Slashdot Mirror

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alot
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/a lot

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alot
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/a lot

Here in the Cincinnati area is one of the strongest AM stations in the nation. I've picked up the signal in Florida while on vacation before. Their old transmitter was used to send transmissions to troops in Europe a couple times during WWII.

"Shill" has become a popular word in /. recently. I'm not familiar with it, but from context I've taken to mean "Someone who is biased towards, and promotes, product A. The bias might be the result of ill-informed personal preference, or commercial interests."

This is not what "shill" means!!!!!

A shill is someone who is paid to pretend to be a satisfied customer. ie. the are a paid fake. There's a big difference between that and bias.

Any company will bias its reports in favour of the hand that feeds it. FOSS companies do the same. It doesn't make them all "shills".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shill

You must have done some HS class report on the industrial revolution, and use WikiPedia as your source.

Nope. I actually paid attention, unlike yourself. :-)

except the slight discrepency where they talk about how the industrial revolution was /STARTED/ with the steam engine

The power producing phase of technology DID start with the Steam Engine. Prior to that, the only power available was a) humans, b) horses, c) water wheels, d) windmills.

but was not possible without "machine tools"

Couple of things:

1. Note that machined tools started after the steam engine took off. It was actually the invention of the steam engine that spurred the need for more precise metal working.

2. The Romans had advanced metal works. They worked with Iron, crude forms of steel (particularly wrought iron), brass, and lead. Their lead works were particularly impressive, with lead drainage pipes bearing the seal of the Roman Caesar still being used in Rome today!

3. The Romans had other fine crafts work such as impressive glass work. In particular, their cage-cup glass is something that has confounded modern glass makers despite the fact that we make glass today in much the same way the Romans did.

4. The ancient Romans understood the concepts of power transfer as demonstrated by their invention of the overshot water wheel for milling, and their little-known attempts at analog computing.

See, I know exactly where you were mislead. It's the first part of 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Engine'.

That particular point of "combining rail and steam" is a bit of a stretch considering the low power output of an aeolipile. The actual article on Aeolipiles makes the point much more clearly. All you had to do was click through!

See, I don't pretend to know any more than the average Joe about such things

Really? Then we wouldn't be having this argument, would we? I find it ironic that you argue that I have failed to do my research when it is you yourself who have failed to do so.

I mean seriously, man. Compare the description of what's necessairy to make http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/aeolipile.html vs. a steam engine. That's more than the length of the Roman civilization was capable of.

Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about? For example, have you ever paid attention to the construction of the Roman baths? We're talking thousands of gallons of heated, running water and steamed rooms. All made possible by a Roman invention known as the hypocaust. The hypocaust was an advanced system of thermal transfer that cleverly directed the thermal energy of a furnace into heating the pools as the water cycled. Its widespread usage (in baths as large as today's Olympic swimming pools, no less!) shows that the Romans had a working understanding of the thermodynamics of heat transfer. If you ever get your hands on a diagram of a hypocaust, you may find that it looks a bit similar to the early aero-steam engines. The primary difference was the lack of a pressure vessel in the Roman design. (And what did the aeolipile have that the baths didn't?)

The aeolipile could have been initially used for early power generation experiments. As I said, a vacuum pump could have been attached, or something equally useful at lower power production levels. The problem was NOT that the Romans couldn't have advanced from the aeolipile to the steam engine in the remaining span of their empire. They had the engineering capabilities, the necessary iron works, the experience with steam generation, and everything else that was required. The problem was that the Ro

1. The Legal Definition of Theft - from The Legal Dictionary found at FreeDictionary.com

   theft n.

   the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). In many states, if the value of the property taken is low (for example, less than $500) the crime is "petty theft," but it is "grand theft" for larger amounts, designated misdemeanor, or felony, respectively. Theft is synonymous with "larceny." Although robbery (taking by force), burglary (taken by entering unlawfully), and embezzlement (stealing from an employer) are all commonly thought of as theft, they are distinguished by the means and methods used, and are separately designated as those types of crimes in criminal charges and statutory punishments.

   This is the exact same definition found at Law.com

2. Using that definition, when one owns a domain, and owns a website, that is tacit ownership (tacit is defined as: Implied (as by an act or by silence) rather than express (a tacit admission)).
3. Hyperlinking has been previously defined in this forum, as versus hotlinking.
4. Copyright theft (or any other kind of intellectual theft) is "stealing something where nothing is lost" - there is actual LOSS. There is income loss, there is loss of reputation, and other losses (and if you don't think that loss of reputation is an actual loss, go talk to a lawyer - they will talk your ear off on how REAL the loss is).
5. Bandwidth theft is what is called a "tortious act" - Definition of TORT: n. from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. Some intentional torts may also be crimes, such as assault, battery, wrongful death, fraud, conversion (a euphemism for theft) and trespass on property and form the basis for a lawsuit for damages by the injured party. Defamation, including intentionally telling harmful untruths about another-either by print or broadcast (libel) or orally (slander)-is a tort and used to be a crime as well. DEFINITION OF TORTIOUS ACT: adj. referring to an act which is a tort (civil wrong).
6. Illegal acts committed against private persons or corporations, sometimes do not fall into the sphere of criminal justice and are therefore required to fall into the sphere of civil justice. Such is the case with bandwidth theft, as well as copyright infringement.

This can cause dehydration

• It may be nice tech demo, but let us face it, it is a dead end street.

• I mean I got it to run on my old HP-UX workstation back in the day. But what has it done of _use_ latetly.

• Of course, I'll get modded as Troll or Flamebait for not toeing the line.

• It may be nice tech demo, but let us face it, it is a dead end street.

• I mean I got it to run on my old HP-UX workstation back in the day. But what has it done of _use_ latetly.

• Of course, I'll get modded as Troll or Flamebait for not toeing the line.

A definition of invasion of privacy is as follows: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/inva sion+of+privacy

And http://www.answers.com/topic/invasion-of-privacy

invasion of privacy The tort of unjustifiably intruding upon another's right to privacy by appropriating his or her name or likeness, by unreasonably interfering with his or her seclusion, by publicizing information about his or her private affairs that a reasonable person would find objectionable and in which there is no legitimate public interest, or by publicizing information that unreasonably places him or her in a false light see also privacy compare right of privacy zone of privacy

There is also the element that if you are in the public eye, then there is the public interest. Let's say I was a stock holder, would I want the details posted in the CNet article? Sure.

For a comparison let's look at Enron. Let's say that I was a stock holder. Would I have wanted to know how much the then CEO was spending on parties and umbrella holders? Damm right! Maybe if the public had known we would not have had the mess that resulted.

For Google to take such action is very dangerous indeed as it has become a pissing contest. In effect Eric Schmidt has said, "Because you published information about me, Google the corporation will not talk to you?" A smarter approach would have been, "Sorry, I do not like your style, *I* will not talk to you, but if my other Google executives can talk to you if they so choose."

Frankly, this is a Google blunder... Wonder if this is the first of something...

From here:

Noun 1.investor investor - someone who commits capital in order to gain financial returns

Not, political change, financial return. That being said I would guarantee that 99.99% (or more) of all people who have bought Cisco stock don't own the stock because of Cisco's political motives. Do you own stock? If so, did you purchase the stock because you sought social change? Or are you trying to make a little money?

My main point in starting the thread was that this doesn't matter is because even if the shareholder's win they don't do anything. It's a non-binding resolution. That tells me they aren't even serious about it.

As for reaching the Chinese people I have never had a problem. I have had multiple Chinese clients in a wide variey of businesses and have never encountered censorship in reaching them via postal, telephone or electronic communications. I believe that if the Chinese truly wanted change they would effect the change themselves.

My suggestion was that if you finds yourself slacking with regards to security procedures, you've effectively eliminated the inner wall. If the outer wall is breached, so is the inner one, by virtue of the fact that you're slacking. If the benefits of slacking (with respect to productivity, convenience, etc.) are sufficient, you should just harden the firewall and ditch the internal security processes. If maintaining security is a serious issue, you should do your damn job and implement the security processes. The fact that you have a firewall is no excuse for being sloppy, and sloppiness will bite you in the ass when the firewall fails.

One team runs the big honking edge firewalls, and takes their job seriously. They regularly strengthen the walls, and comission tiger-team testing to verify the belief that the perimeter walls are as secure as they can be for the budget available.

Another team (or six teams, or sixteen teams) run the various internal networks and servers and desktops. These are the ones who will start slacking off because "we have a firewall", and getting sloppy in locking down the internal devices.

Sure, the perimeter team can rant and rave about how while their firewall is great, it is not a panacea and the internal groups need to take up their share of the load, but this is little more than a CLM.

I wasn't sure what the measure femtosecond equated to so I Googled it.

femtosecond - one quadrillionth of a second; one thousandth of a nanosecond.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/femtosecond

Holy crap, I can register broca.tel!

I'm so going to get bought out by heavy fabric with raised designs producers for mad $$$$
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/brocatel

That was from the Concise Oxford English dictionary.

Lets take a look at the definition from here

* theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

They appear quite clear that software piracy is theft.

These guys seem to use the word "theft" too.

If 'steal' was correct, then we wouldn't use the word pirated, now would we?

Nor would we use annexation, appropriation, boost, break-in, burglary, caper, cheating, crime, defrauding, deprivation, embezzlement, extortion, filch, fleece, fraud, grab, heist, holdup, hustle, job, larceny, lift, looting, mugging, pilferage, pilfering, pillage, pinch, piracy, plunder, purloining, racket, rapacity, rip-off, robbery, robbing, score, shoplifting, snatch, snitch, steal, stickup, swindle, swindling, swiping, thievery, thieving, touch or vandalism. Doh! :)

From the legal POV, any weapon at all (including a Mac PowerBook or even bare hands) can be used to threaten someone. I think it's fair to say that 'a reasonable person' can imagine uses for a PowerBook or bare hands other than the crime of assault. There is also, on the linked page, the idea that certain weapons, can be used to commit the crime of assault even if the victim isn't aware they have been targetted. I'd hazard a guess that the same 'reasonable person' would include bow & arrow under the same type of logic - namely, any reasonably accurate ranged weapon can be used to commit assault. Are you really implying that there is no imaginable use of a bow & arrow which is non-nefarious?

In the context of the military definition of 'assault rifle', there are plenty of imaginable uses for a rifle that is chambered for an intermediate caliber round (intermediate, if you didn't follow the link means a round in between a typical pistol round and a typical long rifle [generally speaking a long rifle is the longest/heaviest/most powerfull type of rifle that is practical for a single soldier to use] round) beyond human combat at intermediate ranges. This list may include marginally nefarious uses as well as marginally silly uses, but should also include uses which really are innocent. Just a few off the top of my head: "target shooting", "hunting", "rodent control", "propping open a window", "collecting", "investment", "historical re-enactment", "sunflower support", "mixing concrete", "opening a jar of peach preserves".

In the context of the AWB, which is what I guess you really mean in the context of your message, the same list of imagined non-nefarious uses applies as was given for the military term. In order to truely understand what you seem to be calling for (renewal of the AWB), you should understand first that it was about having more than one of a narrowly defined list of features, and second that it only applied to the sale of weapons made during the time it was in place. On the progun side of the debate, it was generally assumed that the intent of the ban was to reduce the sale of 'scary looking' weapons. As an example, a rifle could be sold with either a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher alone, but couldn't be sold with both. I'm having a hard time imagining a nefarious use for both those features which would be foiled by allowing only one.

Sprog: child, kid, nipper, tiddler, youngster, tike, tyke, shaver, small fry, nestling, fry.... How else could we then use the wonderful phrase "dropping sprogs"?

Furthermore, the absence of the red dwarf term smeg clearly shows which side of the atlantic the survey was compiled (or that its been sanitised....)

Humor defined. That might help

• Global warming adds more pure water to the sea in the North Atlantic
• Gulf stream slows
• Slower Gulf stream cools the temperatures

Also a lower temperature sea will increase the likelyhood of dissolving the extra CO2 into the seawater.

Most of this kind of research (models) are focused on extrapolation in this case the time-frame (using a couple of years +-100 to predict too much 800 or more and using limited knowledge gained from other sources such as core samples).

And I'm not trying too discredit the sciences of core samples etc. It is just that their findings are still being refined too.

Models are a great tool to research complex behaviour. But those that use their findings blindly as fact are bound to be humiliated.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was trying to say ... just substitute the word "copy" for the word "work".

The words 'copy' and 'work' are two different words with two different meanings. Try substituting 'copied' for 'created' in "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth." Not quite the same meaning is it? Are you trying to say you recognize no difference between the rights of the man who creates a work of art and a man who makes a copy that the creator does not want him to make? You can't make an argument by changing a word in my statement then saying 'see - you agree with me'.

I like that deal, "paying for a service" truely is so much better than "imposing copyright monopoly"

Copyrights are a way to insure that I am paid for the service of creating the content. It is a philosophical construct (like all beliefs and laws) that gives me the right to control the use (including copying) of my original intellectual product. Because YOU can not produce that content the only place you can get it is from me. If you take it without my permission you are stealing. Stealing is not " defined by what is no longer in your posession", to steal is defined as " To take (the property of another) without right or permission". And just what property of mine are you taking? You are taking the information contained in the file you copy. It doesn't matter that I also retain that information, if you got it from me and I have not given it, you have 'taken it'. This 'copying is not stealing because you still have a copy' assertion is one of the more self serving bogus arguments used to support your view. Words can not be swapped in and out and redefined to suit your purpose. What matters is what is in YOUR possession that was not, not what remains in mine. Would you assert that a spy who broke into a laboratory and photographed the plans for a nuclear missile did not steal them? Put another way - if the control of the use of my original content is the method I use to secure payment for my efforts, that control represents real world value. When you take that control from me and transfer that control to you, you are stealing real world value. It's irrelevant that you decide not to charge for further copies, every copy you distribute represents potential real world value you have taken from me. You can not possibly know how many of the people who received free copies from you would have paid me for the same information. The media file which contains the information is irrelevant because it is the information (remember information economy?) that represents the value. Even by your definition you have taken potential sales from me - you have stolen them. Please don't be stupid enough to suggest they are not worth anything - Pink Floyd has been around a long time, but people still buy the albums.

"I BEG anyone to show me one goddam musician who will turn away 5000 people paying $50 bucks a head to see him perform live in concert because they won't respect "his copyrights"'.

This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The one situation has NOTHING to do with the other. This is another example of a favorite but invalid, technique used to support your arguments i.e. 'the RIAA has a record of ripping off musicians and suing grandmothers, therefore there should be no copyrights'. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Anyone who uses arguments this logically flawed should be ashamed of themselves. The real pity is that there are a great many VALID arguments that support the opinion that the RIAA is not good for creativity and should be watched very closely. Using invalid and transparently flawed arguments just lets them point at their opponents and say "see, they're fanatics - what they say is idiotic and doesn't make sense".

"And one more more thing. BILLY

How is that for seeing your argument being flawed? Dumbass.

touché!

You're quoting out of context, unlike Softpanorama, which is quite meticulous about revealing their sources and labeling their commentary as opinion. You're trying to do a hatchet job on Softpanorama, but if you provided links to your sources and put the quotes in context, that would undermine your argument.

The quote about hijacking the Minix community is clearly labeled as an opinion about a comment written by ESR in The Cathedral and the Bazar. The first person to accuse anyone of trying to hijack Minix was Andrew Tanenbaum himself in 1992. That opinion has been around a long time, and many people agree with it. If it's news to you, then you're wet behind the ears.

Andrew Tanenbaum:

By and large, I agree with what Glen said. A lot of folks really wanted free BSD, and tried to hijack MINIX in that direction. Then they successively tried to use Coherent, Linux, BSDI, HURD, and no doubt more in the future. Fine.

ESR's Cathedral and Bazar:

In fact, I think Linus' cleverest and most consequential hack was not the construction of the Linux kernel itself, but rather his invention of the Linux development model. When I expressed this opinion in his presence once, he smiled and quietly repeated something he has often said: "I'm basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do." Lazy like a fox. Or, as Robert Heinlein might have said, too lazy to fail.

Softpanorama's commentary:

IMHO the hijacking of Minix community was the cleverest Linux hack (along with the adoption of GPL.). This way he got a lot of skilled developers and the community that can appreciate their efforts. Without them his efforts would probably collapse OSS or no OSS. This argument about invention of the development model does not look realistic...

As you can see from the quotes in context, Softpanorama is actually criticizing ESR, and complementing Linus.

Now we get to the part where you accuse Softpanorama of "bringing up his fathers membership of the communist party". Get your attributions straight. That was a straight-up, attributed quote from Wired Magazine, which you're quoting out of context in order to imply it's something that originated from Softpanorama, when it's not:

Wired Magazine 1.11 Leader of the Free World :

In a way, Linus was born to be a revolutionary. His parents were campus radicals at the University of Helsinki in the 1960s. Torvalds' father was a card-carrying Communist who spent a year studying in Moscow when his son was about 5. He served a stint as a minor elected official (he's now a prominent television and radio exec). Other kids teased Linus about his father's politics. "Growing up, I was terribly embarrassed by him," Torvalds says.

Softpanorama also quotes another source of this information:

Encyclopedia article about Nikke Torvalds. Free Online Encyclopedia:

"Torvalds was active in the Communist Party since he was a college student during the 1960s His political beliefs developed after learning of the atrocities committed against communist sympathizers in Finland. He later charged that his enthusiasm for the Party and its beliefs were the result of naiveté. He met his wife Anna at their university. As the family

Wikipedia is available over HTTP in a much more up-to-date, interactive and dynamic format than DVDs.

Well, yes, if you want to read it you're probably not going to download the entire bloody encyclopedia to your local machine via bittorrent.

But some people would have valid reasons for wanting this. A lot of places resyndicate Wikipedia content, e.g. www.thefreedictionary.com. or answers.com; I'm exactly sure why these sites do it, but I can think or many valid reasons.

Maybe data miners or researchers want to run scripts on Wikipedia and make all kinds of conclusions (such things are entirely legal and above board, since the content is free).

The whole purpose of the DVD sets is... I don't know. I really don't.

Well, not all of us are connected to the Internet 24/7. Some of us have laptops without wireless Internet, and even computers without network cards at all.

Lastly, there are many places in the world where you can't get a reliable net connection at all (e.g. various places in Africa, Asia).

Except you're ability to pass english Ralph

Obviously you know better than the dictionary.

Well, what do I know? English isn't even my native language.

The rollie pollie.
armadillo.

Both can roll up and away...

It depends on the mass of the star. Below the Chandrasekhar Limit, a star will collapse into a White Dwarf. Next up is the Neutron Star, then the Quark Star and finally the Black Hole. Becoming a black hole requires a lot of mass, though if I remember right, there is an upper limit on the mass of a star to become a black hole.

It depends on the mass of the star. Below the Chandrasekhar Limit, a star will collapse into a White Dwarf. Next up is the Neutron Star, then the Quark Star and finally the Black Hole. Becoming a black hole requires a lot of mass, though if I remember right, there is an upper limit on the mass of a star to become a black hole.

In general, supporting things like this (even though they're actually pretty important) is a good way to get yourself targeted for "not caring about things here on Earth."

UK Politician Lembit Opik gets flak for his obsession with this as well (or it could be about his upcoming marriage to Sian Lloyd, UK's favourite weather girl...). He does though, have the added distinction of being Ernst Julius Öpik's (Estonian astrophysicist specializing in asteroids and the like) grandson.

"Tell that to Linus Torvalds (he's Swedish)"

No, he's Finnish but part of Finlands Swedish-speaking minority population (Finlandssvenskar). See here

• personal computer: yes, likely
• computer: depends on your definition of computer..probably not
• light bulb: certainly not
• sewing machines: didn't know shit about their invention, but it seems that they weren't an American invention

• Buzzword in just one word.
• the right link is here.

Are you saying that swarming is already a buzz word?

Did you notice the word "fair" in that phrase?

I see, so you think 'fair' entails 120 year copyright terms for all information produced at expense?

And 'fair' also describes information having only one legitimate(i.e. the highest corporate bidder) 'owner' at any one time?

What happens in your 'moral' future when the media conglomerates own every piece of cultural information you've ever been exposed to, and forces you to pay a tithe(decided soley by them) in order to re-gain access to that information?

first ever considered 'vaccine' was tested on a boy who already had smallpox, so calling this vaccine goes back a long time.

Don't you mean cowpox? It was found that being infected with cowpox, aka the vaccinia virus, (the "vaccine") protected you from contracting smallpox. I think this was done by first infecting a boy with cowpox and then trying to infect him with smallpox.

Its probably 1.6 terabytes which is approximately 1.2 Tebibytes

Of course, the conversions don't work out quite right, so I think there is probably some "rounding" going on

http://www.virginatlanticglobalflyer.com/ is slashdotted. Info here http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/GlobalFl yer

Many IEDs in Iraq are manufactured out of old artillery shells (the country is awash in them). They're readily available, have fusing apparatus already attached, and have a frangible metal shell that produces plenty of shrapnel. As a bonus, They're relatively safe to handle, and even rookie terrorists can drop one next to a roadway and run.

Why bother with something volatile or percussion sensitive? Nitro? Picrates? You'd kill more of your buddies handling that stuff than you would kill intended targets.

Plastic explosive is also used, but you typically can't set that off just by shooting it. Most plastic explosives are fairly insensitive to percussion, and require some sort of chaining, or booster explosive to set them off (like a blasting cap attached to some detonation cord, for instance).

Burning is an idea, since most plastic explosives will burn... but you could do that by simply soaking it in diesel fuel and lighting it up (old dynamite is sometimes disposed of in this way)... you might not even need tracers.

Conceptually, though, I like the way you think... far better to sit back at a safe distance and light it up with a rifle. The EOD guys do something similar to this with the .50 caliber Barrett rifles . An incendiary .50 caliber round will make short work of many IEDs and other ordnance.

"The meaning of the word computer has changed but has always lagged behind the capabilities of machines in use at the time. The word was originally used to describe a person who performed arithmetic calculations and this usage is still valid."

Computer operators?

Transparent aluminum gets closer and closer!

Yeah, but is that 12 survey inches or 12 imperial inches?

It occurs to me that a luner elevator might be a better deal for landing things on the moon than takeing them off.

For lunar launches, the Moon's lack of an atmosphere makes mass drivers practical. No fuel required, just energy. And isn't that the prime selling point for a space elevator?

On the other hand, coming down, the lack of an atmosphere is a problem. No free aerobraking like on Earth. You have to expel propellent. A lunar elevator would fix that. But is it enough to justify building and maintaining the structure?

I've been seeing the inventor and his "Taxi 2000" (now SkyWeb) display at the Minnesota State Fair for years. I always wondered why this system wasn't adopted due to its obvious place as a transportation analogue to the internet (i.e., a packet switching-like transportation system).

Instead, the State of Minnesota built a single "circuit" transportation corridor in the form of light rail and to date has invested $715M for only 12 miles of track! (...and this corridor is one of the least congested and traveled corridors making such a huge, inefficient investment all the more curious).

If this Personal Rapid Transit website cost estimates are to be believed, then that same $715M in cost would have resulted in 47.6 miles of track (using their high estimate of $15M per mile) which would've provided significantly more transportation relief in Minneapolis/St. Paul than a singular corridor deployment of a light rail system.

Kind of reminds me of stories my Dad told me about when the City of Minneapolis & St. Paul allegedly dumped streetcars in favor of buses see Conspiracy on this page. Even as a young man he was puzzled by the fact that the "circuits" of the streetcars were already built so the perceived efficiency of the "packet switching" buses seemed like a waste. The reasons for tossing out streetcars had nothing to do with logic but rather economics for the motor companies.

When we go to the State Fair and see this SkyWeb display year-after-year, my 79 year old Dad is just as puzzled as he was back then when he thinks about why we're not investing in this obvious efficient transportation system vs. throwing away huge sums on light rail focused on singular corridors.

No it's not, a better troll would have mentioned the hominid genus kenyanthropus.
It's old school to believe that the hominid genus australopithecus
is the only possible human ancestor.

No it's not, a better troll would have mentioned the hominid genus kenyanthropus.
It's old school to believe that the hominid genus australopithecus
is the only possible human ancestor.

If people could take a step back and apply some common sense to the problem we would see two glaring things staring us in the face. One is, do we really think that storing this stuff above ground is safer than below ground? I, for one, would prefer to have this stuff below ground where some danged fool can't fly their airplane into it, or better yet easily steal it to make a 'dirty' bomb. At least underground access to it is minimized. So we have to watch the stuff for a long time. That fact doesn't change whether it's above or below ground, so throw that arguement out the window. The second thing is, just as the article states, let's reuse as much of this stuff as we can. We are the only country in the world that has nuclear power plants and doesn't recycle the waste. It's called a breeder reactor and it's as safe as a nuclear reactor is. The problem is that nobody wants to build one because they are afraid of what we did to the people who built the nuclear reactors in the first place. We bankrupted most of them by constantly changing the rules in the middle of the game. Each reactor built in this country faced exploding costs as the government made new laws and regulations and changed existing ones as they were being built and forced the owners to change their plans after the projects were already started. Costs skyrocketed by ten to one hundred times the original estimates. Nobody is going to go down that road again anytime soon unless some promises are made, and kept, by our own government. I can't see any politician winning an election on a platform of freezing nuclear safety laws anytime soon, so throw that one out the window.

Common sense says get the stuff underground and watch it the same as we do above ground. Simple 'patch' to a major problem we have, that continually gets worse over time. The recycling issue has too many politic hurdles to overcome to provide a timely answer. We all now how fast things get done in our government.

RTG = Radioisotopic Thermoelectric Generator

See this site for more info.

--Bruce

Ummm... You do realize that we, fellow American, already do pay a blank media tax, don't you?

It must be good to have the cake and eat it too, eh?

-Grym

The best application for vacuum tubes that i've heard of is for the flight control systems in cold war era Russian Mig Fighter jets. Apparently Vaccum tubes are much more resistant to the EMP blast created from a nuclear detonation. Which means in the early stages of WWIII the Russians would still have jets in the air while American fighters would quickly realize that all the millions of dollars worth of high tech computer gadgetry that allows their planes to fly does not operate once a few chips go poof.
Here's a link which mention this.
Apparently the model used in the Mig 21 radar system (the SC33C triode) has garnered quite a following in high end audiphile class A tube amplifiers...

There are sites belonging to the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization in northern india that go back over 9000 years with the earliest layers showing fully formed agriculture and domesticated animals. (The cite I am refering to is called Mehrgarh)

Their cities are laid out to the same exact ratios, as are the bricks used to build the cities. They have some of the first examples of sewers in the world. Admittedly, much of their "technology" wasn't quite as impressive until the height of their civilization around 2800BC.

A lot of mystery surrounds their civilization for a number of reasons, one of which is that the earliest layers do show agriculture and domseticated animals without any buildup to it. Another is the fact that they have basically no body of writing even though examples of a 'script' have been found on numerous pots. Many scholars wonder if they even had a fully developed writing system.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Indus-Sa rasvati%20civilization/

If you want monolithic ruins thought by many to be even older, look at malta.

You mean Robot Heaven, don't you?