Nah, pretty sure the news at the time was outside. Which is fine. There were oxygen leaks, resulting in air surrounding Mir. Further, as NASA demonstrated at the ISS, some bacteria and mold can handle hard radiation just fine.
Mir! . In its last days, there were all kinds of moulds, spores and fungi growing on the outside. Possibly more complex life. That makes Mir a plant that was in orbit, right?
You keep saying that "you think" this and "you think" that. Op-ed. Give me proofs, facts, figures, anything but your bullshit opinion. You clearly can't give me an example of a single error or exaggeration, and since you've made it an opinion piece, nobody can question you because there's no facts to question. You don't say what I've supposedly got wrong, you don't say what I've supposedly exaggerated, you only repeat the mantra in the hope that somebody will eventually believe it.
Go back to Fox News.
I've given clearly-defined points with clearly-stated sources (look the damn things up yourself, you're capable of typing a post so you're capable of using Google) and with clear validation from experts in the field. Again, look 'em up. You can type, can't you? You can read posts, can't you? (Mind you, your score regarding my posts does indicate you might have trouble understanding English. Would it help if I converted the text to Redneck for you?)
You have.... what?
Well, nothing. No claims, no evidence, no past background, no expertise, no validation. You really are the most pathetic troll I've met. Well, besides a couple of twits on USENET.
Are you honestly and earnestly saying that ISC and RIPE are run by black-hats for the express purpose of putting trojans onto your machine?
I have heard some insane shit in my life but that has to be about on-par with the "Moon Landing Hoax" conspiracy theory. I really, really suggest cutting back on the illegal substances.
Oh, and if you're using Linux, too late. You already use ISC software. Clearly you must already be trojaned. Or maybe just the most insane fruitcake I've encountered in a while.
I specified when it was used, did I not? Then perhaps I was giving you credit for figuring out that if you use a different method (DHCPv6, for example, or static addressing) that it was NOT automatically used. I'm wondering if I'm giving you too much credit here, if you're willing to go to such lengths to find some, any, loophole in what I'm saying even if it's in a totally different subject than the one I'm discussing.
You can change the MAC address on the card, too. So? You said that it couldn't be accessed at all, my contention is that in SOME situations it can. I don't give a damn as to whether it's spoofable or not, the fact is that your original claim only holds true because you made specific assumptions. If you change the assumptions, the claim doesn't work. That is ALL I am saying there.
Stop thinking in such narrow, isolated ways. I've provided you with software tools (which you still haven't used or even looked at), I've provided you with a tarball of routing connections, I've provided you with counter-examples (I only need one to disprove a rule, doesn't matter if it's a special case it still disproves the rule), but I cannot provide you with expanded horizons. You have to do that yourself.
ISC are wanting suggestions for what is needed in BIND10, the essentially de-facto DNS server. You might want to put your thoughts together as a single white paper on integrated security and send it to them. You aren't getting much mileage on Slashdot, but you might well provoke some excellent thinking by the people who actually develop DNSSEC and the servers that use it.
I'm sure, because I use the IRRToolset extensively and understand that if you have a web of interconnecting servers that deliver the information, you do not NEED to access data in layers that are out of scope. As for seeing a peer's MAC address, that's trivial. Yes you can see it, it's the last 48 bits of any automatic IPv6 address generated using the RADV (Router Advertisment) method. This is how you can move IPv6 devices from network to network, retain your connection through auto-forwarding (since the upper bits identify your current network and are distinct from the lower bits used to identify the machine) and be guaranteed that there will be no address collisions. Ever.
Oh, you mean by IPv4? God, how quaint. I switched over about 17 or 18 years ago.
I also make good use of this little link. RIPE makes it easy to know who is supposed to be where and how they are supposed to be connected. By being a central source, I can know what should be expected at any given location and can compare that with the reality. (Reality is a term you may not be familiar with, but you can google for it in your own time.)
RIPE uses the same method for its consistency check system, comparing what networks are reporting with what their own authoratitive database says they should be reporting.
The Internet Routing Registry Toolset will give you most of the answers you want and the tools to verify the answers the plugin gives.
If you're interested in knowing what it would take to spoof, the obvious place to start would be the Internet Routing Registry daemon. Though you could also look up RFC 2622 as RPSL seems to be the standard protocol.
A public site containing a set of SHA-512 + Whirlpool hashes for a large dictionary of "well-known" public keys, where each public key is verifiably provided by the company that owns it (if the company provides the real keys, then any key associated with the company that is not provided is fake, and any key for the same domain that doesn't match the hash of any provided key is also fake). Browsers can then query this site to see if the key is a publicly registered key or not.
Keys should be counter-signed by some independent body that can vouch that the key belongs to the key-holder; key credibility should be a function of the current credibility scores for all countersigning bodies. If a key is found to be a forgery, the credibility of the countersigners would go down. The owner's credibility score would remain intact. Countersigners with a good track record should have a score that goes up.
There needs to be a second step in the authentication process that is wholly independent of SSL/TLS.
In the meantime, I'm using a plugin tha shows the AS of the network I'm connecting to. It certainly doesn't solve the problem, but for right now I can differentiate between a site in the US and a site in Iran that may be claiming to be the same machine. It's pretty weak, as AS numbers aren't enforceable, but unless someone sets up scam sites on different autonomous networks and ensures said networks match the US versions, it provides some basic protection. (Besides, 99.9% of the planet wouldn't know what an autonomous system number was and wouldn't care if they did, and any fake site will be set up for the greatest number of victims rather than the best camoflage.)
This story's a few days old. Mind you, that's still not bad.
Anyways, the interesting part is that this new dino is only a little smaller than the largest T Rex ever found, making it quite possible larger specimins will be found. In turn, this raises the possibility that we're nowhere near as close to the top of the dino chain as we'd previously thought.
Having said that, we know T Rex had hollow bones essentially the same design and internal composition as modern birds. Now, it is true that the tallest bird that ever lived (the Giant Moa) was 13' tall, rather taller than a T Rex. This is important as a heavy weight on the top of tall spindly legs is going to generate rather different loads than a heavy weight much closer to the ground. It is also true that the heaviest dino, according to some estimates, may have been upwards of 20 tonnes. Clearly, this design of bone is capable of rather suprising feats under the right conditions. However, the T Rex is now thought by some to have been quite the Olympic sprinter, not a slow plodder like the Moa.
It doesn't take much to realize that if, indeed, that was the case that you simply can't up the tonnage to the limits the bones could take by standing still. They'd shatter long before you got to that point. Which means that if T Rex' ilk were indeed the sprinters claimed, you really are very close to the upper limits, ergo if the new cousin is found to be substantially larger, then T Rex was proportionally slower.
The air ignited the hot graphite fragments that were flying through it, according to the article. You seem to have neglected to include that piece from your selective quote. The article was quite explicit when it stated that the graphite in the core itself was merely hot.
As I've already stated that the graphite core at Windscale was indeed on fire, I know that "nuclear-grade" graphite (whatever that might mean) burns. I also know the effects, or did you neglect to read the post where I stated I've accessed field data from the fallout from that fire? (You've neglected to read everything else, so...)
"Control" probably involves getting full containment re-established (at the moment, as noted by a nuke physicist in another story on the subject, there is NO containment whatsoever - outer shell is NOT containment), contaminated ground decontaminated as far as possible/cost-practical, and risk of additional containment loss - in any of the reactor cores - minimized.
As for making things up, I've actually an excellent record for getting facts right (as, indeed, said nuke physicist post demonstrates, as it is a good deal closer to my description than yours) and you can google the paper. I will not do your homework for you, I provide cites on respectful requests (and Wikipedia) but not to trolls or morons.
(For that matter, when Slashdot still used numeric scores for karma, mine was getting damn-near my UID on the basis of quality posts rather than op-ed pieces like yours.)
Well, no, the idea of using fundamental constants rather than (say) platinum spheres is that you never need to adjust them. Even if you re-evaluate the constants, all things measured relative to them willl change in proportion, keeping the units of measurement effectively the same.
If you meant "new units of measurement are being invented", you might have a point. We don't use the Roman mile any more, and nobody has ever really used the American gallon (there's a lot of profit to be made through accumulated rounding errors in your favour).
The French, however, are unique in that they genuinely desire to differentiate themselves (and I respect them a lot for that) AND genuinely desire to be the culture recognized for - and maintainers of - Système international d'unités (I respect them a lot for that also, but you can't really be standard and unique at the same time). If I had to pick one achievement of the French above all others that has benefitted the world, I'd say SI by a landslide. They have done a lot, but a lot of it has had mixed results. SI is unambiguously good for both science and wider society. The biggest problem SI has had is that Imperial units (the system America uses a derivative of, ironically) tend to be closer to what you might call "natural" units. That's where most of them came from. The problem is, you can't do anything much with Imperial units EXCEPT measure natural objects unless you use Base 4 (which is when many - but not all - Imperial units become easier to work with).
But no matter what Schrodinger's Cat or Maxwell's Demon may say on the subject, you can't be on the inside and the outside at the same time. The one thing I really dislike about French philosophy is that it does try to be both. Can't be done. Both choices are admirable, but you only get to choose one. An inclusive exclusivity isn't a valid state to be in. Other countries make that error too and they're fools for it, but none try as hard as the French (you've got to admire their persistance) and none are as well-known for it.
At last! A sane, rational, thoughtful commentary on the actual mechanics by someone!
(I'm being serious. I understand the radiochemistry and have posted - and been fried by critics - on that score. A post by someone with qualifications in nuclear physics detailing step-by-step what is happening, how it is happening, why it is happening, and how we can know this through indirect observations is greatly appreciated. The parent post is exactly what is needed and should be required reading for the media and armchair commentators alike.)
Fear earns nothing but violence and destruction. Fear and violence are the acts of despots determined to keep what is not theirs.
The Borgia crime family - one of the greatest mafiosa gangs in history - presided over the Enlightenment and largely caused most of it. True, there was a lot of fear, but centralized justice and peace on Earth there wasn't.
Scotland and the outlying islands achieved a murder rate average of 0.00000045 per thousand people per year over its first four millenia of occupation. It also had very very little scientific or technical development (well, ok, they invented the stone circle, the method of raising monoliths, and for some reason apartment complexes, but not a whole lot else).
Cambridge University, one of the leading institutions in the world for scientific research, is one of the most left-wing and has some of the greatest protections against retribution and indeed any kind of central justice system. It was even founded by criminals. Many top US universities for science could say the same, except for perhaps the being founded by criminals bit.
The US military recently admitted death-squads in Afghanistan went out killing civilians for fun. C'mon, the "one rotten apple" gets old after the first few hundred.
It also has the highest infant mortality rate in the Western world, a preventable death rate double that of the next-highest Western nation, one of the poorest ratings in education and basic literacy, a low rating in overall happiness, the highest rate of incarceration outside of China, an execution rate comparable to North Korea, and a military budget in excess of the rest of the top ten combined. So I'm not seeing a whole lot of this freedom that all this money is supposedly buying.
Well, outside of Wachovia bank that is. They seem to have bought a whole lot of freedom, albeit at the cost of a Mexican civil war and a few hundred thousand lives.
The Victorians once believed as you did. Earned them a crime wave. Then they discarded retribution and threats for moderation and civility, resulting in a rebirth of British democracy.
You ask for cites but the best you can do is Wikipedia? (A notoriously unreliable source that few scholars regard as useful beyond a very very basic primer on anything.)
Parts of the graphite blocks and fuel channels were out of the reactor building.
So the reactor was NOT on fire, but material that had been ejected was? That's what your source says, so your source contradicts your claim. Show me a source that says the core WAS on fire. And make it a reputable source this time.
They can't get robots near Chernobyl. Hell, they couldn't get robots into a New Zealand mine last year due to water pooling. What the hell makes you think they can get robots into these reactor sites any better?
As for the 2001 paper, it would indeed have told you that a wave going over the retaining wall would indeed have flooded the ground-level emergency generators. Well, apparently unless you're a TEPCO manager.
And a nervous breakdown due to excessive stress tells you a hell of a lot.
Oh, and the President of Japan announced yesterday that things are not under control. So do we believe him or you?
Medical breakthroughs - mostly the Brits, French and allegedly Amsterdam but the investigator there has failed to return. Astronomy - mostly the Brits and Russians Velcro - the Swiss
Freedom does indeed cost nothing. Enslavement is the expensive option. Almost every peaceful revolution has resulted in a peaceful (comparatively-speaking) government, every violent revolution (without exception, the US included) has resulted in a violent system of governance and a violent populace.
As for Mubarak, he was mostly installed and maintained by the US. That wasn't cheap, y'know. Col. Ollie North, you remember him, the Pentagon's drug-and-gun runner to finance violence and instability? Consider how much US money is believed spent on "black ops" work, and now consider how much extra must actually be spent for Admiral Poyndexter and his ilk (before and after) to take those kinds of risks for extra funds.
A few hundred years ago, science and technology weren't too bad. Well, in Europe, at least. Once we'd kicked the religious fanatics out (d'you know how many wars and massacres those guys started?) and forced them to the New World (made a great lunatic asylum as well as a penal colony), advances came much more rapidly. Didn't know America still had peasants 200 years ago - shows how backwards a place it was compared to the civilized world.
(Y'know that America still had slaves then? C'mon, the Swiss abolished the practice in the 12th century and even the English started dismantling it around 1770-1776. About the time there was a slave-owner revolt somewhere. Now where was that again?)
Slashdot Mirror
Per Library of Congress*. That's the default on Slashdot, when no other units are given.
*Yes, you were expecting time rather than bytes, so remember to cast the type before assignment.
Nah, pretty sure the news at the time was outside. Which is fine. There were oxygen leaks, resulting in air surrounding Mir. Further, as NASA demonstrated at the ISS, some bacteria and mold can handle hard radiation just fine.
Mir!
.
In its last days, there were all kinds of moulds, spores and fungi growing on the outside. Possibly more complex life. That makes Mir a plant that was in orbit, right?
I suggest you (a) learn English, and then (b) read it again. Otherwise, go f. off and die. You would be doing the world a very big favour.
You keep saying that "you think" this and "you think" that. Op-ed. Give me proofs, facts, figures, anything but your bullshit opinion. You clearly can't give me an example of a single error or exaggeration, and since you've made it an opinion piece, nobody can question you because there's no facts to question. You don't say what I've supposedly got wrong, you don't say what I've supposedly exaggerated, you only repeat the mantra in the hope that somebody will eventually believe it.
Go back to Fox News.
I've given clearly-defined points with clearly-stated sources (look the damn things up yourself, you're capable of typing a post so you're capable of using Google) and with clear validation from experts in the field. Again, look 'em up. You can type, can't you? You can read posts, can't you? (Mind you, your score regarding my posts does indicate you might have trouble understanding English. Would it help if I converted the text to Redneck for you?)
You have.... what?
Well, nothing. No claims, no evidence, no past background, no expertise, no validation. You really are the most pathetic troll I've met. Well, besides a couple of twits on USENET.
Are you honestly and earnestly saying that ISC and RIPE are run by black-hats for the express purpose of putting trojans onto your machine?
I have heard some insane shit in my life but that has to be about on-par with the "Moon Landing Hoax" conspiracy theory. I really, really suggest cutting back on the illegal substances.
Oh, and if you're using Linux, too late. You already use ISC software. Clearly you must already be trojaned. Or maybe just the most insane fruitcake I've encountered in a while.
I specified when it was used, did I not? Then perhaps I was giving you credit for figuring out that if you use a different method (DHCPv6, for example, or static addressing) that it was NOT automatically used. I'm wondering if I'm giving you too much credit here, if you're willing to go to such lengths to find some, any, loophole in what I'm saying even if it's in a totally different subject than the one I'm discussing.
You can change the MAC address on the card, too. So? You said that it couldn't be accessed at all, my contention is that in SOME situations it can. I don't give a damn as to whether it's spoofable or not, the fact is that your original claim only holds true because you made specific assumptions. If you change the assumptions, the claim doesn't work. That is ALL I am saying there.
Stop thinking in such narrow, isolated ways. I've provided you with software tools (which you still haven't used or even looked at), I've provided you with a tarball of routing connections, I've provided you with counter-examples (I only need one to disprove a rule, doesn't matter if it's a special case it still disproves the rule), but I cannot provide you with expanded horizons. You have to do that yourself.
You are absolutely correct. It would not be hard to add a new record type.
A thought for you: http://www.isc.org/software/bind10
ISC are wanting suggestions for what is needed in BIND10, the essentially de-facto DNS server. You might want to put your thoughts together as a single white paper on integrated security and send it to them. You aren't getting much mileage on Slashdot, but you might well provoke some excellent thinking by the people who actually develop DNSSEC and the servers that use it.
And since you didn't bother to check the links or use the software, 5 demerits. Any more and you'll go on report.
I'm sure, because I use the IRRToolset extensively and understand that if you have a web of interconnecting servers that deliver the information, you do not NEED to access data in layers that are out of scope. As for seeing a peer's MAC address, that's trivial. Yes you can see it, it's the last 48 bits of any automatic IPv6 address generated using the RADV (Router Advertisment) method. This is how you can move IPv6 devices from network to network, retain your connection through auto-forwarding (since the upper bits identify your current network and are distinct from the lower bits used to identify the machine) and be guaranteed that there will be no address collisions. Ever.
Oh, you mean by IPv4? God, how quaint. I switched over about 17 or 18 years ago.
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/ripe.db.gz
I also make good use of this little link. RIPE makes it easy to know who is supposed to be where and how they are supposed to be connected. By being a central source, I can know what should be expected at any given location and can compare that with the reality. (Reality is a term you may not be familiar with, but you can google for it in your own time.)
RIPE uses the same method for its consistency check system, comparing what networks are reporting with what their own authoratitive database says they should be reporting.
You got any arguments with RIPE?
Links to other software dealing with the Internet Routing Registry system (some are also given elsewhere):
IRR Toolset: http://www.isc.org/software/irrtoolset
IRRd: http://www.irrd.net/
Routing Registry Consistency Check (a web form, not the source code - pity): http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/projects/current/rrcc
If you want to use this system to construct your own WHOIS database, please see:
ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/software/
(This is the WHOIS server used by RIPE.)
The information is indeed communicated to leaf nodes.
http://www.isc.org/software/irrtoolset
The Internet Routing Registry Toolset will give you most of the answers you want and the tools to verify the answers the plugin gives.
If you're interested in knowing what it would take to spoof, the obvious place to start would be the Internet Routing Registry daemon. Though you could also look up RFC 2622 as RPSL seems to be the standard protocol.
http://www.irrd.net/
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=asnumber
What I'd prefer to see are the following:
In the meantime, I'm using a plugin tha shows the AS of the network I'm connecting to. It certainly doesn't solve the problem, but for right now I can differentiate between a site in the US and a site in Iran that may be claiming to be the same machine. It's pretty weak, as AS numbers aren't enforceable, but unless someone sets up scam sites on different autonomous networks and ensures said networks match the US versions, it provides some basic protection. (Besides, 99.9% of the planet wouldn't know what an autonomous system number was and wouldn't care if they did, and any fake site will be set up for the greatest number of victims rather than the best camoflage.)
"Herr Franken Rex, you have created a... hey, we're monsters, so what DO we call that thing?"
This story's a few days old. Mind you, that's still not bad.
Anyways, the interesting part is that this new dino is only a little smaller than the largest T Rex ever found, making it quite possible larger specimins will be found. In turn, this raises the possibility that we're nowhere near as close to the top of the dino chain as we'd previously thought.
Having said that, we know T Rex had hollow bones essentially the same design and internal composition as modern birds. Now, it is true that the tallest bird that ever lived (the Giant Moa) was 13' tall, rather taller than a T Rex. This is important as a heavy weight on the top of tall spindly legs is going to generate rather different loads than a heavy weight much closer to the ground. It is also true that the heaviest dino, according to some estimates, may have been upwards of 20 tonnes. Clearly, this design of bone is capable of rather suprising feats under the right conditions. However, the T Rex is now thought by some to have been quite the Olympic sprinter, not a slow plodder like the Moa.
It doesn't take much to realize that if, indeed, that was the case that you simply can't up the tonnage to the limits the bones could take by standing still. They'd shatter long before you got to that point. Which means that if T Rex' ilk were indeed the sprinters claimed, you really are very close to the upper limits, ergo if the new cousin is found to be substantially larger, then T Rex was proportionally slower.
The air ignited the hot graphite fragments that were flying through it, according to the article. You seem to have neglected to include that piece from your selective quote. The article was quite explicit when it stated that the graphite in the core itself was merely hot.
As I've already stated that the graphite core at Windscale was indeed on fire, I know that "nuclear-grade" graphite (whatever that might mean) burns. I also know the effects, or did you neglect to read the post where I stated I've accessed field data from the fallout from that fire? (You've neglected to read everything else, so...)
"Control" probably involves getting full containment re-established (at the moment, as noted by a nuke physicist in another story on the subject, there is NO containment whatsoever - outer shell is NOT containment), contaminated ground decontaminated as far as possible/cost-practical, and risk of additional containment loss - in any of the reactor cores - minimized.
As for making things up, I've actually an excellent record for getting facts right (as, indeed, said nuke physicist post demonstrates, as it is a good deal closer to my description than yours) and you can google the paper. I will not do your homework for you, I provide cites on respectful requests (and Wikipedia) but not to trolls or morons.
(For that matter, when Slashdot still used numeric scores for karma, mine was getting damn-near my UID on the basis of quality posts rather than op-ed pieces like yours.)
Well, no, the idea of using fundamental constants rather than (say) platinum spheres is that you never need to adjust them. Even if you re-evaluate the constants, all things measured relative to them willl change in proportion, keeping the units of measurement effectively the same.
If you meant "new units of measurement are being invented", you might have a point. We don't use the Roman mile any more, and nobody has ever really used the American gallon (there's a lot of profit to be made through accumulated rounding errors in your favour).
The French, however, are unique in that they genuinely desire to differentiate themselves (and I respect them a lot for that) AND genuinely desire to be the culture recognized for - and maintainers of - Système international d'unités (I respect them a lot for that also, but you can't really be standard and unique at the same time). If I had to pick one achievement of the French above all others that has benefitted the world, I'd say SI by a landslide. They have done a lot, but a lot of it has had mixed results. SI is unambiguously good for both science and wider society. The biggest problem SI has had is that Imperial units (the system America uses a derivative of, ironically) tend to be closer to what you might call "natural" units. That's where most of them came from. The problem is, you can't do anything much with Imperial units EXCEPT measure natural objects unless you use Base 4 (which is when many - but not all - Imperial units become easier to work with).
But no matter what Schrodinger's Cat or Maxwell's Demon may say on the subject, you can't be on the inside and the outside at the same time. The one thing I really dislike about French philosophy is that it does try to be both. Can't be done. Both choices are admirable, but you only get to choose one. An inclusive exclusivity isn't a valid state to be in. Other countries make that error too and they're fools for it, but none try as hard as the French (you've got to admire their persistance) and none are as well-known for it.
At last! A sane, rational, thoughtful commentary on the actual mechanics by someone!
(I'm being serious. I understand the radiochemistry and have posted - and been fried by critics - on that score. A post by someone with qualifications in nuclear physics detailing step-by-step what is happening, how it is happening, why it is happening, and how we can know this through indirect observations is greatly appreciated. The parent post is exactly what is needed and should be required reading for the media and armchair commentators alike.)
Fear earns nothing but violence and destruction. Fear and violence are the acts of despots determined to keep what is not theirs.
The Borgia crime family - one of the greatest mafiosa gangs in history - presided over the Enlightenment and largely caused most of it. True, there was a lot of fear, but centralized justice and peace on Earth there wasn't.
Scotland and the outlying islands achieved a murder rate average of 0.00000045 per thousand people per year over its first four millenia of occupation. It also had very very little scientific or technical development (well, ok, they invented the stone circle, the method of raising monoliths, and for some reason apartment complexes, but not a whole lot else).
And these guys don't seem too afraid of central justice. Oh, and the ATF being busted for smuggling guns into Mexico for 6-10 years? Yeah, right, those're the guys I'd trust to defend my freedom. Not.
Cambridge University, one of the leading institutions in the world for scientific research, is one of the most left-wing and has some of the greatest protections against retribution and indeed any kind of central justice system. It was even founded by criminals. Many top US universities for science could say the same, except for perhaps the being founded by criminals bit.
The US military recently admitted death-squads in Afghanistan went out killing civilians for fun. C'mon, the "one rotten apple" gets old after the first few hundred.
Freedom from getting stabbed by my neighbor? How about freedom from shoot-outs over where the dog chose to go? Besides, the US has a higher murder rate than almost any other country in the world.
It also has the highest infant mortality rate in the Western world, a preventable death rate double that of the next-highest Western nation, one of the poorest ratings in education and basic literacy, a low rating in overall happiness, the highest rate of incarceration outside of China, an execution rate comparable to North Korea, and a military budget in excess of the rest of the top ten combined. So I'm not seeing a whole lot of this freedom that all this money is supposedly buying.
Well, outside of Wachovia bank that is. They seem to have bought a whole lot of freedom, albeit at the cost of a Mexican civil war and a few hundred thousand lives.
The Victorians once believed as you did. Earned them a crime wave. Then they discarded retribution and threats for moderation and civility, resulting in a rebirth of British democracy.
You ask for cites but the best you can do is Wikipedia? (A notoriously unreliable source that few scholars regard as useful beyond a very very basic primer on anything.)
So the reactor was NOT on fire, but material that had been ejected was? That's what your source says, so your source contradicts your claim. Show me a source that says the core WAS on fire. And make it a reputable source this time.
They can't get robots near Chernobyl. Hell, they couldn't get robots into a New Zealand mine last year due to water pooling. What the hell makes you think they can get robots into these reactor sites any better?
As for the 2001 paper, it would indeed have told you that a wave going over the retaining wall would indeed have flooded the ground-level emergency generators. Well, apparently unless you're a TEPCO manager.
And a nervous breakdown due to excessive stress tells you a hell of a lot.
Oh, and the President of Japan announced yesterday that things are not under control. So do we believe him or you?
Medical breakthroughs - mostly the Brits, French and allegedly Amsterdam but the investigator there has failed to return.
Astronomy - mostly the Brits and Russians
Velcro - the Swiss
Freedom does indeed cost nothing. Enslavement is the expensive option. Almost every peaceful revolution has resulted in a peaceful (comparatively-speaking) government, every violent revolution (without exception, the US included) has resulted in a violent system of governance and a violent populace.
As for Mubarak, he was mostly installed and maintained by the US. That wasn't cheap, y'know. Col. Ollie North, you remember him, the Pentagon's drug-and-gun runner to finance violence and instability? Consider how much US money is believed spent on "black ops" work, and now consider how much extra must actually be spent for Admiral Poyndexter and his ilk (before and after) to take those kinds of risks for extra funds.
A few hundred years ago, science and technology weren't too bad. Well, in Europe, at least. Once we'd kicked the religious fanatics out (d'you know how many wars and massacres those guys started?) and forced them to the New World (made a great lunatic asylum as well as a penal colony), advances came much more rapidly. Didn't know America still had peasants 200 years ago - shows how backwards a place it was compared to the civilized world.
(Y'know that America still had slaves then? C'mon, the Swiss abolished the practice in the 12th century and even the English started dismantling it around 1770-1776. About the time there was a slave-owner revolt somewhere. Now where was that again?)