I think the unstated argument here is that you don't need the extra 0.0001% certainty that physically destroying the device grants you. Hard drives use rare elements that we really shouldn't just be throwing away at this point.
Well if you want to be really REALLY sure, you'd encase the destroyed drives in concrete, drop them in an active supervolcano, and push the planet into the sun, but...
Unless you're dealing with crazy wear leveling, I think 50 times (random bits) over the entire drive is going to be unrecoverable. Period.
A lot of people would like us to think that computers are magic these days, yes. This is problematic for a number of reasons, but a large one seems to be "if it's magic, it will be reliable"...which is obviously false as the "magic" is only as good as the guy who "cast" it...and as soon as anybody actually looks at the program, they find security holes.
Then we sue them when they point out the holes.
The contexts I've heard "automagical" used in usually equate to "this should work fine but it's so complicated that it would take forever to explain to you how to fix it if something goes wrong so just cross your fingers."
Plus there's the bit where if your tires are worn, you hydroplane a lot more easily. Or if you have the wrong kind of tires. It may not be the road's fault at all in this one (two) poster's analogy.
Citation very much needed. Are you talking about the conquest of Canaan? Maybe in that specific context, but definitely not "forbidding any peace," as they settled in afterward and were in fact discouraged from allying themselves with other nations, which would tend to push them towards a more defensive stance I would imagine.
As far as I am aware, salvation in Christianity has NEVER been dependent on killing anyone, even in the Old Testament.
So the "middle ring" is the plants that are old enough to weather the toxin but not yet old enough to die off naturally? Without the natural die-off we'd be talking about a filled-in circle.
Capsicum is a lightweight OS capability and sandbox framework implementing a hybrid capability system model. Capsicum can be used for application and library compartmentalisation, the decomposition of larger bodies of software into isolated (sandboxed) components in order to implement security policies and limit the impact of software vulnerabilities.
That there's a BSD system component named after the primary component of a pepper that causes pain (okay, capsaicin, but whatever) makes me laugh, and wonder whether the name is as apropos as it sounds.
Or did you mean that they're safely subcritical but still temperature hot? Hmm...in which case, would you really *need* to cool them...unless you wanted people to do maintenance on them soon...
As I responded to the other poster half a day ago, I'm aware of what happens in the older-model reactors after you scram them. Presumably we're assuming different definitions of "shut down." By my definition, "shut down" means you shouldn't need any active systems to keep it from reaching criticality; the control rods being all the way in should maintain a subcritical safe state on their own (or in pebble-beds etc., the design of the reactor itself). Having the control rods all in but you're still pumping coolant through it seems like an intermediate state to me, and if you have to keep circulating coolant through it all the time no matter what (which would be a horribly retarded design), you can't actually shut it down.
I wonder how much of the term "meltdown" is a misnomer-dumbing-down of the physics involved. Admittedly if the reactor innards get hot enough to start melting the fuel elements etc. etc. etc., it's a Very Bad Thing...but if it doesn't actually breach the containment vessel/building, theoretically it's just a very expensive mess rather than actually hurting anyone, since the radioactive material is contained.
For a reactor that is SCRAMed after holding a constant power level for an extended period (greater than 100 hrs), about 7% of the steady-state power will remain after initial shutdown due to fission product decay.
Slashdot Mirror
12,000 USD per *month*?! I could *buy* a lightly used car around here for that same amount!
He's saying that it *is* an excuse. Just because he disagrees with you does not mean he's ignoring what you're saying.
It's not a fantasy; until recently it was an established legal principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
I think the unstated argument here is that you don't need the extra 0.0001% certainty that physically destroying the device grants you. Hard drives use rare elements that we really shouldn't just be throwing away at this point.
Well if you want to be really REALLY sure, you'd encase the destroyed drives in concrete, drop them in an active supervolcano, and push the planet into the sun, but...
Unless you're dealing with crazy wear leveling, I think 50 times (random bits) over the entire drive is going to be unrecoverable. Period.
A lot of people would like us to think that computers are magic these days, yes. This is problematic for a number of reasons, but a large one seems to be "if it's magic, it will be reliable"...which is obviously false as the "magic" is only as good as the guy who "cast" it...and as soon as anybody actually looks at the program, they find security holes.
Then we sue them when they point out the holes.
The contexts I've heard "automagical" used in usually equate to "this should work fine but it's so complicated that it would take forever to explain to you how to fix it if something goes wrong so just cross your fingers."
Why does there have to be a reason? "But what"? But nothing. It was for kicks.
Every once in awhile, can't we just see an article like this and say, "Cool!" without overthinking it?
The guy you're responding to never said that. Don't jump down his throat based on your preconceived notions of his perspective.
$17trillion dollar debt that we are burdening our children with
So you don't mind if we raise taxes on the 1%, right? :)
We need politicians like you. :-/
Plus there's the bit where if your tires are worn, you hydroplane a lot more easily. Or if you have the wrong kind of tires. It may not be the road's fault at all in this one (two) poster's analogy.
Someone needs to examine the definition of "not-for-profit"--either the organization in question, or their detractors. I'm not sure which.
(Okay, yes, it wasn't actually Christianity in the Old Testament; it was Judaism. You know what I mean.)
Citation very much needed. Are you talking about the conquest of Canaan? Maybe in that specific context, but definitely not "forbidding any peace," as they settled in afterward and were in fact discouraged from allying themselves with other nations, which would tend to push them towards a more defensive stance I would imagine.
As far as I am aware, salvation in Christianity has NEVER been dependent on killing anyone, even in the Old Testament.
Admittedly moving all the Israelis to the moon would make them a lot harder to hit with 10 dollar rocket attacks...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmw...
Bizarrely, they don't mention Serenity.
Yeah, thank god they provided a link to explain that crazy sentence.
So the "middle ring" is the plants that are old enough to weather the toxin but not yet old enough to die off naturally? Without the natural die-off we'd be talking about a filled-in circle.
Capsicum is a lightweight OS capability and sandbox framework implementing a hybrid capability system model. Capsicum can be used for application and library compartmentalisation, the decomposition of larger bodies of software into isolated (sandboxed) components in order to implement security policies and limit the impact of software vulnerabilities.
That there's a BSD system component named after the primary component of a pepper that causes pain (okay, capsaicin, but whatever) makes me laugh, and wonder whether the name is as apropos as it sounds.
Or did you mean that they're safely subcritical but still temperature hot? Hmm...in which case, would you really *need* to cool them...unless you wanted people to do maintenance on them soon...
As I responded to the other poster half a day ago, I'm aware of what happens in the older-model reactors after you scram them. Presumably we're assuming different definitions of "shut down." By my definition, "shut down" means you shouldn't need any active systems to keep it from reaching criticality; the control rods being all the way in should maintain a subcritical safe state on their own (or in pebble-beds etc., the design of the reactor itself). Having the control rods all in but you're still pumping coolant through it seems like an intermediate state to me, and if you have to keep circulating coolant through it all the time no matter what (which would be a horribly retarded design), you can't actually shut it down.
I wonder how much of the term "meltdown" is a misnomer-dumbing-down of the physics involved. Admittedly if the reactor innards get hot enough to start melting the fuel elements etc. etc. etc., it's a Very Bad Thing...but if it doesn't actually breach the containment vessel/building, theoretically it's just a very expensive mess rather than actually hurting anyone, since the radioactive material is contained.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
me dreaming of sitting at a desk coding, but the actual visuals are of Vim and nothing else.
Ah, so obviously it was a nightmare ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
For a reactor that is SCRAMed after holding a constant power level for an extended period (greater than 100 hrs), about 7% of the steady-state power will remain after initial shutdown due to fission product decay.
Sounds important to keep in mind, too...
Citation? I'm aware of the mechanic but skeptical that meltiness can still happen at 1% reaction levels, a week later.
generally on the order of 1/100000000000 000000000 000000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 00000 00000
So basically, one molecule of the thing in a gallon of water?