The Uniform Trade Secrets Act makes trade secret "theft" a civil matter between the secret holder and the leaker. Apparently something went through in 1996 making it a Federal crime. The economy went fine for hundreds of years without the threat of jail for leakers -- why change? Especially since trade secret law can be and has been abused.
On another subject, there's a gaping gap in the story as we've seen it. How did the FBI know about his email to the Israeli consulate? Why did it take years before they followed up?
Forbes, at least in its glory days, didn't shrink from being opinionated, so it wasn't objectivity when they gushed over her. Forbes even gave her credit for financial results that happened after she left.
> It'll also give us time to weed out alternate explanations for the perceived global warming such as changes in solar activity, orbital configuration, or other non-anthropogenic possibilities.
What's an example of one that's not already been weeded out?
Every volcano on earth put together releases 1% as much CO2 per year as humans do.
I prefer to believe that you were quoting a source you trusted, rather than deliberately trying to cloud the issue. Now you know something important about that source's trustworthiness. Reason from there to an assessment of that source's motives.
>The only way to get THAT much energy out of 8 grams of thorium is to use it as fission fuel in a bona fide nuclear reactor. But this is clearly not a fission reactor
For several reasons, of which the most glaring is that thorium won't support a chain reaction by itself. Thorium reactors work by breeding fissile uranium 233 and having a non-thorium neutron source.
If it could, 8 grams would be several orders of magnitude from a critical mass.
A gamma ray laser could photodisintegrate a nucleus in principle, but I'd have to see numbers before I believed you could get net energy gain even if you had a gamma ray laser.
Those ideas have to get in front of users. Google Labs used to provide a way to do that, without the hurdle of a product launch. I worry about having it shut down.
Hanford's near a river. There was significant local opposition to storing high-level waste there. Site management has a large hurdle to overcome in earning public confidence.
>plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.
It has to be absorbed by the body first. Wikipedia has a reference that claims that only.04% of ingested plutonium oxide stays in the organism.
Multiply the LD50 for injected plutonium by 2500 to get an LD50 from water contamination, and you get some non-alarming numbers for toxicity. The cliche is to compare it to caffeine.
Give the communities the mineral rights to the spent fuel.
It's more than a source of nuclear fuel (and I don't necessarily mean plutonium: only a small fraction of the U-235 gets used up in a thermal reactor, and the other transuranics are burnable in a fast-flux reactor). There are billions of dollars worth of rhodium, which is in a stable isotope. Rhodium is more valuable than gold even at today's gold price. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=46164&mesg_id=46304
We don't do that with chemical poisons like mercury and arsenic that will be toxic forever. Why have a double standard for the hazardous materials from nuclear operations?
Abuse.net seems to be trying to move away from it, but they still offer a single-point reporting service where you can forward spam from $DOMAIN to $DOMAIN@abuse.net and they'll forward to whatever the best contact is that they know of at $DOMAIN. "Once you've registered, when you send a message to domain-name@abuse.net, where domain-name is the name of the domain that was the source of junk e-mail or another abusive practice, the system here automatically re-mails your message to the best reporting address(es) we know for that domain. For example, if you wanted to send a message to example.com you'd send it to example.com@abuse.net. "
Slashdot Mirror
The Uniform Trade Secrets Act makes trade secret "theft" a civil matter between the secret holder and the leaker. Apparently something went through in 1996 making it a Federal crime. The economy went fine for hundreds of years without the threat of jail for leakers -- why change? Especially since trade secret law can be and has been abused.
On another subject, there's a gaping gap in the story as we've seen it. How did the FBI know about his email to the Israeli consulate? Why did it take years before they followed up?
Climate is the signal. Weather is the noise.
Forbes, at least in its glory days, didn't shrink from being opinionated, so it wasn't objectivity when they gushed over her. Forbes even gave her credit for financial results that happened after she left.
Putting a bag of salt water in the near field of an antenna would be expected to increase losses and detune it.
Why not pick your doctor based on referrals, compatibility, or maybe even outcomes?
It costs Apple extra money to prepare products for the Australian market by turning everything umop apisdn.
Canning Circus police station, Nottingham. Firebombing of a hard target.
Multiple attacks on police in riot gear.
> you will need a vehicle 3/4 of a mile in diameter to be able to develop artificial gravity without inducing motion sickness
Why not use a long tether and a counterweight?
Ice melting is a positive feedback mechanism. Less ice means less reflection, which means more heat gain, which means less ice.
Underestimating ice melting would mean underestimating temperature increases.
> It'll also give us time to weed out alternate explanations for the perceived global warming such as changes in solar activity, orbital configuration, or other non-anthropogenic possibilities.
What's an example of one that's not already been weeded out?
Solar output has been measured by satellite since 1978, http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ACRIMIII/Images/solar_irradiance_right.gif. Orbit cycles have been understood for a long time.
> I might add to that a natural volcano eruption produces so much CO2, that our silly civilization cannot produce in a half a century.
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432
Every volcano on earth put together releases 1% as much CO2 per year as humans do.
I prefer to believe that you were quoting a source you trusted, rather than deliberately trying to cloud the issue. Now you know something important about that source's trustworthiness. Reason from there to an assessment of that source's motives.
When Poland's workers organized to protest the Communist government, one of the government's countermeasures was to disable the phone system.
My mother remarked at the time how unimaginable it was to live in a place where the phones could stop working because the government wanted them to.
It's rock you'd be sifting through anyway: thorium is a byproduct of rare earth production.
>The only way to get THAT much energy out of 8 grams of thorium is to use it as fission fuel in a bona fide nuclear reactor. But this is clearly not a fission reactor
For several reasons, of which the most glaring is that thorium won't support a chain reaction by itself. Thorium reactors work by breeding fissile uranium 233 and having a non-thorium neutron source.
If it could, 8 grams would be several orders of magnitude from a critical mass.
A gamma ray laser could photodisintegrate a nucleus in principle, but I'd have to see numbers before I believed you could get net energy gain even if you had a gamma ray laser.
Granite is radioactive. You are radioactive. Bananas are radioactive.
A thorium atom takes, on average, 14 billion years to produce an alpha particle which can be stopped by a piece of aluminum foil.
Worry about the chemical toxicity instead: it's a severe irritant and flammable.
The article doesn't even make sense physically.
In some of the US slave states, it actually was illegal to teach a slave to read and write.
Those ideas have to get in front of users. Google Labs used to provide a way to do that, without the hurdle of a product launch. I worry about having it shut down.
Hanford's near a river. There was significant local opposition to storing high-level waste there. Site management has a large hurdle to overcome in earning public confidence.
>plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to mankind.
It has to be absorbed by the body first. Wikipedia has a reference that claims that only .04% of ingested plutonium oxide stays in the organism.
Multiply the LD50 for injected plutonium by 2500 to get an LD50 from water contamination, and you get some non-alarming numbers for toxicity. The cliche is to compare it to caffeine.
http://russp.org/BLC-3.html
Give the communities the mineral rights to the spent fuel.
It's more than a source of nuclear fuel (and I don't necessarily mean plutonium: only a small fraction of the U-235 gets used up in a thermal reactor, and the other transuranics are burnable in a fast-flux reactor). There are billions of dollars worth of rhodium, which is in a stable isotope. Rhodium is more valuable than gold even at today's gold price.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=46164&mesg_id=46304
We don't do that with chemical poisons like mercury and arsenic that will be toxic forever. Why have a double standard for the hazardous materials from nuclear operations?
Abuse.net seems to be trying to move away from it, but they still offer a single-point reporting service where you can forward spam from $DOMAIN to $DOMAIN@abuse.net and they'll forward to whatever the best contact is that they know of at $DOMAIN.
"Once you've registered, when you send a message to domain-name@abuse.net, where domain-name is the name of the domain that was the source of junk e-mail or another abusive practice, the system here automatically re-mails your message to the best reporting address(es) we know for that domain. For example, if you wanted to send a message to example.com you'd send it to example.com@abuse.net. "
Troll?
Here's a citation for my statement that there's a wide range of values believed possible for CO2 sensitivity:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-3.html
Researching someone before trusting them is inarguable basic critical thinking,
âoeit would take only one research study to cause the global warming house of cards to collapse.â
This statement, by Dr. Spencer, is evidence that his interpretation of data is subject to bias.
As a heuristic, then, this implies that it's a good idea to get analyses from other people about what his observational data means.