It's not supposed to do that. It's an INIT system. If you want a daemon manager, the init system can start one for you.
What daemon manager solves those problems? And what is the point of having an init that basically does nothing but spawn a daemon manager and a few gettys? Why not just move that code into the kernel (oh wait, it is already there - it launches init)?
I spawn services from init. It works very well, on, off, once, respawn. It's very fast when it restarts a service and if a service flaps then it won't expend all of CPU restarting, it will just wait before attempting to restart the service and scream loudly in the meantime. I don't wonder if it is working because init is so responsive.
Perhaps it's just easy for people to write bad init.d scripts and everything 'kinda' works?
If your daemon manager really did do all the stuff you want it to do, and it dies, then the effects would be about the same as init crashing anyway.
I've tried to make init crash in tests - it's very difficult. As a daemon manager, init works well.
It's so simple that it's broken. See for example http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/s... for a nice overview of all the limitations of SysV init, the most important being that it doesn't actually keep track of what services are running and what processes belong to what services.
Sorry friend, I read your link but it's immediately apparent that this guy hasn't even read the inittab manual. The answer to many of the statements made in that blog are answered in the subject line of this post. Others are implementation issues with the application.
He may have a point with parallelism in the boot sequence, but I only care about boot speed if I am on a desktop - in which case I can just re-write how rc starts things. On a server rc's runlevel and service ordering K and S answer the question of service dependencies in a much easier and *transparent* way. And why are dependencies such a big deal - the application should be able to cope with a required service missing in an intelligent way. And if the dependency doesn't start it has a problem that systemd or init can't handle, so I'm back to wondering what systemd is actually doing for me.
Please don't see this as me defending init. I am trying to see what the justification is in choosing to run systemd with my servers - which I am trialling. I'm finding the unnecessary complexity of systemd can put me in a bad situation when I am trying to control the uptime of commercial services.
If you just want the system to boot faster - you can already achieve that with rc tweaks and implementing your service startup better instead of hacking it. The way I see it with systemd I now have three problems to deal with instead of one. 1. I still have crappy start-up implementations for services. 2. I have to now manage systemd's characteristics (obviously init isn't perfect) 3. When I have downtime I have to manage 1&2 at the worst time. Frankly operating init is so much faster and more transparent than systemd.
I see no tangible benefit for the expenditure of effort I've sincerely made, so far and I'm still wondering if there is a compelling reason. I'd rather have a discussion based on merit of the two systems, however what is compelling is that many people haven't used init to it's full capacity.
It's so simple that half of the init scripts in FreeBSD are half unusable, do not check for stale pids, fail to correctly bring down the services....
Sounds like those issues are implementation based.
and none of the rc.d scripts use containers, so resource management is impossible, because all of the daemons fork() and you lose track of the process and its children, and we have 3-4 daemons trying to manage suspend/resume features per each distribution, while the desktop managers try to override that, and.
Ok - well your talking about desktop stuff here, which is an interesting perspective that I didn't really consider, however I still think that is doable in inittab with much less effort. rc is only a runlevel solution, whereas inittab would be more relevant to desktop. I don't need to keep track of the process and it's children because init can maintain the parents state for me - if the parent isn't signalling it's children then we are back to implementation issues again.
I don't care if you don't like systemd, but saying that the rc.d systemd is simple, and implying that there is no problem whatsoever, is closing your eyes and ears while chanting LALALALALA like a kid.
jeeez. I'm just trying to figure it out. I'm not being a jerk about it, I'm trying to gauge other peoples experiences. I don't give a fuck about init if systemd is better - it's just another technology. But if it is better than shouldn't it be immediately apparent *WHY* it is better?
You have to wonder how much the employees were really hurt by this. It was a 'no poaching' agreement. That meant that recruiters from those companies weren't going to call down the entire Rolodex of the competing firms and try to recruit.
Yeah, they could just pack up and move to another city as well, or just accept less at a firm that hasn't been able to participate in a no-poach agreement - either way it's the employees or a potential competitor's, expense.
But.... there are nothing stopping external recruiters from doing that. And there was nothing stopping individuals from switching on their own.
Of course, smaller firms using external recruiters would be able to create their own no poach agreement so they can drive the salaries of IT folk even lower. There is no harm in that.
There's some logic to an agreement like that. Each of these firm's recruiters could waste huge amounts of employee time in their competitors by making thousand of recruiting calls.
Indeed, they could save huge amounts of company time by rendering pointless employees making thousands of recruiting calls and enabling the company to move them on at a time of the companies choosing, saving the company millions.
They sound like some real winning strategies for the tech firms you have there.
It's a class action. The only person that is really winning here is the lawyer that is getting $150,000,000 for bringing the suit.
To put it into perspective the existing settlement is $5400 per class action participant showing just how much IT workers are under paid for the investment required to be skilled enough to do the work.
As to the lawyer, someone had to bring the suit because it's not as if IT workers have representation of their own and I expect a case like that was expensive to run. I doubt that the lawyers company will be looked upon favorably by the tech giants anymore either, so if the figure you say is real then it's about right for someone sticking their neck out against a group of behemoths that make that amount of money look like chump change.
Think about it, how much money to you expect Apple et. al would pay to reduce their primary capital expenditure, labour costs?
It's unlikely that tech giants will want that kind of represetation to survive to threaten them again and they want other lawyers will think twice about representing IT people thus making it more expensive for IT folk to get what they are entitled to.
If you need proof that IT folk are underpaid, here is one of the few times an ordinary person can see exactly what machinations occur to keep it that way.
I'm going to get on with what I'm doing now...
on
IT Job Hiring Slumps
·
· Score: 1
instead of reading/.
I think thats the best way for me to deal with this issue right now.
What I find cool about this asteroid is that it's in a 1.5 year orbit. That means it's in a 3:2 resonance with Earth. So it'll come by again if you miss it this time, every 3 years.
"Reliant's prefix number is one six three zero nine." -- Spock, Star Trek II
Exactly! Star trek technology again. If you are going to use technology then look to where technology scenarios have been solved - even if it's only fiction. The ENTIRE division could have had a prefix code that disabled any number of functions.
prefix.all=disable
prefix.engine.all=disable
prefix.navigation.all=disable
prefix.weapons.all=disable
However America should not leave it's powerful weaponry for a third party to control. Iraq is completely demoralized they've just had the shit kicked out of them and their ideological enemy (Islam) has a knife to the throat of their children. It doesn't matter what weapons you give to someone who has no heart to fight and, when the enemy knows your families name and address they have you by the balls.
Islamic extremists have dominated the *psychology* of war constantly hitting at ideological weaknesses of the west, undermining our allies and using our own political shortsightedness against us to undermine western democracy - which they hate. Yet we have continued to make the same mistakes.
Over ten years ago our political representatives decided to lie to us (again) about compromising our values. They thought torturing and brutalizing people would be a good idea. However, long before 911 Islam was committing human right violations and we just didn't care. Now it all comes back to haunt us with new enemies, yet we are surprised when these psychos chop our citizens heads off. That's the price we pay for compromising our values. They don't have an ethical framework, we do. The answer is not to discard our ethical framework and become them - the answer is to strengthen our ethical framework and show the resolve of our mettle, not our metal. Our right *IS* might.
An old idea I've not heard in the news is "we are sending a crack team of diplomats" because the masses are too stupid to realize that hiding behind airstrikes and drones is cowardice, because the uneducated amongst us always think force is the right answer to every problem and because our Faux media insists on its shallow mindedness for ratings. We still haven't learned that Islamic extremism is using asymmetrical warfare against us to bleed us financially and worse, morally. Islamic extremism has effected a change in our entire way of life, and all we have done is radicalized them more because we turned from our ideals. This is not a path to victory.
Until the western world returns to the ideals that made us strong in the first place these extremists are going to continue to work a strangle game on us and slowly slowly slowly choke us. They hit us where WE think we are weak, but our ideals are our true strength because ideals can't be terrorized. When people of good character see the west sticking to its ideals *they* sympathize, when we don't *they* radicalize. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment ain't going to do what winning hearts and minds can do. Why can't we learn that? Why can't we take a step back and say, hang on a minute - what is really going on here?
Leaving tanks and destruction then saying "here are some guns, it's on you now" was never going to work. Taking responsibility for what we have done with our military and leaving schools, hospitals, training police, teachers will. Let ISIS or al-ki-assholes blow up the Iraqi people's new infrastructure and see how many friends they win.
That's the nice America that Islamic extremists can never defeat, no matter how many heads they take.
Ok people - rant over - sorry about that but I think it needed to be said.
I was confused about the use of water and burning Actinides because I believe it requires fast neutrons to occur at a high rate and water is a moderator. Also, if water getting out of the way lets the reaction rate increase, the void coefficient would be positive?
It's a good point. I thought using water for a fast neutron reactor was something we had already moved past and were now considering using liquid metal, like lead, as a coolant with the reactor moderated by the design characteristics. Especially considering how volatile and unforgiving a fast neutron reactor is, taking out as many human factors as possible would be in line with recent NRC recommendations of removing "external" factors.
They could be a little more specific.
Like the burn-up rate they hope to achieve, if it is less than 10% then I don't really see any point here.
option A: moderate toxicity/radioactivity for (hundreds of) thousands of years
option B: EXTREME toxicity/radioactivity for decades
Well, fissile ash of option B would be radioactive for hundreds of years*n daughter products (n=roughly 20) so we would still have to bore a hole in a mountain to deal with it.
I think stable isotopes can be moved safely enough. Otherwise, avoiding transportation is best.
What do you think about moving pu-239?
I looked up C22, and it is an alloy. Lonsdaletite is hexagonal diamond.
Thanks, I needed to learn more about C22. For some reason I thought C22 was referring to the structure of of Lonsdaletite. I needed to improve me education in this area and that has really help - much appreciated.
I don't think a rail car design fixes a leaking cask so the effluent problem is a bit separate.
What I mean is that on-site storage leads to radioisotope effluents because, eventually, the storage container will be exposed to elements and weather. Moving the waste product to a proper containment facility means effluents will have less time to make it into the environment because the period of time it takes for them to decay into their daughter product should be one of the considerations in moving them.
I want to see pu-239 moved from reactor sites because of the dangers of a plutonium fire. The oxides are inhalants and the chlorides are extremely soluble so they readily bio-accumulate. Lastly it's an iron analogue and that's how it present to metabolisms in biota.
Second sr-90, different behaviour, different analogue. Tritium, real tricky - inhibits brain growth.
Rail transport will lead to accidents that will probably lead to leaks unless the waste is really immobilized. So, I think we are still at the point "what" rather than "where."
Well the next job would be to evaluate each radio-isotope and handle it on a case by case basis.
I'd just point out that on site transmutation is the most ethical approach to the waste issue.
You are 100% percent correct. The downside is the amount of energy it takes for transmutation, I'm not saying don't do it, again - case by case.
There may be cased where local hazards require transportation before that can be carried out, but short distances using very slow heavy hauling equipment might obviate the need for a train.
Absolutely so a framework for transportation design, using the same techniques the aircraft industry used for safety would be something that advances technology because we finally start to handle these materials responsibly and not as if we are the only generation that is going to live. It's is incredibly selfish of our generation to not take responsibility for the way these materials actually behave in the environment and how final their long term effects are to human beings.
I don't think they should travel by sea or road. I think a Train should be used because it gives the greatest control and the infrastructure properly utilised. I think it will take great planning and be an incredibly big project for any nation that is handling these materials and has deployed nuclear reactors. If there is something to learn from the military about moving the materials then use that too.
The effects will be there long after we are dead so it should be done in the most expedient manner, properly ASAP!. If designing the trains is the lowest hanging fruit in achieving that then more power to them. It needs to be done.
I simply wanted to just find a way to make the init system restart a service automatically when it crashes. This is trivial with Systemd, you just set Restart=on-failure in the service file and it's done.
Is this a fucking joke. Set the service up as respawn in/etc/inittab. I mean fuck it's so fucking mind numbingly simple.
Putting all these specs out is a good way to waste money.
I respect your opinion however, I respectfully disagree. This has to be done and it is important that it is done to begin to control radio isotope effluents - especially spent fuel.
On site waste treatment, for example, may change the requirements quite a lot.
Perhaps, but it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
The correct approach to the waste is to not transport it until it is composed of stable isotopes.
For some things sure, however that may mean waiting a very long time for many of the more toxic radionuclides ratios, especially pu-239. Avoiding spent fuel pool accidents remains a major weak spot in nuclear infrastructure, especially generation 1 reactors that suffer basis design issues in the spent fuel containment. The buildings won't last forever so the pools have to be emptied eventually and we are looking at about a decade for the fuel rods to be thermally cool enough to cask.
Even after storing them in the dry cask - where do you store the casks? Leaving them on site makes for multiple vectors into the ecosystem - they will leak. I'm afraid we've opened pandora's box on this one and they have to be placed in a properly designed facility otherwise we are asking for them to be one day exposed to human interference and visa versa.
But even if we do store rather than transmute waste, would it not be best to make it unfailingly safe to transport?
I don't know for sure, I don't think there will be just one solution. I think the risk for each type of material has to be assessed and planned according to the impact of that risk.
Lonsdaleite, while combustible, can be be formed by chemical vapor deposition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... and might have the strength to solve some post vitrification isotope mobility issues as an inner casing protected from contact with the atmosphere.
Thank you. I believe this is the C22 material that the DOE is talking about using for containment - there is not much information available about how it will behave over time so I think we have to wait and see.
So, waste may end up as a much larger volume but much safer to transport and with much less stringent geological requirements so that it might be dumped in the Catskills or other less distant locations.
It's a gamble on the technology and the DOE's original specification was 'Defence in Depth' that the geology should be able to mitigate the effects of ground water seepage. I don't know much about the geology of the area however remoteness seems to be a good idea. I suspect that the long term viability of any site will come down more to the geology than the technology.
BTW - Thank you for the articles you post - I know you get a lot of criticism for them from cowboys but it's only because they are afraid to open their eyes to the actual issue surrounding the nuclear industry. You force them to confront their own ignorance, and it's hilarious reading the mental gymnastics they go through.
Agreed WTF? All my machines are Gigabyte / AMD or Gigabyte Intel. I have absolutely no problems running linux on any other them. I also have a SteamOS test box just because I could.
My experience with Linux in general is it will "just work". And worst case scenario is turning off UEFI which if you can't do you shouldn't be putting a machine together anyway.
Agreed, WTF - this whole story seems a bit like a troll. A year ago I bought the latest Gigabyte lga2011 GA-X79-UD5 with a Xeon 8 core 20Mb cache - so pretty much the cutting edge and it worked without a problem.
Whilst this is the highest spec I've ever bought (for that generation CPU) every machine I have bought has been a gigabyte's top end gear and they work fine. Not trying to sell GB here, I'm sure other vendors are good too (like ASUS), they were just my preference and I can report that it has been running for almost a year with Ubuntu.
the point is that the cop was negligent yet being held to different - much lower - standard that a citizen. One expects cops to be held to higher standards, but we find that it just isn't so.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not supposed to do that. It's an INIT system. If you want a daemon manager, the init system can start one for you.
What daemon manager solves those problems? And what is the point of having an init that basically does nothing but spawn a daemon manager and a few gettys? Why not just move that code into the kernel (oh wait, it is already there - it launches init)?
I spawn services from init. It works very well, on, off, once, respawn. It's very fast when it restarts a service and if a service flaps then it won't expend all of CPU restarting, it will just wait before attempting to restart the service and scream loudly in the meantime. I don't wonder if it is working because init is so responsive.
Perhaps it's just easy for people to write bad init.d scripts and everything 'kinda' works?
If your daemon manager really did do all the stuff you want it to do, and it dies, then the effects would be about the same as init crashing anyway.
I've tried to make init crash in tests - it's very difficult. As a daemon manager, init works well.
It's so simple that it's broken. See for example http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/s... for a nice overview of all the limitations of SysV init, the most important being that it doesn't actually keep track of what services are running and what processes belong to what services.
Sorry friend, I read your link but it's immediately apparent that this guy hasn't even read the inittab manual. The answer to many of the statements made in that blog are answered in the subject line of this post. Others are implementation issues with the application.
He may have a point with parallelism in the boot sequence, but I only care about boot speed if I am on a desktop - in which case I can just re-write how rc starts things. On a server rc's runlevel and service ordering K and S answer the question of service dependencies in a much easier and *transparent* way. And why are dependencies such a big deal - the application should be able to cope with a required service missing in an intelligent way. And if the dependency doesn't start it has a problem that systemd or init can't handle, so I'm back to wondering what systemd is actually doing for me.
Please don't see this as me defending init. I am trying to see what the justification is in choosing to run systemd with my servers - which I am trialling. I'm finding the unnecessary complexity of systemd can put me in a bad situation when I am trying to control the uptime of commercial services.
If you just want the system to boot faster - you can already achieve that with rc tweaks and implementing your service startup better instead of hacking it. The way I see it with systemd I now have three problems to deal with instead of one. 1. I still have crappy start-up implementations for services. 2. I have to now manage systemd's characteristics (obviously init isn't perfect) 3. When I have downtime I have to manage 1&2 at the worst time. Frankly operating init is so much faster and more transparent than systemd.
I see no tangible benefit for the expenditure of effort I've sincerely made, so far and I'm still wondering if there is a compelling reason. I'd rather have a discussion based on merit of the two systems, however what is compelling is that many people haven't used init to it's full capacity.
and rc.d it's so simple.
It's so simple that half of the init scripts in FreeBSD are half unusable, do not check for stale pids, fail to correctly bring down the services....
Sounds like those issues are implementation based.
and none of the rc.d scripts use containers, so resource management is impossible, because all of the daemons fork() and you lose track of the process and its children, and we have 3-4 daemons trying to manage suspend/resume features per each distribution, while the desktop managers try to override that, and.
Ok - well your talking about desktop stuff here, which is an interesting perspective that I didn't really consider, however I still think that is doable in inittab with much less effort. rc is only a runlevel solution, whereas inittab would be more relevant to desktop. I don't need to keep track of the process and it's children because init can maintain the parents state for me - if the parent isn't signalling it's children then we are back to implementation issues again.
I don't care if you don't like systemd, but saying that the rc.d systemd is simple, and implying that there is no problem whatsoever, is closing your eyes and ears while chanting LALALALALA like a kid.
jeeez. I'm just trying to figure it out. I'm not being a jerk about it, I'm trying to gauge other peoples experiences. I don't give a fuck about init if systemd is better - it's just another technology. But if it is better than shouldn't it be immediately apparent *WHY* it is better?
you could try reading up on it. Here's a taster for you..
I did. I've been using it - to give it a fair chance. I'm still struggling to understand if those benefits will manifest and why it's required.
and rc.d it's so simple. I'm still struggling to understand why systemd is required - what problem it is actually solving. Am I missing something?
Then I'm happy that a meteorite struck it!
ba-dom-tish!
Yeah, they could just pack up and move to another city as well, or just accept less at a firm that hasn't been able to participate in a no-poach agreement - either way it's the employees or a potential competitor's, expense.
Of course, smaller firms using external recruiters would be able to create their own no poach agreement so they can drive the salaries of IT folk even lower. There is no harm in that.
Indeed, they could save huge amounts of company time by rendering pointless employees making thousands of recruiting calls and enabling the company to move them on at a time of the companies choosing, saving the company millions.
They sound like some real winning strategies for the tech firms you have there.
It's a class action. The only person that is really winning here is the lawyer that is getting $150,000,000 for bringing the suit.
To put it into perspective the existing settlement is $5400 per class action participant showing just how much IT workers are under paid for the investment required to be skilled enough to do the work.
As to the lawyer, someone had to bring the suit because it's not as if IT workers have representation of their own and I expect a case like that was expensive to run. I doubt that the lawyers company will be looked upon favorably by the tech giants anymore either, so if the figure you say is real then it's about right for someone sticking their neck out against a group of behemoths that make that amount of money look like chump change.
Think about it, how much money to you expect Apple et. al would pay to reduce their primary capital expenditure, labour costs?
It's unlikely that tech giants will want that kind of represetation to survive to threaten them again and they want other lawyers will think twice about representing IT people thus making it more expensive for IT folk to get what they are entitled to.
If you need proof that IT folk are underpaid, here is one of the few times an ordinary person can see exactly what machinations occur to keep it that way.
I think thats the best way for me to deal with this issue right now.
I mean, jeeze... such a useless idea, creating space habitats, spending whatever for no tangible results whatsoever. The NERVE! You are so right.
I just don't know what I was thinking - thanks for correcting me.
What I find cool about this asteroid is that it's in a 1.5 year orbit. That means it's in a 3:2 resonance with Earth. So it'll come by again if you miss it this time, every 3 years.
One day we will turn them into space stations.
Not the 34,000 km above earth part, but the "we discovered it a week ago" part.
Maybe next time around.
include some scale - you know, a standard metric - a Volkswagen Beetle, football field, Rhode Island?
It's about 10,000 kilos heavier than an (empty) 737 and about 10 metres longer.
"Reliant's prefix number is one six three zero nine." -- Spock, Star Trek II
Exactly! Star trek technology again. If you are going to use technology then look to where technology scenarios have been solved - even if it's only fiction. The ENTIRE division could have had a prefix code that disabled any number of functions.
prefix.all=disable
prefix.engine.all=disable
prefix.navigation.all=disable
prefix.weapons.all=disable
However America should not leave it's powerful weaponry for a third party to control. Iraq is completely demoralized they've just had the shit kicked out of them and their ideological enemy (Islam) has a knife to the throat of their children. It doesn't matter what weapons you give to someone who has no heart to fight and, when the enemy knows your families name and address they have you by the balls.
Islamic extremists have dominated the *psychology* of war constantly hitting at ideological weaknesses of the west, undermining our allies and using our own political shortsightedness against us to undermine western democracy - which they hate. Yet we have continued to make the same mistakes.
Over ten years ago our political representatives decided to lie to us (again) about compromising our values. They thought torturing and brutalizing people would be a good idea. However, long before 911 Islam was committing human right violations and we just didn't care. Now it all comes back to haunt us with new enemies, yet we are surprised when these psychos chop our citizens heads off. That's the price we pay for compromising our values. They don't have an ethical framework, we do. The answer is not to discard our ethical framework and become them - the answer is to strengthen our ethical framework and show the resolve of our mettle, not our metal. Our right *IS* might.
An old idea I've not heard in the news is "we are sending a crack team of diplomats" because the masses are too stupid to realize that hiding behind airstrikes and drones is cowardice, because the uneducated amongst us always think force is the right answer to every problem and because our Faux media insists on its shallow mindedness for ratings. We still haven't learned that Islamic extremism is using asymmetrical warfare against us to bleed us financially and worse, morally. Islamic extremism has effected a change in our entire way of life, and all we have done is radicalized them more because we turned from our ideals. This is not a path to victory.
Until the western world returns to the ideals that made us strong in the first place these extremists are going to continue to work a strangle game on us and slowly slowly slowly choke us. They hit us where WE think we are weak, but our ideals are our true strength because ideals can't be terrorized. When people of good character see the west sticking to its ideals *they* sympathize, when we don't *they* radicalize. Hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment ain't going to do what winning hearts and minds can do. Why can't we learn that? Why can't we take a step back and say, hang on a minute - what is really going on here?
Leaving tanks and destruction then saying "here are some guns, it's on you now" was never going to work. Taking responsibility for what we have done with our military and leaving schools, hospitals, training police, teachers will. Let ISIS or al-ki-assholes blow up the Iraqi people's new infrastructure and see how many friends they win.
That's the nice America that Islamic extremists can never defeat, no matter how many heads they take.
Ok people - rant over - sorry about that but I think it needed to be said.
I.LovE.ThiS.CompanY.yaaaaaaaaaah
It doesn't make sense with the last "Developers" missing.
Did you take the chance to reply "I'm not feeling so hot"?
Nah, someone else said - "that was cool!"
It's a good point. I thought using water for a fast neutron reactor was something we had already moved past and were now considering using liquid metal, like lead, as a coolant with the reactor moderated by the design characteristics. Especially considering how volatile and unforgiving a fast neutron reactor is, taking out as many human factors as possible would be in line with recent NRC recommendations of removing "external" factors.
Like the burn-up rate they hope to achieve, if it is less than 10% then I don't really see any point here.
option A: moderate toxicity/radioactivity for (hundreds of) thousands of years
option B: EXTREME toxicity/radioactivity for decades
Well, fissile ash of option B would be radioactive for hundreds of years*n daughter products (n=roughly 20) so we would still have to bore a hole in a mountain to deal with it.
What do you think about moving pu-239?
Thanks, I needed to learn more about C22. For some reason I thought C22 was referring to the structure of of Lonsdaletite. I needed to improve me education in this area and that has really help - much appreciated.
What I mean is that on-site storage leads to radioisotope effluents because, eventually, the storage container will be exposed to elements and weather. Moving the waste product to a proper containment facility means effluents will have less time to make it into the environment because the period of time it takes for them to decay into their daughter product should be one of the considerations in moving them.
I want to see pu-239 moved from reactor sites because of the dangers of a plutonium fire. The oxides are inhalants and the chlorides are extremely soluble so they readily bio-accumulate. Lastly it's an iron analogue and that's how it present to metabolisms in biota.
Second sr-90, different behaviour, different analogue. Tritium, real tricky - inhibits brain growth.
Well the next job would be to evaluate each radio-isotope and handle it on a case by case basis.
You are 100% percent correct. The downside is the amount of energy it takes for transmutation, I'm not saying don't do it, again - case by case.
Absolutely so a framework for transportation design, using the same techniques the aircraft industry used for safety would be something that advances technology because we finally start to handle these materials responsibly and not as if we are the only generation that is going to live. It's is incredibly selfish of our generation to not take responsibility for the way these materials actually behave in the environment and how final their long term effects are to human beings.
I don't think they should travel by sea or road. I think a Train should be used because it gives the greatest control and the infrastructure properly utilised. I think it will take great planning and be an incredibly big project for any nation that is handling these materials and has deployed nuclear reactors. If there is something to learn from the military about moving the materials then use that too.
The effects will be there long after we are dead so it should be done in the most expedient manner, properly ASAP!. If designing the trains is the lowest hanging fruit in achieving that then more power to them. It needs to be done.
What's broken exactly?
I simply wanted to just find a way to make the init system restart a service automatically when it crashes. This is trivial with Systemd, you just set Restart=on-failure in the service file and it's done.
Is this a fucking joke. Set the service up as respawn in /etc/inittab. I mean fuck it's so fucking mind numbingly simple.
I respect your opinion however, I respectfully disagree. This has to be done and it is important that it is done to begin to control radio isotope effluents - especially spent fuel.
Perhaps, but it is better to have and not need than to need and not have.
For some things sure, however that may mean waiting a very long time for many of the more toxic radionuclides ratios, especially pu-239. Avoiding spent fuel pool accidents remains a major weak spot in nuclear infrastructure, especially generation 1 reactors that suffer basis design issues in the spent fuel containment. The buildings won't last forever so the pools have to be emptied eventually and we are looking at about a decade for the fuel rods to be thermally cool enough to cask.
Even after storing them in the dry cask - where do you store the casks? Leaving them on site makes for multiple vectors into the ecosystem - they will leak. I'm afraid we've opened pandora's box on this one and they have to be placed in a properly designed facility otherwise we are asking for them to be one day exposed to human interference and visa versa.
I don't know for sure, I don't think there will be just one solution. I think the risk for each type of material has to be assessed and planned according to the impact of that risk.
Thank you. I believe this is the C22 material that the DOE is talking about using for containment - there is not much information available about how it will behave over time so I think we have to wait and see.
It's a gamble on the technology and the DOE's original specification was 'Defence in Depth' that the geology should be able to mitigate the effects of ground water seepage. I don't know much about the geology of the area however remoteness seems to be a good idea. I suspect that the long term viability of any site will come down more to the geology than the technology.
BTW - Thank you for the articles you post - I know you get a lot of criticism for them from cowboys but it's only because they are afraid to open their eyes to the actual issue surrounding the nuclear industry. You force them to confront their own ignorance, and it's hilarious reading the mental gymnastics they go through.
Agreed WTF? All my machines are Gigabyte / AMD or Gigabyte Intel. I have absolutely no problems running linux on any other them. I also have a SteamOS test box just because I could.
My experience with Linux in general is it will "just work". And worst case scenario is turning off UEFI which if you can't do you shouldn't be putting a machine together anyway.
Agreed, WTF - this whole story seems a bit like a troll. A year ago I bought the latest Gigabyte lga2011 GA-X79-UD5 with a Xeon 8 core 20Mb cache - so pretty much the cutting edge and it worked without a problem.
Whilst this is the highest spec I've ever bought (for that generation CPU) every machine I have bought has been a gigabyte's top end gear and they work fine. Not trying to sell GB here, I'm sure other vendors are good too (like ASUS), they were just my preference and I can report that it has been running for almost a year with Ubuntu.
the point is that the cop was negligent yet being held to different - much lower - standard that a citizen. One expects cops to be held to higher standards, but we find that it just isn't so.
Geek films cop - goes to jail
Cop kills geek - goes home