And Libya was an icon of peaceful commerce and US support _before_ she did anything as Secretary of State?
Moammar Ghadaffi had 42 years of corrupt leadership of Libya to instigate a civil war, and to alienate other nations, and he did a very thorough task of it. The amazing thing is that the war took so _long_ to start. Hillary Clinton could not have added much to trigger the war, except to help send in US troops, which she did not do.
> The consequences for scientists who falsify their results is real and severe,
But often delayed enough to gather several years of funding, years during which many over-eager scientists scrape for vindication of their original claims. I'm afraid that several times in my career, I've worked with scientists whose initial findings were fundamentally false and refused to retract them. Publishing the truth turned out to be very delicate, because the groups whose data were clearly better collected, better calibrated, and thus more valid would be smeared and possibly lose their own funding if they exposed the falsehoods directly. And scientific "churn" also ties to the value of new patents and new technologies: even if the new technology is not significantly better or if it costs more, superficial benefits that are not borne out by experiment are used to sell the new product.
It's a rampant problem in chemistry and electronics: I've recently encountered it with storage technologies, where very exciting and sophisticated new technologies provided no benefit over older technologies that had already been rejected for very good reasons.
I knew I'd seen this: it was an April Fool's prank, in 1984. The paper has been cited repeatedly by foolish biology paper authors for the last 30 years.
> More like "mostly NOT quite dangerous". LEO doesn't even make the top 10 in most deadly professions.
I'm afraid I've had this discussion before, on Slashdot. Please note that I did not say "deadly". I said "dangerous". And not being on the top 10 most fatal list does not mean a profession is safe, anymore than not being on the New York Times bestseller list means a novel is bad. Fatalities among police are continuing to drop, in the last few decades, partly due to better training, better equipment for most departments, and a rush of funding for police in the wake of 9/11. I think it's also partly due to even faster and more effective responses by emergency crews to injuries that would have previously proven fatal. But they're still at profound risk of traffic injuries, injuries from being the first effective rescue personnel on the scene and vulnerable to bruises, breaks, and burns while trying to help, and most especially to handling domestic violence.
>> It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.
> When did that start in the US?
Part of it was built into the Constitution, with federal lawmakers, courts, and military or enforcement powers kept deliberately separate. The theory is that if any one department runs amok, the others can collaborate to overwhelm them. The same principal applies to the Army, Navy, Marines, and in the last 100 years the Air Force. The frequent collaboration among the departments is _supposed_ to be about mutual benefits to the people as a while:
There is _nothing_ unique to the modern law enforcement or to the USA in wanting to appear "tough on crime", and the abuses that can result. The novel "Les Miserable" includes precisely this in the wake of the French Revolution.
It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of local police doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work. The local officers with their boots on the ground doing the real day-to-day work are worth their weight in BitCoins.
But yes, corruption and brutal enforcement with the public as "the enemy" are terrible, easy habits to fall into for individuals and for whole departments. Some corruption is inherent in _having_ a culture large enough to require law enforcement. It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.
Since patent and copyright violations, and even theft of trade secrets can be prosecuted as theft, yes, it could certainly be considered theft. Whether Bitcoins are considered currency or not, they're considered valuable trade goods by the owners of the Bitcoins, and they have a pretty clear market value. The extortion and obstruction of justice engaged in by this agent hopefully make it even easier to prosecute.
_Former_ government employee. The courts don't provide anywhere near as much lenience for former employees as for active employees of law enforcement agencies.
And if you are convinced that the US government and its courts will not turn a blind eye to criminal acts by federal employees, please review the revelations about NSA criminal and unconstitutional activities published by Edward Snowden for a recent striking example. www.wikileaks.com is filled with criminal activity by many governments: the USA is not immune. Turning a blind eye to colleague abuses is a common problem.
And the F-36 is the best at _nothing_, and far more expensive than an F-22. The projected unit cost for a F-35 is still rising: the Pentagon will be very lucky if it _ever_ drops below $200 million/aircraft.
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.
Which manage system commands controlling system daemons, using daemon configuration files much like those of SysV init scripts but with more modular activation and re-starting when they crash.
It's an init script system with better service monitoring.
The settings of what to keep and preserve are optional, set in the "/etc/sudoers" file and modified heavily by the use of "sudo -s", "sudo -s -H", and "sudo -i" command line options. I recently walked through this with someone who was surprised that their ssh-agent access was lost when they used "sudo -i -u appname". to edit files as an application owner.
"su" was replaced for almost use by "sudo" shortly after its first release in 1999, as a lightweight thorough, and fine grained replacement. Sudo's only flaw is the ability to sanity check and reject individual "included" files from/etc/sudoers.d, which makes editing them somewhat dangerous.
Mr. Pottering is, I'm afraid, insistent on replacing the entire UNIX and Linux infrastructure with a proprietary, Linux-only, sprawling and destabilized octopus that persists in breaking stable environments and stable tools.
The article you point to is very interesting, but quite sketchy: I assume they're breeding tritium from Lithium-6? That's an exothermic reaction as well, so _in theory_ it might be sustainable and address the need for fission based sources of tritium.. But since it's not actually been demonstrated anywhere, I'll remain sceptical about its practicality and scalability. In addition, this research and most other fusion leave out the energy costs of refining the _deuterium_ fuel. That's another cost in the energy budget for fusion reactors that is often left out.
Please excuse me if I seem to be presenting moving targets by raising other efficiency and cost concerns than the original: There are so _many_ places the optimistic hopes for fusion energy break down that even if several are addressed, it doesn't resolve the other factors that limit practicality and scalability of fusion based power.
Let's take a quick back of the envelope look, without wishful optimism already in force.
The net energy of a U-235 fission event is approximately 235 MeV, That of a fusion event involving deuterium and tritium is approximately 18 MeV, less than one tenth of the energy of the energies involving a single pair of atoms. The slow neutron reaction used to generate tritium from lithium itself yields roughly 5 MeV, which might be possible to harvest. If we count atom by atom, rather than by mass, U-235 still yields roughly 10 times the energy of fission. But to produce enough tritium to harvest and actually fuel a fusion reactor, let's assume that we're recovering as much as 1/10 of the fission events as usable tritium fuel. That's a _very_ optimistic number, refining nuclear materials is quite dangerous and quite wasteful.
That means relative power output of the fusion plant, at the most optimistic 100% efficiency of the fusion plant itself, of 1% of the energy output of the fission based tritium source. Even a factor of 10 improvement in any step, or a few factors of 2 improvement at several stages, leaves the fusion plant far behind the energy production of the fission plants needed to fuel it.
> The whole reason I use Uber is to find a driver with a clean car, clean clothes, good local language, good knowledge of the city, good driving skills, sane metering device, known rates and acceptable behavior.
I've been dealing with those services in an urban are lately. Good luck with "driving skills", "local language", and "knowledge of the city". I've nothing personal against Lyft or Uber's attempts to modernize and improve cab services, but they _are_ cab services. And as their numbers grow, they're running into the same problems with more employees and less skilled drivers that the cab companies do. The "real cab companies" should have been willing to invest in this approach a decade ago when cell phones and geo-locatoin first started becoming useful about 10 years ago.
It could have been worse. Fedora 19 was the "Schrödinger's Cat" release, and it broke number of software installation tools . Many old scripts in bash, ruby, or perl would read "/etc/issue.net" or "/etc/fedora-release", and now had to parse the Unicode content with a single quote and two text words embedded in the text. For many old, simply written shell scripts, in particular, it broke them _very_ badly.
For many of us, Fedora 19 was known as the "Bobby Tables" release. ( https://xkcd.com/327/ )
Every tested, even slightly successful fusion reaction uses deuterium and tritium, which are quite expensive hydrogen isotopes. And all viable supplies of tritium are created from fission reactors with neutron bombardment of otherwise relatively stable isotopes.
I'm afraid that the neutrons used for generating tritium from fusion sources are the neutrons being used for power from the fusion reaction. So it's a possible _efficiency_ savings to generate tritium from low energy neutrons that are otherwise unharvested those fusion reactions, but the fusion reaction doesn't generate more neutrons for tritium creation than it actually uses up in tritium. So it cannot possibly be the primary _source_ for tritium in fusion plants.
I'm also afraid that the person who wrote that handwaving comment for that advocacy website failed to think through their ideas.
The resulting political abuse of the ISO standards resulted in an ISO standard for a Microsoft specific technology that even Microsoft does not and cannot follow due to its inconsistencies and unresolved problems.
Slashdot Mirror
And Libya was an icon of peaceful commerce and US support _before_ she did anything as Secretary of State?
Moammar Ghadaffi had 42 years of corrupt leadership of Libya to instigate a civil war, and to alienate other nations, and he did a very thorough task of it. The amazing thing is that the war took so _long_ to start. Hillary Clinton could not have added much to trigger the war, except to help send in US troops, which she did not do.
> The consequences for scientists who falsify their results is real and severe,
But often delayed enough to gather several years of funding, years during which many over-eager scientists scrape for vindication of their original claims. I'm afraid that several times in my career, I've worked with scientists whose initial findings were fundamentally false and refused to retract them. Publishing the truth turned out to be very delicate, because the groups whose data were clearly better collected, better calibrated, and thus more valid would be smeared and possibly lose their own funding if they exposed the falsehoods directly. And scientific "churn" also ties to the value of new patents and new technologies: even if the new technology is not significantly better or if it costs more, superficial benefits that are not borne out by experiment are used to sell the new product.
It's a rampant problem in chemistry and electronics: I've recently encountered it with storage technologies, where very exciting and sophisticated new technologies provided no benefit over older technologies that had already been rejected for very good reasons.
I knew I'd seen this: it was an April Fool's prank, in 1984. The paper has been cited repeatedly by foolish biology paper authors for the last 30 years.
http://hoaxes.org/af_database/...
> More like "mostly NOT quite dangerous". LEO doesn't even make the top 10 in most deadly professions.
I'm afraid I've had this discussion before, on Slashdot. Please note that I did not say "deadly". I said "dangerous". And not being on the top 10 most fatal list does not mean a profession is safe, anymore than not being on the New York Times bestseller list means a novel is bad. Fatalities among police are continuing to drop, in the last few decades, partly due to better training, better equipment for most departments, and a rush of funding for police in the wake of 9/11. I think it's also partly due to even faster and more effective responses by emergency crews to injuries that would have previously proven fatal. But they're still at profound risk of traffic injuries, injuries from being the first effective rescue personnel on the scene and vulnerable to bruises, breaks, and burns while trying to help, and most especially to handling domestic violence.
>> It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.
> When did that start in the US?
Part of it was built into the Constitution, with federal lawmakers, courts, and military or enforcement powers kept deliberately separate. The theory is that if any one department runs amok, the others can collaborate to overwhelm them. The same principal applies to the Army, Navy, Marines, and in the last 100 years the Air Force. The frequent collaboration among the departments is _supposed_ to be about mutual benefits to the people as a while:
There is _nothing_ unique to the modern law enforcement or to the USA in wanting to appear "tough on crime", and the abuses that can result. The novel "Les Miserable" includes precisely this in the wake of the French Revolution.
It's a big country: there are a _lot_ of local police doing good work, and it's hard, usually dull, sometimes quite dangerous work. The local officers with their boots on the ground doing the real day-to-day work are worth their weight in BitCoins.
But yes, corruption and brutal enforcement with the public as "the enemy" are terrible, easy habits to fall into for individuals and for whole departments. Some corruption is inherent in _having_ a culture large enough to require law enforcement. It's why it's so important that police, prosecution, courts, and lawmakers are kept at odds, so they can and do limit each other's power.
Since patent and copyright violations, and even theft of trade secrets can be prosecuted as theft, yes, it could certainly be considered theft. Whether Bitcoins are considered currency or not, they're considered valuable trade goods by the owners of the Bitcoins, and they have a pretty clear market value. The extortion and obstruction of justice engaged in by this agent hopefully make it even easier to prosecute.
> He's a government employee, a
_Former_ government employee. The courts don't provide anywhere near as much lenience for former employees as for active employees of law enforcement agencies.
And if you are convinced that the US government and its courts will not turn a blind eye to criminal acts by federal employees, please review the revelations about NSA criminal and unconstitutional activities published by Edward Snowden for a recent striking example. www.wikileaks.com is filled with criminal activity by many governments: the USA is not immune. Turning a blind eye to colleague abuses is a common problem.
And the F-36 is the best at _nothing_, and far more expensive than an F-22. The projected unit cost for a F-35 is still rising: the Pentagon will be very lucky if it _ever_ drops below $200 million/aircraft.
> IF the F-35 does four different roles
But it can't do _any_ of the roles well. The tradeoffs made to accommodate all different military branches needs have played havoc with doing _any_ role well. The repair and upkeep costs are astronomical, it's a fuel glutton, it's fragile, and it's clumsy.
> "su" was replaced for almost use by
I meant "almost all use". I'm afraid my hands seem to be bothering me today, I need to take a break.
Poor ratings take time to take effect, and their turnover is _very_ high. That may contribute to the problem where I've used them.
Which manage system commands controlling system daemons, using daemon configuration files much like those of SysV init scripts but with more modular activation and re-starting when they crash.
It's an init script system with better service monitoring.
MacOS, which is FreeBSD based.
The odds of writing _good_ science fiction, or science, is about 1 in 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The settings of what to keep and preserve are optional, set in the "/etc/sudoers" file and modified heavily by the use of "sudo -s", "sudo -s -H", and "sudo -i" command line options. I recently walked through this with someone who was surprised that their ssh-agent access was lost when they used "sudo -i -u appname". to edit files as an application owner.
"su" was replaced for almost use by "sudo" shortly after its first release in 1999, as a lightweight thorough, and fine grained replacement. Sudo's only flaw is the ability to sanity check and reject individual "included" files from /etc/sudoers.d, which makes editing them somewhat dangerous.
Mr. Pottering is, I'm afraid, insistent on replacing the entire UNIX and Linux infrastructure with a proprietary, Linux-only, sprawling and destabilized octopus that persists in breaking stable environments and stable tools.
You are quite right, thank you.
The article you point to is very interesting, but quite sketchy: I assume they're breeding tritium from Lithium-6? That's an exothermic reaction as well, so _in theory_ it might be sustainable and address the need for fission based sources of tritium.. But since it's not actually been demonstrated anywhere, I'll remain sceptical about its practicality and scalability. In addition, this research and most other fusion leave out the energy costs of refining the _deuterium_ fuel. That's another cost in the energy budget for fusion reactors that is often left out.
Please excuse me if I seem to be presenting moving targets by raising other efficiency and cost concerns than the original: There are so _many_ places the optimistic hopes for fusion energy break down that even if several are addressed, it doesn't resolve the other factors that limit practicality and scalability of fusion based power.
Oh, my. My apologies, I meant "U-235 still yields roughly 10 times the energy of fusion". That message had other typos, it's quite embarrassing.
Let's take a quick back of the envelope look, without wishful optimism already in force.
The net energy of a U-235 fission event is approximately 235 MeV, That of a fusion event involving deuterium and tritium is approximately 18 MeV, less than one tenth of the energy of the energies involving a single pair of atoms. The slow neutron reaction used to generate tritium from lithium itself yields roughly 5 MeV, which might be possible to harvest. If we count atom by atom, rather than by mass, U-235 still yields roughly 10 times the energy of fission. But to produce enough tritium to harvest and actually fuel a fusion reactor, let's assume that we're recovering as much as 1/10 of the fission events as usable tritium fuel. That's a _very_ optimistic number, refining nuclear materials is quite dangerous and quite wasteful.
That means relative power output of the fusion plant, at the most optimistic 100% efficiency of the fusion plant itself, of 1% of the energy output of the fission based tritium source. Even a factor of 10 improvement in any step, or a few factors of 2 improvement at several stages, leaves the fusion plant far behind the energy production of the fission plants needed to fuel it.
> The whole reason I use Uber is to find a driver with a clean car, clean clothes, good local language, good knowledge of the city, good driving skills, sane metering device, known rates and acceptable behavior.
I've been dealing with those services in an urban are lately. Good luck with "driving skills", "local language", and "knowledge of the city". I've nothing personal against Lyft or Uber's attempts to modernize and improve cab services, but they _are_ cab services. And as their numbers grow, they're running into the same problems with more employees and less skilled drivers that the cab companies do. The "real cab companies" should have been willing to invest in this approach a decade ago when cell phones and geo-locatoin first started becoming useful about 10 years ago.
It could have been worse. Fedora 19 was the "Schrödinger's Cat" release, and it broke number of software installation tools . Many old scripts in bash, ruby, or perl would read "/etc/issue.net" or "/etc/fedora-release", and now had to parse the Unicode content with a single quote and two text words embedded in the text. For many old, simply written shell scripts, in particular, it broke them _very_ badly.
For many of us, Fedora 19 was known as the "Bobby Tables" release. ( https://xkcd.com/327/ )
Every tested, even slightly successful fusion reaction uses deuterium and tritium, which are quite expensive hydrogen isotopes. And all viable supplies of tritium are created from fission reactors with neutron bombardment of otherwise relatively stable isotopes.
I'm afraid that the neutrons used for generating tritium from fusion sources are the neutrons being used for power from the fusion reaction. So it's a possible _efficiency_ savings to generate tritium from low energy neutrons that are otherwise unharvested those fusion reactions, but the fusion reaction doesn't generate more neutrons for tritium creation than it actually uses up in tritium. So it cannot possibly be the primary _source_ for tritium in fusion plants.
I'm also afraid that the person who wrote that handwaving comment for that advocacy website failed to think through their ideas.
No, they'll send mercenaries from around the globe, much as they funded delegats for the ISO voting on OOXML.
http://www.linuxjournal.com/co...
The resulting political abuse of the ISO standards resulted in an ISO standard for a Microsoft specific technology that even Microsoft does not and cannot follow due to its inconsistencies and unresolved problems.