Umm -- where did the "3 years to complete" come from? In the Wikipedia article linked above, it was reported that it would be 3-4 years to get a license, before construction began. That was in 2008, and construction started in 2013. Not bad for getting through the NRC.
The tanks in Washington State (Hanford, to be precise) are cold-war era relics filled with corrosive slime. The Fukushima tanks are overflowing with treated water. And yes, the problem is that distillation won't work, since the main problem is tritium, actually in the water itself.
And so what? Before we can evaluate how bad this is, we need to know how bad the radioactivity is. Are we talking "enough to kill everybody" or "enough to detect"? Given that this is water that has already been cleaned, I suspect the latter. The only radionuclide they couldn't get out is tritium, and that at a relatively low concentration. Until there are actual numbers, I won't get excited.
And when you read "highly contaminated water", remember that bananas are too radioactive to meet Japanese food regulations. A little radioactivity goes a long way, as does a little hysteria.
A better source for more detailed information is the government website at NISA (nuclear and industrial safety agency) here., with the latest report at here. It's got pressures and temperatures, as much as they know.
On the other hand, it is scary how much they don't know. They have no idea of the temperature of the spent fuel pools in #1, 3, and 4, or the water temperatures inside the reactor vessel in #1, 2, or 3. (They are monitoring the external temperature of the reactor vessel.) That's not good enough -- couldn't they just drop in a remote temperature sensor into the spent fuel pools? How hard can that be?
Ummm -- Juneau, Wisconsin is a city in Dodge County. Juneau County (where this doofus works) does not contain Juneau (the city).
Not that it matters much.
As a resident of WI, I can say there is a lot of people around here that agree with this doofus. Must be, since according to the law in WI, everybody who has sex with a person under 18 is committing a crime. (Section 949.09 -- 16-18 = misdemeanor, section 948.02 -- 15 & under = felony.) No exception for when both are under the age of 18, you can still get put in jail and on the sex offender registry.
Something is wrong when the law criminalizes what over half of people do. But this prosecutor just can not let go of the power to ruin people's lives.
As a statistics teacher (HS / Tech school level), this doesn't surprise me in the least. Statistics and statistics education has become a giant game of "plug the numbers in and damn the understanding". When a student has never calculated a standard deviation by hand, how can they be expected to know what the heck a root mean square deviation from the sample mean really is?
Going further, I would say that statistics is a tool for answering questions. Like any other tool, it works well for some jobs and not for others. So far, no problem. But the problem comes from students that are just not willing to understand the questions that statistics can answer. Case in point -- a p value of 0.05 does _not_ mean that the null hypothesis has a 95% chance of being wrong. That's what stats students want it to mean, because they are not willing to ask the questions that stats can answer.
Until students are willing to actually do the work, for the sake of actually learning, I don't see any hope.
While I take this document seriously, I have a hard time thinking it will do what the scientologists want, even if it is adopted. Points 1, 2, and 3 would collectively prohibit "religious vilification" and the like. Point 4 would prohibit interference with freedom of religion. What if my religion requires me to vilify other religions? This is not a trivial point, as many religions require their adherents to work against other religions. Examples include the missionary years expected of a mormon, the anti-semitism in the koran, the anti-atheism of evangelical christian faiths in the US, etc.
Nobody can be free to practice religion without the freedom to vilify other religions.
When I was trying to get a job in teaching, the hardest jobs to apply for were the ones that used a personality screening. I never got past that, it was obvious why -- the test was looking for suck-ups and yes-men, teachers who would do exactly what the principal said, and never rock the boat.
And isn't that one of the problems with education today? Not to brag, but I guarantee that I was in the 98th or higher percentile on my Praxis tests. But I know for a fact that other teaching students with me got jobs teaching math while I barely got interviews. People that barely can follow along with the book are going to do a better job of showing the joy of mathematics than I am? When the school is selecting for sheep and not smarts, what kind of teacher do they get? What kind of school do they get? And what kind of "educated" students do we turn out? Shit, shit and shit, of course.
Your comments are correct in essence, but mask a bit of the complexities. The actual definition of AYP varies from state to state, as does the state tests used to measure AYP, as do the "cut scores" separating "basic", "proficient", "advanced" and "minimal", as do the minimum number of students in a given category before that category makes the school "fail". (In Wisconsin, it is 40 students in a category -- I've seen a lot of schools with 39 special ed kids! In some states, it's as small as 5.) So, despite being a national program, the variation between states is incredibly large.
There was recently a study done by the Federal Department of Education, looking at comparing state set standardized tests to a national test (NAEP) that is given to a representative sample of students. Two facts emerged: 1) state standards vary all over the place, 2) the state standard doesn't have a damn thing to do with the educational attainments of the students. High state standards just make AYP hard, low state standards make it easy. (That's my reading of the graphs, not a real statistical statement -- but see for yourself at nces.ed.gov.)
As to your reading of the impact of failing AYP, I agree. It basically sets up schools for failure and opprobrium. Eventually, when the standard is 100% "proficient", I can guarantee that every public school will be labeled as failing. Then, whether the alternatives are better or not, public schools will be trashed. Oh well, I'm glad I went to public schools while they still existed.
If they had properties we didn't know of, then the situation would look different when we switched them. Since it looks the same, for any experiment, then they must not have any missing properties.
Really, folks, this is well known physics. Look up Bell's Inequalities someday.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that experiments have been set up that have put particles into identical states, and then watched them evolve differently in time.
When I say identical states, I mean identical states. In quantum mechanics, there is an underlying symmetry for exchange of particles. (Integer spin has no change in the wave function at all on particle exchange ==> Bose-Einstein statistics. Half-Integer spin has an inversion in the wave function on particle exchange ==> Fermi-Dirac statistics.) This is not marginal stuff -- it explains why lasers work (integer spin) and atoms have electrons with different energy levels (half integer spin). If we take an atom like Helium (even spin), and do experiments with it, we get the results from Bose-Einstein statistics, which means that the particles must be identical, since otherwise, we couldn't see those results.
I think you are underestimating physics. In physics, we don't talk about something if we can't define what it means. The gold standard in physics is a tested prediction. Almost as good is the testable prediction. The minimum level for something to be called physics (rather than theology) is the thought experiment, which might someday be turned into a real experimental prediction. An affirmative statement in physics requires experimental proof, and disagreeing with an affirmative statement takes at least a prediction why. Gut feelings don't count, and I've got a feeling (this is slashdot, not physics, so I can say that) that a gut feeling is all you have.
Not really. Ever since Einstein's theory of stimulated emission, physicists have known that some events are really and truly random, and that it is not possible, even in theory, to predict when they will occur. A good example is radioactive decay. Some atoms, at exactly the same energy levels, will decay in multiple different ways, at a time that can not be predicted.
Quantum scattering (i.e., what happens when really really small particles bounce off of each other) is also not a deterministic process: Identical particles, in exactly the same energy state, will often scatter differently. Looking at particles coming out of a Bose-Einstein condensate is a good example: they are all in exactly the ground state, but come out in random ways.
Yeah, it's weird, and Einstein never got used to it, but his big paradox about it, the EPR paradox, has been shown to physically come down against determinism and hidden variables. So, like it or not, randomness is an inherent part of nature. Deal with it.
Just how are limits on freedom in the armed forces applicable to limits on freedom at a public university? Are we supposed to think that because the armed forces can stop you from talking smack about the president then universities can do the same thing? Baloney.
There is a big difference between restrictions that allow the armed forces to function and restrictions that may make a university look better. While armed forces restrictions may be subjected to the "rational basis" test (meaning that they must only serve to further a governmental interest on a rational basis), restrictions to free speech would probably be subjected to "strict scrutiny" -- does the restriction advance a compelling governmental interest, and does it do it in the narrowest possible manner?
Different situation, different test. Kent State fails this test (or should, anyway).
Yep, you're absolutely right. In grad school, I went to a colloquium where the speaker made just that point, and then illustrated it with a spinning water balloon. Some pretty neat stuff can come out of spherical harmonics -- try it sometime.
Oh, there are a bunch of uncertainties here. First, the equation of state (relationship between pressure and density) is unknown, so we can't model the exact behaviour. Second, while we can guess that the neutron star is a superfluid (zero viscosity), it hasn't been verified experimentally (Nobel prize for first trip to a neutron star!). So, in summary, this is a great area for speculation, all you gravity heads!
The reason our spaceships are tin cans is because nobody can afford the weight for shielding. When 99+% of your mass is thrown away, carrying an extra kilo at the end means an extra hundred kilos at the start.
But, if you have a good enough fuel that you only need 10 times your ultimate mass in fuel, suddenly you can carry shielding. The better your specific impulse (I_sp = pounds of thrust per pound of fuel used per second), the better your chances for shielding. An I_sp of 200 (about what http://armadilloaerospace.com/ hoped to achieve) means you're just barely cutting it. An I_sp of around 300 makes life a lot easier, but that pretty much requires liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen.
Anything higher than that is just pure nirvana for the rocket guys. I have heard of I_sp of over 1000 from a cesium ion drive, but that had just a teensy thrust, making it useful only for satellite station keeping.
So, in conclusion, if you can get a high I_sp and a high thrust, then shielding is a piece of cake.
I am a physicist, and I was in the Penn State physics department with the physics guy in charge of this project, Gerald Smith. I didn't work with him, but scuttlebutt gets around, and the scuttlebutt wasn't good, either about him or about the project.
First: yes, as the article states, Gerald Smith was the department chair. However, he didn't stay there very long because he was a jerk.
Second: I'm much more likely to get hit by a falling safe than an anti-matter bomb. This shit is almost impossible to hold. They've been trying for years just to get enough of it so they can make an anti-hydrogen atom stable enough to see if it accelerates like a hydrogen atom under the influence of gravity. If they can't get 1, how are they going to 10^14 (i.e., 1 billionth of a gram)? And even if they make it, how are they going to store it, move it, use it? Hell, just the cryogenics alone make it non-storable. (Yes, this stuff has to stay cool, or the incredibly difficult job of storing it becomes impossible.) Oh, and if somebody says "positronium" instead of "anti-hydrogen", I say, "even harder". After all, anti-hydrogen has been made (if only incredibly briefly).
The original inspiration for making and storing anti-hydrogen was space travel, where the value would make up for the pain. Making another boom just doesn't cut it. What we have here is a scientist in need of funding, together with a bunch of schmucks without any common sense.
Encrypted swap protects against data hanging around on the computer for years after you've used it. I agree, if somebody's got root on your box, encrypted swap won't stop them. But then again, not very much else will either. But rebooting or unmounting/mounting the swap partition frequently will at least stop root from digging up stuff from long ago.
I have been using encrypted swap on my two laptops (a K6-2 380 MHz and a P2 450 MHz), neither of them speedburners, for a year, and never once have I noticed any problem. When I started encrypting the swap, I looked hard for any performance hit, and found none.
And why would you expect a problem? CPU is so fast and the disk is so slow, it's like having a 10baseT for your local lan that then feeds through a 56K dialup -- absolutely not noticable.
When I read the headline, I was alarmed. But then I read the article, and all my worries went away. I encrypt my swap partition, and that fixes the problem.
It's not hard, and since it's swap (i.e., data you don't need for very long), you don't even need to remember a password (your computer uses a random one every time is sets up the swap). Really, it's pretty easy -- see the HOWTO at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Disk-Encryption-HOWTO/ and keep your goatsex links and pictures confidential.
I am a husband of a family physician. She has been sued twice, and both times were totally bogus. First time, a kid died of carbon monoxide poisoning, at home, after the gas company had told the parents not to have the kid sleep in the kitchen, heated by the stove. The second time, she had been called by the emergency room physician late on Friday night to make sure the guy in the ER got an appointment on Monday. Despite doctor's orders to take it easy, he went running on Sunday and keeled over dead from a heart attack.
So why was my wife sued? Because she was a physician whose name was anywhere associated with the case. Lawyers don't bother to think before they sue, they just sue everybody they can, and let the courts sort them out. Courts do a decent job of that, but only after lots of money spent on defense attorneys and lots of emotional anguish. Yes, lots. My wife went into medicine to help people, and it hurts when she is accused of malpractice without any basis.
This doctorsknow.us is still reprehensible, though. I have heard lots of stories of doctors that should have been sued, thanks to really, really piss poor medicine resulting in injury and death. The funny thing: they didn't get sued.
Malpractice is great in theory, but not in practice.
This web site would be useful, if only they would have some rating system for "deserved" and "bogus". Trust me, doctors can tell the difference.
Slashdot Mirror
Umm -- where did the "3 years to complete" come from? In the Wikipedia article linked above, it was reported that it would be 3-4 years to get a license, before construction began. That was in 2008, and construction started in 2013. Not bad for getting through the NRC.
The tanks in Washington State (Hanford, to be precise) are cold-war era relics filled with corrosive slime. The Fukushima tanks are overflowing with treated water. And yes, the problem is that distillation won't work, since the main problem is tritium, actually in the water itself.
And so what? Before we can evaluate how bad this is, we need to know how bad the radioactivity is. Are we talking "enough to kill everybody" or "enough to detect"? Given that this is water that has already been cleaned, I suspect the latter. The only radionuclide they couldn't get out is tritium, and that at a relatively low concentration. Until there are actual numbers, I won't get excited.
And when you read "highly contaminated water", remember that bananas are too radioactive to meet Japanese food regulations. A little radioactivity goes a long way, as does a little hysteria.
A better source for more detailed information is the government website at NISA (nuclear and industrial safety agency) here., with the latest report at here. It's got pressures and temperatures, as much as they know. On the other hand, it is scary how much they don't know. They have no idea of the temperature of the spent fuel pools in #1, 3, and 4, or the water temperatures inside the reactor vessel in #1, 2, or 3. (They are monitoring the external temperature of the reactor vessel.) That's not good enough -- couldn't they just drop in a remote temperature sensor into the spent fuel pools? How hard can that be?
I'm sorry, but the more things change, the more the stay the same. The parallels are eerie:
1) Daniel Ellsberg / Pentagon papers == whoever / This stuff
2) Operation Phoenix == "capture / kill" CIA operations in Afghanistan.
3) The corrupt Ngo Diem == The corrupt Hamid Karzai.
4) French war in Vietnam == Russian war in Afghanistan
5) Corrupt, worthless army == The corrupt, worthless Afghanistan army.
6) Support for the war from North Vietnam == Support for the war from Pakistan
7) Death from above via B-52's, AC-47's, Hueys == Death from above from F-16's, Predators, Reapers
8) Massive civilian casualties == Massive civilian casualties
9) Nationalism / Religion fueling the fire == Nationalism / Religion fueling the fire
10) Slow build up over years, with too little to start with == Slow buildup over years, with too little to start with
11) Humiliating defeat for the US, with a small fig leaf == ????
Without lots more soldiers sent in, and perhaps even then, this war is lost. When are we going to recognize it?
Ummm -- Juneau, Wisconsin is a city in Dodge County. Juneau County (where this doofus works) does not contain Juneau (the city). Not that it matters much. As a resident of WI, I can say there is a lot of people around here that agree with this doofus. Must be, since according to the law in WI, everybody who has sex with a person under 18 is committing a crime. (Section 949.09 -- 16-18 = misdemeanor, section 948.02 -- 15 & under = felony.) No exception for when both are under the age of 18, you can still get put in jail and on the sex offender registry. Something is wrong when the law criminalizes what over half of people do. But this prosecutor just can not let go of the power to ruin people's lives.
As a statistics teacher (HS / Tech school level), this doesn't surprise me in the least. Statistics and statistics education has become a giant game of "plug the numbers in and damn the understanding". When a student has never calculated a standard deviation by hand, how can they be expected to know what the heck a root mean square deviation from the sample mean really is?
Going further, I would say that statistics is a tool for answering questions. Like any other tool, it works well for some jobs and not for others. So far, no problem. But the problem comes from students that are just not willing to understand the questions that statistics can answer. Case in point -- a p value of 0.05 does _not_ mean that the null hypothesis has a 95% chance of being wrong. That's what stats students want it to mean, because they are not willing to ask the questions that stats can answer.
Until students are willing to actually do the work, for the sake of actually learning, I don't see any hope.
While I take this document seriously, I have a hard time thinking it will do what the scientologists want, even if it is adopted. Points 1, 2, and 3 would collectively prohibit "religious vilification" and the like. Point 4 would prohibit interference with freedom of religion. What if my religion requires me to vilify other religions? This is not a trivial point, as many religions require their adherents to work against other religions. Examples include the missionary years expected of a mormon, the anti-semitism in the koran, the anti-atheism of evangelical christian faiths in the US, etc.
Nobody can be free to practice religion without the freedom to vilify other religions.
Beloit school district, Beloit WI. See http://www.sdb.k12.wi.us/employment/ for a link to the page saying that they use the test, and https://gx.gallup.com/teacherinsight.gx for more information on the test.
So no, I didn't invent it. I have no desire to denigrate the teaching profession, only the people who select poorly educated sycophants to join it.
When I was trying to get a job in teaching, the hardest jobs to apply for were the ones that used a personality screening. I never got past that, it was obvious why -- the test was looking for suck-ups and yes-men, teachers who would do exactly what the principal said, and never rock the boat.
And isn't that one of the problems with education today? Not to brag, but I guarantee that I was in the 98th or higher percentile on my Praxis tests. But I know for a fact that other teaching students with me got jobs teaching math while I barely got interviews. People that barely can follow along with the book are going to do a better job of showing the joy of mathematics than I am? When the school is selecting for sheep and not smarts, what kind of teacher do they get? What kind of school do they get? And what kind of "educated" students do we turn out? Shit, shit and shit, of course.
Your comments are correct in essence, but mask a bit of the complexities. The actual definition of AYP varies from state to state, as does the state tests used to measure AYP, as do the "cut scores" separating "basic", "proficient", "advanced" and "minimal", as do the minimum number of students in a given category before that category makes the school "fail". (In Wisconsin, it is 40 students in a category -- I've seen a lot of schools with 39 special ed kids! In some states, it's as small as 5.) So, despite being a national program, the variation between states is incredibly large.
There was recently a study done by the Federal Department of Education, looking at comparing state set standardized tests to a national test (NAEP) that is given to a representative sample of students. Two facts emerged: 1) state standards vary all over the place, 2) the state standard doesn't have a damn thing to do with the educational attainments of the students. High state standards just make AYP hard, low state standards make it easy. (That's my reading of the graphs, not a real statistical statement -- but see for yourself at nces.ed.gov.)
As to your reading of the impact of failing AYP, I agree. It basically sets up schools for failure and opprobrium. Eventually, when the standard is 100% "proficient", I can guarantee that every public school will be labeled as failing. Then, whether the alternatives are better or not, public schools will be trashed. Oh well, I'm glad I went to public schools while they still existed.
If they had properties we didn't know of, then the situation would look different when we switched them. Since it looks the same, for any experiment, then they must not have any missing properties.
Really, folks, this is well known physics. Look up Bell's Inequalities someday.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that experiments have been set up that have put particles into identical states, and then watched them evolve differently in time.
When I say identical states, I mean identical states. In quantum mechanics, there is an underlying symmetry for exchange of particles. (Integer spin has no change in the wave function at all on particle exchange ==> Bose-Einstein statistics. Half-Integer spin has an inversion in the wave function on particle exchange ==> Fermi-Dirac statistics.) This is not marginal stuff -- it explains why lasers work (integer spin) and atoms have electrons with different energy levels (half integer spin). If we take an atom like Helium (even spin), and do experiments with it, we get the results from Bose-Einstein statistics, which means that the particles must be identical, since otherwise, we couldn't see those results.
I think you are underestimating physics. In physics, we don't talk about something if we can't define what it means. The gold standard in physics is a tested prediction. Almost as good is the testable prediction. The minimum level for something to be called physics (rather than theology) is the thought experiment, which might someday be turned into a real experimental prediction. An affirmative statement in physics requires experimental proof, and disagreeing with an affirmative statement takes at least a prediction why. Gut feelings don't count, and I've got a feeling (this is slashdot, not physics, so I can say that) that a gut feeling is all you have.
Not really. Ever since Einstein's theory of stimulated emission, physicists have known that some events are really and truly random, and that it is not possible, even in theory, to predict when they will occur. A good example is radioactive decay. Some atoms, at exactly the same energy levels, will decay in multiple different ways, at a time that can not be predicted.
Quantum scattering (i.e., what happens when really really small particles bounce off of each other) is also not a deterministic process: Identical particles, in exactly the same energy state, will often scatter differently. Looking at particles coming out of a Bose-Einstein condensate is a good example: they are all in exactly the ground state, but come out in random ways.
Yeah, it's weird, and Einstein never got used to it, but his big paradox about it, the EPR paradox, has been shown to physically come down against determinism and hidden variables. So, like it or not, randomness is an inherent part of nature. Deal with it.
Just how are limits on freedom in the armed forces applicable to limits on freedom at a public university? Are we supposed to think that because the armed forces can stop you from talking smack about the president then universities can do the same thing? Baloney.
There is a big difference between restrictions that allow the armed forces to function and restrictions that may make a university look better. While armed forces restrictions may be subjected to the "rational basis" test (meaning that they must only serve to further a governmental interest on a rational basis), restrictions to free speech would probably be subjected to "strict scrutiny" -- does the restriction advance a compelling governmental interest, and does it do it in the narrowest possible manner?
Different situation, different test. Kent State fails this test (or should, anyway).
Yep, you're absolutely right. In grad school, I went to a colloquium where the speaker made just that point, and then illustrated it with a spinning water balloon. Some pretty neat stuff can come out of spherical harmonics -- try it sometime.
Oh, there are a bunch of uncertainties here. First, the equation of state (relationship between pressure and density) is unknown, so we can't model the exact behaviour. Second, while we can guess that the neutron star is a superfluid (zero viscosity), it hasn't been verified experimentally (Nobel prize for first trip to a neutron star!). So, in summary, this is a great area for speculation, all you gravity heads!
It's all about weight.
The reason our spaceships are tin cans is because nobody can afford the weight for shielding. When 99+% of your mass is thrown away, carrying an extra kilo at the end means an extra hundred kilos at the start.
But, if you have a good enough fuel that you only need 10 times your ultimate mass in fuel, suddenly you can carry shielding. The better your specific impulse (I_sp = pounds of thrust per pound of fuel used per second), the better your chances for shielding. An I_sp of 200 (about what http://armadilloaerospace.com/ hoped to achieve) means you're just barely cutting it. An I_sp of around 300 makes life a lot easier, but that pretty much requires liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen.
Anything higher than that is just pure nirvana for the rocket guys. I have heard of I_sp of over 1000 from a cesium ion drive, but that had just a teensy thrust, making it useful only for satellite station keeping.
So, in conclusion, if you can get a high I_sp and a high thrust, then shielding is a piece of cake.
I am a physicist, and I was in the Penn State physics department with the physics guy in charge of this project, Gerald Smith. I didn't work with him, but scuttlebutt gets around, and the scuttlebutt wasn't good, either about him or about the project.
First: yes, as the article states, Gerald Smith was the department chair. However, he didn't stay there very long because he was a jerk.
Second: I'm much more likely to get hit by a falling safe than an anti-matter bomb. This shit is almost impossible to hold. They've been trying for years just to get enough of it so they can make an anti-hydrogen atom stable enough to see if it accelerates like a hydrogen atom under the influence of gravity. If they can't get 1, how are they going to 10^14 (i.e., 1 billionth of a gram)? And even if they make it, how are they going to store it, move it, use it? Hell, just the cryogenics alone make it non-storable. (Yes, this stuff has to stay cool, or the incredibly difficult job of storing it becomes impossible.) Oh, and if somebody says "positronium" instead of "anti-hydrogen", I say, "even harder". After all, anti-hydrogen has been made (if only incredibly briefly).
The original inspiration for making and storing anti-hydrogen was space travel, where the value would make up for the pain. Making another boom just doesn't cut it. What we have here is a scientist in need of funding, together with a bunch of schmucks without any common sense.
Steve Beach, MS in particle astrophysics, 2003.
Well, if coral really worked, it would support
the cutting edge browsers, like lynx. I just
a string of gibberish when I tried it.
Different attack, different safeguards.
Encrypted swap protects against data hanging around
on the computer for years after you've used it.
I agree, if somebody's got root on your box, encrypted
swap won't stop them. But then again, not very much
else will either. But rebooting or unmounting/mounting
the swap partition frequently will at least stop root
from digging up stuff from long ago.
Memory usage? Slower performance? CPU usage?
I have been using encrypted swap on my two laptops
(a K6-2 380 MHz and a P2 450 MHz), neither of them
speedburners, for a year, and never once have I
noticed any problem. When I started encrypting
the swap, I looked hard for any performance hit,
and found none.
And why would you expect a problem? CPU is so fast
and the disk is so slow, it's like having a 10baseT
for your local lan that then feeds through a 56K dialup --
absolutely not noticable.
When I read the headline, I was alarmed. But
and keep your goatsex links and pictures confidential.
then I read the article, and all my worries went away.
I encrypt my swap partition, and that fixes the problem.
It's not hard, and since it's swap (i.e., data
you don't need for very long), you don't even need
to remember a password (your computer uses a random
one every time is sets up the swap). Really, it's
pretty easy -- see the HOWTO at http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Disk-Encryption-HOWTO/
I guess two daughters don't count as husbands, but they sure do take up time and emotional energy. I sure don't feel alone, anyway.
I am a husband of a family physician. She has been sued twice, and both times were totally bogus. First time, a kid died of carbon monoxide poisoning, at home, after the gas company had told the parents not to have the kid sleep in the kitchen, heated by the stove. The second time, she had been called by the emergency room physician late on Friday night to make sure the guy in the ER got an appointment on Monday. Despite doctor's orders to take it easy, he went running on Sunday and keeled over dead from a heart attack.
So why was my wife sued? Because she was a physician whose name was anywhere associated with the case. Lawyers don't bother to think before they sue, they just sue everybody they can, and let the courts sort them out. Courts do a decent job of that, but only after lots of money spent on defense attorneys and lots of emotional anguish. Yes, lots. My wife went into medicine to help people, and it hurts when she is accused of malpractice without any basis.
This doctorsknow.us is still reprehensible, though. I have heard lots of stories of doctors that should have been sued, thanks to really, really piss poor medicine resulting in injury and death. The funny thing: they didn't get sued.
Malpractice is great in theory, but not in practice.
This web site would be useful, if only they would have some rating system for "deserved" and "bogus". Trust me, doctors can tell the difference.