Did you ever vote to have hundreds of nuclear weapons detonated in Nevada? Were you consulted on that one?
We are a representative republic. You voted for representatives that went to Congress, and Congress voted to establish Yucca Mountain. Ergo, by the rule of law, your vote was carried by your proxy to the Congress.
A very specific type of Plutonium is good for weapons, and all the other types are very BAD for weapons, and in fact inhibit the weapon from working. The good news is that the Pu-239 that is good for weapons is created with a massively inefficient short fuel cycle, because the Pu-240 and Pu-241 is bred from the Pu-239, and cannot be separated from the 239 with current technologies. So just leave the fuel in as long as commercial plant operators currently do, and the Plutonium that is created is unsuitable for weapons production, but still quite useful in reactors that 'burn' mixed-oxide fuels.
Yeah, because having 50 storage sites that all have to be protected in geographically unsound locations is far better than a single properly built and guarded site.
How would your proposal be any different from just leaving that shit at the ~104 reactors where it currently is?
And who ran the Senate in 2011? Oh, that's right, the senior Senator from the Great State of Nevada.
Yucca Mountain was never going to happen with Harry Reid in charge, so I'm willing to bet that Obama traded that for advancing something else he wanted to move. Shitty policy, but smart politics, if you ask me.
$2 says that when DoE announces the site for the new storage facility, it will still be in Nevada, and they'll announce it in 2017 after Harry Reid has cleaned out his office, and a now very junior Senator has moved in.
And isn't it funny now that Reid has announced his retirement, that DoE is getting off their ass and working the problem again. Let me guess, they'll be announcing the decision to dispose of it in Nevada, roughly 72 hours after Reid has cleared out the minority leader office suite and Chuck Schumer has moved in?
Depending on what your setup is and what the requirements are, it's fully feasible to have a 'storage server' where all it's RAM is handed over to ZFS for caching and dedup, and you export via NFS to your VM hosting systems on 10GbE. It adds a touch of latency, but if you can host a hundred machines that don't require super low latency and save 90% of the disk space by only having 1 copy of your server OS (for the most part), then you're probably doing better.
It's a viable config depending on what the needs are, and can save far more disk than compressing each image on it's own.
Oh, so in your hatred of Oracle, you're recommending a filesystem project that was started by... Oracle.
Only reason Oracle isn't still the major contributor to btrfs is because they bought Sun and got a complete version of what they were trying to create with btrfs.
1. ZFS Snapshotting is incremental, just like NetApp. In fact, it's so 'just like NetApp' that NetApp sued Sun Microsystems over it. 2. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. See #1.
In addition, when it comes to VM hosting in the filesystem, ZFS deduplication can offer a significant space savings by deduping all the common files in the VM images (operating system files).
If you are hosting Windows VMs, this effectively nullifies many gigabytes of storage bloat. This is, of course, a feature of ZFS, and has nothing to do with snapshotting other than the fact that your snapshots will be smaller.
Snapshotting has been in ZFS from (practically?) the beginning.
This article is about a cloud provider specifically providing a workable service to act as a ZFS snapshot receiver, which before required you to do some serious customization on a general-purpose compute environment like Amazon EC2.
At the prices that rsync.net charges for what it is, this is a pretty compelling off-site solution for my media storage, as it's already on a ZFS pool via FreeNAS.
They would pay taxes on monies that are repatriated to China, just like US corporations pay tax on dollars that they repatriate to the US.
Which, by the way, is why companies don't do that, and just keep the money 'off-shore' and continue to ask the Congress to enact a reduced repatriation tax holiday.
If they'd do it, Apple, Google, Cisco, et al. would be more than happy to pay several hundred million in taxes in order to get the billions back here. The US Government would get a nice windfall to waste on the usual pork and bullshit.
And we all know that if the Government was able to pull in those tax revenues from Corporations, they would immediately pass on tax savings to individuals.
No, they would pat themselves on the back about how they're balancing budgets, and keep all the money to spend on a bunch of pork; all the while leaving the punishing tax rates on the middle class the same.
It's actually not made by an American corporation - In Apple's case, the products are distributed and sold by Apple Operations International, which is a European company.
This is the entire basis of the tax loophole that they, and many other companies, use. That being said, all Apple products found in North and South America are booked through Apple, Inc., and have US tax law applied to the revenues. Unless, of course, you're saying that Tim Cook perjured himself in front of Congress.
1. Party X does stuff we don't like, so Party Y campaigns on the idea that they don't like that stuff, and they're going to do something about it. 2. Party Y wins enough elections to outright control Congress and the Presidency, based on this campaign. 3. Party Y does jack shit with their outright majorities about the stuff they said they don't like. 4. Somehow Party Y still blames Party X, even though they had every opportunity to do something about it, but didn't want to do anything about it because they would rather campaign on it, than fix it.
Note: this is the same general tactic employed about practically every issue facing the United States today. They aren't interested in fixing shit, because they can use the problem to generate campaign funds through FUD.
If you don't see that there is a massive difference between getting a bunch of sub-$100 donations from random salt-of-the-earth supporters, and taking huge veiled sums of money through SuperPACs and lobbyists, then there's just no helping you.
He really hasn't said anything inconsistent - he's getting the same kind of grass roots contributions that Bernie Sanders is, but somehow it's a bad thing all of a sudden.
Any statement of "No $NOUN has ever $EVENT without $CONDITION" is doomed to be incorrect eventually with history. I don't know why people still prattle those statements out.
No black man had ever been elected President in the US either, and it doesn't matter in the slightest now.
You can bet that once Iowa and New Hampshire are done, at least 5 of those people are gone. The money will dry up, and they'll have to pack it in. Then the real race will begin.
In the last Republican debate between petty insults and ridiculous arguments about who introduced what legislative detritus that was going to go absolutely nowhere, Trump finally said one thing that actually made a bit of sense - how much money has been poured into Iraq that could have been used to rebuild our own country? The misadventures of the neocons is going to take decades to pay back, and somehow there is still a few of those clowns up there wanting to repeat the same mistakes, thinking that all we need to do is drop a few billion more dollars of explosives on Syria, and magically that region of the world will finally see the light and learn to love democracy.
It's ridiculous, and it only serves to make even more people hate the west.
(In no way is this post meant to be in support of Trump - there is no way I'd vote for that guy after hearing his stance on muslim immigration - even without the Islamophobic angle, a religious test of some kind is completely unenforceable, and very questionable under the First Amendment which guarantees religious freedom.)
Some of what he says about climate change seems good, but I still have problems with people trying to tax carbon to make renewable power more price competitive, I see this happening already without the need for another tax for us to pay as solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper.
I see what you're saying there, but I don't think it's fair for coal and petroleum based generation to be able to externalize their pollution costs onto everyone else, also boosting the need for health care. They just send the waste up the stacks and let it fall where it may, where every other competitive technology has to deal with the consequences. Solar and wind have manufacturing processes that require mining of rare earths or chemical processes that aren't the most environmentally friendly, and they have to deal with that. Nuclear has a very obvious and public waste issue that they have to deal with. Hydro has it's own issues with fish populations and adverse relationships with farmers who want the water for irrigation. But for some reason, it's perfectly fine for coal generation to poison thousands of people each year.
Cap and trade may not be the solution, but something should be done to account for that cost.
Like all things, it's a question of cost efficiency and politics.
For the US Navy, it's far more important to have your boats at sea, on patrol, than save money in refueling reactors. So they designed them to be able to refuel as fast as possible so they can get the boat out of the dock. Also, nuclear proliferation concerns are not high on the list of priorities for an organization that operates vehicles carrying both a nuclear reactor, and nuclear warheads at the same time. Even on aircraft carriers, they have multiple smaller naval reactors rather than scaling up a single reactor, because they can just throw more people at it while in dock in order to refuel and get back on patrol.
For commercial generating stations, it's far more important to have cost efficient operations. They are designed to be refueled in place, where only the spent fuel is removed. This takes something like 6 months to do. Commercial operators also have to operate in a way that is 'anti-proliferation' which restricts what kinds of fuel mixes and reactor designs they can use. And the reactor is far bigger, with far larger output - powering several cities rather than a vehicle and a couple hundred people.
Toshiba took a stab at a modular reactor design like you suggest, but I don't think it's gone anywhere as the project they designed it for was scrapped.
Ok, I remembered the stat wrong. It was 24,000 deaths attributed in 2004, and 13,000 in 2010. But it wasn't only those two years that people die from the crap being spewed forth from coal plants. The point is that tens of thousands die from diseases related to burning coal every year. It is the only energy source that kills on this order, and somehow that's okay. And that's not even speaking to the problems with mine tailings that are destroying waterways, or the several fly ash dam breaks that have destroyed rivers. And notice that I haven't even touched climate change yet, because you never know if you're talking to a rabid disbeliever or not.
And speaking of bad math, please tell me how 12kW solar installs will replace 1300MW nuclear plants at night. Or how many wind farms covering how much acreage of deforestation? I'm a huge fan of solar - I even work for a company that installs solar and has been involved in helping to get the ITC renewed so that the expansion of solar can continue relatively unabated. I'd love it, and my stock portfolio would love it if there was a massive boom in solar. But you still need to have something that works at 100% regardless of the position of the sun, cloud cover, and wind speed. We can't build more hydro, because any river worth having hydro on already has it. So that leaves natural gas, coal, and nuclear.
In a perfect world, we would be using 100% renewables. But we can't get there with today's technology. We need a stepping stone to get away from 1850s technology that kills people and causes untold environmental catastrophe (coal), and properly engineered and managed nuclear power is probably it.
Very true, but there's probably some well-meaning law in place that prevents the shipping of high-level nuclear waste without it being handled by the DoE. So until Congress gets off their ass, we've got waste sitting at 100+ sites around the nation, half-lifing away until something finally gets done about it.
It just seems to be a race right now between Congress pulling their collective heads out of their asses, or this material becoming inert with a stupendous amount of time.
Yes and no. The cable companies play fun little games such as Time Warner does, where "Roadrunner" is technically the ISP, even though they are wholly owned by Time Warner Cable. So sure, you can probably get your email account from anywhere, but Time Warner still owns the coax, and still charges whatever the fuck they want.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you ever vote to have hundreds of nuclear weapons detonated in Nevada? Were you consulted on that one?
We are a representative republic. You voted for representatives that went to Congress, and Congress voted to establish Yucca Mountain. Ergo, by the rule of law, your vote was carried by your proxy to the Congress.
That's why Nevada has to take it.
Yes and no.
A very specific type of Plutonium is good for weapons, and all the other types are very BAD for weapons, and in fact inhibit the weapon from working. The good news is that the Pu-239 that is good for weapons is created with a massively inefficient short fuel cycle, because the Pu-240 and Pu-241 is bred from the Pu-239, and cannot be separated from the 239 with current technologies. So just leave the fuel in as long as commercial plant operators currently do, and the Plutonium that is created is unsuitable for weapons production, but still quite useful in reactors that 'burn' mixed-oxide fuels.
I'd rather have a 90% solution than the 0% solution we have now. Perfect is the enemy of good enough.
Yeah, because having 50 storage sites that all have to be protected in geographically unsound locations is far better than a single properly built and guarded site.
How would your proposal be any different from just leaving that shit at the ~104 reactors where it currently is?
And who ran the Senate in 2011? Oh, that's right, the senior Senator from the Great State of Nevada.
Yucca Mountain was never going to happen with Harry Reid in charge, so I'm willing to bet that Obama traded that for advancing something else he wanted to move. Shitty policy, but smart politics, if you ask me.
$2 says that when DoE announces the site for the new storage facility, it will still be in Nevada, and they'll announce it in 2017 after Harry Reid has cleaned out his office, and a now very junior Senator has moved in.
And isn't it funny now that Reid has announced his retirement, that DoE is getting off their ass and working the problem again. Let me guess, they'll be announcing the decision to dispose of it in Nevada, roughly 72 hours after Reid has cleared out the minority leader office suite and Chuck Schumer has moved in?
Depending on what your setup is and what the requirements are, it's fully feasible to have a 'storage server' where all it's RAM is handed over to ZFS for caching and dedup, and you export via NFS to your VM hosting systems on 10GbE. It adds a touch of latency, but if you can host a hundred machines that don't require super low latency and save 90% of the disk space by only having 1 copy of your server OS (for the most part), then you're probably doing better.
It's a viable config depending on what the needs are, and can save far more disk than compressing each image on it's own.
Oh, so in your hatred of Oracle, you're recommending a filesystem project that was started by... Oracle.
Only reason Oracle isn't still the major contributor to btrfs is because they bought Sun and got a complete version of what they were trying to create with btrfs.
1. ZFS Snapshotting is incremental, just like NetApp. In fact, it's so 'just like NetApp' that NetApp sued Sun Microsystems over it.
2. You don't know what the hell you're talking about. See #1.
In addition, when it comes to VM hosting in the filesystem, ZFS deduplication can offer a significant space savings by deduping all the common files in the VM images (operating system files).
If you are hosting Windows VMs, this effectively nullifies many gigabytes of storage bloat. This is, of course, a feature of ZFS, and has nothing to do with snapshotting other than the fact that your snapshots will be smaller.
Snapshotting has been in ZFS from (practically?) the beginning.
This article is about a cloud provider specifically providing a workable service to act as a ZFS snapshot receiver, which before required you to do some serious customization on a general-purpose compute environment like Amazon EC2.
At the prices that rsync.net charges for what it is, this is a pretty compelling off-site solution for my media storage, as it's already on a ZFS pool via FreeNAS.
They would pay taxes on monies that are repatriated to China, just like US corporations pay tax on dollars that they repatriate to the US.
Which, by the way, is why companies don't do that, and just keep the money 'off-shore' and continue to ask the Congress to enact a reduced repatriation tax holiday.
If they'd do it, Apple, Google, Cisco, et al. would be more than happy to pay several hundred million in taxes in order to get the billions back here. The US Government would get a nice windfall to waste on the usual pork and bullshit.
And we all know that if the Government was able to pull in those tax revenues from Corporations, they would immediately pass on tax savings to individuals.
No, they would pat themselves on the back about how they're balancing budgets, and keep all the money to spend on a bunch of pork; all the while leaving the punishing tax rates on the middle class the same.
It's actually not made by an American corporation - In Apple's case, the products are distributed and sold by Apple Operations International, which is a European company.
This is the entire basis of the tax loophole that they, and many other companies, use. That being said, all Apple products found in North and South America are booked through Apple, Inc., and have US tax law applied to the revenues. Unless, of course, you're saying that Tim Cook perjured himself in front of Congress.
So let me get this straight:
1. Party X does stuff we don't like, so Party Y campaigns on the idea that they don't like that stuff, and they're going to do something about it.
2. Party Y wins enough elections to outright control Congress and the Presidency, based on this campaign.
3. Party Y does jack shit with their outright majorities about the stuff they said they don't like.
4. Somehow Party Y still blames Party X, even though they had every opportunity to do something about it, but didn't want to do anything about it because they would rather campaign on it, than fix it.
Note: this is the same general tactic employed about practically every issue facing the United States today. They aren't interested in fixing shit, because they can use the problem to generate campaign funds through FUD.
If you don't see that there is a massive difference between getting a bunch of sub-$100 donations from random salt-of-the-earth supporters, and taking huge veiled sums of money through SuperPACs and lobbyists, then there's just no helping you.
He really hasn't said anything inconsistent - he's getting the same kind of grass roots contributions that Bernie Sanders is, but somehow it's a bad thing all of a sudden.
Any statement of "No $NOUN has ever $EVENT without $CONDITION" is doomed to be incorrect eventually with history. I don't know why people still prattle those statements out.
No black man had ever been elected President in the US either, and it doesn't matter in the slightest now.
You can bet that once Iowa and New Hampshire are done, at least 5 of those people are gone. The money will dry up, and they'll have to pack it in. Then the real race will begin.
In the last Republican debate between petty insults and ridiculous arguments about who introduced what legislative detritus that was going to go absolutely nowhere, Trump finally said one thing that actually made a bit of sense - how much money has been poured into Iraq that could have been used to rebuild our own country? The misadventures of the neocons is going to take decades to pay back, and somehow there is still a few of those clowns up there wanting to repeat the same mistakes, thinking that all we need to do is drop a few billion more dollars of explosives on Syria, and magically that region of the world will finally see the light and learn to love democracy.
It's ridiculous, and it only serves to make even more people hate the west.
(In no way is this post meant to be in support of Trump - there is no way I'd vote for that guy after hearing his stance on muslim immigration - even without the Islamophobic angle, a religious test of some kind is completely unenforceable, and very questionable under the First Amendment which guarantees religious freedom.)
Some of what he says about climate change seems good, but I still have problems with people trying to tax carbon to make renewable power more price competitive, I see this happening already without the need for another tax for us to pay as solar panels are getting cheaper and cheaper.
I see what you're saying there, but I don't think it's fair for coal and petroleum based generation to be able to externalize their pollution costs onto everyone else, also boosting the need for health care. They just send the waste up the stacks and let it fall where it may, where every other competitive technology has to deal with the consequences. Solar and wind have manufacturing processes that require mining of rare earths or chemical processes that aren't the most environmentally friendly, and they have to deal with that. Nuclear has a very obvious and public waste issue that they have to deal with. Hydro has it's own issues with fish populations and adverse relationships with farmers who want the water for irrigation. But for some reason, it's perfectly fine for coal generation to poison thousands of people each year.
Cap and trade may not be the solution, but something should be done to account for that cost.
Like all things, it's a question of cost efficiency and politics.
For the US Navy, it's far more important to have your boats at sea, on patrol, than save money in refueling reactors. So they designed them to be able to refuel as fast as possible so they can get the boat out of the dock. Also, nuclear proliferation concerns are not high on the list of priorities for an organization that operates vehicles carrying both a nuclear reactor, and nuclear warheads at the same time. Even on aircraft carriers, they have multiple smaller naval reactors rather than scaling up a single reactor, because they can just throw more people at it while in dock in order to refuel and get back on patrol.
For commercial generating stations, it's far more important to have cost efficient operations. They are designed to be refueled in place, where only the spent fuel is removed. This takes something like 6 months to do. Commercial operators also have to operate in a way that is 'anti-proliferation' which restricts what kinds of fuel mixes and reactor designs they can use. And the reactor is far bigger, with far larger output - powering several cities rather than a vehicle and a couple hundred people.
Toshiba took a stab at a modular reactor design like you suggest, but I don't think it's gone anywhere as the project they designed it for was scrapped.
Ok, I remembered the stat wrong. It was 24,000 deaths attributed in 2004, and 13,000 in 2010. But it wasn't only those two years that people die from the crap being spewed forth from coal plants. The point is that tens of thousands die from diseases related to burning coal every year. It is the only energy source that kills on this order, and somehow that's okay. And that's not even speaking to the problems with mine tailings that are destroying waterways, or the several fly ash dam breaks that have destroyed rivers. And notice that I haven't even touched climate change yet, because you never know if you're talking to a rabid disbeliever or not.
And speaking of bad math, please tell me how 12kW solar installs will replace 1300MW nuclear plants at night. Or how many wind farms covering how much acreage of deforestation? I'm a huge fan of solar - I even work for a company that installs solar and has been involved in helping to get the ITC renewed so that the expansion of solar can continue relatively unabated. I'd love it, and my stock portfolio would love it if there was a massive boom in solar. But you still need to have something that works at 100% regardless of the position of the sun, cloud cover, and wind speed. We can't build more hydro, because any river worth having hydro on already has it. So that leaves natural gas, coal, and nuclear.
In a perfect world, we would be using 100% renewables. But we can't get there with today's technology. We need a stepping stone to get away from 1850s technology that kills people and causes untold environmental catastrophe (coal), and properly engineered and managed nuclear power is probably it.
Very true, but there's probably some well-meaning law in place that prevents the shipping of high-level nuclear waste without it being handled by the DoE. So until Congress gets off their ass, we've got waste sitting at 100+ sites around the nation, half-lifing away until something finally gets done about it.
It just seems to be a race right now between Congress pulling their collective heads out of their asses, or this material becoming inert with a stupendous amount of time.
Yes and no. The cable companies play fun little games such as Time Warner does, where "Roadrunner" is technically the ISP, even though they are wholly owned by Time Warner Cable. So sure, you can probably get your email account from anywhere, but Time Warner still owns the coax, and still charges whatever the fuck they want.