It should also be noted that there is a "known unknown" issue related to what Kuiper objects are out there undiscovered - we know that we've only discovered a tiny fraction of them, and the further out we go, the smaller the fraction that have been discovered. And we've seen what sort of size distribution they follow thusfar. I've seen published calculations that suggest that based on what we've discovered thusfar and the percentage of bodies we believe we've discovered thusfar, an Earth-sized far outer planet is not only a possibility, but actually to be expected.
Of course, there's no way to know for sure if the size distribution trends that we've seen thusfar will actually hold to higher sizes. But the possibility of finding bodies larger than Eris and Pluto, even significantly larger, is very real. The Kuiper Belt (and whatever one wants to call Sedna's region) is not like the asteroid belt where we can be confident that we've already found all of the "big stuff".
Indeed, that is possible - but not with the gas giants where they are today, the strength of the interaction is too little. A gas giant migrating inward from an area where it had been strongly interacting with Sedna to its present day area where it no longer is would be a possibility.
That said, possibilities to explain the orbit of one single body in the outer solar system aren't enough, there's a lot of data that a model has to account for - other Sedna-like bodies (there's another one discovered with curiously almost an identical apohelion to Sedna, can't recall the name of the top of my head), the Kuiper Cliff issue, etc. That's why studies like this are important, to see what possibilities can match up with the solar system as we know it.
Fusion's 17 MeV neutrons are nothing compared to spallation's neutrons, which can approach (or in some designs even exceed) a GeV. 17MeV neutrons are most eminantly stoppable. Yes, they have a longer penetration distance, and yes, there are some differences in behavior (they tend to cause (n,2n), (n,alpha), (n,d) etc reactions a lot more often while lower energy neutrons usually only do (n,gamma) transmutation), But these are not fundamental differences nor fundamental problems.
Fusion reactors do not use "layers of lead" as shielding. You have some misconceptions about how shielding works. Lead is an excellent shielding material for gamma and beta, but it's terrible for neutrons. It does not moderate them down at any relevant rate due to its high atomic mass, it has a low (n, gamma) gross section, and when it does undergo neutron capture it breeds bismuth - which is fine, except when bismuth undergoes (n, gamma) it breeds polonium, which is really, really nasty stuff. There's also a variety of other neutron reactions lead can undergo which lead to other radioactive products. You don't use lead for neutron shielding. Quite to the contrary, lead is used as a coolant in some types of nuclear reactors because of how little it interferes with neutrons.
Neutrons by contrast are generally best blocked by light elements. Hydrogen is the most effective moderator, although you want both to moderate down the neutron energy and have a high neutron cross section. And of course you don't use pure hydrogen because that's an explosion hazard. So if you want liquid shielding, something like borated water is your best bet. For solids, borated plastics are best.
However, the neutrons in a fusion reactor are not seen as an undesirable thing, but as a critical part of the process to keep it going. Because you need tritium to run it, and tritium doesn't grow on trees, you have to breed it. D-T gives one neutron and it takes one neutron to make one tritium, so if you didn't have any neutron multiplication, the *best* you could possibly do (with no losses and 100% capture) would be breakeven. The reality is that you have to do neutron multiplication to get enough to operate. So the reactors use a lithium-beryllium blanket, of a thickness to absorb the overwhelming majority of the neutrons. Outside of this there will always be stray neutrons that escape, you're not going to want to just stand next to the thing, but it's not going to be a Glowing Ball of Death.
Now, obviously, for structural materials, you're not going to be building it out of borated water, borated plastic, or lithium. Beryllium, mind you, is light and an excellent structural material, but it's super-expensive and difficult to work with, so it's only generally used structurally in key areas. Aluminum (better, lithium-aluminum) is great and undergoes almost no induced radioactivity, but its low melting point limits its use in high temperature applications. Graphite would be great, and is great in some cases - but it undergoes Wigner energy problems if not operated at high enough of a temperature. Composites, which aren't as Wigner energy sensitive, usually can't take the heat. So altogether, one generally deals with iron alloys (steels), with the alloying agents chosen based on what gives the desired properties while undergoing the least problematic transmutation reactions. With proper design, the level of transmutation can be kept pretty low.
Why would it be low? Well, the vast majority of iron is 56 iron. There are also a few percent of 54Fe, 57Fe, and a fraction of a percent of 58Fe. Let's trace the neutron capture paths here.
54Fe becomes 55Fe. This is radioactive, but the half life is only 2,7 years - hardly "forever". It decays to 55Mn, which is stable. If during the 2,7 years average it captures another neutron, it becomes the common 56Fe. If the 55Mn captures a neutron, it becomes 56Mn. 56Mn is radioactive but only has a halflife of 2,6 hours. It decays into 56Fe. So either way we get back to 56Fe with no long-lived product
Injection is relatively easy; one uses pellet injectors. They basically bore tiny pellets of a mixture of deuterium and tritium ice and shoot them into the middle of the core with a tiny gas gun.
Removing the helium "ash" is harder, and requires something called a divertor. The plasma naturally pushes the helium toward the outside, as it's heavier. The divertor basically juts out into the outer edge of the plasma stream and skims off the plasma, acting as sort of an exhaust system. But it's an incredibly hostile environment, and not just because the temperature (it has to operate continuously at thousands of degrees, and that's after water cooling!) - it's being pelted by high energy alphas all the time! Regardless, it provides not just a way to get rid of helium but takes up many megawatts of heat that are used for power generation.
Contrats, of all of the many thousands of radioactive isotopes created by man or nature, you picked the one with the 32nd longest known half life. Try compared to nuclides in general.
There's a balance in terms of half life. The shorter the half life, the more intense the radiation - but the shorter you have to deal with the problem. The longer the half life, the less intense the radiation, but the longer you have to deal with the problem. The only way around this is a product that has a very low energy in its radioactive decay. And indeed, that's just what tritium is .
Tritium's decay energy is only 18.591 keV, which is tiny by the standards of radioactive decay - by comparison, U235's decay energy is 4678 keV - 251 times more intense. Furthermore, alpha radiation, while harmless outside the body (like tritium's ultra-weak beta), is (unlike beta) terrible inside it - its biological effectiveness is 20x that of beta. Hence a decay from a atom of U235 inside of you is 5032 times more damaging than a 18.591keV electron (beta). On top of this, you have biological half lives. Uranium's is only slightly longer than tritium's, 15 days instead of 12. But, again, U235 is not normally a problematic radioisotope. 239Pu, 90Sr, 226Ra, 45Ca, etc have biological half lives so long that they're effectively with you until they decay or you die. Oh, and on top of all of this? All of the energy of beta decay doesn't go into the electron; a higher percentage goes into the muon antineutrino, which escapes harmlessly off into space. The average energy of the beta particle from tritium decay is only 5.694 keV. Net result? Before controlling for the difference in half life, U235 is 20540 times worse for the body than tritium.
Now, of course, due to 235U's incredibly long half life, its radioactivity rarely a problem - which is why fresh fuel rods are not considered very dangerous, but spent ones are. People's concerns in nuclear accidents center around the fission products: strontium, iodine, plutonium, etc - things with shorter (but still problematically long) half lives and strong biological effectiveness. Versus them, the ridiculously low energy tritium is almost irrelevant in terms of biological effect, even if present in similar quantities. Combined with the very small amount of tritium that's in the torus at any point in time, it's just simply not even remotely comparable.
Did I even bother to mention that gaseous tritium tends to rapidly escape wherever it is and ascend up and out of the atmosphere? Tritium in the form of heavy water can be problematic in higher quantities, but of course, there's no "higher quantities" of any form of tritium in the torus.
First of, "my theory"? No, I'm just repeating the current state of hypotheses on Sedna.
No, no research to date has ever ruled out earth-sized bodies more than a couple hundred AU, or Mars-sized bodies even closer. WISE ruled out Jupiter and Saturn-sized bodies for a good distance, but simply did not have the resolving power to find or rule out smaller bodies.
Every possibility I described is a "3 body slingshot". The issue is that at least one body has to be far out in order to have the object being "slingshotted" to have both a high apohelion and perihelion.
"research grant welfare criminal"? Okaaaaay........
It really could be a game changer. REBCO tapes are still pretty expensive but their prices should drop to competitive levels when scaled up. This could cut costs 1/2 to 1 order of magnitude for the same amount of power generation. And beyond that, smaller reactors are much easier to get funds to build, and are more useful in that they can supply power to smaller markets.
The "30 years" joke is annoying; the amount of advancement that's been occurring has been huge. But the projects are so big and expensive that you don't go through iterations very fast. So again the ability to "scale down" is a massive benefit.
With fission, the challenge is stopping the reaction from running away. With fusion, the challenge is keeping it going. If you suddenly lose containment, what happens is that the hot plasma burns into the walls of the reactor, damaging them. Annnd.... that's it. There's a small amount of tritium there, but it's not a great amount, and tritium isn't that hazardous of a material compared to most radioactive elements. There's some induced radioactivity in the reactor, but it's quite limited because you can choose what to make the reactor out of (and iron's not all that bad for induced radioactivity anyway, it's generally the heavy stuff that's problematic). The lithium blanket is harmless (except for, again, breeding tritium - which is constantly removed). There's beryllium in there, but it's not dangerous when not in gas or dust form. Some work had looked into using lead as a neutron multiplier, which could have indirect breed polonium or other problematic compounds, but beryllium works a lot better than lead.
Because things have been messing with bodies way far away from the sun. Take Sedna, for example. It's perihelion is 76 AU (Neptune's is about 31 AU from the sun, much to far to have an significant effect on Sedna). Sedna's apohelion is 936 AU. Very, very elliptical, and off-axis too - it clearly didn't form in this orbit from the sun's accretion disk, something has seriously messed with its orbit. But that couldn't have been something *close* to the sun, because then Sedna's orbit would have to come back close to it, aka, into the inner solar system. And Sedna is no little rock, it's 1000 kilometers in diameter - bigger than Ceres. For something to have thrown it into such an extreme orbit it had to be quite large, and not anywhere near where the large planets of our solar system are.
So the question is.... what?
It may seem an obvious assumption to think that if there were any more large planets in our solar system we'd have seen them - but it's actually not the case. By the data from WISE, we can rule out Jupiter-sized planets 26000 AU out, and Saturn-sized planets 10000 AU out. But there could still be multiple Earth-sized planets at only several hundred AU out - we really have no idea. It's just really hard to see things out there, the light they reflect from the sun is so weak.
Another possibility is that stars have sometimes drifted by our stellar neighborhood close enough to play havoc with things. Potentially more interesting is the concept that far more common than stars roaming past our neighborhood, there could be roaming planets outnumbering star that occasionally pass through and disrupt or are even captured by our system.
Are you taking the trip with them because you both happen to be going to the same destination, or are you simply driving them to the destination to get the money - and not just gas money, but an amount much greater than your total costs, to compensate you for your time?
Trust me, courts are not so stupid as to not see the difference between A) sharing the costs of an activity, and B) performing an activity as a for-profit for-hire service.
If by "money" you mean "the money everyone else has to pay in higher insurance premiums due to Uber drivers taking part in commercial driving without paying commercial premiums", then yes.
Beyond that, even if you don't like the current system, that doesn't mean that you can legally willfully violate it. For better or worse, Uber has a business model built around breaking the law. Don't get so shocked when legal action gets taken.
The "accidental contamination gets you sued" argument that they made is also a myth. The most famous case usually cited is that of Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, where they sued a Canadian canola farmer for growing crops from seeds wind-pollinated from a neighbor using their plants. But Schmeiser always admitted to deliberately trying to get the glyphosphate resistance. He roundup'ed his own crops that were grown next to his neighbor who was using roundup-ready canola, saved only those seeds from the survivors for the next year and planted his whole crop with the resistant seeds, achieving a 95-98% concentration of the gene. He was deliberately attempting to acquire the gene without paying for it - it was in no way, shape or form "accidental contamination". Monsanto confronted him about what he was doing and insisted he pay a license fee since he was using their crop. He refused saying that because he grew it from seeds on his land, it was his own property.
Despite the fact that it was deliberate contamination, not accidental, Monsanto still barely won the patent infringement case, 5-4.
The ringleader of the cryptolocker gang is Evgeniy Bogachev, aka "lucky12345" and "slavik". He's praised as a hero back home.
The simple facts are that most of these programs trace back to organized crime in Russia, which takes advantage of the fact that Russia shelters them from extradition.
Now, do I even need to go into any of the absurdity that you posted? Meh, let's do it for fun.
1. Malware != advertising spam
2. Advertizing spam is spread by botnets with service purchased from the operators of the botnets. The companies whose products are being plugged are not the same people who compromised or run the botnets (the latter two which can also be separate entities)
3. The most common currency to ask for in advertizing spam is US dollars because it's the most universal currency on the planet (the second most common spam currency to see is euros). It's the same reason that most spam is in English. However, some spammers do tailor their spam lists by region.
4. The US has never been against an extradition treaty with Russia - the US always seeks bilateral extradition treaties where possible. Russia is always against extradition treaties - not just with the US, but with everyone. Extradition is a violation of article 61 of the Russian constitution: "A Russian citizen cannot be sent beyond the borders of the Russian Federation or given to another state"
5. The UN inspection team did have the rights to go into any company in Iraq, under resolution 1441 - which was introduced and highly sought after by the US.
6. The US never vetoed any resolutions related to Iraq.
7. The US did not have any chemical companies operating in Iraq at the time of the inspections. Iraq was under sanctions.
You are correct on one aspect, however: The US does in all extradition treaties require exemption of US soldiers for actions involved in armed conflict.
It actually makes it sound like they know very little about the capabilities of modern programming languages. There's no reason that a modern programming language should "get fast very complex, due to the large number of interactions among robots". And they don't define any features in their language not supported in modern programming languages.
One can be pretty confident that the answer is "Russia".
And they've probably already IDed some if not all of the people involved, but there's no way they'd serve Russia with a warrant for their arrest (Russia would never hand them over) rather than keeping sealed charges on them and waiting for them to slip up and travel internationally.
I'm confused. You use the word faggot like it's an insult, and as if you actually know anything about their sexuality. What you wrote is like writing, "The trolling is strong with this member of the Rotary Club." Really out of the blue, and based on... what exactly?
Tesla's solution to running short on cash is, and has always been, to sell equity. Which is a common approach to startups, and they're still really in a sort of startup mode. It works fine, so long as others think that their plans after scaleup will be profitable. And so far there seems to be plenty of investors who think so.
Yeah, any long-term Slashdotters remember the jokes year after year about Amazon losing money and implying that anyone who invested in them was an idiot. Heck, it wasn't just Slashdot making jokes about that, even Futurama cracked a joke at Amazon's expense. Of course, Amazon turned their first profit in 2002, and anyone who invested significantly in them in the early days would be filthy rich right now, as they're the US's largest internet retailer and the world's largest cloud computing provider with 54 billion dollars in assets and 11 billion in equity.
Slashdot Mirror
** Corr: nearly identical perihelion, not aphelion. And the other body is 2012 VP113.
It should also be noted that there is a "known unknown" issue related to what Kuiper objects are out there undiscovered - we know that we've only discovered a tiny fraction of them, and the further out we go, the smaller the fraction that have been discovered. And we've seen what sort of size distribution they follow thusfar. I've seen published calculations that suggest that based on what we've discovered thusfar and the percentage of bodies we believe we've discovered thusfar, an Earth-sized far outer planet is not only a possibility, but actually to be expected.
Of course, there's no way to know for sure if the size distribution trends that we've seen thusfar will actually hold to higher sizes. But the possibility of finding bodies larger than Eris and Pluto, even significantly larger, is very real. The Kuiper Belt (and whatever one wants to call Sedna's region) is not like the asteroid belt where we can be confident that we've already found all of the "big stuff".
Indeed, that is possible - but not with the gas giants where they are today, the strength of the interaction is too little. A gas giant migrating inward from an area where it had been strongly interacting with Sedna to its present day area where it no longer is would be a possibility.
That said, possibilities to explain the orbit of one single body in the outer solar system aren't enough, there's a lot of data that a model has to account for - other Sedna-like bodies (there's another one discovered with curiously almost an identical apohelion to Sedna, can't recall the name of the top of my head), the Kuiper Cliff issue, etc. That's why studies like this are important, to see what possibilities can match up with the solar system as we know it.
But really, we need a lot more data.
Ugh... that should read 14 MeV neutrons, not 17.
Fusion's 17 MeV neutrons are nothing compared to spallation's neutrons, which can approach (or in some designs even exceed) a GeV. 17MeV neutrons are most eminantly stoppable. Yes, they have a longer penetration distance, and yes, there are some differences in behavior (they tend to cause (n,2n), (n,alpha), (n,d) etc reactions a lot more often while lower energy neutrons usually only do (n,gamma) transmutation), But these are not fundamental differences nor fundamental problems.
Fusion reactors do not use "layers of lead" as shielding. You have some misconceptions about how shielding works. Lead is an excellent shielding material for gamma and beta, but it's terrible for neutrons. It does not moderate them down at any relevant rate due to its high atomic mass, it has a low (n, gamma) gross section, and when it does undergo neutron capture it breeds bismuth - which is fine, except when bismuth undergoes (n, gamma) it breeds polonium, which is really, really nasty stuff. There's also a variety of other neutron reactions lead can undergo which lead to other radioactive products. You don't use lead for neutron shielding. Quite to the contrary, lead is used as a coolant in some types of nuclear reactors because of how little it interferes with neutrons.
Neutrons by contrast are generally best blocked by light elements. Hydrogen is the most effective moderator, although you want both to moderate down the neutron energy and have a high neutron cross section. And of course you don't use pure hydrogen because that's an explosion hazard. So if you want liquid shielding, something like borated water is your best bet. For solids, borated plastics are best.
However, the neutrons in a fusion reactor are not seen as an undesirable thing, but as a critical part of the process to keep it going. Because you need tritium to run it, and tritium doesn't grow on trees, you have to breed it. D-T gives one neutron and it takes one neutron to make one tritium, so if you didn't have any neutron multiplication, the *best* you could possibly do (with no losses and 100% capture) would be breakeven. The reality is that you have to do neutron multiplication to get enough to operate. So the reactors use a lithium-beryllium blanket, of a thickness to absorb the overwhelming majority of the neutrons. Outside of this there will always be stray neutrons that escape, you're not going to want to just stand next to the thing, but it's not going to be a Glowing Ball of Death.
Now, obviously, for structural materials, you're not going to be building it out of borated water, borated plastic, or lithium. Beryllium, mind you, is light and an excellent structural material, but it's super-expensive and difficult to work with, so it's only generally used structurally in key areas. Aluminum (better, lithium-aluminum) is great and undergoes almost no induced radioactivity, but its low melting point limits its use in high temperature applications. Graphite would be great, and is great in some cases - but it undergoes Wigner energy problems if not operated at high enough of a temperature. Composites, which aren't as Wigner energy sensitive, usually can't take the heat. So altogether, one generally deals with iron alloys (steels), with the alloying agents chosen based on what gives the desired properties while undergoing the least problematic transmutation reactions. With proper design, the level of transmutation can be kept pretty low.
Why would it be low? Well, the vast majority of iron is 56 iron. There are also a few percent of 54Fe, 57Fe, and a fraction of a percent of 58Fe. Let's trace the neutron capture paths here.
54Fe becomes 55Fe. This is radioactive, but the half life is only 2,7 years - hardly "forever". It decays to 55Mn, which is stable. If during the 2,7 years average it captures another neutron, it becomes the common 56Fe. If the 55Mn captures a neutron, it becomes 56Mn. 56Mn is radioactive but only has a halflife of 2,6 hours. It decays into 56Fe. So either way we get back to 56Fe with no long-lived product
Injection is relatively easy; one uses pellet injectors. They basically bore tiny pellets of a mixture of deuterium and tritium ice and shoot them into the middle of the core with a tiny gas gun.
Removing the helium "ash" is harder, and requires something called a divertor. The plasma naturally pushes the helium toward the outside, as it's heavier. The divertor basically juts out into the outer edge of the plasma stream and skims off the plasma, acting as sort of an exhaust system. But it's an incredibly hostile environment, and not just because the temperature (it has to operate continuously at thousands of degrees, and that's after water cooling!) - it's being pelted by high energy alphas all the time! Regardless, it provides not just a way to get rid of helium but takes up many megawatts of heat that are used for power generation.
Contrats, of all of the many thousands of radioactive isotopes created by man or nature, you picked the one with the 32nd longest known half life. Try compared to nuclides in general.
There's a balance in terms of half life. The shorter the half life, the more intense the radiation - but the shorter you have to deal with the problem. The longer the half life, the less intense the radiation, but the longer you have to deal with the problem. The only way around this is a product that has a very low energy in its radioactive decay. And indeed, that's just what tritium is .
Tritium's decay energy is only 18.591 keV, which is tiny by the standards of radioactive decay - by comparison, U235's decay energy is 4678 keV - 251 times more intense. Furthermore, alpha radiation, while harmless outside the body (like tritium's ultra-weak beta), is (unlike beta) terrible inside it - its biological effectiveness is 20x that of beta. Hence a decay from a atom of U235 inside of you is 5032 times more damaging than a 18.591keV electron (beta). On top of this, you have biological half lives. Uranium's is only slightly longer than tritium's, 15 days instead of 12. But, again, U235 is not normally a problematic radioisotope. 239Pu, 90Sr, 226Ra, 45Ca, etc have biological half lives so long that they're effectively with you until they decay or you die. Oh, and on top of all of this? All of the energy of beta decay doesn't go into the electron; a higher percentage goes into the muon antineutrino, which escapes harmlessly off into space. The average energy of the beta particle from tritium decay is only 5.694 keV. Net result? Before controlling for the difference in half life, U235 is 20540 times worse for the body than tritium.
Now, of course, due to 235U's incredibly long half life, its radioactivity rarely a problem - which is why fresh fuel rods are not considered very dangerous, but spent ones are. People's concerns in nuclear accidents center around the fission products: strontium, iodine, plutonium, etc - things with shorter (but still problematically long) half lives and strong biological effectiveness. Versus them, the ridiculously low energy tritium is almost irrelevant in terms of biological effect, even if present in similar quantities. Combined with the very small amount of tritium that's in the torus at any point in time, it's just simply not even remotely comparable.
Did I even bother to mention that gaseous tritium tends to rapidly escape wherever it is and ascend up and out of the atmosphere? Tritium in the form of heavy water can be problematic in higher quantities, but of course, there's no "higher quantities" of any form of tritium in the torus.
First of, "my theory"? No, I'm just repeating the current state of hypotheses on Sedna.
No, no research to date has ever ruled out earth-sized bodies more than a couple hundred AU, or Mars-sized bodies even closer. WISE ruled out Jupiter and Saturn-sized bodies for a good distance, but simply did not have the resolving power to find or rule out smaller bodies.
Every possibility I described is a "3 body slingshot". The issue is that at least one body has to be far out in order to have the object being "slingshotted" to have both a high apohelion and perihelion.
"research grant welfare criminal"? Okaaaaay........
It really could be a game changer. REBCO tapes are still pretty expensive but their prices should drop to competitive levels when scaled up. This could cut costs 1/2 to 1 order of magnitude for the same amount of power generation. And beyond that, smaller reactors are much easier to get funds to build, and are more useful in that they can supply power to smaller markets.
The "30 years" joke is annoying; the amount of advancement that's been occurring has been huge. But the projects are so big and expensive that you don't go through iterations very fast. So again the ability to "scale down" is a massive benefit.
No, don't "see fukushima".
With fission, the challenge is stopping the reaction from running away. With fusion, the challenge is keeping it going. If you suddenly lose containment, what happens is that the hot plasma burns into the walls of the reactor, damaging them. Annnd.... that's it. There's a small amount of tritium there, but it's not a great amount, and tritium isn't that hazardous of a material compared to most radioactive elements. There's some induced radioactivity in the reactor, but it's quite limited because you can choose what to make the reactor out of (and iron's not all that bad for induced radioactivity anyway, it's generally the heavy stuff that's problematic). The lithium blanket is harmless (except for, again, breeding tritium - which is constantly removed). There's beryllium in there, but it's not dangerous when not in gas or dust form. Some work had looked into using lead as a neutron multiplier, which could have indirect breed polonium or other problematic compounds, but beryllium works a lot better than lead.
Because things have been messing with bodies way far away from the sun. Take Sedna, for example. It's perihelion is 76 AU (Neptune's is about 31 AU from the sun, much to far to have an significant effect on Sedna). Sedna's apohelion is 936 AU. Very, very elliptical, and off-axis too - it clearly didn't form in this orbit from the sun's accretion disk, something has seriously messed with its orbit. But that couldn't have been something *close* to the sun, because then Sedna's orbit would have to come back close to it, aka, into the inner solar system. And Sedna is no little rock, it's 1000 kilometers in diameter - bigger than Ceres. For something to have thrown it into such an extreme orbit it had to be quite large, and not anywhere near where the large planets of our solar system are.
So the question is.... what?
It may seem an obvious assumption to think that if there were any more large planets in our solar system we'd have seen them - but it's actually not the case. By the data from WISE, we can rule out Jupiter-sized planets 26000 AU out, and Saturn-sized planets 10000 AU out. But there could still be multiple Earth-sized planets at only several hundred AU out - we really have no idea. It's just really hard to see things out there, the light they reflect from the sun is so weak.
Another possibility is that stars have sometimes drifted by our stellar neighborhood close enough to play havoc with things. Potentially more interesting is the concept that far more common than stars roaming past our neighborhood, there could be roaming planets outnumbering star that occasionally pass through and disrupt or are even captured by our system.
Are you taking the trip with them because you both happen to be going to the same destination, or are you simply driving them to the destination to get the money - and not just gas money, but an amount much greater than your total costs, to compensate you for your time?
Trust me, courts are not so stupid as to not see the difference between A) sharing the costs of an activity, and B) performing an activity as a for-profit for-hire service.
If by "money" you mean "the money everyone else has to pay in higher insurance premiums due to Uber drivers taking part in commercial driving without paying commercial premiums", then yes.
Beyond that, even if you don't like the current system, that doesn't mean that you can legally willfully violate it. For better or worse, Uber has a business model built around breaking the law. Don't get so shocked when legal action gets taken.
There's nothing at all related to "sharing" about services like Uber.
The artifacts at the "jumps" looks exactly like what a number of video formats look like when you have data corruption/missing data.
That doesn't mean that it is unedited, but I'm just pointing out, I've seen this before.
The "accidental contamination gets you sued" argument that they made is also a myth. The most famous case usually cited is that of Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, where they sued a Canadian canola farmer for growing crops from seeds wind-pollinated from a neighbor using their plants. But Schmeiser always admitted to deliberately trying to get the glyphosphate resistance. He roundup'ed his own crops that were grown next to his neighbor who was using roundup-ready canola, saved only those seeds from the survivors for the next year and planted his whole crop with the resistant seeds, achieving a 95-98% concentration of the gene. He was deliberately attempting to acquire the gene without paying for it - it was in no way, shape or form "accidental contamination". Monsanto confronted him about what he was doing and insisted he pay a license fee since he was using their crop. He refused saying that because he grew it from seeds on his land, it was his own property.
Despite the fact that it was deliberate contamination, not accidental, Monsanto still barely won the patent infringement case, 5-4.
The ringleader of the cryptolocker gang is Evgeniy Bogachev, aka "lucky12345" and "slavik". He's praised as a hero back home.
The simple facts are that most of these programs trace back to organized crime in Russia, which takes advantage of the fact that Russia shelters them from extradition.
Now, do I even need to go into any of the absurdity that you posted? Meh, let's do it for fun.
1. Malware != advertising spam
2. Advertizing spam is spread by botnets with service purchased from the operators of the botnets. The companies whose products are being plugged are not the same people who compromised or run the botnets (the latter two which can also be separate entities)
3. The most common currency to ask for in advertizing spam is US dollars because it's the most universal currency on the planet (the second most common spam currency to see is euros). It's the same reason that most spam is in English. However, some spammers do tailor their spam lists by region.
4. The US has never been against an extradition treaty with Russia - the US always seeks bilateral extradition treaties where possible. Russia is always against extradition treaties - not just with the US, but with everyone. Extradition is a violation of article 61 of the Russian constitution: "A Russian citizen cannot be sent beyond the borders of the Russian Federation or given to another state"
5. The UN inspection team did have the rights to go into any company in Iraq, under resolution 1441 - which was introduced and highly sought after by the US.
6. The US never vetoed any resolutions related to Iraq.
7. The US did not have any chemical companies operating in Iraq at the time of the inspections. Iraq was under sanctions.
You are correct on one aspect, however: The US does in all extradition treaties require exemption of US soldiers for actions involved in armed conflict.
It actually makes it sound like they know very little about the capabilities of modern programming languages. There's no reason that a modern programming language should "get fast very complex, due to the large number of interactions among robots". And they don't define any features in their language not supported in modern programming languages.
They're reposting in case you missed it. And if you don't have time to read it now, you can catch it when they post it again next week.
And how exactly do you plan to convince Russia to hand over its citizens?
One can be pretty confident that the answer is "Russia".
And they've probably already IDed some if not all of the people involved, but there's no way they'd serve Russia with a warrant for their arrest (Russia would never hand them over) rather than keeping sealed charges on them and waiting for them to slip up and travel internationally.
How did you know that I'm really Véronique Fagot, winner of Miss France in 1977?
I'm confused. You use the word faggot like it's an insult, and as if you actually know anything about their sexuality. What you wrote is like writing, "The trolling is strong with this member of the Rotary Club." Really out of the blue, and based on... what exactly?
Tesla's solution to running short on cash is, and has always been, to sell equity. Which is a common approach to startups, and they're still really in a sort of startup mode. It works fine, so long as others think that their plans after scaleup will be profitable. And so far there seems to be plenty of investors who think so.
Yeah, any long-term Slashdotters remember the jokes year after year about Amazon losing money and implying that anyone who invested in them was an idiot. Heck, it wasn't just Slashdot making jokes about that, even Futurama cracked a joke at Amazon's expense. Of course, Amazon turned their first profit in 2002, and anyone who invested significantly in them in the early days would be filthy rich right now, as they're the US's largest internet retailer and the world's largest cloud computing provider with 54 billion dollars in assets and 11 billion in equity.