Geological time periods? Anything with a half life expressed in terms of geological time periods is about as radioactive as granite.
Now there are real considerations about actual chemical toxicity like getting heavy metals in the water-table but that's a problem you have to contend with for any high level industrial waste. Dangerous industrial waste seems to be dealt with without all this hand wringing and politicing.
if not for the politics it wouldn't be much harder than dealing with regular hazardous heavy metals. Just because you add the world "nuclear" does not make the waste a thousand times more dangerous (unless the half life is extremely short in which case it's only a thousand times more dangerous for a very very short time) .
That's why I called it only a vagely workable approach. In fact some of the big ISP's do have such a system, if you send a great deal of email direct from your PC then they block port 25 on your connection. I've heard people complaining about just that situation. They try to send out a mailshot and get blocked and then have to call up to get added to the ISP's whitelist.
You really do not know anything at all about ISP's do you?
I know you like AOL but some of us don't rely on our ISP for an email address.
It has no central authority. none.
the ISPs give you your address, and associate the emails we all use to those addresses.
Ok I no longer believe your boasts about being a coder. But just to be fair. One coder to another.
Step through SMTP one step a time for me. show me you understand it at all. Prove you have any clue what happens when you click send in your little AOL mail client.
So technically the ISPs control the emails.
No. No they do not.
The DNS servers control the traffic schema used to get from point A to point B, so again I would say the DNS servers could also be contributed to being authority for the internet.
I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.
IT IS ALSO ICANN THAT DECIDES MANY OF THE INHABITING LAWS WITHIN IT, IT TO IS AMERICAN.
ICANN has little or no power other than offering suggestions. If I felt like doing it there's no law preventing me from setting up my own root DNS, my own signing authorities and ignoring ICANN.
THE CERTIFICATES FOR WEB IS ALSO CONTROLLED BY THE US.
No. They are not. Pleanty of signing authorities reside outside the US.
I know you do not live there, but at least have respect for the people that brought you what you use today as your main means of communication.
The US did not invent the internet.
As for my example about tv tax which explains a perfect rebuttal seems to be completely ignored,
You mean the wierd and hard to enforce tax laws some countries have about owning TV's and radios? It was ignored because it's irrelevant.
If you fixed every single wall wart in the country you would still have achieved pretty much nothing.
You use the exact same approach of trying to make trivial quantities of power sound big by adding meaningless multipliers.
A more honest way of putting it would be: if we make a massive push to change every piece of small electronics in every house we can save less than 1%. It is not a death by a thousand cuts since even if you doubled the number of wall warts and hibernating appliances in your house you only increase the drain on the system by 1%.
If everyone does a little very little gets done.
heating, transport, cooling, lighting. these are where to look if you're serious about the issue. if you just want trivial feelgood measures go for the wall warts.
"But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, it'll add up to a lot?" No. This "if-everyone" multiplying machine is just a way of making some- thing small sound big. The "if-everyone" multiplying machine churns out inspirational statements of the form "if everyone did X, then it would pro- vide enough energy/water/gas to do Y," where Y sounds impressive. Is it surprising that Y sounds big? Of course not. We got Y by multiplying X by the number of people involved - 60 million or so! Here's an exam- ple from the Conservative Party's otherwise straight-talking Blueprint for a Green Economy: "The mobile phone charger averages around . . . 1 W consump- tion, but if every one of the country's 25 million mobile phones chargers were left plugged in and switched on they would con- sume enough electricity (219 GWh) to power 66 000 homes for one year." 66 000? Wow, what a lot of homes! Switch off the chargers! 66 000 sounds a lot, but the sensible thing to compare it with is the total number of homes that we're imagining would participate in this feat of conservation, namely 25 million homes. 66 000 is just one quarter of one percent of 25 million. So while the statement quoted above is true, I think a calmer way to put it is: If you leave your mobile phone charger plugged in, it uses one quarter of one percent of your home's electricity. And if everyone does it? If everyone leaves their mobile phone charger plugged in, those chargers will use one quarter of one percent of their homes' electricity. The "if-everyone" multiplying machine is a bad thing because it deects people's attention towards 25 million minnows instead of 25 million sharks. The mantra "Little changes can make a big difference" is bunkum, when ap- plied to climate change and power.
It may be true that "many people doing a little adds up to a lot," if all those "littles" are somehow focused into a single "lot" - for example, if one million people donate £10 to one accident- victim, then the victim receives £10 million. That's a lot. But power is a very different thing. We all use power. So to achieve a "big difference" in total power consumption, you need almost everyone to make a "big" difference to their own power consumption.
sure. You'd need a hundred times that to get it to go critical so if there's not much material with a lower half life mixed with it then that would be no problem.
By the likes of you, maybe , seeing as you are not even aware there is a governing body the the internet as a whole...i won't waste my time educating you any longer.
Ok we've got a real newbie here.
The Internet is a globally distributed network comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body.
You talk about credentials and yet you have this delusion that there is a governing body the the internet as a whole. ICANN has some say over the DNS system and IP numbers but it certainly isn't a central governing body.
related to different technologies for the web, would have a clear understanding of what I am throwing at them, I see you do not.
So far you sound more like an arts student than a programmer.
My credentials speak for themselves...as for your ignorance in the accounting past of what I said, you should pay closer attention to what is going on in your own country.
The US is proposing a tv tax now, for you to enjoy your television, how do you propose they will collect that, from your door? Obviously not, the cable companies will get asked to add an amount to the bill they send you, and the government will do their diligent job of following the paper trail the cable companies set up for such a thing.
I. do. not. live. in. the. US. I've seen nothing of your credentials other than a certainty that the impossible can be achieved.
There are those that have ideas, and those that don't. The ones that don't are only as good as their critiquing.
Do you even know why the current email system is so popular? It's free, it's simple, it has no central authority who controls it or requires payment and it's very very easy to do as in so easy a first year comp sci student can write a basic client/server.
Any system which replaces it would share those attributes or it wouldn't catch on.
I think a lot of the time people are talking more about the bureaucracy rather than safe reactor designs. I've heard some lovely stories about leaking taps in the canteens at nuclear facilities that never get fixed because of how much paperwork has to be done to do a trivial piece of work. It can also be about standardising the design of plants so that rather than building every plant as a one off and spending billions checking and rechecking the design every time you come up with 1 design which you check really well and then rubber stamp any plans that match that design perfectly.
There was another interesting case I read about where there was a worldwide shortage of medical radioisotopes a few years back because a reactor which was designed to produce them. one which literally could not melt down because it didn't have the required material was shut down because some regulations designed for large power generating reactors were pushed through that required safety systems for dealing with failures in things the medical isotope reactor didn't even have and so they had to add all these pointless and expensive backups for backups for backup systems for things the reactor didn't need to do. because it came under the heading of a "reactor". I'll try to find the details.
I'm all for sensible regulations but any old system builds up regulations which serve no purpose.
You can be sure there's things like regulations requiring that reports be submitted typed in black ink on such and such quality paper which made sense back in the day but don't any more.
Well considering the tiny volume of really high level waste generated even if it was as nasty and dangerous as some people believe it still wouldn't be anything like as big a problem as some people claim.
take your waste, wrap it in layers of glass, concrete and steel, make the outer layer shaped like a long thin HEAVY torpedo and then drop it off the boat. By the time it reaches the bottom it's going to be going pretty damned fast and will dig itself into the mud nice and deep without your help.
You mean Chelyabinsk-40 ? wasn't that where they just kept dumping radioactive waste into a lake so much that the decay started to heat the lake which started to dry up so they poured concrete on top to keep the radioactive dust down and the it blew up.
Military weapons research and production has fucked up far more than the civilian nuclear industry ever has.
I'm sure you're a very smart kid but I have to break it to you- this is slashdot, we're quite familiar with radio-nucleotides.
It shows the half-life of various radioactive elements.
WOW! REALLY!!!
Elements can last for hundredths of a second to 50,000 years + , and that is for only half of the quantity.
You can use the words "half life" here. People will understand what it means. Quick tip: anything with a half life of 50K years is about as radioactive as concrete. You could sit in a beach chair next to a lump of it for the day with no worry of cancer.
No matter how you look at it, NU-clear is UN-clear
Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear. fuzzy wuzzy had no hair. so fuzzy wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy, wuzzy.
Coal plants spew vast quantities of nasty materials into the air so it's not exactly true to say it's limited to people who volunteered to accept that job.(and that's when nothing goes wrong)
Also it's cool how once something is THE LAW if you try to do it anyway a magical forcefield prevents you. Cool huh.
the law is great that way. Things which are unenforceable, prohibitively expensive to enforce,pointless and futile are prevented by the magical lawfield.
when those spammers try to touch their keyboards their hands slide right off.
Anyway, after this law gets passed I can just open up a new service. Make not email so that it avoids the law. I could call it Etalking. so it can be free, perhaps more like an IM client only where you don't have to both be online at the same time, and you could have a unique address, and you can have long messages, and include attachments...
You seem to have comprehensively missed his point.
1 cent per email isn't going to stop spam because costs of 50cent and up per piece of regular paper spam has failed completely to prevent paper spam which is a large and profitable industry.
"Of course they would, and that is the reason why they incorporate it into the billing, being legit, they would do that, non legit, not so much."
So your plan is to kill all free newsletters? Fuck that. I like my free newsletters. The legit free ones will be the hardest hit.
You put up with being charged per phone call on your cell with a cap per month, don't you?
On the other hand I don't put up with being charged per breath. Email is currently free. People aren't going to want to start paying for it just to achieve your little dream of making the world a more expensive place.
Because we do not have a governing body for the internet as a whole??? Wow...(rollseyes)
yes. Do you want one?
So what you are saying is that international communication does not exist by internet
Please repeat, this time making sense.
Wow, i mentioned a payment structure for a service, and you already want to tax it, even though it would be the companies making money on this that would pay their revenue taxes, you should become a politician.
So you want the government to put a law in to say that companies MUST charge per email and then keep the money? Good luck with that. New revenue source: malware writers infecting peoples PC's and having them spew spam at the malware writers own servers or their friends servers. Easy cash!
Adding a few lines of code, or a new service into an already existing infrasrtucture is not the end of the world...look at when spam first came out, or when dns cache poisoning came out, it is doable if we want to get it done.
Ok I was considering the possibility that you might have a clue about the internet until now but that's out the window.
Exactly my point, now non legit spammers will have to raise their prices, and force their clients to rethink if they want to spend 10 times the amount of money to keep spamming, for that 1% that are gullible enough to think the nigerian king is really trying to send them his money.
It won't be them sending it. They'll send it from compromised PC's. It won't cost them a dime extra.
This can not be phased in slowly, it has to be done one shot like digital tv was, for it to work.
Great. And I'm sure when 98% of the public have switched from american providers who suddenly have to charge them money for every email sent to forgien webmail providers who don't the handful of you on servers which refuse to accept incoming mail from the free providers will be very happy with most of your customers and contacts cut off.
but the idea I am trying to convey is to try and help by offering a potential idea to help others, you only have managed to waste my time, and yours by trying to grab some 15 minutes of fame by shooting down someone's
you seem to think you're special. you seem to think that your ideas are original.
news flash: every day kids new to the internet throw their minds at the problem of spam and propose "solutions" identical to yours. This is not a new problem. Your ideas are not new. Your ideas are not original. your ideas have been proposed and shot down hundreds of times.
Slashdot Mirror
Geological time periods?
Anything with a half life expressed in terms of geological time periods is about as radioactive as granite.
Now there are real considerations about actual chemical toxicity like getting heavy metals in the water-table but that's a problem you have to contend with for any high level industrial waste.
Dangerous industrial waste seems to be dealt with without all this hand wringing and politicing.
if not for the politics it wouldn't be much harder than dealing with regular hazardous heavy metals.
Just because you add the world "nuclear" does not make the waste a thousand times more dangerous (unless the half life is extremely short in which case it's only a thousand times more dangerous for a very very short time) .
As a bonus it gives the ISP's a financial incentive to allow or encourage their users to get infected and spread viruses to each other and spam more.
That's why I called it only a vagely workable approach.
In fact some of the big ISP's do have such a system, if you send a great deal of email direct from your PC then they block port 25 on your connection.
I've heard people complaining about just that situation.
They try to send out a mailshot and get blocked and then have to call up to get added to the ISP's whitelist.
You really do not know anything at all about ISP's do you?
I know you like AOL but some of us don't rely on our ISP for an email address.
It has no central authority.
none.
the ISPs give you your address, and associate the emails we all use to those addresses.
Ok I no longer believe your boasts about being a coder.
But just to be fair.
One coder to another.
Step through SMTP one step a time for me. show me you understand it at all.
Prove you have any clue what happens when you click send in your little AOL mail client.
So technically the ISPs control the emails.
No.
No they do not.
The DNS servers control the traffic schema used to get from point A to point B, so again I would say the DNS servers could also be contributed to
being authority for the internet.
I can send a mail to any given IP without the slightest need for any kind of DNS service.
Sheesh, like talking to an arts student...
12 years development as a software developer would count as credentials....
wow.
12 years in software and still not the slightest clue about the internet.
You're deluded.
No one actually owns the Internet, and no single person or organization controls the Internet in its entirety.
THE US IS THE GOVERNING BODY FOR THE INTERNET.
No.
It is not.
educate yourself.
IT WAS CREATED IN THE US, IT IS RUN BY THE US
No. it was not.
Educate yourself.
http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html
IT IS ALSO ICANN THAT DECIDES MANY OF THE INHABITING LAWS WITHIN IT, IT TO IS AMERICAN.
ICANN has little or no power other than offering suggestions.
If I felt like doing it there's no law preventing me from setting up my own root DNS, my own signing authorities and ignoring ICANN.
THE CERTIFICATES FOR WEB IS ALSO CONTROLLED BY THE US.
No.
They are not.
Pleanty of signing authorities reside outside the US.
I know you do not live there, but at least have respect for the people that brought you
what you use today as your main means of communication.
The US did not invent the internet.
As for my example about tv tax which explains a perfect rebuttal seems to be completely ignored,
You mean the wierd and hard to enforce tax laws some countries have about owning TV's and radios?
It was ignored because it's irrelevant.
Again with the silly launch it into the sun crap.
How about we just eat it.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1553308&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=nested&cid=31168840
Did you even look at the numbers?
If you fixed every single wall wart in the country you would still have achieved pretty much nothing.
You use the exact same approach of trying to make trivial quantities of power sound big by adding meaningless multipliers.
A more honest way of putting it would be:
if we make a massive push to change every piece of small electronics in every house we can save less than 1%.
It is not a death by a thousand cuts since even if you doubled the number of wall warts and hibernating appliances in your house you only increase the drain on the system by 1%.
If everyone does a little very little gets done.
heating, transport, cooling, lighting. these are where to look if you're serious about the issue. if you just want trivial feelgood measures go for the wall warts.
"But surely, if 60 million people all do a little, it'll add up to a lot?"
No. This "if-everyone" multiplying machine is just a way of making some-
thing small sound big. The "if-everyone" multiplying machine churns out
inspirational statements of the form "if everyone did X, then it would pro-
vide enough energy/water/gas to do Y," where Y sounds impressive. Is
it surprising that Y sounds big? Of course not. We got Y by multiplying
X by the number of people involved - 60 million or so! Here's an exam-
ple from the Conservative Party's otherwise straight-talking Blueprint for a
Green Economy:
"The mobile phone charger averages around . . . 1 W consump-
tion, but if every one of the country's 25 million mobile phones
chargers were left plugged in and switched on they would con-
sume enough electricity (219 GWh) to power 66 000 homes for
one year."
66 000? Wow, what a lot of homes! Switch off the chargers! 66 000 sounds a
lot, but the sensible thing to compare it with is the total number of homes
that we're imagining would participate in this feat of conservation, namely
25 million homes. 66 000 is just one quarter of one percent of 25 million. So
while the statement quoted above is true, I think a calmer way to put it is:
If you leave your mobile phone charger plugged in, it uses one
quarter of one percent of your home's electricity.
And if everyone does it?
If everyone leaves their mobile phone charger plugged in, those
chargers will use one quarter of one percent of their homes'
electricity.
The "if-everyone" multiplying machine is a bad thing because it deects
people's attention towards 25 million minnows instead of 25 million sharks.
The mantra "Little changes can make a big difference" is bunkum, when ap-
plied to climate change and power.
It may be true that "many people doing a little adds up to a lot," if all those "littles" are somehow focused into a
single "lot" - for example, if one million people donate £10 to one accident-
victim, then the victim receives £10 million. That's a lot. But power is a
very different thing. We all use power. So to achieve a "big difference"
in total power consumption, you need almost everyone to make a "big"
difference to their own power consumption.
again.
And?
What's your point?
sure.
You'd need a hundred times that to get it to go critical so if there's not much material with a lower half life mixed with it then that would be no problem.
By the likes of you, maybe , seeing as you are not even aware there is a governing body the the internet as a whole...i won't waste my time educating you any longer.
Ok we've got a real newbie here.
The Internet is a globally distributed network comprising many voluntarily interconnected autonomous networks. It operates without a central governing body.
You talk about credentials and yet you have this delusion that there is a governing body the the internet as a whole.
ICANN has some say over the DNS system and IP numbers but it certainly isn't a central governing body.
related to different technologies for the web, would have a clear understanding of what I am throwing at them, I see you do not.
So far you sound more like an arts student than a programmer.
My credentials speak for themselves...as for your ignorance in the accounting past of what I said, you should pay closer attention to what is going on in your own country.
The US is proposing a tv tax now, for you to enjoy your television, how do you propose they will collect that, from your door? Obviously not, the cable companies will get asked to add an amount to the bill they send you, and the government will do their diligent job of following the paper trail the cable companies set up for such a thing.
I. do. not. live. in. the. US.
I've seen nothing of your credentials other than a certainty that the impossible can be achieved.
There are those that have ideas, and those that don't.
The ones that don't are only as good as their critiquing.
http://www.despair.com/delusions.html
If the ISP's cared enough they could notify users when their machines started spewing viruses and crap at the world.
Billing is not required for this.
You want a vagely workable approach: try just getting the ISP's to temporarily disconnect PC's which are obviously part of a botnet.
Money or internet levies are not required.
Do you even know why the current email system is so popular?
It's free, it's simple, it has no central authority who controls it or requires payment and it's very very easy to do as in so easy a first year comp sci student can write a basic client/server.
Any system which replaces it would share those attributes or it wouldn't catch on.
Law student or accountant?
I think a lot of the time people are talking more about the bureaucracy rather than safe reactor designs.
I've heard some lovely stories about leaking taps in the canteens at nuclear facilities that never get fixed because of how much paperwork has to be done to do a trivial piece of work.
It can also be about standardising the design of plants so that rather than building every plant as a one off and spending billions checking and rechecking the design every time you come up with 1 design which you check really well and then rubber stamp any plans that match that design perfectly.
There was another interesting case I read about where there was a worldwide shortage of medical radioisotopes a few years back because a reactor which was designed to produce them. one which literally could not melt down because it didn't have the required material was shut down because some regulations designed for large power generating reactors were pushed through that required safety systems for dealing with failures in things the medical isotope reactor didn't even have and so they had to add all these pointless and expensive backups for backups for backup systems for things the reactor didn't need to do. because it came under the heading of a "reactor".
I'll try to find the details.
I'm all for sensible regulations but any old system builds up regulations which serve no purpose.
You can be sure there's things like regulations requiring that reports be submitted typed in black ink on such and such quality paper which made sense back in the day but don't any more.
Well considering the tiny volume of really high level waste generated even if it was as nasty and dangerous as some people believe it still wouldn't be anything like as big a problem as some people claim.
take your waste, wrap it in layers of glass, concrete and steel, make the outer layer shaped like a long thin HEAVY torpedo and then drop it off the boat.
By the time it reaches the bottom it's going to be going pretty damned fast and will dig itself into the mud nice and deep without your help.
the prefered way of keeping it from doing what you describe is to melt it into a lump of glass.
100 ? try thousands.
and?
ever heard of cyanide, arsenic, chlorine, lead, sodium, iron, magnesium, titanium, boron, chromium and mercury?
Russia did that and the fucker blew up.
You mean Chelyabinsk-40 ? wasn't that where they just kept dumping radioactive waste into a lake so much that the decay started to heat the lake which started to dry up so they poured concrete on top to keep the radioactive dust down and the it blew up.
Military weapons research and production has fucked up far more than the civilian nuclear industry ever has.
I'm sure you're a very smart kid but I have to break it to you- this is slashdot, we're quite familiar with radio-nucleotides.
It shows the half-life of various radioactive elements.
WOW! REALLY!!!
Elements can last for hundredths of a second to 50,000 years + , and that is for only half of the quantity.
You can use the words "half life" here. People will understand what it means. .
Quick tip: anything with a half life of 50K years is about as radioactive as concrete.
You could sit in a beach chair next to a lump of it for the day with no worry of cancer
No matter how you look at it, NU-clear is UN-clear
Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear.
fuzzy wuzzy had no hair.
so fuzzy wuzzy wasn't very fuzzy, wuzzy.
Coal plants spew vast quantities of nasty materials into the air so it's not exactly true to say it's limited to people who volunteered to accept that job.(and that's when nothing goes wrong)
But yes those things are what people fear.
Also it's cool how once something is THE LAW if you try to do it anyway a magical forcefield prevents you. Cool huh.
the law is great that way.
Things which are unenforceable, prohibitively expensive to enforce,pointless and futile are prevented by the magical lawfield.
when those spammers try to touch their keyboards their hands slide right off.
Anyway, after this law gets passed I can just open up a new service. Make not email so that it avoids the law. I could call it Etalking. so it can be free, perhaps more like an IM client only where you don't have to both be online at the same time, and you could have a unique address, and you can have long messages, and include attachments...
yep.
I think I'd clean up after that new law.
You seem to have comprehensively missed his point.
1 cent per email isn't going to stop spam because costs of 50cent and up per piece of regular paper spam has failed completely to prevent paper spam which is a large and profitable industry.
welcome to the internet.
you must be new here.
"Of course they would, and that is the reason why they incorporate it into the billing, being legit, they would do that, non legit, not so much."
So your plan is to kill all free newsletters?
Fuck that.
I like my free newsletters.
The legit free ones will be the hardest hit.
You put up with being charged per phone call on your cell with a cap per month, don't you?
On the other hand I don't put up with being charged per breath.
Email is currently free.
People aren't going to want to start paying for it just to achieve your little dream of making the world a more expensive place.
Because we do not have a governing body for the internet as a whole??? Wow...(rollseyes)
yes.
Do you want one?
So what you are saying is that international communication does not exist by internet
Please repeat, this time making sense.
Wow, i mentioned a payment structure for a service, and you already want to tax it, even though it would be the companies making money on this that would pay their revenue taxes, you should become a politician.
So you want the government to put a law in to say that companies MUST charge per email and then keep the money?
Good luck with that.
New revenue source: malware writers infecting peoples PC's and having them spew spam at the malware writers own servers or their friends servers.
Easy cash!
Adding a few lines of code, or a new service into an already existing infrasrtucture is not the end of the world...look at when spam first came out, or when dns cache poisoning came out, it is doable if we want to get it done.
Ok I was considering the possibility that you might have a clue about the internet until now but that's out the window.
Exactly my point, now non legit spammers will have to raise their prices, and force their clients to rethink if they want to spend 10 times the amount of money to keep spamming, for that 1% that are gullible enough to think the nigerian king is really trying to send them his money.
It won't be them sending it.
They'll send it from compromised PC's.
It won't cost them a dime extra.
This can not be phased in slowly, it has to be done one shot like digital tv was, for it to work.
Great. And I'm sure when 98% of the public have switched from american providers who suddenly have to charge them money for every email sent to forgien webmail providers who don't the handful of you on servers which refuse to accept incoming mail from the free providers will be very happy with most of your customers and contacts cut off.
but the idea I am trying to convey is to try and help by offering a potential idea to help others, you only have managed to waste my time, and yours by trying to grab some 15 minutes of fame by shooting down someone's
you seem to think you're special.
you seem to think that your ideas are original.
news flash:
every day kids new to the internet throw their minds at the problem of spam and propose "solutions" identical to yours.
This is not a new problem.
Your ideas are not new.
Your ideas are not original.
your ideas have been proposed and shot down hundreds of times.
Hence the tick the boxes form.
feel free to check the figures.
You don't have to take it on trust.
If you can do highschool math there's nothing too scary in there.