They're not "slowly turning" at all. With their walled garden and draconian control over user habits and experience, they're a leading example of what a government might aspire to.
By "disclosing information to another party" I meant specifically the contents of a conversation or correspondance. The logical implication of what you're saying is that any such conversation or correspondance falls automatically under the DPA which is obviously hogwash.
I'm interested to hear how this applies. I know the DPA stipulates protection for personal identifiable *data* such as email address and phone number, but I don't understand how it prevents a party from disclosing information to another party.
For example, if I fuck my girlfriend's best friend and tell her by email, can I sue her for telling everybody? Don't be ridiculous. Utter bullshit.
This may be a basic question, but is it even legal or enforcable for me to assert that my previous emails to you are confidential and undisclosable, despite the fact that you've read them already and never agreed to any terms or conditions while doing so?
Seriously, the fucking cheek of these bastards. That can't be right. NDAs and confidentiality agreements are, to my mind, an OPT IN process. You can't be forced to abide by terms you never agreed to, surely! Apart from a court gagging order (which sounds more fun that it is, I'm sure).
-- For those who can't reach the story, I'm talking about the CEO's insistence that the chap in question isn't allowed to publish excerpts from his previous email correspondance with the guy in charge of the timetable data. Despite the fact that the disclaimer says *specifically* that only the intended recipient can read or *disclose* the email contents, which again is another "WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA" move from these fuckbags.
Except from someone else's research on the matter (specific to the much fanboyed LFTR thorium reactor design:
LFTRs would produce far less waste along their entire process chain, from ore extraction to nuclear waste storage, than LWRs. A LFTR power plant would generate 4,000 times less mining waste (solids and liquids of similar character to those in uranium mining), and would generate 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste than an LWR. Additionally, because LFTR burns all of its nuclear fuel, the majority of the waste products (83%) are safe within 10 years, and the remaining waste products (17%) need to be stored in geological isolation for only about 300 years (compared to 10,000 years or more for LWR waste). Additionally, the LFTR can be used to "burn down" waste from an LWR (nearly the entirety of the United States' nuclear waste stockpile) into the standard waste products of an LFTR, avoiding the need for long-term storage of nuclear waste.
Thanks for the corrections, although the assertion I was rebutting was the perceived upcoming 'shortage' of nuclear fuel, not the immediate viability of technologies.
It seems to me the problems they having with fast reactors is building them at the typical multi-GW scale. We have had many working smaller-scale prototypes of many flavours fast reactors and those based on the thorium cycle. Wasn't there a/. story on that recently?
Dude, you need a reality adjustment. It is estimated that there is enough surface-mineable thorium alone to power us for hundreds of thousands of years to come. In fact, just the thorium discarded from our surface-mined coal could power us for thousands of years.
Then when have fast breeder reactor designs which burn uranium at efficiencies orders of magnitude better than our current production reactors. These designs even allow you to burn up almost all of the nuclear waste from slow breeder reactors.
won't somebody please write a plugin that strips all that horrific fucking waste of space we all know as "Urchin" from all URLs? I want something thorough. It must strip all that "&utm_source=xxx&utm_campaign=xxx" etc off every link rendered in the html, and off every URL pasted into the browser, and everything copied into the clipboard. It's not that I fundamentally hate being tracked (well, I do, but...), it's just that when you have a URL consisting of 200 chars, 150 of which are Urchin tracking bullshit, you know YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. The necessary information could easily be stored in a single GUID, with a bit of forethought.
In case you're wondering, yes, Urchin and I were an item until she ate my last Rolo, punched my mom and ran away with my siamese twin sibling.
Hear hear. I get my news, discussions and opinion pieces from a wide variety of sources and leanings and the Grauniad does seem to be the most level headed of the lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you post as "magnoliafan" on moviepoopshoot.com?
Sue that information right off the Internet! It'll work, we promise.
They're not "slowly turning" at all. With their walled garden and draconian control over user habits and experience, they're a leading example of what a government might aspire to.
Same here, about half a page further than I thought. I guess we must not be new here :)
I know I'm really uninformed on this shit, but what you've said is the impression I get too.
By "disclosing information to another party" I meant specifically the contents of a conversation or correspondance. The logical implication of what you're saying is that any such conversation or correspondance falls automatically under the DPA which is obviously hogwash.
I'm interested to hear how this applies. I know the DPA stipulates protection for personal identifiable *data* such as email address and phone number, but I don't understand how it prevents a party from disclosing information to another party.
For example, if I fuck my girlfriend's best friend and tell her by email, can I sue her for telling everybody? Don't be ridiculous. Utter bullshit.
This may be a basic question, but is it even legal or enforcable for me to assert that my previous emails to you are confidential and undisclosable, despite the fact that you've read them already and never agreed to any terms or conditions while doing so?
Seriously, the fucking cheek of these bastards. That can't be right. NDAs and confidentiality agreements are, to my mind, an OPT IN process. You can't be forced to abide by terms you never agreed to, surely! Apart from a court gagging order (which sounds more fun that it is, I'm sure).
-- For those who can't reach the story, I'm talking about the CEO's insistence that the chap in question isn't allowed to publish excerpts from his previous email correspondance with the guy in charge of the timetable data. Despite the fact that the disclaimer says *specifically* that only the intended recipient can read or *disclose* the email contents, which again is another "WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN AT WAR WITH EURASIA" move from these fuckbags.
a) who cares? The JVM is fucking exploit-ridden anyway.
b) they're polishing a turd
get ready for one hell of a server crash
Except from someone else's research on the matter (specific to the much fanboyed LFTR thorium reactor design:
Thanks for the corrections, although the assertion I was rebutting was the perceived upcoming 'shortage' of nuclear fuel, not the immediate viability of technologies.
It seems to me the problems they having with fast reactors is building them at the typical multi-GW scale. We have had many working smaller-scale prototypes of many flavours fast reactors and those based on the thorium cycle. Wasn't there a /. story on that recently?
Hear hear.
Dude, you need a reality adjustment. It is estimated that there is enough surface-mineable thorium alone to power us for hundreds of thousands of years to come. In fact, just the thorium discarded from our surface-mined coal could power us for thousands of years.
Then when have fast breeder reactor designs which burn uranium at efficiencies orders of magnitude better than our current production reactors. These designs even allow you to burn up almost all of the nuclear waste from slow breeder reactors.
Aha, I figured there would be a greasemonkey script for it
won't somebody please write a plugin that strips all that horrific fucking waste of space we all know as "Urchin" from all URLs? I want something thorough. It must strip all that "&utm_source=xxx&utm_campaign=xxx" etc off every link rendered in the html, and off every URL pasted into the browser, and everything copied into the clipboard. It's not that I fundamentally hate being tracked (well, I do, but...), it's just that when you have a URL consisting of 200 chars, 150 of which are Urchin tracking bullshit, you know YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG. The necessary information could easily be stored in a single GUID, with a bit of forethought.
In case you're wondering, yes, Urchin and I were an item until she ate my last Rolo, punched my mom and ran away with my siamese twin sibling.
Ya think?
Hear hear. I get my news, discussions and opinion pieces from a wide variety of sources and leanings and the Grauniad does seem to be the most level headed of the lot.
People generally prefer talking bullshit and gawking at each other's pointless photos over finding and learning useful information on the Internet.
Either that or people stopped googling the website name they wanted, and learned either how to use the address bar or the bookmarks :)
Here here.
Where!?
Their!
Wear wear!
... with Google Buzz?
Couldn't help myself, sorry.
Hahaha. Right.
Well fucking said.
Its the kind of bad grammer we sea alot of on slashdot. Blame there editers.
Hah, I just GNU that would come up