Anomaly256 wrote:- The solution is pretty simple, for both fighting Secure Boot mandates AND the 1%:
DON'T BUY IT IF IT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT. Vote with your dollar
Yes, no doubt it will be possible to buy PCs with unlocked BIOS, and I will make sure I do so as a longtime Linux user. Thanks for that advice.
HOWEVER, and this is the point, a typical PC bought from the high street or PCWorld etc by Joe Windowsuser WILL have a locked BIOS. This means that Joe will not be able to put in a Live Linux DVD one day to give Linux a try, find that he likes it, and then sticks with it. Because MS hates people like Joe doing that because that's the route by which most people migrate from Windows to Linux.
In other words, the Linux-using community will be frozen as it now is.
You wrote:- Microsoft subsidies and kickbacks aren't going to cover the loss they'd make if they culled our end of the market
Think again. Very few PC makers could afford the hit of losing the Windows volume discount they get - which is currently on the condition that ALL their PCs have Windows pre-installed. It is likely that locking the BIOS to Windows will also become a condition of MS's discount.
I don't think even nuclear experts fully understand all the issues involved in nuclear processes...... Like how to deal with nuclear waste
Well I consider myself a nuclear expert, as I happen to have had a senior technical position in a nuclear power company in the UK.
Dealing with nuclear waste is technically straightforward; the problem is a political one. Perhaps you meant :
I don't think even political experts fully understand all the issues involved in nuclear processes...... Like how to deal with nuclear waste
Another option is learning how to dance something.
First of all, to "learn dancing" you need someone to dance with. But if you can find someone to dance with there isn't the problem. Or are you suggesting we learn by same-sex dancing with other geeks (or a robot)? And what good is that anyway - do you then put a flag on your hat saying "I have leaned to dance"? You still need to find someone who will agree to dance with you.
You are seriously underestimating the problem here (are you new?). I have never once danced with a girl in my life (although I have had girl friends) and don't suppose I ever shall. I tried some years ago asking girls to dance but they told me to f#@k off.. OK, the polite ones just ignored me. I won't ever try again.
I guess it needs to be pointed out that the pilot was an individual, not "most people".
He might be an individual, but he still does not escape the facts of human biology.
As you get older the arteries harden and blood vessels (notably inside the brain) become less elastic. This makes them more prone to failure in situations where the blood pressure rises. This would include subjection to higher g-forces for example. In fact failure can occur at any time, even without a pressure pulse, which is why old people suddenly have strokes. A "medical" can measure blood pressure, but does not measure the elasticity of blood vessels - you would need to take a tissue sample and put it in a test machine for that.
A man of 74 should not be piloting an aircraft with acrobatic capability. Full stop. Makes no difference what the crash cause was in this case.
In the UK it increasingly difficult to get car insurance beyond this age, let alone fly an acrobatic plane.
Of course people were not "appalled". It was once quite common to take head measurements; it was called "Having your head examined". It was regarded on a similar level as fortune telling - seriously by some, or as a bit of fun by others. Thomas Hardy had it done for example, and there is a scene in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" where Marlow has it done as part of a company medical.
Later "Having your head examined" became a joke term, eg saying to someone about to try someting risky: "You ought to have your head examined!".
Anyway, you think any research and knowledge DNA should be banned? Burn all the books about should we?
It beats me why TF you "need" cycle lanes. Bikes were designed to be ridden on the road and historically wre using roads before cars were. In the UK there were large numbers of cyclists in the 1930-1955 period during which there were few "cycle facilities" and the few that existed were boycotted by cyclists because they were inferior to the road (and still are).
Don't tell me it is necessary because traffic has got busier - motorised traffic has actually got slower in town (where the cycle "facilities" are) in recent years. I used to commute to work in South London mostly down the outside of slow or stationary traffic jams - something cyclists today seem to be frightened to do, or feel that they are not entitled to do.
I actually gave up cycling around 1990 because of the increase in "cycle facilities" as I regard tham as dangerous, at least for a cyclist doing >10 mph. They are designed by officials with no clue about cycling. On one road near me a cycle lane in the suburbs is marked with little "Give Way" lines not just at every side road but every few yards AT EVERY PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. To hell with that.
Everything about "cycle facilities" encourages motorists to ignore the existence of bikes, from pulling out of driveways and side roads, to ignoring a cyclist they first see 200 yards ahead because it is assumed that they will be "out of the way" on a cycle lane (or on the footpath).
I once read a Friends of the Earth spokesman say "Our aim is to get cyclists off the road".. the sort of statement one might have expected from the most extreme Jag-driving type, not a friend of cycling.
The corollary of providing cycle "facilities" is that you should not use you bike anywhere else - an attitude clearly displayed in many of the comments here.
The GP said in effect that most bike owners would not do >400 miles per year. Clearly your friend is one who might. As a matter of fact I am another, and once did about 250 miles in 24 hours. And I have known other guys (in cycle racing circles) who have done >400 miles in one day.
But these are exceptions. What the GP said is true.
Tax is not just for road repair, it is for all the expenses associated with the road system - signage, drainage, cleaning, furniture, hedge cutting, policing and so on. Also for the basic engineering - even if a bridge were to carry only small cars it would still cost money to build and maintain (like painting the steel), and a road for only small cars still needs a surface and the space to accomodate the vehicles. Ever thought of the road space in terms of land rental, especially in cities?
Even without the wear and tear of large trucks, roads will deteriorate naturally and still need maintaining. Ever seen a stretch of completely disused road and how it soon deteriorates, with subsidance and vegetation?
Crikey, time for you to catch up with some reality.
I have been using Linux for 10 years and have never compiled anything from source, let alone the kernel.
I have heard that the Mac offers a "standardised... rich experience" with consistent UI, features etc, but can't comment as I've never used it. Windows and its apps however I use frequently and they certainly do NOT. In fact it seems the thing in Windows apps for them each to add their own bling and "stylish" way of doing things. Overall though I would say Windows and Linux are similar in this respect
I imagine far more employees would be regularly opening documents made in the past month than decade-old archived documents. But I also understand your edge case, and there's a workaround. Such a business could keep only a couple licenses for the ancient version and corresponding OS around.
Not every office is working in sales or publishing weekly mags. I am in engineering where we frequently need to pull up specifications of kit designed 20+ years ago. We may be more regularly opening documents made in the last month, but it remains important to be able to open older ones too. I am talking about life-and-death safety matters.
As for keeping some old software, we tried this but our IT people refused to allow it "because it could not be supported". WTF??? we were not asking for "support". We did manage to keep hidden an old laptop with Word Perfect on it for a while, until a new clerk spilled the beans to IT one day and they confiscated it (to send it to the crusher).
MS claimed that Word (up to a certain version) could read WordPerfect docs, but they seemed out to punish us in the process. Our WP docs, originally in a sober Times Roman were displayed in some whacky font (Sans Comic AFAIR). Why TF could not MS Word have rendered these old documents in a sane font by default? As time went on, later versions of Word refused to open these old documants at all.
What is needed is a standard document file format that all office software of all brands use, on all platforms. I thought we had achieved that with the Open Document Format, but MS opened the worm can again, doing their level best to sabotage it with their special pleading and their corruption of standards committees.
"roundabouts require NO ENERGY and NO MAINTENANCE and are inherently more efficient than traffic signals. Traffic signals require electricity, waste gasoline, and require human maintenance"
Been to the UK recently? The authorities here have gone traffic light barmy - some new standards I guess.
At many roundabouts they now put traffic lights at every radial point. That's right, to get through a roundabout you may have to pass two, three, four or five sets of lights.
I do a regular journey near Bristol through a close pair of roundabouts, each with traffic lights all round. Even late at night when I am the only car around, every light turns red in my face (I think it is deliberate - to "calm" traffic). It can take me five minutes to get past this feature. I'd be tempted to jump the lights if it were not for the fact they are so bright at night that you cannot see past them.
On one approach road there is a gantry with about 10 lights repeating the same aspect. I think there must be over 100 signal heads all together, each as powerful as a set of three car headlamps I guess. Why TF can't they be turned off outside busy periods? [Clue - they think drivers would be "confused"]
But road tax is not just for surface wear. There is also the cost of signage, drainage, communications, policing, emergency arrangements and so on. And general civil works - the space a small car takes, allowing for normal safety margins, is almost the same as for a large car.
It is not even just about road costs. In the UK at least it is simply a form of taxation bearing little relation to road costs. Motoring lobby groups claim (unsuprisingly) that in fact it is far more.
But about that surface wear. The wear caused by a 2000 lbs car is bugger all. The wear caused by a 4000 lbs car is 16x bugger all. If these were the only vehicles using the road the road life would be dictated by other factors such as natural ground movement. Virtually ALL road wear is caused by trucks. Motoring lobbies are right to claim that car drivers subsidise trucks.
I remember a story from last year (?) about Carmack writing a phone version of Doom or the original Wolfenstien and he made use of the GPL version for a number of fixes and updates to make porting easier.
I believe that Carmack was approached by a phone/PDA maker about porting Doom II, not for Carmack to do the work but just as a courtesy. I gather that Carmack told them that they would be better off porting PRBoom because it had been developed well beyond Doom in terms of debugging and optimisation while keeping the same gameplay.
Carmack then e-mailed the PRBoom developers about this approach, again as a courtesy, and it was nice that in this he complimented the developers of the open source Doom derivatives (which would have been not just the PRBoom guys) on their work.
I know of this because I had a small part in PRBoom development - in play-testing and making suggestions.
Until recently I was the safety assessor for several UK nuclear power stations, and I have always said I would be perfectly happy for their high level waste to be stored vertically under my house at the appropriate depth and with the appropriate enclosure.
However I would want the entrance to be some distance away because I would not like the extra traffic. The nuclear waste traffic itself would be trivial, but I would not like the construction traffic, and the cars of the workers associated with the facility. That is an entirely non-nuclear consideration, same as any other engineering project/supermarket/leisure-centre/theme park.
The safety risk of the waste itself being there is not even on the radar by any normal standards. Your comment about glowing flowers is just fatuous.
1) Those who want to preserve nature, pandas, wildlife and scenery, and to minimise the effect of man on the world.
2) Those who obsessed with the idea that "The Authorities" are trying to poison them with chemicals and radiation. They are prepared to destroy any amount of nature to reduce the perceived "poison" by one jot.
I am an environmentalist of the first kind, and I am a nuclear power station engineer.
"Environmentalism" started out as the first type, but has degenerated into the second type, becoming a sort of anti-establishment socialism. That would have been about the time that the UK Green Party (or was it the FoE?) abandoned its long term aim of reducing the UK population level.
In the UK there is already an alarming total area given over to wind generators. This is mostly in hilly and (previously) scenic areas, because that is where there are fewer people's back yards. They only exist because of subsidies which act in a peculiar (some would say corrupt) way. Yet their total contribution to the UK power requirement is miniscule. They are ugly, distracting, and industrialise the countryside. To meet the UK requirement even on a windy day would require vastly more area of windfarms, like covering all the National Parks, the Surrey Hills, the Cotswold Hills, the Mendips, The Downs - just as a start. I don't want what little remains of the English countryside to be ruined.
Yet even that would not save one conventional or nuclear power station because there are times in the UK, sometimes several days, when there is no wind anywhere - France at the same time, before you suggest they supply it.
Conventional power stations are also ugly, but give far more power per unit of ugliness however you might measure it.
If the casks are shielded adequately, equip them with heat exchangers and use them to heat government buildings, maybe give the guys recreation areas with hot tubs ....
It's the decay heat that has been the serious problem..... It starts at about 7.5% of the full operating thermal energy and decays from there. 7.5% of roughly a gigawatt is a tremendous amount of heat energy to cope with.
The 7.5% of heat is only immediately after shutdown. It decays rapidly after that. After discharge from the reactor the fuel spends some time (in the UK that means years) in cooling ponds until it is much safer and easier to transport. By then the heat being produced is trivial - with a spent fuel flask (containing several hundred fuel elements) being despatched from a UK power station you cannot even detect any warmth if you put your hand on it. I have done it, I worked in that industry.
Slashdot Mirror
Anomaly256 wrote :- The solution is pretty simple, for both fighting Secure Boot mandates AND the 1%:
DON'T BUY IT IF IT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT. Vote with your dollar
:- Microsoft subsidies and kickbacks aren't going to cover the loss they'd make if they culled our end of the market
Yes, no doubt it will be possible to buy PCs with unlocked BIOS, and I will make sure I do so as a longtime Linux user. Thanks for that advice.
HOWEVER, and this is the point, a typical PC bought from the high street or PCWorld etc by Joe Windowsuser WILL have a locked BIOS. This means that Joe will not be able to put in a Live Linux DVD one day to give Linux a try, find that he likes it, and then sticks with it. Because MS hates people like Joe doing that because that's the route by which most people migrate from Windows to Linux.
In other words, the Linux-using community will be frozen as it now is.
You wrote
Think again. Very few PC makers could afford the hit of losing the Windows volume discount they get - which is currently on the condition that ALL their PCs have Windows pre-installed. It is likely that locking the BIOS to Windows will also become a condition of MS's discount.
tg123 wrote :
..... Like how to deal with nuclear waste
..... Like how to deal with nuclear waste
I don't think even nuclear experts fully understand all the issues involved in nuclear processes.
Well I consider myself a nuclear expert, as I happen to have had a senior technical position in a nuclear power company in the UK. Dealing with nuclear waste is technically straightforward; the problem is a political one. Perhaps you meant :
I don't think even political experts fully understand all the issues involved in nuclear processes.
Just F@%king Do It ... clean the goddam gutter.
:-
Syousef wrote
>> So clean your own fucking gutters before telling others to
How the hell do you know that he does >not
There are all sorts of reasons for keeping gutters clear.
Another option is learning how to dance something.
First of all, to "learn dancing" you need someone to dance with. But if you can find someone to dance with there isn't the problem. Or are you suggesting we learn by same-sex dancing with other geeks (or a robot)? And what good is that anyway - do you then put a flag on your hat saying "I have leaned to dance"? You still need to find someone who will agree to dance with you.
.. OK, the polite ones just ignored me. I won't ever try again.
You are seriously underestimating the problem here (are you new?). I have never once danced with a girl in my life (although I have had girl friends) and don't suppose I ever shall. I tried some years ago asking girls to dance but they told me to f#@k off
Your advice sounds like a Catch 22 to me.
Learn to play a musical instrument.
WTF has playing a musical instrument got to do with hookers thinking you are a narc and telling you to f#@k off?
I guess it needs to be pointed out that the pilot was an individual, not "most people".
He might be an individual, but he still does not escape the facts of human biology.
As you get older the arteries harden and blood vessels (notably inside the brain) become less elastic. This makes them more prone to failure in situations where the blood pressure rises. This would include subjection to higher g-forces for example. In fact failure can occur at any time, even without a pressure pulse, which is why old people suddenly have strokes. A "medical" can measure blood pressure, but does not measure the elasticity of blood vessels - you would need to take a tissue sample and put it in a test machine for that.
A man of 74 should not be piloting an aircraft with acrobatic capability. Full stop. Makes no difference what the crash cause was in this case.
In the UK it increasingly difficult to get car insurance beyond this age, let alone fly an acrobatic plane.
Are you just automatically assuming that, because they are in Africa, they have no chance?
Sir, you are a mind reader! How do you do it?
If you find that interesting, you must be very easy person to entertain.
So they have two words for it instead.
They aren't Roman numerals - IIII would be expressed as IV if that were the case.
Not on a clockface :
www.johnlewis.com/154370/Product.aspx
I call Godwin's Law, and BS.
Of course people were not "appalled". It was once quite common to take head measurements; it was called "Having your head examined". It was regarded on a similar level as fortune telling - seriously by some, or as a bit of fun by others. Thomas Hardy had it done for example, and there is a scene in Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" where Marlow has it done as part of a company medical.
Later "Having your head examined" became a joke term, eg saying to someone about to try someting risky: "You ought to have your head examined!".
Anyway, you think any research and knowledge DNA should be banned? Burn all the books about should we?
The elephant in the room here is how connected people are sexually.
... so does that make it infinity?
In other words, how many shaggings are we away from Paris Hilton?
Oh, hang on, we are geeks here
I suggest you put some gusto into it. Bikes don't pedal themselves.
It beats me why TF you "need" cycle lanes. Bikes were designed to be ridden on the road and historically wre using roads before cars were. In the UK there were large numbers of cyclists in the 1930-1955 period during which there were few "cycle facilities" and the few that existed were boycotted by cyclists because they were inferior to the road (and still are).
.. the sort of statement one might have expected from the most extreme Jag-driving type, not a friend of cycling.
Don't tell me it is necessary because traffic has got busier - motorised traffic has actually got slower in town (where the cycle "facilities" are) in recent years. I used to commute to work in South London mostly down the outside of slow or stationary traffic jams - something cyclists today seem to be frightened to do, or feel that they are not entitled to do.
I actually gave up cycling around 1990 because of the increase in "cycle facilities" as I regard tham as dangerous, at least for a cyclist doing >10 mph. They are designed by officials with no clue about cycling. On one road near me a cycle lane in the suburbs is marked with little "Give Way" lines not just at every side road but every few yards AT EVERY PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. To hell with that.
Everything about "cycle facilities" encourages motorists to ignore the existence of bikes, from pulling out of driveways and side roads, to ignoring a cyclist they first see 200 yards ahead because it is assumed that they will be "out of the way" on a cycle lane (or on the footpath).
I once read a Friends of the Earth spokesman say "Our aim is to get cyclists off the road"
The corollary of providing cycle "facilities" is that you should not use you bike anywhere else - an attitude clearly displayed in many of the comments here.
The GP said in effect that most bike owners would not do >400 miles per year. Clearly your friend is one who might. As a matter of fact I am another, and once did about 250 miles in 24 hours. And I have known other guys (in cycle racing circles) who have done >400 miles in one day.
But these are exceptions. What the GP said is true.
Tax is not just for road repair, it is for all the expenses associated with the road system - signage, drainage, cleaning, furniture, hedge cutting, policing and so on. Also for the basic engineering - even if a bridge were to carry only small cars it would still cost money to build and maintain (like painting the steel), and a road for only small cars still needs a surface and the space to accomodate the vehicles. Ever thought of the road space in terms of land rental, especially in cities?
Even without the wear and tear of large trucks, roads will deteriorate naturally and still need maintaining. Ever seen a stretch of completely disused road and how it soon deteriorates, with subsidance and vegetation?
Re: Sycraft-fu
Crikey, time for you to catch up with some reality.
I have been using Linux for 10 years and have never compiled anything from source, let alone the kernel.
I have heard that the Mac offers a "standardised... rich experience" with consistent UI, features etc, but can't comment as I've never used it. Windows and its apps however I use frequently and they certainly do NOT. In fact it seems the thing in Windows apps for them each to add their own bling and "stylish" way of doing things. Overall though I would say Windows and Linux are similar in this respect
I imagine far more employees would be regularly opening documents made in the past month than decade-old archived documents. But I also understand your edge case, and there's a workaround. Such a business could keep only a couple licenses for the ancient version and corresponding OS around.
Not every office is working in sales or publishing weekly mags. I am in engineering where we frequently need to pull up specifications of kit designed 20+ years ago. We may be more regularly opening documents made in the last month, but it remains important to be able to open older ones too. I am talking about life-and-death safety matters.
As for keeping some old software, we tried this but our IT people refused to allow it "because it could not be supported". WTF??? we were not asking for "support". We did manage to keep hidden an old laptop with Word Perfect on it for a while, until a new clerk spilled the beans to IT one day and they confiscated it (to send it to the crusher).
MS claimed that Word (up to a certain version) could read WordPerfect docs, but they seemed out to punish us in the process. Our WP docs, originally in a sober Times Roman were displayed in some whacky font (Sans Comic AFAIR). Why TF could not MS Word have rendered these old documents in a sane font by default? As time went on, later versions of Word refused to open these old documants at all.
What is needed is a standard document file format that all office software of all brands use, on all platforms. I thought we had achieved that with the Open Document Format, but MS opened the worm can again, doing their level best to sabotage it with their special pleading and their corruption of standards committees.
"roundabouts require NO ENERGY and NO MAINTENANCE and are inherently more efficient than traffic signals. Traffic signals require electricity, waste gasoline, and require human maintenance"
Been to the UK recently? The authorities here have gone traffic light barmy - some new standards I guess.
At many roundabouts they now put traffic lights at every radial point. That's right, to get through a roundabout you may have to pass two, three, four or five sets of lights.
I do a regular journey near Bristol through a close pair of roundabouts, each with traffic lights all round. Even late at night when I am the only car around, every light turns red in my face (I think it is deliberate - to "calm" traffic). It can take me five minutes to get past this feature. I'd be tempted to jump the lights if it were not for the fact they are so bright at night that you cannot see past them.
On one approach road there is a gantry with about 10 lights repeating the same aspect. I think there must be over 100 signal heads all together, each as powerful as a set of three car headlamps I guess. Why TF can't they be turned off outside busy periods? [Clue - they think drivers would be "confused"]
In the UK, larger cars already pay infinitely more road tax than the smallest :-
www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012524
But road tax is not just for surface wear. There is also the cost of signage, drainage, communications, policing, emergency arrangements and so on. And general civil works - the space a small car takes, allowing for normal safety margins, is almost the same as for a large car.
It is not even just about road costs. In the UK at least it is simply a form of taxation bearing little relation to road costs. Motoring lobby groups claim (unsuprisingly) that in fact it is far more.
But about that surface wear. The wear caused by a 2000 lbs car is bugger all. The wear caused by a 4000 lbs car is 16x bugger all. If these were the only vehicles using the road the road life would be dictated by other factors such as natural ground movement. Virtually ALL road wear is caused by trucks. Motoring lobbies are right to claim that car drivers subsidise trucks.
Have you never heard of the concept of finding an optimum?
AC Wrote :
I remember a story from last year (?) about Carmack writing a phone version of Doom or the original Wolfenstien and he made use of the GPL version for a number of fixes and updates to make porting easier.
I believe that Carmack was approached by a phone/PDA maker about porting Doom II, not for Carmack to do the work but just as a courtesy. I gather that Carmack told them that they would be better off porting PRBoom because it had been developed well beyond Doom in terms of debugging and optimisation while keeping the same gameplay.
Carmack then e-mailed the PRBoom developers about this approach, again as a courtesy, and it was nice that in this he complimented the developers of the open source Doom derivatives (which would have been not just the PRBoom guys) on their work.
I know of this because I had a small part in PRBoom development - in play-testing and making suggestions.
Yes, that's OK. Really. Vertically under my house at a suitable depth. See my post above.
Until recently I was the safety assessor for several UK nuclear power stations, and I have always said I would be perfectly happy for their high level waste to be stored vertically under my house at the appropriate depth and with the appropriate enclosure.
However I would want the entrance to be some distance away because I would not like the extra traffic. The nuclear waste traffic itself would be trivial, but I would not like the construction traffic, and the cars of the workers associated with the facility. That is an entirely non-nuclear consideration, same as any other engineering project/supermarket/leisure-centre/theme park.
The safety risk of the waste itself being there is not even on the radar by any normal standards. Your comment about glowing flowers is just fatuous.
There are two types of environmentalists :-
1) Those who want to preserve nature, pandas, wildlife and scenery, and to minimise the effect of man on the world.
2) Those who obsessed with the idea that "The Authorities" are trying to poison them with chemicals and radiation. They are prepared to destroy any amount of nature to reduce the perceived "poison" by one jot.
I am an environmentalist of the first kind, and I am a nuclear power station engineer.
"Environmentalism" started out as the first type, but has degenerated into the second type, becoming a sort of anti-establishment socialism. That would have been about the time that the UK Green Party (or was it the FoE?) abandoned its long term aim of reducing the UK population level.
In the UK there is already an alarming total area given over to wind generators. This is mostly in hilly and (previously) scenic areas, because that is where there are fewer people's back yards. They only exist because of subsidies which act in a peculiar (some would say corrupt) way. Yet their total contribution to the UK power requirement is miniscule. They are ugly, distracting, and industrialise the countryside. To meet the UK requirement even on a windy day would require vastly more area of windfarms, like covering all the National Parks, the Surrey Hills, the Cotswold Hills, the Mendips, The Downs - just as a start. I don't want what little remains of the English countryside to be ruined.
Yet even that would not save one conventional or nuclear power station because there are times in the UK, sometimes several days, when there is no wind anywhere - France at the same time, before you suggest they supply it.
Conventional power stations are also ugly, but give far more power per unit of ugliness however you might measure it.
Campersio wrote :-
.... ..... It starts at about 7.5% of the full operating thermal energy and decays from there. 7.5% of roughly a gigawatt is a tremendous amount of heat energy to cope with.
If the casks are shielded adequately, equip them with heat exchangers and use them to heat government buildings, maybe give the guys recreation areas with hot tubs
It's the decay heat that has been the serious problem
The 7.5% of heat is only immediately after shutdown. It decays rapidly after that. After discharge from the reactor the fuel spends some time (in the UK that means years) in cooling ponds until it is much safer and easier to transport. By then the heat being produced is trivial - with a spent fuel flask (containing several hundred fuel elements) being despatched from a UK power station you cannot even detect any warmth if you put your hand on it. I have done it, I worked in that industry.