> Is an unshielded sodium reactor clean?
Only if you keep it way the fuck away from everyone.
Myself, I think this is a story about people raising funding for a project by say "drones!", it's not like anyone is really going to do that.
In addition to everything else, mozilla.org has some of the absolute stupidest public relations strategy imaginable...
could it be the they're being run by plants intended to destroy the place?
It may be an illusion that we control our PCs anymore.
It was always an illusion, but it was one that we used to work very hard to support. Now the pretense is long gone-- the central message is always, and forever "we own you, don't you forget it".
(Me, I use linux software so I can have it my way... then some pinhead at redhat fucks with libgtk, I upgrade my debian distro and my user interface is messed up in some random way that's supposed to be better for a "smart" phone, which I'm not actually using, and have no plans on using.)
see, to most people, browsers already are basically adware-delivery vehicles.
Look, most people have already given up on Firefox, at this point the firefox user base is the few, the proud, the masochistic.
Have you ever asked a firefox shill why you should use firefox when it's just become a fork of chrome? They invariably start going on about getting away from google's evil surveillance ad-supported clutches.
Either we're supposed to care about this, or not. Is mozilla.org a lesser evil, or just a different evil?
I think the post-57 "Quantum" firefox does a little better than that. It doesn't freeze up completely, it tends to completely crash-- weirdly enough, this is actually much preferable behavior, it saves me the trouble of trying to run "xkill" when firefox is eating most of the system resources.
It's a good thing I like to complain or I would've given up on Firefox a long time ago.
The United States did some work on the idea of nuclear
powered military aircraft way back when-- it was always a pretty
whacked idea. Like, part of the design involved shielding just
the pilot compartment and spewing radiation to the rear and the
sides (thus discouraging pursuit aircraft! Win-win!). They got
as far as building a gigagntic "hot-cell" to park the thing in
so it could be worked on without killing yourself.
As Freeman Dyson once put it, ideas like this might be most
charitably be regarded as welfare programs for engineers and scientists.
Are they telling themselves that if they're drones they won't
need any shielding at all? And that they'll use remote
manipulators to do cargo-handling and maintenance work?
I don't have anything against research in molten-salt reactors
though, and I guess if you need to say "drones" to sell a
project, we might politely look the other way. (Why not
motlen-salt mobile smart phones?)
Storage absolutely is viable, or at least on the cusp of being so.
Betting the planet on a speculative technology that isn't quite there yet would not seem to be tremendously sensible.
In contrast we could build nuclear plants (using half-century old designs, even) that would work, and by any reasonable standard would deserve to be called "clean".
But let's go back to our regular scheduled anti-nuclear fear-mongering. It's not like frying the planet is anything to worry about.
Yeah. Recent issues have seemed pretty good to me. They always talk about something I hadn't heard about, and it's not like there aren't other sources of info out there...
When you entrust your information to google, google gets to know about it. (Yeah, I know, encryption. Like anyone encrypts their gmail.)
Google is not shy about using your information. Strictly for
advertising purposes, you understand. At present. We hope.
Further, anyone who has placed a plant inside of google-- or
subverted someone already there-- has the potential to know about it.
2. Use the cloud:
A big, commercial cloud service will be much more secure than anything you can set up. Use a cloud-based office suite like GSuite or Microsoft365 that will provide all your basic office functions and a safe place to store information.
That's completely ridiculous, short-sighted crap. We're all supposed to trust our entire voting system to a tiny handful of companies? "We're completely invulnerable to any sort of subversion, because Technology. Trust us!"
Only ONE party disapproves of measures to make our elections secure. Voter ID is NOT a function of America's "racist past"
Every attempt at finding examples of the fraud that voter ID is supposed to prevent have come up empty. Question: why would someone push a fix for a non-existent problem? Answer: they've got a different agenda.
The existing system in much of the US is you show up at the polls, tell 'em who you are, and sign off on the register. If you think about it for a minute, you can see how difficult it is to game this system wholesale-- if anyone signs off as someone else they've got to worry that someone else will show up later. And you can't get away with doing this multiple times in one place or the poll watchers will recognize your face. The old Chicago-style of busing people around from place to place is expensive and obvious and pretty much not happening.
You know, you guys have a standard-of-evidence remarkably similar to our conservative friends. Anything that says something you don't like is obviously biased and deserves to be ignored.
Like Tim Berners-Lee, I think ad-supported media is a bust, but
then I always have thought so-- almost anything works better:
government support, private foundation support, direct appeals
for contributions, or even the old-fashioned charge-for-hard-copy.
I would infer that Berners-Lee has been persuaded that since
ad-support is a problem we need to go with pay-for-content,
which wouild explain his support for DRM technologies.
But what I really want is a promise to make this the last Big Wave of Breakage. And maybe an acknowledgement that Austrailus was a stupid debacle, a promise that they're going to treat users with respect, and hence treat their customizations with respect... and it would be really cool if they would stop telling me about Software is Hard, and what I'm asking for is totally impossible, and stop calling me names like whiner and luddite.
This kind of thing seems completely beyond mozilla.org, though... Not holding breath.
If 57 is delightful for you, cool. Me, I lost extensions that've been part of my daily life,...
And me, I've long since gotten tired of mozilla telling me I'm a weird character who cares about some odd issue that no Normal User would care about-- I'll say I'm a weird character, I'm still using mozilla code after decades of this kind of crap--
The latest round of people who sure do look like shills going bonkers in/r/firefox modding down anyone who dares say "palemoon", for example, that hasn't impressed me much either.
Slashdot Mirror
> Is an unshielded sodium reactor clean? Only if you keep it way the fuck away from everyone. Myself, I think this is a story about people raising funding for a project by say "drones!", it's not like anyone is really going to do that.
You guys always talk a good line. Try not to get the planet fried with your obsessions.
I can remember when trolls tried to be clever.
In addition to everything else, mozilla.org has some of the absolute stupidest public relations strategy imaginable... could it be the they're being run by plants intended to destroy the place?
It was always an illusion, but it was one that we used to work very hard to support. Now the pretense is long gone-- the central message is always, and forever "we own you, don't you forget it".
(Me, I use linux software so I can have it my way... then some pinhead at redhat fucks with libgtk, I upgrade my debian distro and my user interface is messed up in some random way that's supposed to be better for a "smart" phone, which I'm not actually using, and have no plans on using.)
Look, most people have already given up on Firefox, at this point the firefox user base is the few, the proud, the masochistic.
Have you ever asked a firefox shill why you should use firefox when it's just become a fork of chrome? They invariably start going on about getting away from google's evil surveillance ad-supported clutches.
Either we're supposed to care about this, or not. Is mozilla.org a lesser evil, or just a different evil?
I think the post-57 "Quantum" firefox does a little better than that. It doesn't freeze up completely, it tends to completely crash-- weirdly enough, this is actually much preferable behavior, it saves me the trouble of trying to run "xkill" when firefox is eating most of the system resources.
It's a good thing I like to complain or I would've given up on Firefox a long time ago.
The United States did some work on the idea of nuclear powered military aircraft way back when-- it was always a pretty whacked idea. Like, part of the design involved shielding just the pilot compartment and spewing radiation to the rear and the sides (thus discouraging pursuit aircraft! Win-win!). They got as far as building a gigagntic "hot-cell" to park the thing in so it could be worked on without killing yourself.
As Freeman Dyson once put it, ideas like this might be most charitably be regarded as welfare programs for engineers and scientists.
Are they telling themselves that if they're drones they won't need any shielding at all? And that they'll use remote manipulators to do cargo-handling and maintenance work?
I don't have anything against research in molten-salt reactors though, and I guess if you need to say "drones" to sell a project, we might politely look the other way. (Why not motlen-salt mobile smart phones?)
Betting the planet on a speculative technology that isn't quite there yet would not seem to be tremendously sensible.
In contrast we could build nuclear plants (using half-century old designs, even) that would work, and by any reasonable standard would deserve to be called "clean".
But let's go back to our regular scheduled anti-nuclear fear-mongering. It's not like frying the planet is anything to worry about.
If only there was some criteria for slashdot posts.
Yeah. Recent issues have seemed pretty good to me. They always talk about something I hadn't heard about, and it's not like there aren't other sources of info out there...
When you entrust your information to google, google gets to know about it. (Yeah, I know, encryption. Like anyone encrypts their gmail.) Google is not shy about using your information. Strictly for advertising purposes, you understand. At present. We hope.
Further, anyone who has placed a plant inside of google-- or subverted someone already there-- has the potential to know about it.
You mean besides google?
We don't know.
But what the fuck, let's entrust the democratic process for the entire United States to google. What could go wrong?
https://www.belfercenter.org/c...
That's completely ridiculous, short-sighted crap. We're all supposed to trust our entire voting system to a tiny handful of companies? "We're completely invulnerable to any sort of subversion, because Technology. Trust us!"
Every attempt at finding examples of the fraud that voter ID is supposed to prevent have come up empty. Question: why would someone push a fix for a non-existent problem? Answer: they've got a different agenda.
The existing system in much of the US is you show up at the polls, tell 'em who you are, and sign off on the register. If you think about it for a minute, you can see how difficult it is to game this system wholesale-- if anyone signs off as someone else they've got to worry that someone else will show up later. And you can't get away with doing this multiple times in one place or the poll watchers will recognize your face. The old Chicago-style of busing people around from place to place is expensive and obvious and pretty much not happening.
(My, that was a waste-of-breath, wasn't it?)
You know, you guys have a standard-of-evidence remarkably similar to our conservative friends. Anything that says something you don't like is obviously biased and deserves to be ignored.
And let's dissolve the United States, and watch the red states starve without the subsidy from the blue states.
You mean, fracking to make natural gas cheap, and no carbon pricing on the horizon to make clean power look good.
But yeah, outside of that just simple economics.
Gotta love the barage of gosh wow rah rah renewables articles, but they're making people relax a bit prematurely.
The New York Times.
Like Tim Berners-Lee, I think ad-supported media is a bust, but then I always have thought so-- almost anything works better: government support, private foundation support, direct appeals for contributions, or even the old-fashioned charge-for-hard-copy. I would infer that Berners-Lee has been persuaded that since ad-support is a problem we need to go with pay-for-content, which wouild explain his support for DRM technologies.
Check, but I can't find any mention of Draper actually being in any kind of position of authority. He's a hacker "celebrity", but not any one's boss.
Control Pagu Up and Control Page Down cycles through open tabs.
Someone in reddit's firefox group got modded down for mentioning these. Reddit is really weird.
It's All Text
But what I really want is a promise to make this the last Big Wave of Breakage. And maybe an acknowledgement that Austrailus was a stupid debacle, a promise that they're going to treat users with respect, and hence treat their customizations with respect... and it would be really cool if they would stop telling me about Software is Hard, and what I'm asking for is totally impossible, and stop calling me names like whiner and luddite.
This kind of thing seems completely beyond mozilla.org, though... Not holding breath.
Or for me. Life is possible without Netflix.
And me, I've long since gotten tired of mozilla telling me I'm a weird character who cares about some odd issue that no Normal User would care about-- I'll say I'm a weird character, I'm still using mozilla code after decades of this kind of crap--
The latest round of people who sure do look like shills going bonkers in /r/firefox modding down anyone who dares say "palemoon", for example, that hasn't impressed me much either.