I use XP too. The other day, somehow some code got downloaded on Firefox and executed on my machine. Just by my visiting a website. From then on, Windows Explorer tried to connect to some site every time I started Windows. I had to reinstall as I had basically been rooted.
WinXP is unfortunately extremely insecure if any hostile code gets a chance to run. I'm going to have to start forcing myself to use Linux for everything that requires an internet connection (mostly just web browsing).
The point was that the post I was responding to said that Americans did nothing. At least Occupy tried. It's unreasonable not to mention them just because they were up against the tremendous power of the government and couldn't achieve anything.
So how do we deal with exces energy generated at the moment? Surely we don't just generate *exactly* the correct amount of energy? Do we release some of it as heat or something?
Yes there is a technical reason: demand fluctuation. Nuclear plants can not be adapted fast enough to fluctuating demand, for that you use gas turbines or pumped storage plants.
The proposal I'm making is that you constantly generate enough power to cover the highest demand. Then you just keep it going at full pelt, no adjustment needs to be made.
That is nonsense. Nuke waste is in the hundred thousands of tons.
Nuclear is for the portion of the demand that needs constant and consistent base load supply
I'm not much of a physicist but is there any technical reason (forget cost for the sake of argument) that we couldn't run enough nuclear capacity at all times to cover even peak demand? So 99% of the time we're producing significantly more power via nuclear than we need, but it's always the same?
If we got nuclear to a very cheap level and built a ton of nuke plants, we could just create vast amounts of energy and we wouldn't need to worry about wasting energy because there's so much potential energy in nuclear and it's totally clean (OK a tiny amount of nuke waste from modern plants but very easy to deal with).
because it has a world-wide reputation for accurate, relatively unbiased, and high quality reporting.
A reputation that is has long-since lost the justification for. Maybe it's unbiased compared to Fox News, but that only shows how utterly pathetic mainstream US media is.
Not really with integral fast reactors; it's too hard to get at the nuclear material without being killed by the radiation.
(although it could also safely and usefully dispose of all the Uranium 235 in the world, an angle I rarely hear anyone mention)
Quite.
and it's not renewable.
Nor is virtually anything. Solar power is using up the sun's energy. But, like solar, we do have an extremely large supply of fuel for it that would last us many thousands of years at the bare minimum.
So I'm still not really seeing any justification for your "it sucks" angle.
Possibly, but there are a hell of a lot of technical people around the world that aren't ever going to learn Chinese, so it can't muscle its way in as an international lingua franca. Not in the next 100 years anyway.
I just spent 3 days at a HP-sponsored event. Can you say Windows? I happened to mention I use Emacs as my editor. Everything was fine up until then, using Linux is "geeky/cool," but for a couple of listeners, using Emacs equated with being ancient. Bizarre.
To be fair, at least Windows has a decent text editor.
Slashdot Mirror
"Never point a gun (doesn't matter if it is loaded or not) at or near a person"
Isn't that a bit like teaching someone they should never drive their car on or near a public road?
I use XP too. The other day, somehow some code got downloaded on Firefox and executed on my machine. Just by my visiting a website. From then on, Windows Explorer tried to connect to some site every time I started Windows. I had to reinstall as I had basically been rooted.
WinXP is unfortunately extremely insecure if any hostile code gets a chance to run. I'm going to have to start forcing myself to use Linux for everything that requires an internet connection (mostly just web browsing).
Flies.
See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF-U9nL9Ios
The point was that the post I was responding to said that Americans did nothing. At least Occupy tried. It's unreasonable not to mention them just because they were up against the tremendous power of the government and couldn't achieve anything.
And about America ... ... do you see anything like that happening ?
What about the Occupy movement?
It's like saying that because a car is good at driving along roads, it would be good at crossing the ocean.
Grrr I was literally just about to make the same joke!!!
I haven't had a problem. Then again, I do still have it set to use the classic discussion system. :-)
So how do we deal with exces energy generated at the moment? Surely we don't just generate *exactly* the correct amount of energy? Do we release some of it as heat or something?
Yes there is a technical reason: demand fluctuation. Nuclear plants can not be adapted fast enough to fluctuating demand, for that you use gas turbines or pumped storage plants.
The proposal I'm making is that you constantly generate enough power to cover the highest demand. Then you just keep it going at full pelt, no adjustment needs to be made.
That is nonsense. Nuke waste is in the hundred thousands of tons.
Even from integral fast reactors?
Nuclear is for the portion of the demand that needs constant and consistent base load supply
I'm not much of a physicist but is there any technical reason (forget cost for the sake of argument) that we couldn't run enough nuclear capacity at all times to cover even peak demand? So 99% of the time we're producing significantly more power via nuclear than we need, but it's always the same?
If we got nuclear to a very cheap level and built a ton of nuke plants, we could just create vast amounts of energy and we wouldn't need to worry about wasting energy because there's so much potential energy in nuclear and it's totally clean (OK a tiny amount of nuke waste from modern plants but very easy to deal with).
And start building nuclear PRISM reactors to replace other forms of power generation. :-)
I am from Barcelona. :-)
He should reveal that he's a homosexual. That way no Russians are even allowed to admit that he exists.
Excuse me, but WHO'S data?
An android character on Star Trek.
Who doesn't store their DVD collection in source control?
A list would be useful. There are a bunch of "other" ISPs and presumably some of them are better on censorship than others.
because it has a world-wide reputation for accurate, relatively unbiased, and high quality reporting.
A reputation that is has long-since lost the justification for. Maybe it's unbiased compared to Fox News, but that only shows how utterly pathetic mainstream US media is.
I like my tower PC. I can put my feet up on it while I'm browsing and the PSU keeps my feet warm. Can't do that with a tablet.
Nuclear sucks
How so?
it has security issues
Not really with integral fast reactors; it's too hard to get at the nuclear material without being killed by the radiation.
(although it could also safely and usefully dispose of all the Uranium 235 in the world, an angle I rarely hear anyone mention)
Quite.
and it's not renewable.
Nor is virtually anything. Solar power is using up the sun's energy. But, like solar, we do have an extremely large supply of fuel for it that would last us many thousands of years at the bare minimum.
So I'm still not really seeing any justification for your "it sucks" angle.
the BBC doesn't want to get into the business of running a time server
Then they're pretty damn lazy. It's very easy, especially with the kind of money the BBC has, to do just that.
Possibly, but there are a hell of a lot of technical people around the world that aren't ever going to learn Chinese, so it can't muscle its way in as an international lingua franca. Not in the next 100 years anyway.
Ah I always love getting a bit of nourriture rapide when I'm in Quebec...
I just spent 3 days at a HP-sponsored event. Can you say Windows? I happened to mention I use Emacs as my editor. Everything was fine up until then, using Linux is "geeky/cool," but for a couple of listeners, using Emacs equated with being ancient. Bizarre.
To be fair, at least Windows has a decent text editor.