likely to take this seriously, end of thread), but nobody seems to give a fuck about possible data leak.

" If he still develops symptoms then it's something else."

Yea, the student is full of shit and trying to get out of school.

Or has Munchausen syndrome.

Strange, Firefox spellchecker insists it's spelled Munchhausen, but Google says it's not.

Use Google search: "SEK in CHF" gives you a 1 to 0.11 conversion (at the time of this post). It even has a built-in calculator: "15.95 SEK in CHF" = 1.79. No app required.

It has a lot more nifty things like unit conversions. As long as you have a browser, and an Internet connection to reach Google search, you are good to go.

Use Google search: "SEK in CHF" gives you a 1 to 0.11 conversion (at the time of this post). It even has a built-in calculator: "15.95 SEK in CHF" = 1.79. No app required.

It has a lot more nifty things like unit conversions. As long as you have a browser, and an Internet connection to reach Google search, you are good to go.

What are they going to do when Apple is awarded the patent they filed for in 2005?

http://www.google.com/patents/...

The overlays are not "Mechanical", there are no moving parts.

What are they going to do when Apple is awarded the patent they filed for in 2005?

http://www.google.com/patents/...

Heh https://www.google.com/search?q=Stuff%2C+Lori%2C+Thangs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

What is wrong with a simple slot for the pen? Why do you need an ejection mechanism? All that does is add unnecessary parts and over complicate the design.

See, I was thinking the exact opposite... Have a mini-rail gun launch the pen so it can never get "stuck".
As a bonus write an app that will use the whole battery potential to shoot the s-pen like a blowgun dart!

Now I'm seeing a MacGyver comeback for the digital age!
We will need the modern version of a mullet though...
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1293&bih=658&q=MacGyver&oq=MacGyver&gs_l=img.3..0l10.2805.2805.0.5079.1.1.0.0.0.0.213.213.2-1.1.0....0...1ac..64.img..0.1.213.elR9Fw1feVI

the check point scanner page (not the app itself, that would be silly to link to in this context) is https://play.google.com/store/...

It's actually 7 years, but yeah, it's a long time.

https://fiber.google.com/citie...
No contract
Includes service guaranteed at $0/mo for 7 years per address

Sure she wasn't worried about retaliation.

I mean it's not like officers of large publishers didn't have a vitriolic reaction to Beale taking away their toy.

Oh wait they did

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/t...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...

Price is always my main issue with these super fast lines. Google Fiber even has it's problems with pricing. You can either pay $70 a month for Gigabit speeds, or pay $300 to start plus $25 a year for 5 mbit speeds. Why not have an option in the middle somewhere. 1 Gbps is way more than I need, but 5 Mbps is on the cusp of being too slow for my tastes. Why not have a $30-$40 a month option for 100 Mbps? My guess is that nobody would really pay for gigabit if given another cheaper option with reasonable speeds. By making the only options $70 a month or slow internet, you can get a lot more money out of people.

I get a lot of value out of my internet, but it seems that all the providers seem to gouge us by not offering pricing tiers that are beneficial to the end user, but offering the pricing tiers that will yield them the most money. Which is fine, I understand they are a businesses, and that's their duty, but I wish there was more competition, and less collusion among companies.

I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.google.com/#q=aws+outage+history

If only there were some amazing internet search technology where you could cut and paste Google's RE and get an accurate answer.

Yeah...maybe Google could even offer it. Oh, wait.

And now the penny drops: it's a broken reference to Google's RE<C.

Thanks for the improvement.

As the cost of production decreases so will the prices.

Except that as the cost of labor goes to zero, the cost of production goes to the cost of raw materials/energy/profit. Good luck buying something with your zero.

Last I looked plumbers still make more than doctors

How long until the oil pipeline pigs are miniaturized to the point where someone can rent one from the grocery (aisle 8, right next to the Rug Doctor carpet washers for rent) drop it in their toilet and have it clean and check all the drainpipes in the house? Sure, someone will have to come and rip out a wall and replace a pipe that's busted, but I wonder what percentage of a plumber's job is dealing with disgusting clogs vs piping/repiping structures?

How about punishing companies that charge "returned check fees" for a simple declined credit card (which is 100% out of the control of us consumers)? You can't get any more anti-consumer than that. More people need to report this kind of shit to credit companies and have their merchants disconnected.

https://www.google.com/webhp?q...

From the upload page:

By selecting the checkbox, you understand that you may not convert content unless you have the right to do so. Uploading content that you do not have the right to convert into HTML5 is a violation of copyright law and against the Google terms of service.

In other words, the author has to perform the conversion; viewers are forbidden to do so. And for most of the vector animations in SWF format on Newgrounds or Dagobah or Albino Blacksheep, I imagine the author has left the scene and can no longer be contacted, making the animations orphan works. This is why mass conversion of SWF to SVG- or Canvas-based HTML5 isn't likely to happen any time soon.

Even for the author, it can be a pain. From the extension page:

please note that the Swiffy extension isn't compatible with Creative Cloud.

From the upload page:

By selecting the checkbox, you understand that you may not convert content unless you have the right to do so. Uploading content that you do not have the right to convert into HTML5 is a violation of copyright law and against the Google terms of service.

In other words, the author has to perform the conversion; viewers are forbidden to do so. And for most of the vector animations in SWF format on Newgrounds or Dagobah or Albino Blacksheep, I imagine the author has left the scene and can no longer be contacted, making the animations orphan works. This is why mass conversion of SWF to SVG- or Canvas-based HTML5 isn't likely to happen any time soon.

Even for the author, it can be a pain. From the extension page:

please note that the Swiffy extension isn't compatible with Creative Cloud.

It's not hard to convert them to a more usable format.

As to Yucca being unsafe for nuclear waste according to the DoE... cite that please. I can't find anything that says that. What I found was report after report after report after article after article saying it was safe. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10... [nytimes.com] What are you talking about?

You are mis-quoting me. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is "inappropriate to contain nuclear waste". So the most appropriate way to move the Nuclear Industry forward is to develop a geologically stable containment facility (I am reluctant to call plutonium 'waste') inside a mountain. That could also, potentially, house a reactor facility, and an infrastructure plan to move that 70,000 tons of plutonium to that facility would begin to look like sound nuclear policy.

As for safe, well its seismic stability is a good measure of that and I doubt the NYT is qualified to make that assessment.

And then of course there is the whole issue with the storage for the spent fuel.

First of all lets clear up the time frame here, plutonium is radioactive for 25000 years before it decays into it's daughter product, which will then be radioactive for ??000 years and iterate 20 odd times. That's why I refer to it as 'geological time frames.

Yucca mountain is not a appropriate because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.

As to your rebuttal to my point about nuclear storage... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] "" The location has been highly contested by environmentalists and some Nevada residents[2]. It was approved in 2002 by the United States Congress. Federal funding for the site ended in 2011 under the Obama Administration via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed on April 14, 2011.[3] The Government Accountability Office stated that the closure was for political, not technical or safety reasons.[3] "" Quote: For political not technical or safety reasons.

Studies of the Yucca mountain hydrology revealed that the passage cl-36 from atmospheric nuclear testing took less that 50 years in ground water through Yucca mountain so the reality of Yucca is it is inappropriate to contain *any* kind of radioactive products. Yucca is pumice and volcanic ash, you *need* granite if you want a serious facility. Even the Swedish test facility is better designed than Yucca and the design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.

Go look up the wiki on the act if you are not convinced and you'll see that Yucca was *put* in Nevada because their represenatives did not attend.

Common myth? I can't believe you said that. Seriously. That issue is categorically lost to you.

Act

I find it hard to believe that bottle was so clean. Usually things out at sea over a large period of time become covered in pelagic barnacles.

Had CP/M before Microsoft "invented" DOS. Had Windows 1.0, back in its DOS days. Also had Windows 2.0, Windows 286, and Windows 386 (which became the basis of Windows 3.0 [anyone else remember Aporia? Not the game but the object-oriented shell for Windows 286 and Windows 386 which made it eerily like Windows 95]). Then I had Windows 3.0 and Windows 3.1 before switching from frustration to OS/2 2.0, OS/2 2.1, and OS/2 3.0. After that, it was the giant leap backwards (due to work) to Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. Note the lack of any Windows 3.11, Windows 98SE, and the various incarnations of Windows NT.

Nowadays (since late 2004 or early 2005), we're all Ubuntu at home - recently Xubuntu, 'cos Unity sucks. Similarly (since 2008-ish), it's all Windows 7 at work - despite the introduction of Windows 8, Windows 8.1, and Windows 10.

P.S. I'm not actually an old grey neckbeard (although there is grey in my beard); I just experienced a lot over the years.

>ruby has declined

because the fad is going away. I have seen the signs of decline of popularity of it in many places.

There other ways to measure (same ballpark questionable, I have to admit)

https://www.google.com/trends/...

in firefox it's in about:config, on chrome you need an addon like this, i don't get why people think it's so fucking hard to block

The average person will most likely freeze in a crisis, just out of sheer human nature. It takes a lot of training to overcome that,

Elitist rubbish, some people freeze, the majority will cower but a sizable minority will realise that they have a better chance of surviving if they can do something to subdue the shooters.

Sure military training will help in the take-down but don't tell me that people don't naturally have a survival instinct or that they will all cower because history says this isn't true.

https://www.google.com/search?...

The keyboard is the useless part of the keyboard.
When I was around age 10 I learned to type with one of these.. https://www.google.com/search?...

I regret that microwriters never took off. With a weeks practice you could type perfectly fast one handed while drinking coffee with the other.