Slashdot Mirror

The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.

These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.

Of course the overall quality of the courts have dropped precipitously recently. A primary example is Judge Alsup, ruling on DACA after having just been slapped down twice by the Supremes.

In a 5-4 ruling issued Dec. 8, the justices temporarily lifted Alsup’s order, though the majority did not reveal its reasons for doing so. The order was fairly remarkable, as the Supreme Court does not generally involve itself in discovery disputes. The ruling provoked a short dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

In a second ruling issued two weeks later on Dec. 22, the high court ordered Alsup to reconsider two government arguments about the court’s power to review DACA’s termination before making a final determination on the shielded federal documents. The second ruling appears to be a compromise among the justices, as there were no noted dissents.

The Courts do not set public policy nor do they create Legislation.

These AG's should know that. In fact, they do. But AG is a political position so this is nothing more than Grandstanding.

Of course the overall quality of the courts have dropped precipitously recently. A primary example is Judge Alsup, ruling on DACA after having just been slapped down twice by the Supremes.

In a 5-4 ruling issued Dec. 8, the justices temporarily lifted Alsup’s order, though the majority did not reveal its reasons for doing so. The order was fairly remarkable, as the Supreme Court does not generally involve itself in discovery disputes. The ruling provoked a short dissent from Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

In a second ruling issued two weeks later on Dec. 22, the high court ordered Alsup to reconsider two government arguments about the court’s power to review DACA’s termination before making a final determination on the shielded federal documents. The second ruling appears to be a compromise among the justices, as there were no noted dissents.

So, rather than follow the links I provided that give links to the actual things, you want me to hold your hand through it? I cannot visit Kotaku from work, so all I can give is the links I have given. If you are going to be willfully ignorant, that is your problem, and not mine.

I can't prove a negative, obviously.

So then why do you claim:

For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt

So, either you can prove it, or you can't. It sounds like you are stuck on the word "review" which is a term that comes from the anti-GG campaign, not from GG, that merely talked about a series of posts he made about Quinn while they were at least friends, if not more.

If you want lots of links to read through, you should also read this entry on the same blog:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

As it goes through and provides all those citations that even Wikipedia doesn't seem able to provide, and goes through the Wikipedia entry section by section disproving tons of it with citations. Feel free to refute anything that is said there since you know so much more about the situation.

Here are the articles you asked for BTW, which you could ahve found quite quickly on your own:

Nathan Grayson has, provably[SIC], written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
and had at least known each other since June, 2012
[

So, rather than follow the links I provided that give links to the actual things, you want me to hold your hand through it? I cannot visit Kotaku from work, so all I can give is the links I have given. If you are going to be willfully ignorant, that is your problem, and not mine.

I can't prove a negative, obviously.

So then why do you claim:

For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt

So, either you can prove it, or you can't. It sounds like you are stuck on the word "review" which is a term that comes from the anti-GG campaign, not from GG, that merely talked about a series of posts he made about Quinn while they were at least friends, if not more.

If you want lots of links to read through, you should also read this entry on the same blog:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

As it goes through and provides all those citations that even Wikipedia doesn't seem able to provide, and goes through the Wikipedia entry section by section disproving tons of it with citations. Feel free to refute anything that is said there since you know so much more about the situation.

Here are the articles you asked for BTW, which you could ahve found quite quickly on your own:

Nathan Grayson has, provably[SIC], written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
and had at least known each other since June, 2012
[

So, rather than follow the links I provided that give links to the actual things, you want me to hold your hand through it? I cannot visit Kotaku from work, so all I can give is the links I have given. If you are going to be willfully ignorant, that is your problem, and not mine.

I can't prove a negative, obviously.

So then why do you claim:

For example, the allegations about Quinn have been shown to be false beyond all reasonable doubt

So, either you can prove it, or you can't. It sounds like you are stuck on the word "review" which is a term that comes from the anti-GG campaign, not from GG, that merely talked about a series of posts he made about Quinn while they were at least friends, if not more.

If you want lots of links to read through, you should also read this entry on the same blog:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygam...

As it goes through and provides all those citations that even Wikipedia doesn't seem able to provide, and goes through the Wikipedia entry section by section disproving tons of it with citations. Feel free to refute anything that is said there since you know so much more about the situation.

Here are the articles you asked for BTW, which you could ahve found quite quickly on your own:

Nathan Grayson has, provably[SIC], written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014
[ http://api.viglink.com/api/cli... ]
and had at least known each other since June, 2012
[

The waste issue (as well as inherent safety) is part of the reason that there's so much research on ADSRs right now (note: the article says that an ADSR "would use thorium as a fuel", but it's not actually limited to thorium, it can use any subcritical fissile core). Spallation can rip apart the long-lived actinides that don't have a sufficient (n, gamma) cross section to prevent their accumulation in nuclear waste. And of course, since the core is inherently subcritical by design, simply not enough neutronicity under any condition to sustain a chain reaction on its own, when you shut the beam off, fission ceases instantly (though you still have decay heat like with any other nuclear power plant). Spallation source provides no more than about 10% or so of the neutronicity, but it's the amount needed to push the core over the edge.

I have my own very radical variant on the concept of an accelerator driven fission that I'm working on simulating now in Geant4 (although that was probably a poor choice of software, apparently their thermal scattering codes are really immature... as far as CERN is concerned, once particles get down below the MeV range they're usually not particularly interesting). But anyway the concept is to have a core with literally zero neutronicty - a lithium-burning reactor. The basic concept is as such:

1. A planar proton beam is delivered by one or more high power linac beamlines. Commercial-scale linac costs - without any improvements in technology - are expected to cost $5-20 per watt. The particular design would call for very high voltage (~16MV) klystrons to drive it - and not simply to reduce size (more in this shortly)

2. The proton beam bombards a fragment emitting target inside an axial magnetic field in a vacuum. The estimation of deceleration efficiency is estimated at over 90% in fragment reactors due to the lack of Carnot losses (according to the published research on the subject). The resultant HVDC will be direct converted to the klystron voltage in producing the electron beam that drives the linac. About 60% of the energy of spallation goes into fragment production. Fragments will be drawn away from the fragment target en route to the collector via a slightly expanding axial magnetic field. Fragment collection allows for automatic isotope separation.

3. The maximum power output of a fragment reactor is limited by its surface area and its ability to radiate heat. Fragment-emitting targets can be either electrostatically suspended dust or rapidly rotating with thin fibers or planes of target material, in order to radiatively cool without melting. Spallation targets, for efficiency, need to be high-Z materials, such as lead, tungsten, mercury, etc. Tungsten is particularly attractive due to its high melting point of 3695K. High-Z metal-rich ceramics are also possible targets, with very high melting points. The temperature of the chamber's beryllium walls being radiated to will be around 1050K. This means heat exchange between a ~3000K emitter (4.6e7W/m) and a 1050K receiver (6.8e4W/m), or about 4.5MW per square meter. In short, this allows for a surprisingly compact core, limited more by the length necessary to ensure a sufficient proton spallation cross section.

4. Neutrons emitted by spallation (at a cost of 30-40 MeV per neutron) are heavily biased by