Comcast's problem with bittorrent is network congestion
Comcast's problem with bittorrent is that they don't control it or profit from it. Generalized traffic shaping wasn't banned under the previous NN rules. They banned shaping specific traffic based on non-technical reasons such as "Google paid me extra to make Youtube go faster than Dailymotion."
I'd pick this one. Mostly because if the government doesn't regulate it, the 3 or 4 massive service providers will regulate it for them, and you can bet the ISP's "regulations" won't be in your best interest.
But you know, come back and let me know how its working out for you when you're back to getting 512kbps speeds on your $100/mo fiber connection to every site that isn't a Verizon's "partner."
I don't believe self defense is a legitimate use. Not because I don't believe you shouldn't have the right to defend yourself, but because if your attacker is constantly worried that you'll pull a gun, they're going to be damned sure to pull theirs first. Either way, someone ends up shot and possibly killed. And since the attacker is usually the one with the opening advantage, the risk that you get killed in such a scenario becomes higher in a gun-prevalent society. Its the same story you hear about cops over and over again -- they don't want to risk anyone they stop pulling a gun on them so they make sure to shoot first when you make even the slightest misstep at even the most benign traffic stop.
Of course, being the one guy who doesn't have a gun in a gun-prevalent society is a problem also, making the US gun troubles significantly harder to solve -- its a downward spiral of violence that's extremely difficult to climb back up. You buy a gun because you're scared of a robber. So your neighbor buys a gun because he's scared of you. So his boss buys a gun because he's scared the employee will go ham some day. So the other employees buy guns in case the boss goes ham. So all their neighbors buy guns.
And at the end of the day you have dozens or hundreds of gun purchases out there based on one individual's fear of a situation they may or may not ever encounter, which ends up increasing the risk that they will encounter it because that 6-degree neighbor of a guy who's boss hired a guy who's neighbor bought a gun.. that guy way at the end of the chain turns out to be the robber that you're now in a shootout with.
Interesting.. though there's two things I'd bring up: 1) Trump may still be tweeting, but few people would care. We would have all forgotten about Hillary completely by now if Hannity and Trump himself didn't keep bringing her up as an attempted smokescreen over things that actually matter. Likewise if Hillary had won, Trump would have been pretty much irrelevant and gone back to talk shows or lion taming or whatever other scheme he'd probably fail at next.
2) No mention of Russian in that article. By the end of the campaign, Hillary was already calling out Russia in a way that sounded disturbingly like she was one step away from declaring war. Now maybe that was all just to promote the Trump/Russia scandal and she would have shut up after taking the Oval Office, but I'm not entirely sure about that. All-out war would maybe have been unlikely (MAD is pretty much still in effect should tensions flare up again..) but another round of proxy wars were definitely sounding plausible.
Not relevant options. Third parties in the US haven't been relevant for.. well I'm not even sure how long. Certainly not since I've been paying attention and I'm fairly . A two-party system is a pretty bad system to be sure, but the US has a hell of a long way to go before you can consider them anywhere even vaguely close to a multi-party system.
Hell, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., there's only 3 seats in all of Congress currently held by independents and less than a dozen since WW2. And even then, most of them flip-flopped between one of the two major parties and being independent.. not associated with actual third parties just got pissed off at their original party somewhere along the way.
Maybe.. though I'd say closer to dozens than hundreds. Even taking the larger number though, we're talking about petitions that among them have several _million_ signatures. Do you really think there's tens of thousands of people on the other side who wrote personalized letters along the lines of "I don't pay enough for my internet and I'm sick of free speech so please screw me over some more cause.. freedom?!"?
that's not what they asked for?
Because apparently by your logic, and theirs, "what they asked for" amounts to "things that agree with us." Even ignoring the petitions I'd be extremely surprised to find that there were more people in favor of killing the internet than saving it, never mind by any sort of a significant margin. Shockingly, they don't bother releasing those numbers. They just tell you they're going to ignore you if you didn't happen to have the time and knowledge (and apparently a fucking lawyer) to draft a "legal" document stating your opinion.
A public petition _is_ a form of public comment. By your argument we shouldn't hold protests either because the people who care enough to do so will just set up a meeting with those in charge and argue their point directly and succinctly. Or for another analogy, we should can class action lawsuits because if you don't have the time and money to bring your case against a billion dollar corporation, its obviously because you don't care enough right?
Or to put it another way: - Large company with vested interest in making these kind of changes: Usually have direct access to the decision makers, and can afford an army of lawyers to draft up letters for anything they can't deal with in person.
- Everyone who gets screwed: No direct access to decision makers, and definitely not enough money to hire lawyers.
Petitions are there to fill the gap between those two extremes, as there's precious little else playing around in the middle ground. Even your vote is basically just a petition (especially in the US where the electoral college can happily ignore you and pick whatever candidate they want.) Should we also ignore any voters who didn't draft a personal, in-depth level of intent?
The fact that you need 2 or 3 years of university-level math and logic courses just to understand your sentence indicates why those restrictions exist.
Not of a specific company's brand of course.. but the "MBA" brand. There's countless stories about clueless managers out there that picked up their "MBA" from a 3 month online course. Even if the fraction of such people is small, they're the ones that got reported on the most and now anyone who sees "MBA" automatically assumes "idiot who couldn't make it into a real business school" (even though the degree from real business schools is still MBA..)
Not sure what there is to be done about that. My first suggestion would be for "real" schools to try rebranding but that's not especially easy to do and there's nothing stopping the phonies from just doing the same thing again under the new label.
The only other option would be to try and remove those phony schools.. somehow (I'm not sure they're technically illegal which would mean getting rid of them would likely require new laws to be bough^Wwritten right off the top, and that's not cheap or fast.) And then they would have to play the brand management game after the crud is removed in order to try and get everyone to believe that MBA is a meaningful title once again.
Except in the case of NN, they aren't really regulating private industry. They're regulating public access to the internet. Just like they regulate what can be dumped into the public water supply for example. Sure the regulations negatively impact upstream businesses that now have to find other ways to dispose of their waste, but that's not the damned point.
The point is not regulating it leaves the system wide open for abuse by companies that don't give a shit whether you live or die as long as they get paid. Sure the internet isn't as life-and-death as poisoned drinking water, but its still a pretty damned significant public good in the modern world.
Its when they discount the form letters produced by organizations such as the EFF and OpenMedia. Sure, the person sending them didn't actually put a whole lot of time or effort (or apparently the only thing the FCC cares about these days -- money) into it, but unlike the bots each one of those form letters still indicates intent by the person who clicked the submit button.
So ignoring those is basically the equivalent of telling millions of people that their opinion literally doesn't matter. Can you imagine what would happen if 2020 comes around and Trump's introduced a new law that states you can't vote without your own lawyer present? That may not be an exact comparison but its startlingly close to what the FCC is doing here by dismissing such form letters.
I'm not sure that the population is as disinterested and ignorant as you believe. But when your choices are Trump or Clinton.. I'm still not 100% the alternative would have been significantly better. Less chance of a war with North Korea perhaps, but Clinton and many Democrats are just as deep in the pockets of the large corporations. In many cases the same large corporations -- nothing stops them from hedging their bet and just buying off both candidates. Its not like corporations have any political preference or morals -- they care only about profit. (And I don't blame them for that -- its their literal purpose for existing. I blame the corrupt politicians that let corporations essentially do their job for them, to the benefit of corporate profit of course, while they just sit around sucking up the bribes.)
There's plenty of polling that suggests had the Dems run Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton, he might have swung the vote. Of course much of that is after-the-fact polling when Trump's true nature became evident (and thus can't be directly taken as proof that Sanders would have won.)
And now there's reports coming out that within the DNC there was their own level of corruption in play in order to boost Clinton to the top over Sanders.
It just never stops. Its no wonder the Russians were able to produce so much propaganda and have it taken seriously -- it doesn't seem to matter how horrible the stories are, you can't just write them off as there's a good chance they're true when it comes to our public officials these days.
Its about promoting UWP more than promoting Win10 in this case I'm pretty sure. Its also a virtual machine so its not replacing your day to day life like the forced free "upgrade," so there's not much to complain about here. If you aren't interested in UWP development then don't download it.
This is MS' own fault. They've built up a long history of developing new technologies and paradigms.. only to abandon them 2 or 3 years later and leave anyone who spent the time learning the system in the dirt. WPF, Silverlight and XNA are three that I at least was looking at at one point but they were already abandoned practically before I could get the time to learn how to use them. UWP is almost certain to go the same way, especially given that its major draw is seamless(ish) transition from desktop to mobile, and Win10 mobile is somewhere between questionable and dead itself already.
They really need to just decide on a direction and stick to it. Or at least commit to (properly) supporting it for at least 10-20 years. Waffling back and forth between wanting to target web platforms and wanting to target mobile platforms every 2 or 3 years just means that nothing ever gets completed and developers don't have the time to get a solid foothold on any technology before its abandoned and replaced with something else.
Meanwhile competing platforms that have retained focus are still going strong (take objective-C as an example. For all its ugliness, its a pretty good tech to know right now purely due to the fact that Apple has kept strong on using it for iOS development over the years and iOS doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.)
The problem isn't duration, the problem is cost. We did design for decades -- around 4-5 decades for most plant designs of that era. Trouble is 4-5 decades came and went and rather than following the original design (ie: decommissioning the plant,) politicians came along with a "well its expensive and hey, what's the worst that could happen?" mentality.
That is, its human stupidity we're constantly failing to design for. Every time we try, someone comes up with a stupider human (and then we elect them to office..)
We've also known how to deal with a large part of those byproducts for decades -- reprocess them. But we don't do that because the process produces a small amount of weapons-grade material which would add up pretty quickly given how much waste we could theoretically be reprocessing and politicians decided that it better to just store hazardous waste (frequently unsafely) than risk "someone" stealing it and making their own bombs. Though given the fact that everyone who wants to make a bomb seems to have no problem sourcing the uranium, the current president is the most likely "someone" in this case with that whole request to boost the nuclear arsenal by 10x for no purpose other than to justify his ego and love of hyperbole. So maybe the politicians of yesteryear were smarter than I give them credit for!
Well, plenty of countries are to flat, so there is no room inland.
But most aren't. Certainly some like the Netherlands will be worse off than others, but again given all the other expected issues, I don't think an arbitrarily line drawn on a map will be our biggest problem. And again this isn't just going to happen over night. You won't be fine one day and then have to migrate a half billion people the next. It will be people slowly moving away from the coasts over the course of 50-100 years most likely.
I doubt we get world wide starvations or 80% population loss.
Then you're a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am. We've already got something like a billion people that are at or close to starvation level, during a time when we've got plenty of food to go around but are just too greedy to distribute it to people (and countries) that can't afford to pay or are controlled by dictators that prefer to keep their population hungry as a method of control. As our ability to farm food diminishes, that isn't exactly a scenario I see getting better.
Sooner or later other countries will let refugees in, but the transition phases will be war times.
There will almost certainly be war times regardless. We are (assuming our models are even remotely accurate) looking at the loss of a few percent of land mass, which as you pointed out will disproportionately affect some countries more than others, as well as significant extinction of a large part of the biosphere which will likely also not happen in a perfectly equal way. If we lose say, rice but keep potatoes.. you can bet for example that China will become a lot more interested taking control of Mongolia and perhaps even invading into Russia.
Again this is all a long way out. Its of course hard to say much of anything with complete certainty, especially given that fact that you never know if someone might come up with a workable solution tomorrow and just solve the problem anyway.. I'm just extrapolating from what we currently know, and what we predict based on the assumption that human behavior probably isn't going to change much until its too late and we're looking at a "me" problem rather than a "grandkids" problem.
Huh? What do countries have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure you can move from one country to another. And we've got these fancy new things called "boats" if you need to get off your island. Plus as I noted, there's a good chance we'll be losing 80% of the population to starvation anyway so that'll free up a lot of land area.
Nobody's saying it will be easy. I'm just suggesting it will be easier than inventing fusion and then building insanely complex pump systems to save a few coastal cities that may or may not even matter by the time the question comes to bear, depending on how the food supply pans out.
Setting up a VPN host is a lot more challenging than setting up a VPN client, unfortunately. I mean it probably doesn't have to be, but currently it is.
Part of the problem is Microsoft. There's a lot of VPN routers out there that have fairly easy VPN setups.. for IPSec-style VPNs only. And Windows doesn't easily support those out of the box. So you can setup PPTP (or L2TP or similar) client in Windows pretty easily, and you can setup IPSec in routers pretty easily. Neither really play well with the other though making for a pretty large disconnect in usability.
Of course there's always third party software to do all of that, but the ones I've run into have all been horrible in their own way as well. The only people who seem to want to make a user-friendly VPN system are the VPN service providers, but their clients are typically hardcoded specifically for their own services (and there's almost never a matching host-side package available anyway.)
I'm pretty sure there is no real euphemism for "good guy hackers," at least in the mainstream. The hacking community itself of course has whatever labels ("white hat" vs "black hat" or you still occasionally see "hacker" vs "cracker" or whatever.) But the mainstream doesn't really care about a guy who's legitimately hired to do penetration testing and doesn't exploit the weaknesses he finds, so they don't really need a common term for the role.
The Pacific weighs, as a very rough estimate from some Googling, around 7.5x10^17 tons. Your 876000 tons of waste is a bit over one ten billionth of a percent.
I certainly wouldn't want to eat any local fish from that region (dissipation rates certainly aren't that fast!) but the overall effect outside of that region is minuscule.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that. Sure there was a couple of panic buttons pressed when Fukushima happened, especially in Europe, but at the same time China is constructing a huge number of new plants to meet their ever-growing energy needs without further damaging their environment (barring their own meltdown of course, but I'm going to assume that they're using one of the more modern designs that significantly reduce the possibility of that happening.)
At the end of the day we still have a problem that only nuclear can solve: Its still our only source of base load electricity that doesn't pump huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Geothermal's and tidal power are great but extremely location-dependent, and neither solar nor wind are reliable enough to run as base load.
If/when Elon Musk gets his battery tech up to the level where they can store and supply sufficient energy to act as base load when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing, then we might have something to talk about but until then we're stuck with the choice of fossil fuels and their climate change implications, or nuclear and its meltdown potential. And its a lot easier to engineer around the latter if we ever decide the put the political and monetary power towards doing so.
Resolve what issue? TEPCO is perfectly capable of handling the local clean up (whether they want to or not is another question..) Of course there's only so much that can be done no matter what resources you have (for example, trying to relocate the reactor core is probably not a thing that will ever happen.. trying to move it would expose the environment to far more radiation than just leaving it where it is and capping it in concrete like they did at Chernobyl.)
The larger issue of ancient reactors still being in fairly widespread use.. yes there should be an international effort to resolve that. Unfortunately when you're talking on the scale of $20-50bn to replace each of those old reactors combined with the typical human mindset of "it can't happen to me" or "I'm better/smarter/more careful than they were," it becomes less easy to get those things decommissioned.
Slashdot Mirror
Comcast's problem with bittorrent is network congestion
Comcast's problem with bittorrent is that they don't control it or profit from it. Generalized traffic shaping wasn't banned under the previous NN rules. They banned shaping specific traffic based on non-technical reasons such as "Google paid me extra to make Youtube go faster than Dailymotion."
fixing this one issue
I'd pick this one. Mostly because if the government doesn't regulate it, the 3 or 4 massive service providers will regulate it for them, and you can bet the ISP's "regulations" won't be in your best interest.
But you know, come back and let me know how its working out for you when you're back to getting 512kbps speeds on your $100/mo fiber connection to every site that isn't a Verizon's "partner."
Compensating for either an irrational fear or a small penis, primarily.
I don't believe self defense is a legitimate use. Not because I don't believe you shouldn't have the right to defend yourself, but because if your attacker is constantly worried that you'll pull a gun, they're going to be damned sure to pull theirs first. Either way, someone ends up shot and possibly killed. And since the attacker is usually the one with the opening advantage, the risk that you get killed in such a scenario becomes higher in a gun-prevalent society. Its the same story you hear about cops over and over again -- they don't want to risk anyone they stop pulling a gun on them so they make sure to shoot first when you make even the slightest misstep at even the most benign traffic stop.
Of course, being the one guy who doesn't have a gun in a gun-prevalent society is a problem also, making the US gun troubles significantly harder to solve -- its a downward spiral of violence that's extremely difficult to climb back up. You buy a gun because you're scared of a robber. So your neighbor buys a gun because he's scared of you. So his boss buys a gun because he's scared the employee will go ham some day. So the other employees buy guns in case the boss goes ham. So all their neighbors buy guns.
And at the end of the day you have dozens or hundreds of gun purchases out there based on one individual's fear of a situation they may or may not ever encounter, which ends up increasing the risk that they will encounter it because that 6-degree neighbor of a guy who's boss hired a guy who's neighbor bought a gun.. that guy way at the end of the chain turns out to be the robber that you're now in a shootout with.
Interesting.. though there's two things I'd bring up:
1) Trump may still be tweeting, but few people would care. We would have all forgotten about Hillary completely by now if Hannity and Trump himself didn't keep bringing her up as an attempted smokescreen over things that actually matter. Likewise if Hillary had won, Trump would have been pretty much irrelevant and gone back to talk shows or lion taming or whatever other scheme he'd probably fail at next.
2) No mention of Russian in that article. By the end of the campaign, Hillary was already calling out Russia in a way that sounded disturbingly like she was one step away from declaring war. Now maybe that was all just to promote the Trump/Russia scandal and she would have shut up after taking the Oval Office, but I'm not entirely sure about that. All-out war would maybe have been unlikely (MAD is pretty much still in effect should tensions flare up again..) but another round of proxy wars were definitely sounding plausible.
Not relevant options. Third parties in the US haven't been relevant for.. well I'm not even sure how long. Certainly not since I've been paying attention and I'm fairly . A two-party system is a pretty bad system to be sure, but the US has a hell of a long way to go before you can consider them anywhere even vaguely close to a multi-party system.
Hell, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..., there's only 3 seats in all of Congress currently held by independents and less than a dozen since WW2. And even then, most of them flip-flopped between one of the two major parties and being independent.. not associated with actual third parties just got pissed off at their original party somewhere along the way.
Maybe.. though I'd say closer to dozens than hundreds. Even taking the larger number though, we're talking about petitions that among them have several _million_ signatures. Do you really think there's tens of thousands of people on the other side who wrote personalized letters along the lines of "I don't pay enough for my internet and I'm sick of free speech so please screw me over some more cause.. freedom?!"?
that's not what they asked for?
Because apparently by your logic, and theirs, "what they asked for" amounts to "things that agree with us." Even ignoring the petitions I'd be extremely surprised to find that there were more people in favor of killing the internet than saving it, never mind by any sort of a significant margin. Shockingly, they don't bother releasing those numbers. They just tell you they're going to ignore you if you didn't happen to have the time and knowledge (and apparently a fucking lawyer) to draft a "legal" document stating your opinion.
A public petition _is_ a form of public comment. By your argument we shouldn't hold protests either because the people who care enough to do so will just set up a meeting with those in charge and argue their point directly and succinctly. Or for another analogy, we should can class action lawsuits because if you don't have the time and money to bring your case against a billion dollar corporation, its obviously because you don't care enough right?
Or to put it another way:
- Large company with vested interest in making these kind of changes: Usually have direct access to the decision makers, and can afford an army of lawyers to draft up letters for anything they can't deal with in person.
- Everyone who gets screwed: No direct access to decision makers, and definitely not enough money to hire lawyers.
Petitions are there to fill the gap between those two extremes, as there's precious little else playing around in the middle ground. Even your vote is basically just a petition (especially in the US where the electoral college can happily ignore you and pick whatever candidate they want.) Should we also ignore any voters who didn't draft a personal, in-depth level of intent?
The fact that you need 2 or 3 years of university-level math and logic courses just to understand your sentence indicates why those restrictions exist.
Or that your time is more valuable than the aesthetic demands of some random person on the internet?
If its an internal-only document, who cares how it looks? Functionality is the important part.
You'd try giving yourself neurosurgery if you chopped off your toe? That doesn't seem terribly productive..
Not of a specific company's brand of course.. but the "MBA" brand. There's countless stories about clueless managers out there that picked up their "MBA" from a 3 month online course. Even if the fraction of such people is small, they're the ones that got reported on the most and now anyone who sees "MBA" automatically assumes "idiot who couldn't make it into a real business school" (even though the degree from real business schools is still MBA..)
Not sure what there is to be done about that. My first suggestion would be for "real" schools to try rebranding but that's not especially easy to do and there's nothing stopping the phonies from just doing the same thing again under the new label.
The only other option would be to try and remove those phony schools.. somehow (I'm not sure they're technically illegal which would mean getting rid of them would likely require new laws to be bough^Wwritten right off the top, and that's not cheap or fast.) And then they would have to play the brand management game after the crud is removed in order to try and get everyone to believe that MBA is a meaningful title once again.
Except in the case of NN, they aren't really regulating private industry. They're regulating public access to the internet. Just like they regulate what can be dumped into the public water supply for example. Sure the regulations negatively impact upstream businesses that now have to find other ways to dispose of their waste, but that's not the damned point.
The point is not regulating it leaves the system wide open for abuse by companies that don't give a shit whether you live or die as long as they get paid. Sure the internet isn't as life-and-death as poisoned drinking water, but its still a pretty damned significant public good in the modern world.
Discounting the spambots is not really an issue.
Its when they discount the form letters produced by organizations such as the EFF and OpenMedia. Sure, the person sending them didn't actually put a whole lot of time or effort (or apparently the only thing the FCC cares about these days -- money) into it, but unlike the bots each one of those form letters still indicates intent by the person who clicked the submit button.
So ignoring those is basically the equivalent of telling millions of people that their opinion literally doesn't matter. Can you imagine what would happen if 2020 comes around and Trump's introduced a new law that states you can't vote without your own lawyer present? That may not be an exact comparison but its startlingly close to what the FCC is doing here by dismissing such form letters.
I'm not sure that the population is as disinterested and ignorant as you believe. But when your choices are Trump or Clinton.. I'm still not 100% the alternative would have been significantly better. Less chance of a war with North Korea perhaps, but Clinton and many Democrats are just as deep in the pockets of the large corporations. In many cases the same large corporations -- nothing stops them from hedging their bet and just buying off both candidates. Its not like corporations have any political preference or morals -- they care only about profit. (And I don't blame them for that -- its their literal purpose for existing. I blame the corrupt politicians that let corporations essentially do their job for them, to the benefit of corporate profit of course, while they just sit around sucking up the bribes.)
There's plenty of polling that suggests had the Dems run Bernie Sanders instead of Clinton, he might have swung the vote. Of course much of that is after-the-fact polling when Trump's true nature became evident (and thus can't be directly taken as proof that Sanders would have won.)
And now there's reports coming out that within the DNC there was their own level of corruption in play in order to boost Clinton to the top over Sanders.
It just never stops. Its no wonder the Russians were able to produce so much propaganda and have it taken seriously -- it doesn't seem to matter how horrible the stories are, you can't just write them off as there's a good chance they're true when it comes to our public officials these days.
Its about promoting UWP more than promoting Win10 in this case I'm pretty sure. Its also a virtual machine so its not replacing your day to day life like the forced free "upgrade," so there's not much to complain about here. If you aren't interested in UWP development then don't download it.
This is MS' own fault. They've built up a long history of developing new technologies and paradigms.. only to abandon them 2 or 3 years later and leave anyone who spent the time learning the system in the dirt. WPF, Silverlight and XNA are three that I at least was looking at at one point but they were already abandoned practically before I could get the time to learn how to use them. UWP is almost certain to go the same way, especially given that its major draw is seamless(ish) transition from desktop to mobile, and Win10 mobile is somewhere between questionable and dead itself already.
They really need to just decide on a direction and stick to it. Or at least commit to (properly) supporting it for at least 10-20 years. Waffling back and forth between wanting to target web platforms and wanting to target mobile platforms every 2 or 3 years just means that nothing ever gets completed and developers don't have the time to get a solid foothold on any technology before its abandoned and replaced with something else.
Meanwhile competing platforms that have retained focus are still going strong (take objective-C as an example. For all its ugliness, its a pretty good tech to know right now purely due to the fact that Apple has kept strong on using it for iOS development over the years and iOS doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.)
The problem isn't duration, the problem is cost. We did design for decades -- around 4-5 decades for most plant designs of that era. Trouble is 4-5 decades came and went and rather than following the original design (ie: decommissioning the plant,) politicians came along with a "well its expensive and hey, what's the worst that could happen?" mentality.
That is, its human stupidity we're constantly failing to design for. Every time we try, someone comes up with a stupider human (and then we elect them to office..)
We've also known how to deal with a large part of those byproducts for decades -- reprocess them. But we don't do that because the process produces a small amount of weapons-grade material which would add up pretty quickly given how much waste we could theoretically be reprocessing and politicians decided that it better to just store hazardous waste (frequently unsafely) than risk "someone" stealing it and making their own bombs. Though given the fact that everyone who wants to make a bomb seems to have no problem sourcing the uranium, the current president is the most likely "someone" in this case with that whole request to boost the nuclear arsenal by 10x for no purpose other than to justify his ego and love of hyperbole. So maybe the politicians of yesteryear were smarter than I give them credit for!
Well, plenty of countries are to flat, so there is no room inland.
But most aren't. Certainly some like the Netherlands will be worse off than others, but again given all the other expected issues, I don't think an arbitrarily line drawn on a map will be our biggest problem. And again this isn't just going to happen over night. You won't be fine one day and then have to migrate a half billion people the next. It will be people slowly moving away from the coasts over the course of 50-100 years most likely.
I doubt we get world wide starvations or 80% population loss.
Then you're a hell of a lot more optimistic than I am. We've already got something like a billion people that are at or close to starvation level, during a time when we've got plenty of food to go around but are just too greedy to distribute it to people (and countries) that can't afford to pay or are controlled by dictators that prefer to keep their population hungry as a method of control. As our ability to farm food diminishes, that isn't exactly a scenario I see getting better.
Sooner or later other countries will let refugees in, but the transition phases will be war times.
There will almost certainly be war times regardless. We are (assuming our models are even remotely accurate) looking at the loss of a few percent of land mass, which as you pointed out will disproportionately affect some countries more than others, as well as significant extinction of a large part of the biosphere which will likely also not happen in a perfectly equal way. If we lose say, rice but keep potatoes.. you can bet for example that China will become a lot more interested taking control of Mongolia and perhaps even invading into Russia.
Again this is all a long way out. Its of course hard to say much of anything with complete certainty, especially given that fact that you never know if someone might come up with a workable solution tomorrow and just solve the problem anyway.. I'm just extrapolating from what we currently know, and what we predict based on the assumption that human behavior probably isn't going to change much until its too late and we're looking at a "me" problem rather than a "grandkids" problem.
Huh? What do countries have to do with anything? I'm pretty sure you can move from one country to another. And we've got these fancy new things called "boats" if you need to get off your island. Plus as I noted, there's a good chance we'll be losing 80% of the population to starvation anyway so that'll free up a lot of land area.
Nobody's saying it will be easy. I'm just suggesting it will be easier than inventing fusion and then building insanely complex pump systems to save a few coastal cities that may or may not even matter by the time the question comes to bear, depending on how the food supply pans out.
Setting up a VPN host is a lot more challenging than setting up a VPN client, unfortunately. I mean it probably doesn't have to be, but currently it is.
Part of the problem is Microsoft. There's a lot of VPN routers out there that have fairly easy VPN setups.. for IPSec-style VPNs only. And Windows doesn't easily support those out of the box. So you can setup PPTP (or L2TP or similar) client in Windows pretty easily, and you can setup IPSec in routers pretty easily. Neither really play well with the other though making for a pretty large disconnect in usability.
Of course there's always third party software to do all of that, but the ones I've run into have all been horrible in their own way as well. The only people who seem to want to make a user-friendly VPN system are the VPN service providers, but their clients are typically hardcoded specifically for their own services (and there's almost never a matching host-side package available anyway.)
I'm pretty sure there is no real euphemism for "good guy hackers," at least in the mainstream. The hacking community itself of course has whatever labels ("white hat" vs "black hat" or you still occasionally see "hacker" vs "cracker" or whatever.) But the mainstream doesn't really care about a guy who's legitimately hired to do penetration testing and doesn't exploit the weaknesses he finds, so they don't really need a common term for the role.
The Pacific weighs, as a very rough estimate from some Googling, around 7.5x10^17 tons. Your 876000 tons of waste is a bit over one ten billionth of a percent.
I certainly wouldn't want to eat any local fish from that region (dissipation rates certainly aren't that fast!) but the overall effect outside of that region is minuscule.
I'm going to go ahead and disagree with you on that. Sure there was a couple of panic buttons pressed when Fukushima happened, especially in Europe, but at the same time China is constructing a huge number of new plants to meet their ever-growing energy needs without further damaging their environment (barring their own meltdown of course, but I'm going to assume that they're using one of the more modern designs that significantly reduce the possibility of that happening.)
At the end of the day we still have a problem that only nuclear can solve: Its still our only source of base load electricity that doesn't pump huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Geothermal's and tidal power are great but extremely location-dependent, and neither solar nor wind are reliable enough to run as base load.
If/when Elon Musk gets his battery tech up to the level where they can store and supply sufficient energy to act as base load when the sun is down and the wind isn't blowing, then we might have something to talk about but until then we're stuck with the choice of fossil fuels and their climate change implications, or nuclear and its meltdown potential. And its a lot easier to engineer around the latter if we ever decide the put the political and monetary power towards doing so.
Resolve what issue? TEPCO is perfectly capable of handling the local clean up (whether they want to or not is another question..) Of course there's only so much that can be done no matter what resources you have (for example, trying to relocate the reactor core is probably not a thing that will ever happen.. trying to move it would expose the environment to far more radiation than just leaving it where it is and capping it in concrete like they did at Chernobyl.)
The larger issue of ancient reactors still being in fairly widespread use.. yes there should be an international effort to resolve that. Unfortunately when you're talking on the scale of $20-50bn to replace each of those old reactors combined with the typical human mindset of "it can't happen to me" or "I'm better/smarter/more careful than they were," it becomes less easy to get those things decommissioned.