If thieves have access to your finger, they don't even need to chop it off, they just have to press it against your iPhone to unlock it and then register their own fingerprint. So no, it will not protect you from thieves, it will just let you keep your fingers.
I'm sure anyone who is prepared to steal a phone is educated enough to know this.
But you are selling a steaming turd, and I don't think a turd is worth even $5 a month, let alone $80. Even if said turd is encrusted with glistening yellow corn.
The possibility of negligence from nonfeasance should be the one thing to allow the Japanese Government to save face. I don't think Japan should feel any shame in receiving help by all governments who share the pacific.
The engineering effort of this boggles the mind and many sorts of expertise will need to be brought to bare to resolve it as quickly as possible AND produce a long term solution. This is well beyond TEPCO's ability and will require resources that transcend their capabilities after all their core business is to supply electricity.
It's happened now, so everyone who shares the consequences should share the responsibility so we can control it as quickly as possible.
What would be really great is if the Japanese Government took control of the situation now that TEPCO has contained the initial situation. That way we can move on quickly to engineering a proper solution. Hopefully they already are.
I kind of planned it that way. I just getting tired consuming so much crap cause I need another big fucking TV screen to see movies and shit for fuck sake. I love sounds and movies but I fucking hate advertisments inmyfuckingfaceallthefuckingtime telling me I need a new FUCKING SCREEN!!
If you are looking for a live music experience, a "musicians sitting in the room" experience, uncompressed digital is the closest we currently have.
Funny you should say that - there have been times when I've been listening to a mix where people were speaking and it seems just like that - kinda spooky, but also cool.
I've found that when doing live recording digitally, bass is your friend. One particular thing I remember was recording a Jazz band and capturing the sound of a Standing Bass. Beautiful instrument. I used a bass drum mike to capture one part of the sound by asking the bassist to play some of his favourite sounds and positioned according to that. Plus two more mikes on channels that I had as spares and maaan that bass sound had so much energy to use in the recording.
Using open source solutions like Ardour and Jack is a fantastic platform to!!!
I want to hear what the people sitting in the studio heard. Digital get me closer to that than analog tape.
Amen brother! I love producing music with computers. I spend hours looking for sweet spots inside the resonant wavelength of the instrument to find the right sound. I have cases of microphones that I have built up to find the right combinations of sounds.
But I still record digitally. I like Albini's sentiment about bandwidth limiting. I've found that if you record and listen at 96/24 and it sounds so realistic. I think it is a good comparison to analogue tape. However I think we are starting to get enough power to mix at even higher sampling rate and still be affordable rendering this a moot point. However music producers are about the only ones who do listen at this sampling rate and digital technology has it's own characteristics just like analogue tape does.
The difference is that whilst analogue tape's characteristics are well explored, digital recording is still evolving - and I think that is really exciting for music.
Most people's closest experience to a higher sample rate is at 44khz, but even less so, a Psychoacoustic algorithm that bust's up my algorythm evaluating and deciding what is important to hear in terms of comparisons to other transient sounds!!! I've always thought of mp3 as more advertising than anything else, so I want to make sure it's enjoyable and control that.
I'm just hoping the digital music industry can grow something beautiful in the shit that musicians have to go through.
The Apple iWatch will have a 3D avatar of Steve Jobs on its screen at all times. This will make the iWatch "Insanely Smart".
The innovation will be that it's actually called "myWatch" and Apple will extract royalties directly from your account on the use of the name every time it records you saying "let me check my watch". Apple stocks will soar!
Later software updates (that you have to agree with so that you can continue to use your music collection that you don't own) will extract royalties every time you think it.
LOL AC, the fat and fluid in the average arm was not factored in during extensive testing.
Version 2 will have a better antenna in the longer, stronger band...
I go off of evidence. Show the evidence for this alleged danger. I get really tired of people ranting about "distant dangers" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones. You just haven't shown that there's a long term risk to consider here.
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
If there is no danger why do anything at all? So there must be some danger otherwise why not just bull doze the entire thing into the ocean?
You're probably not aware that radioactive elements accumulate in the food chain like some other dangerous chemicals like Poly Chloride Biphenyls. However radioactive isotopes also analogue a variety of elements that living creatures need to survive. Compounding this further they are emmiters of alpha, beta and, gamma radiation at various energetic levels.
So, pu-239 presents to the metabolism as a micro-nutrient. In Plutonium's case it presents as Iron to a metabolism. In the ocean a *lack* of iron is what stops metabolic processes, so Iron is readily absorbed ergo Plutonium is readily absorbed. So a small sea creature absorbs the plutonium and it gets eaten by steadily larger creatures, like a fish and then it's in the human food chain. Considering the size and variety of the human food chain, this is inevitable more than once.
This is the main reason to arrest the flow of Fukushima cooling water into the ocean, as plutonium is only one of the elements that it contains that has this property - but I'll follow with this single radioisotope as an example.
As we've discussed previously, a single micro gram of plutonium is a fatal dose to a human being when ingested. As more isotopes are released into the environment the likelihood of exposure increases. The amount of time it takes to move through the food chain introduces a random amount of time before eventually ingested - by an actual person. From there a gestation time passes, like the flu is approximately 7 days, cancer is approximately 6 years. So even if someone ingests something immediately from Fukushima you still have a 6 year wait before you notice aything wrong.
Depending on the radionuclide, there are different cancers, radon 220 that causes lung cancer, or radium 226 that causes bone cancers, strontium 90, americium, iodine 131, cesium 137, the list goes on. The exposure vectors are many and varied. What has protected us is the likelihood of encountering one was low. Everyday this continues the possibility increases.
For airborne fallout, say just like TMI, the jetstream was the perfect carrier to the west coast of the US ensuring good coverage of land based produce. A cow eats radioactive grass, accumulates, say, strontium 90 in the milk, the milk is made into chocolate and you eat it in one of those multi-colored candy covered chocolate treats you so enjoy. Do you enjoy sushi? You can be exposed one or multiple times and after you die cremation makes the radioisotope airborne fallout amd decay allows it back into the watertable.
As for the risk, it's somewhere above 0% that some people will be exposed. However using an established case of Chernobyl. 5% of a 160 ton Nuclear reactor core that was about to be refueled - let's call it 100 tons, that's 5 tons of radioactive core into the atmosphere. At conservative estimates thats 5000,000,000,000 fatal doses. If we accept that an extremely conservative estimate of 1% of this makes it into the food chain via bio-accumulation and of that a conservative estimate of 1% of people are exposed and a conservative 1% of those exposed actually get some sort of fatal cancer that's 5,000,000 fatalities.
The difference is Chernobyl was land locked, but Fukushima is right next to the ocean and radio isotopes are finding their way into the Pacific ocean everyday. Fukushima is a slower disaster than Chernobyl, the difference is that the risk of a plutonium fire exists - which is why so much water is being used
Well the answer to "why" is to prevent this very situation. Since it wasn't being decommissioned they should have built a higher seawall, there is no acceptable excuse for this.
Sure, there is. This is 2013. It's not 2008. Get into your time machine and provide that absence of an excuse. In the meantime, hindsight != foresight. All this thundering about "no acceptable excuse" ignores that in the absence of foreknowledge of the earthquake, it would have happened anyway, because as I noted, the plant was being decommission. There's no case to be made for spending a lot of money to prevent a small chance of failure.
Even the small chance of a massive failure?
I go off of evidence. The evidence for this danger was in geological science and historical data. I get really tired of people ranting about "hindsight != foresight" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones.
Your replies highlight contradiction. On one hand you assert that I must do risk analysis for a disaster, that should never have happened, with such long and far reaching consequences and on the other assert that TEPCO, who have many Nuclear reactors, could not have possibly foreseen this occurring otherwise why would they take such a massive risk. Whilst risk analysis is not my core profession it's hard to believe that a Monte Carlo analysis, for example, didn't reveal the current state as a potential consequences of a lack of action on the seawall or backup-generators. The implication is that TEPCO didn't perform any risk analysis or, they did and just didn't deem it neccessary to take any action on the seawall and the back-up generators. Either one would have prevented this situation, ergo NONFEASANCE ergo criminal negligence. As I have said even after decommissioning, the reactor still requires seawall and backup generators for another decade to prevent the same situation.
And I don't need a time machine, the science was available well before 2008, the evidence suggest it just wasn't used, so even if I did have a time machine the current state of affairs suggests I would have been ignored as this is simply an example of TEPCO not being prepared to mitigate the risk they faced operating the reactor. "Thundering" - well not really. Whilst I understand basic risk analysis, I also understand the operating parameters of the machine and, the basic biology of the consequences. That's why there is no acceptable excuse. GE told TEPCO how to run the reactors. They didn't do it and now the west coast of the US and the entire Pacific Ocean will carry the radio isotopes in increasing volumes until this situation is permanenty resolved.
And the longer it takes the worse it will be which is why we need not only Japanese Government intervention but assistance from every nation that shares the pacfic ocean as this is no longer just a Japanese issue.
It's quite possible that the lives saved by enforcing speed limits well outweighs the lives lost by doing that. How often do you actually have to drive fast to save lives?
Oh, you need to go faster because you were late for a meeting? Then fuck you, you became late when you didn't get in the car in time. My life is more important than your meeting.
No actually. When you have been at your parents house tidying and cleaning up so that they don't have to do it and you are tired showered and ready to go home or any other situation where you are tired enough but cannot sleep where you are. Generally I just pull over and have a sleep on the side of the road in the car but, seriously, there are enough kooks around that I don't really want to stop.
Freeways are well constructed enough to support an extra 20-30kms an hour driving especially late at night when there are very few cars around. The research on driver fatigue says that the last 20minutes of the journey is when all the fatal accidents happen. So fuck you Mr AC my life is more important that your inability to hep the people around you.
Isn't it a safety issue that you actually need to go faster sometimes. I mean if they were sincere about it wouldn't they raise the speed limits so people could get home sooner and off the roads before they die.
What makes you think more money would have spent effectively?
Legislation and criminal charges would be a good start, along with specific goals and measurement criteria for various preventative measures.
The reactors were being decommissioned. Then they weren't because the next generation which was going to replace Fukushima was canceled all at once. This shuffling of future plans probably contributed since why should one build a higher seawall for nuclear reactors that are to be decommissioned?
Well the answer to "why" is to prevent this very situation. Since it wasn't being decommissioned they should have built a higher seawall, there is no acceptable excuse for this. TEPCO are, as the article described, incompetent and proven incapable of running a Nuclear power plant as evidenced by the failure of TEPCO to follow the operating parameters as set down by the manufacturers. TEPCO have already demonstrated they have no will to run a Nuclear Reactor competently and the evidence is mounting that they have no will to resolve the issue using all available resources (including government) to resolve the situation to performance parameters acceptable to the community.
The occurrence of the earthquake and Tsunami are irrelevant as the reactor survived both. What it did not survive was the failure of TEPCO to operate the plant correctly before, during and after the disaster.
There's so much misunderstanding about what was going on with Fukushima.
Your citing of BP demonstrates you have not examined all the available evidence for Deep Water Horizon. This suggests you maintain a level of dogmatic skepticism for industrial accidents as a function of the inquiry mode that dominates your thinking. You are converting a memory of failure into one of success concerning TEPCO's incompetence suggesting analytical traits are not a dominant characteristic when you evaluate information.
It's not a criticism, just an observation that you are probably better at big picture stuff than the details, which are opaque to you and mostly not required. This makes you prone to the very kind of misunderstanding you cite.
So how many deaths is nuclear safety worth?
Yours, because if it was you or someone you care about, then you would be bleating like sheep to slaughter about Nuclear safety. However since the danger is distant and crosses generations it is not something you are capable as recognizing as danger so, because of that, you have no incentive for capacity to understand what the danger is.
I have to take issue with the article. It may make for a good Slashdot headline to say "Galileo wrong", but it's factually inaccurate. In the core of the argument, Galileo was 100% correct, and Colombe was 100% wrong.
Galileo may have been right but that doesn't mean he has to be a jerk about things. You can be right and not a jerk at the same time. That way when things start to stack up against you and your enemies want your head you still have enough friends that care enough to protect your interests.
Or better yet reprocess it until all the hot waste has been used to make power and all that is left is stuff that is about as radioactive as bismuth. If it is so radioactive as to be dangerous then it is radioactive enough to be making electrons do useful work.
Perhaps it's more complicated than you think. Maybe materials technology have something to do with it and reactors can't be built that way.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. So they'll end up cutting of your finger, and still not being able to get into your phone.
But you'll still be missing a finger.
Thank you for explaining that, Captain Obvious.
All I have to do is feed some "connection error" kinda stuff on the screen until the guy takes off his condom.
For anyone new here this is a fine example of geek sexting...
If thieves have access to your finger, they don't even need to chop it off, they just have to press it against your iPhone to unlock it and then register their own fingerprint. So no, it will not protect you from thieves, it will just let you keep your fingers.
I'm sure anyone who is prepared to steal a phone is educated enough to know this.
None of the cool kids use facebook anyway.
But you are selling a steaming turd, and I don't think a turd is worth even $5 a month, let alone $80. Even if said turd is encrusted with glistening yellow corn.
Fucking A.
The possibility of negligence from nonfeasance should be the one thing to allow the Japanese Government to save face. I don't think Japan should feel any shame in receiving help by all governments who share the pacific.
The engineering effort of this boggles the mind and many sorts of expertise will need to be brought to bare to resolve it as quickly as possible AND produce a long term solution. This is well beyond TEPCO's ability and will require resources that transcend their capabilities after all their core business is to supply electricity.
It's happened now, so everyone who shares the consequences should share the responsibility so we can control it as quickly as possible.
What would be really great is if the Japanese Government took control of the situation now that TEPCO has contained the initial situation. That way we can move on quickly to engineering a proper solution. Hopefully they already are.
I kind of planned it that way. I just getting tired consuming so much crap cause I need another big fucking TV screen to see movies and shit for fuck sake. I love sounds and movies but I fucking hate advertisments inmyfuckingfaceallthefuckingtime telling me I need a new FUCKING SCREEN!!
There! I said it.
he'll probably be given a TV show, or something.
Has anyone seen "The Addams Family"?
But no one else knew how to get McAfee's software of his machine.
If you are looking for a live music experience, a "musicians sitting in the room" experience, uncompressed digital is the closest we currently have.
Funny you should say that - there have been times when I've been listening to a mix where people were speaking and it seems just like that - kinda spooky, but also cool.
I've found that when doing live recording digitally, bass is your friend. One particular thing I remember was recording a Jazz band and capturing the sound of a Standing Bass. Beautiful instrument. I used a bass drum mike to capture one part of the sound by asking the bassist to play some of his favourite sounds and positioned according to that. Plus two more mikes on channels that I had as spares and maaan that bass sound had so much energy to use in the recording.
Using open source solutions like Ardour and Jack is a fantastic platform to!!!
I want to hear what the people sitting in the studio heard. Digital get me closer to that than analog tape.
Amen brother! I love producing music with computers. I spend hours looking for sweet spots inside the resonant wavelength of the instrument to find the right sound. I have cases of microphones that I have built up to find the right combinations of sounds.
But I still record digitally. I like Albini's sentiment about bandwidth limiting. I've found that if you record and listen at 96/24 and it sounds so realistic. I think it is a good comparison to analogue tape. However I think we are starting to get enough power to mix at even higher sampling rate and still be affordable rendering this a moot point. However music producers are about the only ones who do listen at this sampling rate and digital technology has it's own characteristics just like analogue tape does.
The difference is that whilst analogue tape's characteristics are well explored, digital recording is still evolving - and I think that is really exciting for music.
Most people's closest experience to a higher sample rate is at 44khz, but even less so, a Psychoacoustic algorithm that bust's up my algorythm evaluating and deciding what is important to hear in terms of comparisons to other transient sounds!!! I've always thought of mp3 as more advertising than anything else, so I want to make sure it's enjoyable and control that.
I'm just hoping the digital music industry can grow something beautiful in the shit that musicians have to go through.
The Apple iWatch will have a 3D avatar of Steve Jobs on its screen at all times. This will make the iWatch "Insanely Smart".
The innovation will be that it's actually called "myWatch" and Apple will extract royalties directly from your account on the use of the name every time it records you saying "let me check my watch". Apple stocks will soar!
Later software updates (that you have to agree with so that you can continue to use your music collection that you don't own) will extract royalties every time you think it.
I for one would like to welcome the Apple design and innovation employees currently reading this forum for ideas.
LOL AC, the fat and fluid in the average arm was not factored in during extensive testing. Version 2 will have a better antenna in the longer, stronger band...
but also cause cancer in 7.3% of all users
It would be handy if it told the time as well
Ok, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
If there is no danger why do anything at all? So there must be some danger otherwise why not just bull doze the entire thing into the ocean?
You're probably not aware that radioactive elements accumulate in the food chain like some other dangerous chemicals like Poly Chloride Biphenyls. However radioactive isotopes also analogue a variety of elements that living creatures need to survive. Compounding this further they are emmiters of alpha, beta and, gamma radiation at various energetic levels.
So, pu-239 presents to the metabolism as a micro-nutrient. In Plutonium's case it presents as Iron to a metabolism. In the ocean a *lack* of iron is what stops metabolic processes, so Iron is readily absorbed ergo Plutonium is readily absorbed. So a small sea creature absorbs the plutonium and it gets eaten by steadily larger creatures, like a fish and then it's in the human food chain. Considering the size and variety of the human food chain, this is inevitable more than once.
This is the main reason to arrest the flow of Fukushima cooling water into the ocean, as plutonium is only one of the elements that it contains that has this property - but I'll follow with this single radioisotope as an example.
As we've discussed previously, a single micro gram of plutonium is a fatal dose to a human being when ingested. As more isotopes are released into the environment the likelihood of exposure increases. The amount of time it takes to move through the food chain introduces a random amount of time before eventually ingested - by an actual person. From there a gestation time passes, like the flu is approximately 7 days, cancer is approximately 6 years. So even if someone ingests something immediately from Fukushima you still have a 6 year wait before you notice aything wrong.
Depending on the radionuclide, there are different cancers, radon 220 that causes lung cancer, or radium 226 that causes bone cancers, strontium 90, americium, iodine 131, cesium 137, the list goes on. The exposure vectors are many and varied. What has protected us is the likelihood of encountering one was low. Everyday this continues the possibility increases.
For airborne fallout, say just like TMI, the jetstream was the perfect carrier to the west coast of the US ensuring good coverage of land based produce. A cow eats radioactive grass, accumulates, say, strontium 90 in the milk, the milk is made into chocolate and you eat it in one of those multi-colored candy covered chocolate treats you so enjoy. Do you enjoy sushi? You can be exposed one or multiple times and after you die cremation makes the radioisotope airborne fallout amd decay allows it back into the watertable.
As for the risk, it's somewhere above 0% that some people will be exposed. However using an established case of Chernobyl. 5% of a 160 ton Nuclear reactor core that was about to be refueled - let's call it 100 tons, that's 5 tons of radioactive core into the atmosphere. At conservative estimates thats 5000,000,000,000 fatal doses. If we accept that an extremely conservative estimate of 1% of this makes it into the food chain via bio-accumulation and of that a conservative estimate of 1% of people are exposed and a conservative 1% of those exposed actually get some sort of fatal cancer that's 5,000,000 fatalities.
The difference is Chernobyl was land locked, but Fukushima is right next to the ocean and radio isotopes are finding their way into the Pacific ocean everyday. Fukushima is a slower disaster than Chernobyl, the difference is that the risk of a plutonium fire exists - which is why so much water is being used
Well the answer to "why" is to prevent this very situation. Since it wasn't being decommissioned they should have built a higher seawall, there is no acceptable excuse for this.
Sure, there is. This is 2013. It's not 2008. Get into your time machine and provide that absence of an excuse. In the meantime, hindsight != foresight. All this thundering about "no acceptable excuse" ignores that in the absence of foreknowledge of the earthquake, it would have happened anyway, because as I noted, the plant was being decommission. There's no case to be made for spending a lot of money to prevent a small chance of failure.
Even the small chance of a massive failure?
I go off of evidence. The evidence for this danger was in geological science and historical data. I get really tired of people ranting about "hindsight != foresight" who couldn't even figure out basic risk management. Risk management can handle long term risks as well as short term ones.
Your replies highlight contradiction. On one hand you assert that I must do risk analysis for a disaster, that should never have happened, with such long and far reaching consequences and on the other assert that TEPCO, who have many Nuclear reactors, could not have possibly foreseen this occurring otherwise why would they take such a massive risk. Whilst risk analysis is not my core profession it's hard to believe that a Monte Carlo analysis, for example, didn't reveal the current state as a potential consequences of a lack of action on the seawall or backup-generators. The implication is that TEPCO didn't perform any risk analysis or, they did and just didn't deem it neccessary to take any action on the seawall and the back-up generators. Either one would have prevented this situation, ergo NONFEASANCE ergo criminal negligence. As I have said even after decommissioning, the reactor still requires seawall and backup generators for another decade to prevent the same situation.
And I don't need a time machine, the science was available well before 2008, the evidence suggest it just wasn't used, so even if I did have a time machine the current state of affairs suggests I would have been ignored as this is simply an example of TEPCO not being prepared to mitigate the risk they faced operating the reactor. "Thundering" - well not really. Whilst I understand basic risk analysis, I also understand the operating parameters of the machine and, the basic biology of the consequences. That's why there is no acceptable excuse. GE told TEPCO how to run the reactors. They didn't do it and now the west coast of the US and the entire Pacific Ocean will carry the radio isotopes in increasing volumes until this situation is permanenty resolved.
And the longer it takes the worse it will be which is why we need not only Japanese Government intervention but assistance from every nation that shares the pacfic ocean as this is no longer just a Japanese issue.
It's quite possible that the lives saved by enforcing speed limits well outweighs the lives lost by doing that. How often do you actually have to drive fast to save lives?
Oh, you need to go faster because you were late for a meeting? Then fuck you, you became late when you didn't get in the car in time. My life is more important than your meeting.
No actually. When you have been at your parents house tidying and cleaning up so that they don't have to do it and you are tired showered and ready to go home or any other situation where you are tired enough but cannot sleep where you are. Generally I just pull over and have a sleep on the side of the road in the car but, seriously, there are enough kooks around that I don't really want to stop.
Freeways are well constructed enough to support an extra 20-30kms an hour driving especially late at night when there are very few cars around. The research on driver fatigue says that the last 20minutes of the journey is when all the fatal accidents happen. So fuck you Mr AC my life is more important that your inability to hep the people around you.
Brussels should just FUCK OFF actually.
Legislation and criminal charges would be a good start, along with specific goals and measurement criteria for various preventative measures.
Well the answer to "why" is to prevent this very situation. Since it wasn't being decommissioned they should have built a higher seawall, there is no acceptable excuse for this. TEPCO are, as the article described, incompetent and proven incapable of running a Nuclear power plant as evidenced by the failure of TEPCO to follow the operating parameters as set down by the manufacturers. TEPCO have already demonstrated they have no will to run a Nuclear Reactor competently and the evidence is mounting that they have no will to resolve the issue using all available resources (including government) to resolve the situation to performance parameters acceptable to the community.
The occurrence of the earthquake and Tsunami are irrelevant as the reactor survived both. What it did not survive was the failure of TEPCO to operate the plant correctly before, during and after the disaster.
Your citing of BP demonstrates you have not examined all the available evidence for Deep Water Horizon. This suggests you maintain a level of dogmatic skepticism for industrial accidents as a function of the inquiry mode that dominates your thinking. You are converting a memory of failure into one of success concerning TEPCO's incompetence suggesting analytical traits are not a dominant characteristic when you evaluate information.
It's not a criticism, just an observation that you are probably better at big picture stuff than the details, which are opaque to you and mostly not required. This makes you prone to the very kind of misunderstanding you cite.
Yours, because if it was you or someone you care about, then you would be bleating like sheep to slaughter about Nuclear safety. However since the danger is distant and crosses generations it is not something you are capable as recognizing as danger so, because of that, you have no incentive for capacity to understand what the danger is.
I have to take issue with the article. It may make for a good Slashdot headline to say "Galileo wrong", but it's factually inaccurate. In the core of the argument, Galileo was 100% correct, and Colombe was 100% wrong.
Galileo may have been right but that doesn't mean he has to be a jerk about things. You can be right and not a jerk at the same time. That way when things start to stack up against you and your enemies want your head you still have enough friends that care enough to protect your interests.
IBM has essentially sold off various divisions, and is now one of several baby bell IBMs. So I'm sorry, what makes you think the analysts were wrong?
Well for a start if they broke up Microsoft the companies would be known as "Baby Bills".
and others. This is the true reason they seek power to silence the people.
But on which paper is the solution to the problem of nuclear waste material?
The Yucca Mountain storage facility's operating documents
Basically, find a place many miles away from anyone, a place that's geologically stable, and bury that shit.
Yucca Mountain was described by the DOE's original design criteria for as unsuitable for Nuclear waste disposal.
Or better yet reprocess it until all the hot waste has been used to make power and all that is left is stuff that is about as radioactive as bismuth. If it is so radioactive as to be dangerous then it is radioactive enough to be making electrons do useful work.
Perhaps it's more complicated than you think. Maybe materials technology have something to do with it and reactors can't be built that way.