Plus, they're very hard to swallow in microgravity.
In which case you'd expect it to be hard to sallow anything in that environment. Which would pose some bigger problems than taking pills. Just as well that humans are mammals rather than birds:)
The cost is paying somebody to work out what route the fibre will take, organise all the permissions you need to start digging (Needs to go over private land? Got to approach the landowner. Needs to cross a road? Got to approach the council) - some of these permissions cost money
In the case of BT they don't actually need such permissions, since they were already granted long before BT PLC even existed. (The only exception being the city of Hull.)
Instead, make a flat-and-simple rule. 20 years from date of first publication, for example.
The degree of reduced stimulation is tiny: there are very few works that pull in insufficient-to-be-worth-it money in the first 20 years, but enough-to-be-worth it in the first 100.
This is so because *most* works are either economically worthless from the get-go, OR they're successful, for a limited time, OR in some rare cases, they're successful for a long time. In all 3 cases, length of copyright makes no real difference. (aslong as it's atleast long enough to cover the "limited time")
Thus what's relevent is the "limited time" for the second case. This can be considerably less than 20 years. There are even cases of books going out of print within months...
This leaves the mythical beast: The work that never sells significantly in it's first 20 years, yet that goes on to become a hit later.
These -exist-, but there are very few of them, and to add insult to injury, you'd have to know or guess that a work falls in this category, for that knowledge to influence your decision (are you gonna produce the work, or not)
Does anyone have an example of something published prior to 1991 which has just this year become a big seller. How about something published before 2001?
We are not talking about pure tritium contamination here, in fact, tritium is probably negligible. Most of the activity comes from dissolved I, Cs, Sr, Tc and whatever gets washed out of the fuel rods. So you got stuff with longer and with shorter half-lives in there.
However all of these are different elements. Is there no way to chemically create compounds which are not soluable in water and filter in turn.
It is disingenuous to characterize this as solely an American problem, that we're somehow the cause of all of this. The reality is, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the Audio Home Recording Act, and a number of other rotten laws, were put in place by the likes of the RIAA at the behest of both domestic (Disney, et al) and foreign entities (Sony and Bertelsmann to name a few.) Essentially, Europe's corporate powers corrupted our copyright system, effectively conscripting the considerable power of the United States Federal Government to extend their hegemony.
Are these companies actually "European" or "American". It's more that such trans-nationals appear to find where they can most influence laws then try and get "harmonisation" applied to the rest on the world.
It was trusted enough when there were about 10 companies that could do the signing. After that, more and more CA's turned up, including governmental CA's.
A really big failing is that CA's lack any sense of scope. A governmental CA is probably actually the best entity of verify a business within it's jurisdiction. But can't do so for anywhere else in the world. Thus you really don't want New York City trying to tell you anything about companies outside that city. Nor does it make sense for commercial CA's to be dealing with anything more than X distance from where they actually have offices. Since Comodo appear to have no offices in the Southern Hemisphere they probably arn't going to be much use about a business in Aukland. Yet I doubt most browsers would complain about a site with a Comodo issued certificate claiming to be from Air New Zealand.
For most sites, the first access is irrelevant - I haven't registered, so I don't have anything to protect. I just care to ensure that subsequent accesses are made to the same machines
This is the model used by SSH. A vulnerability in the way web browsers tend to do things is that they tend to be silent if things change.. The typical logic is accept anything signed by a trusted CA make a big fuss if it isn't.
For example, a cert for amazon.com signed only by government agencies, or only by one CA, could be trusted less than one where amazon.com has proven its identity to, say, Thawte, Verisign, and Comodo.
On the other hand it might make more sense to give more weight to the city of Seattle, Washington, USA. Especially compared with a company in South Africa, a company in Dulles, Virginia, USA and a company in New Jersey, USA.
The expense to smaller businesses might be a problem, though.
If you go by by the registered address of the business then the size of the business becomes rather less relevent.
Perhaps you were already alluding to this, but that is exactly why DNSSEC is such a great idea. The trust of a site being who they say they are belongs in the DNS, since that's the system which is actually responsible for knowing. There are already records that exist to store such things: CERT and SSHFP records can secure web sites, email, and SSH, and with secure DNS such things can actually be useful.
Dosn't help too much when the vast majority of TLDs are effectivly DOT misc. (Even before considering "vanity ccTLDs".) You wind up with similar issues to those current certificate authorities. Specifically how can entity A "verify" entity B when they are hundreds or thousands of miles apart?
This isn't to say I'm anti-nuke in the debate. The problems with situations like these are generally all caused by profit or re-election minded idiots. Plants like that should have been replaced years ago with a safer model, and the same goes for most plants in north america.
At least part of the problem here would come from the anti-nuke lobby making it difficult to build any new plants. Though in the case of the Fukushima plant they apparently were in the process of replacing these old reactors with new ones.
When you start heavily screening for cancer, then, yes you find lots of cancer deaths, but then by that token the 'old age' deaths go down. It's the same deaths, just counted differently.
IIRC there have been cases of cancers being found post mortem in people who died for some other reason.It's not just deaths. Such screening will also find cancers in living people who show no obvious symptoms.
If the secondary containment was working then there would be no HRW in the turbine buildings or the tunnels outside. Am I missing something?
These are boiling water reactors. Steam is produced in the reactor and fed directly the steam turbine which drive the generators. Unlike in a PWR where water which remains a liquid circulates between the reactor and a heat exchanger where water in a secondary loop is turned to steam. This could be down to a leak in the pipes which run between the reactor and the turbines.
The cartels care about one thing, MONEY. If it was suddenly legalised they would be sitting pretty with all the infrastrucutre and manufacturing already in place, They don't care whether it is legal or illegal and you can bet they will just as happily take your money legally.
Could they quickly adapt that infrastructure and manufacturing to produce legal drugs? Especially in competition with food and pharmaceutical companies would also be capable of producing legal drugs. Without prohibition nothing prevents the Coca-Cola Company putting cocaine back in their soft drinks.
"Medical" weed dispensary was established, and not taxed by the county. So high quality drugs that could compete price-wise with the gangs (gangs can always out-compete taxed weed). The gangs lowered the cost and increased quality, but also became aggressive and violent as they competed among themselves. Then to offset lowered profit margins, they started dabbling in pharma's and ecstacy - the former of which used to be the domain of non-threatening college kids, the latter of which was virtually unheard of in the area. Now it's a bigger problem than ever, thanks to legalized weed.
Could these gangs out compete Fortune 500 multinationals such as Procter & Gamble? Also if all prohibition was abolished such gangs wouldn't have alternative high markup black market drugs to switch to.
I can name two incredibly dangerous drugs that are legal and readily available to (but not for sale to) everyone. They are named alcohol and tobacco. If there is another drug that is currently illegal that gets anywhere near the danger of those two, then maybe we might be able to talk.
Alcohol prohibition was tried in the US and was a failure. If anything prohibition tends to make drugs more dangerous. IIRC just about all black market alcohol available in the US was crude spirits.
Radio receivers are cheaper and lower power than the equivalent GPS receivers.
GPS receivers are radio receivers. Those to pick up time signals can be considerably simpler and cheaper than those to handle signals from GPS satellites. In the case of those in Japan some are so simple that they can only pick up a single frequency...
You need something with far more energy density than wind or solar, and the only one that will last for at least several centuries is nuclear.
Nobody would build a BWR-3 now. The new reactors originally planned for the Fukushima site being ABWRs which have considerably more redundancy than either the BWR-3 or BWR-4. The sensible thing to do is to learn from Fukushima 1 to improve on future designs and existing plants.
Yea, now people will finally stop arguing for it and give solar, wind, etc. more attention. Awesome.
Solar dosn't generate power when it's dark. Wind dosn't generate power when the wind dosn't blow at the right speed. Indeed there are situations where wind "generators" actually consume power. To make things work you need gas powered generators which can rapidly vary their power to compensate. With the result that the whole thing is more complex, more expensive and even has a larger "carbon footprint" compared with building regular fossil fuel plants.
I'm sorry, but I'll never be a proponent for something that has a good chance of causing horrible diseases and mutations and birth defects
Plenty of nasty toxic byproducts from photovoltaics. Also wind "turbines" arn't exactly clean to produce.
regardless of how good the technology protecting it is (you could blame Chernobyl on outdated and weak Soviet tech if you want, but a modern plant by the gods of technology, Japanese, is faring no better)
Construction on the first reactor started in 1967 so the plant is hardly "modern".
And there is the matter of having to bury the leftovers for thousands of years.
As opposed to chemical waste. Some of which will stay dangerous indefinitly.
Tsunami killed 10,000
Reactor so far 0
My local natural gas power plant killed 3 workers when they fell from the smoke stacks while hanging giant snowflakes for Christmas.
Rather like the way in which a big fuss is made about plane even train crashes. Even though the most dangerous form of vehicle is the private car. We also saw a similar response to Three Mile Island in 1979. But no comparable protests in response to the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988.
Nuclear has few operational issues, but significant failure issues.
Coal has significant operational issues, but few failure issues.
Both have significant 'waste' issues
Ironically coal can produce more radioactive waste products than nuclear. Because such comparativly huge quantities are needed to generate an equivalent amount of energy.
We *can* filter the coal exhaust to remove the things that cause the more direct deaths. CO2 is perhaps a bigger issue but something that mitigation may be able to handle.
Carbon dioxide really isn't a big issue. It's more a question of how do to get everything other than carbon out of coal. Especially heavy metals.
I just wish we would use this 'event' to see the true downside of nuclear and move our investment money towards sustainable power.
Most so called "sustainable power" isn't. Plenty of money is currently being wasted on things which can't even reliably generate power on a hour to hour basis, never mind several decades.
The big problem today is the legal terms passed around that may go over the head of the jury members and confuse them, which may lead to a bad decision.
All that's needed is for every juror to adopt a metric of "if I don't understand it then it's not relevent to the case" and things are likely to sort themselves out PDQ.
Now I understand the problem with jurors going out on their own and seeking evidence - I don't want an unqualified juror looking up hokem on a pseudo-science site and making their mind up on specialized evidence any more than the next guy.
It's entirely possible that "hookem" and "psudo-science" describe what an expert witness is saying.
But one problem with the legal system is that the jurors are can't ask questions and have them answered. They can only go on the evidence presented which is sometimes (maddeningly to them) incomplete.
It's the job of the lawyers to ensure that witnesses are properly cross-examined. It is also the job of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If a juror thinks the "evidence" is incomplete they should just ignore it.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, they're very hard to swallow in microgravity.
:)
In which case you'd expect it to be hard to sallow anything in that environment. Which would pose some bigger problems than taking pills. Just as well that humans are mammals rather than birds
The cost is paying somebody to work out what route the fibre will take, organise all the permissions you need to start digging (Needs to go over private land? Got to approach the landowner. Needs to cross a road? Got to approach the council) - some of these permissions cost money
In the case of BT they don't actually need such permissions, since they were already granted long before BT PLC even existed. (The only exception being the city of Hull.)
Instead, make a flat-and-simple rule. 20 years from date of first publication, for example.
The degree of reduced stimulation is tiny: there are very few works that pull in insufficient-to-be-worth-it money in the first 20 years, but enough-to-be-worth it in the first 100.
This is so because *most* works are either economically worthless from the get-go, OR they're successful, for a limited time, OR in some rare cases, they're successful for a long time. In all 3 cases, length of copyright makes no real difference. (aslong as it's atleast long enough to cover the "limited time")
Thus what's relevent is the "limited time" for the second case. This can be considerably less than 20 years. There are even cases of books going out of print within months...
This leaves the mythical beast: The work that never sells significantly in it's first 20 years, yet that goes on to become a hit later.
These -exist-, but there are very few of them, and to add insult to injury, you'd have to know or guess that a work falls in this category, for that knowledge to influence your decision (are you gonna produce the work, or not)
Does anyone have an example of something published prior to 1991 which has just this year become a big seller. How about something published before 2001?
(Protip: You can't filter out elemts dissolved in water.)
So there are no insoluable compounds of Cesium and it's impossible to chemically turn CsOH into anything else?
We are not talking about pure tritium contamination here, in fact, tritium is probably negligible. Most of the activity comes from dissolved I, Cs, Sr, Tc and whatever gets washed out of the fuel rods. So you got stuff with longer and with shorter half-lives in there.
However all of these are different elements. Is there no way to chemically create compounds which are not soluable in water and filter in turn.
Yes, and in the United States even unConstitutional treaties have to be honored, as I understand it.
Yet the USA is notorious for just ignoring treaties on everything from abducted children to nuclear proliferation at the whim of politicians...
It is disingenuous to characterize this as solely an American problem, that we're somehow the cause of all of this. The reality is, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the Audio Home Recording Act, and a number of other rotten laws, were put in place by the likes of the RIAA at the behest of both domestic (Disney, et al) and foreign entities (Sony and Bertelsmann to name a few.) Essentially, Europe's corporate powers corrupted our copyright system, effectively conscripting the considerable power of the United States Federal Government to extend their hegemony.
Are these companies actually "European" or "American". It's more that such trans-nationals appear to find where they can most influence laws then try and get "harmonisation" applied to the rest on the world.
It was trusted enough when there were about 10 companies that could do the signing. After that, more and more CA's turned up, including governmental CA's.
A really big failing is that CA's lack any sense of scope. A governmental CA is probably actually the best entity of verify a business within it's jurisdiction. But can't do so for anywhere else in the world. Thus you really don't want New York City trying to tell you anything about companies outside that city.
Nor does it make sense for commercial CA's to be dealing with anything more than X distance from where they actually have offices.
Since Comodo appear to have no offices in the Southern Hemisphere they probably arn't going to be much use about a business in Aukland. Yet I doubt most browsers would complain about a site with a Comodo issued certificate claiming to be from Air New Zealand.
For most sites, the first access is irrelevant - I haven't registered, so I don't have anything to protect. I just care to ensure that subsequent accesses are made to the same machines
This is the model used by SSH.
A vulnerability in the way web browsers tend to do things is that they tend to be silent if things change.. The typical logic is accept anything signed by a trusted CA make a big fuss if it isn't.
For example, a cert for amazon.com signed only by government agencies, or only by one CA, could be trusted less than one where amazon.com has proven its identity to, say, Thawte, Verisign, and Comodo.
On the other hand it might make more sense to give more weight to the city of Seattle, Washington, USA. Especially compared with a company in South Africa, a company in Dulles, Virginia, USA and a company in New Jersey, USA.
The expense to smaller businesses might be a problem, though.
If you go by by the registered address of the business then the size of the business becomes rather less relevent.
Perhaps you were already alluding to this, but that is exactly why DNSSEC is such a great idea. The trust of a site being who they say they are belongs in the DNS, since that's the system which is actually responsible for knowing. There are already records that exist to store such things: CERT and SSHFP records can secure web sites, email, and SSH, and with secure DNS such things can actually be useful.
Dosn't help too much when the vast majority of TLDs are effectivly DOT misc. (Even before considering "vanity ccTLDs".)
You wind up with similar issues to those current certificate authorities. Specifically how can entity A "verify" entity B when they are hundreds or thousands of miles apart?
This isn't to say I'm anti-nuke in the debate. The problems with situations like these are generally all caused by profit or re-election minded idiots. Plants like that should have been replaced years ago with a safer model, and the same goes for most plants in north america.
At least part of the problem here would come from the anti-nuke lobby making it difficult to build any new plants.
Though in the case of the Fukushima plant they apparently were in the process of replacing these old reactors with new ones.
When you start heavily screening for cancer, then, yes you find lots of cancer deaths, but then by that token the 'old age' deaths go down. It's the same deaths, just counted differently.
IIRC there have been cases of cancers being found post mortem in people who died for some other reason.It's not just deaths. Such screening will also find cancers in living people who show no obvious symptoms.
If the secondary containment was working then there would be no HRW in the turbine buildings or the tunnels outside. Am I missing something?
These are boiling water reactors. Steam is produced in the reactor and fed directly the steam turbine which drive the generators.
Unlike in a PWR where water which remains a liquid circulates between the reactor and a heat exchanger where water in a secondary loop is turned to steam.
This could be down to a leak in the pipes which run between the reactor and the turbines.
The cartels care about one thing, MONEY. If it was suddenly legalised they would be sitting pretty with all the infrastrucutre and manufacturing already in place, They don't care whether it is legal or illegal and you can bet they will just as happily take your money legally.
Could they quickly adapt that infrastructure and manufacturing to produce legal drugs? Especially in competition with food and pharmaceutical companies would also be capable of producing legal drugs. Without prohibition nothing prevents the Coca-Cola Company putting cocaine back in their soft drinks.
"Medical" weed dispensary was established, and not taxed by the county. So high quality drugs that could compete price-wise with the gangs (gangs can always out-compete taxed weed). The gangs lowered the cost and increased quality, but also became aggressive and violent as they competed among themselves. Then to offset lowered profit margins, they started dabbling in pharma's and ecstacy - the former of which used to be the domain of non-threatening college kids, the latter of which was virtually unheard of in the area. Now it's a bigger problem than ever, thanks to legalized weed.
Could these gangs out compete Fortune 500 multinationals such as Procter & Gamble? Also if all prohibition was abolished such gangs wouldn't have alternative high markup black market drugs to switch to.
I can name two incredibly dangerous drugs that are legal and readily available to (but not for sale to) everyone. They are named alcohol and tobacco. If there is another drug that is currently illegal that gets anywhere near the danger of those two, then maybe we might be able to talk.
Alcohol prohibition was tried in the US and was a failure. If anything prohibition tends to make drugs more dangerous. IIRC just about all black market alcohol available in the US was crude spirits.
Radio receivers are cheaper and lower power than the equivalent GPS receivers.
GPS receivers are radio receivers. Those to pick up time signals can be considerably simpler and cheaper than those to handle signals from GPS satellites. In the case of those in Japan some are so simple that they can only pick up a single frequency...
My same thoughts about the DOB too. Driver's license number I could understand, but SSN and DOB?
Why should only people who drive be able to claim? Even in the parts of the US affected driving is not mandatory...
You need something with far more energy density than wind or solar, and the only one that will last for at least several centuries is nuclear.
Nobody would build a BWR-3 now. The new reactors originally planned for the Fukushima site being ABWRs which have considerably more redundancy than either the BWR-3 or BWR-4.
The sensible thing to do is to learn from Fukushima 1 to improve on future designs and existing plants.
Yea, now people will finally stop arguing for it and give solar, wind, etc. more attention. Awesome.
Solar dosn't generate power when it's dark. Wind dosn't generate power when the wind dosn't blow at the right speed. Indeed there are situations where wind "generators" actually consume power. To make things work you need gas powered generators which can rapidly vary their power to compensate. With the result that the whole thing is more complex, more expensive and even has a larger "carbon footprint" compared with building regular fossil fuel plants.
I'm sorry, but I'll never be a proponent for something that has a good chance of causing horrible diseases and mutations and birth defects
Plenty of nasty toxic byproducts from photovoltaics. Also wind "turbines" arn't exactly clean to produce.
regardless of how good the technology protecting it is (you could blame Chernobyl on outdated and weak Soviet tech if you want, but a modern plant by the gods of technology, Japanese, is faring no better)
Construction on the first reactor started in 1967 so the plant is hardly "modern".
And there is the matter of having to bury the leftovers for thousands of years.
As opposed to chemical waste. Some of which will stay dangerous indefinitly.
Tsunami killed 10,000
Reactor so far 0
My local natural gas power plant killed 3 workers when they fell from the smoke stacks while hanging giant snowflakes for Christmas.
Rather like the way in which a big fuss is made about plane even train crashes. Even though the most dangerous form of vehicle is the private car.
We also saw a similar response to Three Mile Island in 1979. But no comparable protests in response to the Piper Alpha disaster in 1988.
Nuclear has few operational issues, but significant failure issues.
Coal has significant operational issues, but few failure issues.
Both have significant 'waste' issues
Ironically coal can produce more radioactive waste products than nuclear. Because such comparativly huge quantities are needed to generate an equivalent amount of energy.
We *can* filter the coal exhaust to remove the things that cause the more direct deaths. CO2 is perhaps a bigger issue but something that mitigation may be able to handle.
Carbon dioxide really isn't a big issue. It's more a question of how do to get everything other than carbon out of coal. Especially heavy metals.
I just wish we would use this 'event' to see the true downside of nuclear and move our investment money towards sustainable power.
Most so called "sustainable power" isn't. Plenty of money is currently being wasted on things which can't even reliably generate power on a hour to hour basis, never mind several decades.
The big problem today is the legal terms passed around that may go over the head of the jury members and confuse them, which may lead to a bad decision.
All that's needed is for every juror to adopt a metric of "if I don't understand it then it's not relevent to the case" and things are likely to sort themselves out PDQ.
Now I understand the problem with jurors going out on their own and seeking evidence - I don't want an unqualified juror looking up hokem on a pseudo-science site and making their mind up on specialized evidence any more than the next guy.
It's entirely possible that "hookem" and "psudo-science" describe what an expert witness is saying.
But one problem with the legal system is that the jurors are can't ask questions and have them answered. They can only go on the evidence presented which is sometimes (maddeningly to them) incomplete.
It's the job of the lawyers to ensure that witnesses are properly cross-examined.
It is also the job of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means. If a juror thinks the "evidence" is incomplete they should just ignore it.