You are correct that she has no say as the classifying and declassifying information not owned by State. (Which generally means produced by State, but not exactly multiple departments frequently produce documents or other artifacts containing the same information.
You're talking to people who know a little bit about the topic, so making shit up only makes you look foolish. There's a well-defined process for declassifying information, involving multiple people. Emailing it to your buddies is not how that process works.
Navy machinist Kristian Saucier took some selfies aboard ship and is in prison for it right now. Saucier didn't send the pictures to anyone. Having the classified information (pictures of the interior of the ship) on a non-secure device is a crime, and Saucier is in prison for that crime.
Clinton instructed her staff on how to send classified information "remove markings and send insecure". She intentionally instructed staff to do what Saucier did (have info on an unsecured device) AND more- also Clinton had it sent over the public internet.
It wouldn't *have* to be a new API that breaks compatibility. The implementation could just be changed to have less precision, round to nearest 10%. That would be less likely to break any current legitimate use of the API, such as on Firefox OS.
At times I may want to punch someone in the nose. I can choose not to. I choose not to be controlled by every impulse, because I don't care for the consequences and because it is wrong to punch people in the nose. I wanted to fuck my girlfriend, I chose to wait and make love to my wife instead.
My daughter was around 18 months old when she learned that it was "viable" for her to do something other than exactly what she felt like doing at that moment.
I've been running web-centric business since the mid-1990s, so I've have opportunities to make plenty of mistakes, and do a few things right. I'd be glad to share my lessons-learned if you want to chat some time, tell me about what you're doing.
> it's the sort of gag that affords the company opportunity to showcase its perceived advantages over Cupertino
To me it's the exact opposite of being perceived as better, it's "people who have tried Mac don't want to use our products, we have to PAY them to use ours." Part of Apple's marketing of iOS devices is that they are unapologeticly more expensive, they are positioned as "premium" products. Microsoft is going the exact opposite way.
Many years ago when I launched my first hosting company I didn't want to deal with "bad" customers, people who don't pay, send spam, attract DMCA notices, etc. I wanted to offer a professional service for professional webmasters, so I made it invitation-only. You could host with us only if we knew you or you had good references from people we know. As it turned out, NO potential customer EVER turned down an invitation to host their site with us; the exclusivity turned out to be a great marketing bit. It wasn't false exclusivity, BTW, since we weren't spending 80% of our time dealing with BS from a few PITA customers, we were able to provide excellent service. Anyway this thing from Microsoft is the opposite. "Nobody who has tried Mac wants our product, we have to pay people to take it" is what I see.
For many years I spent all my time in "terminal windows open to boxes running Linux". When work gave me a Mac OSX machine, I was surprised how much it was like Linux. The GUI is different, of course, but open a terminal and you have certified Unix. You can./configure && make && make install whatever you might run on Linux. If your place of employment offers the choice on Windows or Mac, you might like the Mac - even though it's from the same company that makes iOS iTrinkets.
From what I read of the Illinois law, driving people to the polling place is probably okay. Offering them prizes as inducement to get on the bus is a felony. Right or wrong, it's a felony.
Certainly we can expect that some (all?) of the * Party operatives offering people stuff to go vote will also make it clear who you're expected to vote for, who is giving you this stuff.
85% of devices sold last year ran Linux. The desktop is now in your lap and in your pocket, running Linux. Windows is more popular on systems with IDE drives, PalmOS is most popular on Treo systems, Linux is most popular on supercomputers, Windows is most popular on systems that weigh between 8 and 20 pounds. Linux is most popular.
Next story / complaint: Linux isn't popular on systems installed by major corporations headquartered in Redmond. Um, okay, but anyway 85% of all new devices run Linux, period.
Agreed, clear quotas that the customer understands can be fine. They pay to use X GBs (which is y% of the capacity) and the cost reflects that. Something similar is used when professionals buy bandwidth for an enterprise. The buyer and seller both understand the terms, so it's good.
Rather than throttling down, it typically marks excess traffic as "discard eligible" - you may use more than your Committed Information Rate, but only if the capacity is available after customers who haven't hit their CIR get their packets through. In other words, traffic in excess of your CIR must yield to traffic from someone who hasn't hit their CIR.
Note that this is one way of *implementing* "the average customer must pay their fair share of the cost in proportion to the traffic they generate". It's not "or", it's "and". Customers must pay their share of the cost, and quotas are one way of doing that. If the average customer pays less than their share of the cost, the provider bleeds money and goes out of business.
What's challenging, besides educating customers so they can make informed decisions, is that links don't instantly become used at full capacity when they are installed. Suppose a 1Gbps link can service 400 customers. The ISP has 402 customers. They NEED 1.02 links, but you can't install 2% of a link. You have to install one link (which isn't quite enough) or two links (which costs twice as much). On average, the last link in any discrete required route is only half utilized.
Valuable consideration: consideration that either confers a pecuniarly measurable benefit on one party or imposes a pecunarily measurable detriment on the other Contrast: Nominal consideration
Held - disposable plastic and paper cups are not valuable consideration.
Definition of "pecuniarly": in terms of money
I would predict that most any court would find that "I voted" stickers are nominal consideration, not valuable consideration - there is no benefit to the recipient which can be measured in monetary terms. On the other hand, if someone gives out $20 Walmart gift cards, the benefit is clearly measurable in monetary terms.
You misstate the holdings in Citizens United. The holdings are that: a) You have the first amendment right to create and distribute pamphlets, films, or other speech materials advocating a political view. b) Creating and distributing pamphlets, films, or other speech materials typically costs money. c) Therefore, you have the first amendment right to spend your money creating and distributing pamphlets, films, or other speech materials.
The holding is that in order to exercise your free speech rights in a meaningful way, you might reasonably need to spend some money, and you have the right to do that.
Imagine if the holding were reversed: The first amendment does NOT extend to anything you spent any money on - you may write letters, but not if you bought the paper or the pen you write with. You may talk, but you may not buy microphone. You may author a web site, but you may not pay $10/year to have it hosted where it's actually on the internet.
There is no holding that "money is speech". It is legal to hand Secretary Clinton a letter asking her to grant a contract to your company, it is illegal to hand Secretary Clinton money for granting a contract to your company. On the other hand, it IS legal to buy paper on which you write a letter to Clinton.
I save a couple of the asshole's numbers, then when I get another call I click "Add Call" and forward them to another telemarketer / scammer. Then I just listen while the Viagra guy pitches the alarm system guy and vice versa.
You're a reasonably intelligent guy, Marc, so I imagine if you read the statute again you'll notice it *is* vote buying:
Sec. 29-1. Vote buying. Any person who knowingly gives, lends or promises to give or lend any money or other valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person to vote OR to register to vote OR to influence such other person to vote for or against any candidate or public question to be voted upon at any election shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Yes, if you give people stuff to come to the polling place (in other words, to vote) that is a felony in Illinois. Note I didn't write the law, I just read it (and copy/pasted it for you to read).
I mentioned that "voter party busses" giving stuff to people while driving them to the polling station is standard operating procedure for Democrats. Some people with stunted intellectual development will see that and think I said "Republicans are perfect". Obviously that's a complete non-sequitur, but some people will think that.
For the record, the Republican party has other issues. This year, they've managed to nominate, against the wishes of party leaders, a reality show clown.
> If someone even offers to buy your vote they would face tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus jail time. It's not worth the risk, someone will blab.
You say it's not worth the risk, but the Democrat party is doing so openly and publicly in Pike County, Illinios and elsewhere. Here's the Illinois vote buying statute:
Sec. 29-1. Vote buying. Any person who knowingly gives, lends or promises to give or lend any money or other valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person to vote or to register to vote or to influence such other person to vote for or against any candidate or public question to be voted upon at any election shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Note it's a felony to give someone any "valuable consideration" (prize) to vote- regardless of whether they prove WHO they voted for. It's illegal to send a mailer out to all registered Democrats and people likely to vote Democrat saying "come vote and we'll give you _____." Yet that's what the Democrats did, openly. They set up an office next door to the polling place, 89 feet away to be exact, and sent mailers to likely Democrat voters promising prizes if they came out. It's standard practice for the Democrat party in many areas to have "voter party buses", which give out free food and prizes while driving people to the polling place. Yes, it's a felony, but that doesn't stop people from doing it.
Suppose a bunch of customers download 1GB videos and then watch them. That's 8 Gb, so it'll take a little over 8 seconds to download. Then an hour to watch it. So they're actually using the network 0.2% of time. A 10 Gbps uplink could support roughly 250-500 customers doing that.
If 400 customers share a 10 Gbps uplink to the backbone, they each need to pay about 0.25% of the cost*. On the other hand, if he were hosting xvides.com over that connection, he'd be using it 10% of the time (averaging 1 Gbps). The 10 Gbps could only handle about 8 such customers, so each would need to pay 12.5% of the cost.
* Assumes each 10Gbps AVERAGES 400 subscribers, not if it maxes out at 400 subscribers. Because lines have fixed capacities, the average uplink is only partially utilized and therefore cost is divided amongst the typical number of customers, not the max.
The last two places I worked, Windows and Mac were the allowed, supported desktop operating systems. Everyone in my group would much prefer Unix over Windows, and Mac is certified Unix.
My employer before these last two supported one desktop environment, CentOS. It was a security company with a lot pf access to customer networks, so Windows wasn't allowed on the company network.
NN is about treating all traffic within a category the same way. So you can prioritize video over others, so long as you don't further discriminate between Vimeo and a hacked webcam doing DDOS and a news broadcast.
NN is about treating all traffic within a category the same way. So you can prioritize email over others, so long as you don't further discriminate between a Nigerian prince and phishing and a real fraud alert from Paypal.
See the problem? The *concept* of network neutrality is fine. It's all warm and fuzzy. Writing a *law* to implement NN without totally screwing things up is very, very difficult.
Further, you don't, as a competent service provider network engineer, "prioritize video over". You route non-live (buffered) video over a link that has higher latency, bandwidth and jitter, while you route live video over one with medium bandwidth, medium latency, and low jitter, and voip over one with the lowest possible jitter, low latency, and low bandwidth. For all of those classes, you discard any packets. For most other classes of traffic you buffer packets rather than discard them.
It is. Millions of devices just sitting out there with username "admin", password "admin". My 9-5 job is checking the security of companies that should have reasonable security - banks, large retailers, etc. They very often don't change default passwords, so why would you expect typical home users to?
> If... trillions of dollars in transactions hang on a perilously delicate thread.
Yep. Just looking at the Slashdot headlines alone you'll see billions of dollars of losses/damage every year.
> If it's true that "script kiddies"...
Another commenter pointed out some reasons it's unlikely to be a professional organization responsible in this case:
That's true that generating packets doesn't require a lot of cpu power.
> consider that your average 20 buck switch has a routing capacity of several Gigabits per second (on paper, at least)
Switches actually don't route, they switch. Routing is level 3, IP packets. Switching is level 2, ethernet frames. For $5,000 you can get a "level 3 switch", which is actually a router combined with a switch.
> and that *is not* running any top of the line CPU.
It is, however, running a purpose-built switching chip, which runs about $6 in small quanities. The CPU (mcu) isn't involved in switching frames at all. The cpu/mcu only gets involved when there are CHANGES to the switching rules, at which point it sends new tables to the chip that does the switching. Switching frames is completely different from generating new IP packets from scratch.
This isn't an update of some other standard. It's not designed to replace your current wifi. It only works within the same room - doesn't penetrate walls. I can replace USB, so should it be called USB version 4, in your opinion?
On a similar note, 802.11a and 802.11b were standardized at the same time, with manufacturers producing b hardware first, then a. B didn't replace a, wasn't intended to replace a, it's more like gasoline and diesel. 802.11a had shorter range and higher bandwidth than 802.11b. Neither was later or better, they are different options for different uses.
In the last ten years or so, many of the leading environmentalists have started to come to support nuclear power. They've realized that if it weren't for their opposition, nuclear would have replaced coal years ago.
Some elder statesmen of the environmental movement from the 1970s have even acknowledged that they messed up when with they exaggerated risks of nuclear. They've admitted they purposely bred confusion long half-cycle waste, which releases a very small bit of energy each year and therefore lasts long period of time, versus short half-life, which releases energy quickly. It's like the difference between gun powder, which releases energy quickly and is therefore dangerous versus a candle, which releases energy slowly and therefore lasts a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct that she has no say as the classifying and declassifying information not owned by State. (Which generally means produced by State, but not exactly multiple departments frequently produce documents or other artifacts containing the same information.
You're talking to people who know a little bit about the topic, so making shit up only makes you look foolish. There's a well-defined process for declassifying information, involving multiple people. Emailing it to your buddies is not how that process works.
Navy machinist Kristian Saucier took some selfies aboard ship and is in prison for it right now. Saucier didn't send the pictures to anyone. Having the classified information (pictures of the interior of the ship) on a non-secure device is a crime, and Saucier is in prison for that crime.
Clinton instructed her staff on how to send classified information "remove markings and send insecure". She intentionally instructed staff to do what Saucier did (have info on an unsecured device) AND more- also Clinton had it sent over the public internet.
It wouldn't *have* to be a new API that breaks compatibility. The implementation could just be changed to have less precision, round to nearest 10%. That would be less likely to break any current legitimate use of the API, such as on Firefox OS.
> The first part was that people want to have sex
At times I may want to punch someone in the nose. I can choose not to. I choose not to be controlled by every impulse, because I don't care for the consequences and because it is wrong to punch people in the nose. I wanted to fuck my girlfriend, I chose to wait and make love to my wife instead.
My daughter was around 18 months old when she learned that it was "viable" for her to do something other than exactly what she felt like doing at that moment.
I noticed your user name; do you have a favorite SQL tool on Mac? Squirrel is fine, but not awesome.
> "Without the skills to use the most prevalent OS in the world"
Though Android is the most prevalent OS in the world, Ubuntu is more appropriate for doing schoolwork.
I've been running web-centric business since the mid-1990s, so I've have opportunities to make plenty of mistakes, and do a few things right. I'd be glad to share my lessons-learned if you want to chat some time, tell me about what you're doing.
> it's the sort of gag that affords the company opportunity to showcase its perceived advantages over Cupertino
To me it's the exact opposite of being perceived as better, it's "people who have tried Mac don't want to use our products, we have to PAY them to use ours." Part of Apple's marketing of iOS devices is that they are unapologeticly more expensive, they are positioned as "premium" products. Microsoft is going the exact opposite way.
Many years ago when I launched my first hosting company I didn't want to deal with "bad" customers, people who don't pay, send spam, attract DMCA notices, etc. I wanted to offer a professional service for professional webmasters, so I made it invitation-only. You could host with us only if we knew you or you had good references from people we know. As it turned out, NO potential customer EVER turned down an invitation to host their site with us; the exclusivity turned out to be a great marketing bit. It wasn't false exclusivity, BTW, since we weren't spending 80% of our time dealing with BS from a few PITA customers, we were able to provide excellent service. Anyway this thing from Microsoft is the opposite. "Nobody who has tried Mac wants our product, we have to pay people to take it" is what I see.
For many years I spent all my time in "terminal windows open to boxes running Linux". When work gave me a Mac OSX machine, I was surprised how much it was like Linux. The GUI is different, of course, but open a terminal and you have certified Unix. You can ./configure && make && make install whatever you might run on Linux. If your place of employment offers the choice on Windows or Mac, you might like the Mac - even though it's from the same company that makes iOS iTrinkets.
From what I read of the Illinois law, driving people to the polling place is probably okay. Offering them prizes as inducement to get on the bus is a felony. Right or wrong, it's a felony.
Certainly we can expect that some (all?) of the * Party operatives offering people stuff to go vote will also make it clear who you're expected to vote for, who is giving you this stuff.
85% of devices sold last year ran Linux. The desktop is now in your lap and in your pocket, running Linux. Windows is more popular on systems with IDE drives, PalmOS is most popular on Treo systems, Linux is most popular on supercomputers, Windows is most popular on systems that weigh between 8 and 20 pounds. Linux is most popular.
Next story / complaint: Linux isn't popular on systems installed by major corporations headquartered in Redmond. Um, okay, but anyway 85% of all new devices run Linux, period.
Agreed, clear quotas that the customer understands can be fine. They pay to use X GBs (which is y% of the capacity) and the cost reflects that. Something similar is used when professionals buy bandwidth for an enterprise. The buyer and seller both understand the terms, so it's good.
Rather than throttling down, it typically marks excess traffic as "discard eligible" - you may use more than your Committed Information Rate, but only if the capacity is available after customers who haven't hit their CIR get their packets through. In other words, traffic in excess of your CIR must yield to traffic from someone who hasn't hit their CIR.
Note that this is one way of *implementing* "the average customer must pay their fair share of the cost in proportion to the traffic they generate". It's not "or", it's "and". Customers must pay their share of the cost, and quotas are one way of doing that. If the average customer pays less than their share of the cost, the provider bleeds money and goes out of business.
What's challenging, besides educating customers so they can make informed decisions, is that links don't instantly become used at full capacity when they are installed. Suppose a 1Gbps link can service 400 customers. The ISP has 402 customers. They NEED 1.02 links, but you can't install 2% of a link. You have to install one link (which isn't quite enough) or two links (which costs twice as much). On average, the last link in any discrete required route is only half utilized.
Valuable consideration:
consideration that either confers a pecuniarly measurable benefit on one party or imposes a pecunarily measurable detriment on the other
Contrast: Nominal consideration
Held - disposable plastic and paper cups are not valuable consideration.
Definition of "pecuniarly": in terms of money
I would predict that most any court would find that "I voted" stickers are nominal consideration, not valuable consideration - there is no benefit to the recipient which can be measured in monetary terms. On the other hand, if someone gives out $20 Walmart gift cards, the benefit is clearly measurable in monetary terms.
You misstate the holdings in Citizens United. The holdings are that:
a) You have the first amendment right to create and distribute pamphlets, films, or other speech materials advocating a political view.
b) Creating and distributing pamphlets, films, or other speech materials typically costs money.
c) Therefore, you have the first amendment right to spend your money creating and distributing pamphlets, films, or other speech materials.
The holding is that in order to exercise your free speech rights in a meaningful way, you might reasonably need to spend some money, and you have the right to do that.
Imagine if the holding were reversed: The first amendment does NOT extend to anything you spent any money on - you may write letters, but not if you bought the paper or the pen you write with. You may talk, but you may not buy microphone. You may author a web site, but you may not pay $10/year to have it hosted where it's actually on the internet.
There is no holding that "money is speech". It is legal to hand Secretary Clinton a letter asking her to grant a contract to your company, it is illegal to hand Secretary Clinton money for granting a contract to your company. On the other hand, it IS legal to buy paper on which you write a letter to Clinton.
I save a couple of the asshole's numbers, then when I get another call I click "Add Call" and forward them to another telemarketer / scammer. Then I just listen while the Viagra guy pitches the alarm system guy and vice versa.
You're a reasonably intelligent guy, Marc, so I imagine if you read the statute again you'll notice it *is* vote buying:
Sec. 29-1. Vote buying.
Any person who knowingly gives, lends or promises to give or lend any money or other valuable consideration to any other person to
influence such other person to vote
OR to register to vote
OR to influence such other person to vote for or against any candidate or public question to be voted upon at any election
shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Yes, if you give people stuff to come to the polling place (in other words, to vote) that is a felony in Illinois. Note I didn't write the law, I just read it (and copy/pasted it for you to read).
I mentioned that "voter party busses" giving stuff to people while driving them to the polling station is standard operating procedure for Democrats. Some people with stunted intellectual development will see that and think I said "Republicans are perfect". Obviously that's a complete non-sequitur, but some people will think that.
For the record, the Republican party has other issues. This year, they've managed to nominate, against the wishes of party leaders, a reality show clown.
> If someone even offers to buy your vote they would face tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus jail time. It's not worth the risk, someone will blab.
You say it's not worth the risk, but the Democrat party is doing so openly and publicly in Pike County, Illinios and elsewhere. Here's the Illinois vote buying statute:
Sec. 29-1. Vote buying.
Any person who knowingly gives, lends or promises to give or lend any money or other valuable consideration to any other person to influence such other person to vote or to register to vote or to influence such other person to vote for or against any candidate or public question to be voted upon at any election shall be guilty of a Class 4 felony.
Note it's a felony to give someone any "valuable consideration" (prize) to vote- regardless of whether they prove WHO they voted for. It's illegal to send a mailer out to all registered Democrats and people likely to vote Democrat saying "come vote and we'll give you _____." Yet that's what the Democrats did, openly. They set up an office next door to the polling place, 89 feet away to be exact, and sent mailers to likely Democrat voters promising prizes if they came out. It's standard practice for the Democrat party in many areas to have "voter party buses", which give out free food and prizes while driving people to the polling place. Yes, it's a felony, but that doesn't stop people from doing it.
Suppose a bunch of customers download 1GB videos and then watch them. That's 8 Gb, so it'll take a little over 8 seconds to download. Then an hour to watch it. So they're actually using the network 0.2% of time. A 10 Gbps uplink could support roughly 250-500 customers doing that.
If 400 customers share a 10 Gbps uplink to the backbone, they each need to pay about 0.25% of the cost*. On the other hand, if he were hosting xvides.com over that connection, he'd be using it 10% of the time (averaging 1 Gbps). The 10 Gbps could only handle about 8 such customers, so each would need to pay 12.5% of the cost.
* Assumes each 10Gbps AVERAGES 400 subscribers, not if it maxes out at 400 subscribers. Because lines have fixed capacities, the average uplink is only partially utilized and therefore cost is divided amongst the typical number of customers, not the max.
The last two places I worked, Windows and Mac were the allowed, supported desktop operating systems. Everyone in my group would much prefer Unix over Windows, and Mac is certified Unix.
My employer before these last two supported one desktop environment, CentOS. It was a security company with a lot pf access to customer networks, so Windows wasn't allowed on the company network.
NN is about treating all traffic within a category the same way. So you can prioritize video over others, so long as you don't further discriminate between Vimeo and a hacked webcam doing DDOS and a news broadcast.
NN is about treating all traffic within a category the same way. So you can prioritize email over others, so long as you don't further discriminate between a Nigerian prince and phishing and a real fraud alert from Paypal.
See the problem? The *concept* of network neutrality is fine. It's all warm and fuzzy. Writing a *law* to implement NN without totally screwing things up is very, very difficult.
Further, you don't, as a competent service provider network engineer, "prioritize video over". You route non-live (buffered) video over a link that has higher latency, bandwidth and jitter, while you route live video over one with medium bandwidth, medium latency, and low jitter, and voip over one with the lowest possible jitter, low latency, and low bandwidth. For all of those classes, you discard any packets. For most other classes of traffic you buffer packets rather than discard them.
> If security of IoT is that poor.
It is. Millions of devices just sitting out there with username "admin", password "admin". My 9-5 job is checking the security of companies that should have reasonable security - banks, large retailers, etc. They very often don't change default passwords, so why would you expect typical home users to?
> If ... trillions of dollars in transactions hang on a perilously delicate thread.
Yep. Just looking at the Slashdot headlines alone you'll see billions of dollars of losses/damage every year.
> If it's true that "script kiddies" ...
Another commenter pointed out some reasons it's unlikely to be a professional organization responsible in this case:
https://news.slashot.org/comme...
That's true that generating packets doesn't require a lot of cpu power.
> consider that your average 20 buck switch has a routing capacity of several Gigabits per second (on paper, at least)
Switches actually don't route, they switch. Routing is level 3, IP packets. Switching is level 2, ethernet frames. For $5,000 you can get a "level 3 switch", which is actually a router combined with a switch.
> and that *is not* running any top of the line CPU.
It is, however, running a purpose-built switching chip, which runs about $6 in small quanities. The CPU (mcu) isn't involved in switching frames at all. The cpu/mcu only gets involved when there are CHANGES to the switching rules, at which point it sends new tables to the chip that does the switching. Switching frames is completely different from generating new IP packets from scratch.
This isn't an update of some other standard. It's not designed to replace your current wifi. It only works within the same room - doesn't penetrate walls. I can replace USB, so should it be called USB version 4, in your opinion?
On a similar note, 802.11a and 802.11b were standardized at the same time, with manufacturers producing b hardware first, then a. B didn't replace a, wasn't intended to replace a, it's more like gasoline and diesel. 802.11a had shorter range and higher bandwidth than 802.11b. Neither was later or better, they are different options for different uses.
In the last ten years or so, many of the leading environmentalists have started to come to support nuclear power. They've realized that if it weren't for their opposition, nuclear would have replaced coal years ago.
Some elder statesmen of the environmental movement from the 1970s have even acknowledged that they messed up when with they exaggerated risks of nuclear. They've admitted they purposely bred confusion long half-cycle waste, which releases a very small bit of energy each year and therefore lasts long period of time, versus short half-life, which releases energy quickly. It's like the difference between gun powder, which releases energy quickly and is therefore dangerous versus a candle, which releases energy slowly and therefore lasts a long time.