You're using special pleading to treat nuclear waste specially.
Thats because it is. A person breathing in a microgram of plutonium *will* die of cancer. That microscopic radioactive isotope will continue to kill for as long as it's ingested and radioactive.
As for the greenhouse gasses --- you know perfectly well that..., and newer designs are coming online. It's disingenuous.
The disingenuous argument is ingoring the REALITY that CFC 114 is STILL USED for enrichment TODAY, and that 1 million pounds of CFC114 has leaked into the atmosphere per year since the inception of the Montreal protocol in 1995 and we can expect 1 million pounds of CFC114 to leak into the atmosphere every year it continues. What is disingenuous is ignoring that CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer that protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE.
Ultracentrifuge is extremely expensive and the bearing technology is still problematic, the CFC method will continue to operate for a long time. Seen any announcements for building UC's lately?
Speaking of being disingenuous --- your 0.3% quote is a lie: first of all, you must be referring to the percent of U235 in natural uranium (even if our number is a bit off).
No, I'm referring to the burn up rate of U-235 in the core of a PWR nuclear reactor, 0.3%. Best figure I have seen quoted is 3%. Nuclear Reactor technology is absurdly inefficient. Go look it up for yourself. 53 tons of u-235 each year into each reactor for re-fueling goes in and 53 tons come out, well 52.97 tons;-)
It's just dishonest to claim that we're extracting 0.3% of the available energy when only that much of the substance is fissile and has energy to extract.
Well gee wizz, thanks for pointing your straw-man out. So if the 52.97 tons of u-235 is the fissile substance, the 0.3% of the ore, how many tons of u-238 does that leave behind in the enrichment process. Wow, that's a lot of waste u-238 isn't it?
2) there's more seawater than you imagine.
I'd imagine all the seawater in the sea. Question is how many gigalitres of seawater do you need process to get the 530tons of u-235 to re-fuel all the reactors in the US every year? I'd imagine it's a lot.
And as for your containment facility in granite --- what would be geologically stable enough for you? Yucca mountain is perfectly stable by any sane person's standards
But not by the DOE standards. So what part of The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste didn't you understand?
It's only hysterical opposition like yours that leads to it being dubbed seismically unfit. Would one tremor disqualify a site? One fault line, no matter how ancient? You might as well dictate the Archangel Michael stand guard at the door. It's ridiculous.
O---K, what part of But to answer your question directly A geologically stable containment facility in granite didn't you understand? Look I'll make it r-e-a-l simple for you. A_containment_facility_that_would_satisfy_my_criteria: Take NORAD and make the containment facility like that, you could even convert NOR
The total volume is waste is tiny, and it's not that dangerous.
70,000 tons of pu-239 alone in the united states. And thats before we start counting u-235 mine tailings, the reactors themselves when they are decommissioned, triated water, the list goes on. If you are referring to pu-239 it is an iron analogue and will, for example, cause leukemia when ingested into the body via leakage into a water table.
It's not more dangerous than the output of other industrial sites like oil refineries and solvent plants.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how bio-concentration and bio-accumulation works in the food chain. Radioactive isotopes that make it into the environment will eventually end up in the human food chain and they will poison until they are no longer radioactive. Nature might be able to adapt fast enough but it's very doubtful that human beings will be able to.
Considering that the carbon footprint of the nuclear power cycle is staggeringly low (even taking into account plant construction and uranium mining), nuclear power is the best and most obvious solution to climate change.
Again, you don't understand the issues at hand.
The damage is caused by CFC114 greenhouse gases that the enrichment process release are not because they are 20,000 times more potent than C02 at retaining heat in the atmosphere but the effect of depletion of the ozone layer allowing UV destruction of phytoplankton and zooplankton that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. But you don't have to believe me just read the submissions made to the UN for the Montreal Protocol. Or of course Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment.
Since the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's into the environment these oceanic effects can be directly attributed to the inability of the Nuclear Industry to act as a responsible global citizen. I have the EPA data, go look it up for yourself, it's a bit convoluted to extract but it is there.
On the point of carbon equivalence thats 8 618 255.03 kilograms of CFC114 since it was banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah or the mining of Uranium. 2.4 gigajoules per ton for soft ores and 5.5 gigajoules per ton for hard hard ores. To get a kilogram of uranium you have to process 500 tons of hard ore (as there is almost no soft ore left) - and even that is assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 and that assumes you have a high grade ore. That's 8.4 Terrawatt hours just for the mining to fuel one reactor - all C02 consumption by the Nuclear industry. The 8.4 Terrawatt hours DO NOT include waste disposal, does not include treatment of mine tailings and my figures are generous with the overall concentration of ore per tonne of rock - once it falls below 0.01% there is a net energy debt with nuclear power.
So the carbon footprint of Nuclear is only 'staggeringly low' when compared to coal. I'd imagine it's 'staggeringly high' when compared to wind, wave, solar or geothermal, especially if the tower is constructed with low carbon concrete. So Nuclear is only a solution to global warming if you are prepared to pass on an environmental and radioactive isotope cost to future generations the same way our generation has been handed a carbon cost to deal with in the form of externalities.
We don't even need thorium reactors. There's enough conventional nuclear fuel to last millennia even without reprocessing. We can extract the stuff from seawater.
For the minute concentrations of uranium in seawater the amount of energy used to extract the uranium would be
Re:idiocy? Incompetence?
on
Y2.01K
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Because everybody forgot about Y2K on Jan 1 2000. Planes didn't fall from the sky, remember (well not immediately, anyway).
I've been confronted with the idiot at dinner(s) who says "what about that Y2K bug - what a load of crap that was, nothing happened". I gently remind them that a lot of people worked pretty hard to make sure nothing happened. Maybe this time around there won't be any budget to handle it. Guess we may find out on the 10/10/2010.
The toxicity of noble gases has of course been studied before
So you will be able to a) provide a link to a peer reviewed epidemiological study on the effect of noble gas effluents from Nuclear Reactors on human beings that spells out the mutative effects to children whose sperm or eggs were exposed to noble gases chemically bound to fat? Or b) admit you are just Talking.Out.Of.Your.Ass?
particularly in the levels you are talking about (we're talking homeopathic concentrations here...)
Clearly, you don't understand how bio-concentration and bio-accumulation occurs in the foodchain otherwise you would not make such a ludicrous statement. For example Krypton 90 decays into strontium 90 and Xenon 137 decays in cesium 137, you know with those a) half lives and all and b) accumulating in the foodchain.
I have some all natural arsenic for you to eat. Or maybe you would prefer some nice, all natural, hemlock?
This is A) the most idiotic straw-man arguments I've seen in a long time and B) using selective concern with the toxicity of radioactive effluents that suit your argument. The jewel in the Nuclear fanboi's argument is 'but coal plants emit radioactive isotopes too' that play on people's ignorance of the process that makes radioactive isotope effluents from Nuclear power plants millions of times more toxic than those from coal power stations due to Neutron bombardment within the core of the reactor. Is that a healthy enough use of bold to dispel A) Your ignorance and B) Your idiocracy or C)probably both your idiocracy and ignorance.
I've spent *my* time examining the science, engineering, politics and law that build the Nuclear industry to understand it's very real problems. Anytime you want to come with an actual argument that changes my mind, feel free, but do bring some facts instead of parroting blatant Nuclear Industry propaganda.
OMG, a 100 cu/ft of naturally occuring helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and the radioactive radon. Once a week. Times 1000 reactors? Christ, I probably breathe more than that every month in naturally occuring atmospheric air.
My point was that No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed. You seem quite adept at speaking with ignorance at the effect since we know that no science to understand those effects have been performed.
What we *do* know is that those noble gases are high energy gamma emitters and if you happen to be breathing where a concentration of noble gases are occurring they are easily absorbed from the lungs into the blood stream. Whilst chemically non-reactive they are fat soluble and have a tendency to locate where fat is stored in the body, adjacent to the reproductive organs where they can induce significant mutations in eggs and sperm.
Probably not good if you are trying to have children and you live near a Nuclear Reactor. Furthermore, as an exercise for yourself why don't you discover what the noble gases Xenon 137 and Krypton 90, both emitted from Nuclear reactors and in the scope of our discussion, decay into if you are so confident in your assertions?
Your 'cowboy' attitude towards the release of these radioactive isotopes is hardly the type of responsible Nuclear advocacy required to progress the industry and I would suggest that you lobby for more science to uncover the genealogical effects of these radioactive isotopes if you are sincere with your support of the nuclear industry.
I prefer small chance of it leaking out (which happened only once) more than the routine of "leaking" it out into biosphere on a daily basis,
I suggest you read up on the emissions that the NRC permit from a Nuclear reactor every second day that are NRC standard operating procedures before we start talking about unintentional or unauthorised radioactive effluent emissions. Additionally, every Nuclear power plant vents approximately 100 cubic feet of Noble gases roughly every two weeks. No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed.
As do coal-fired plants.
Coal plants emit un-enriched natural elements so they are, literally, millions of times less radioactive than Nuclear Reactor effluents.
If you can't do these, you're spouting bullshit and really out to shut up and let the adults talk.
Such an arrogant and condescending statement.
Please outline the beliefs of atheism. Please outline atheistic morality. Please define the atheistic purpose for life.
To bumble around life being afraid of the most superficial aspects of any spirituality. To be angry at human belief systems and blame it on spirituality. To espouse their disbelief in the most selfish way until their deathbed where they cry for forgiveness before they die.
You seem to carry the anger of an ex-theist, not disconnected ambivalence of an atheist. Fundamental a - theism is no different from *any* group who "knows the truth" and "seeks to liberate all" with their "higher understanding". Spirituality is an intensely personal thing. Rampant atheism sickens me as much as rampant evangelism and is just as hypocritical.
As such, its a natural conclusion based on scientific evidence that if there was no god, gods or higher forms of life other than man, that the existence of man is to benefit the species of man.
If you've got scientific evidence that god doesn't exist, produce it. Otherwise your opinion is based on a logical fallacy.
I actually comment the main parts of my code before I write the code. Reason being is I like to get the general layout of the code down first and then add further comments as I go along to explain my reasoning *to me*.
I don't know how long it's going to be before I come back to a piece of code and nothing annoys me more than having mental clutter in my mind. I don't want to have to *remember* what why or how certain bit of code does what it does. I just want to pull up my code and explain it to myself and say "thanks me of the past for considering me today". Coders that don't explain what they are doing in their code are just hard to work with.
Well commented code helps code look beautiful and flow like poetry. When you look at code you can see almost immediately if it is going to be painful to modify. I try to put as much back onto the machine as I can, like using database design tools so I don't have to keep stuff in my mind.
I use Nassi-Shneiderman mixed with pseudo-code on paper to do a design (I'm getting better at UML tools - so soon I hope to upgrade this part of my coding practise) and when I'm happy with that I move to comment before writing the actual functional parts of code, increasing the detail of the comments as I go along. I used to be shy about my code but now I'd be embarrassed if I didn't comment my code - because it's not polite to my colleagues. Comments mean I don't have to waste time trying to remember where I was up to as it's simple for me to compare it with my design and away I go.
I was discussing this very thing with some colleagues today and suggested maybe it's time to start pre-emptive invoicing of the music industry for filtering services conducted as a revenue stream for ISP's, and every ISP can do it. If the music industry refuses to pay then filtering services stop until the invoice is paid. If they demand filtering services be conducted then they must pay for the filtering being done - why should the taxpayer.
The way it stands is they expect everyone to pay for them. I wonder what the cost to the community is for the innovation they have impeded, now of course, the taxpayer has to pay again.
How would the world look different? It would be a whole GNU world.
I think you mean a Brave New world where the world is a utopia of nearly clones and perfect interoperability but everyone is mentally programmed and quite insane. I'm glad it's a whole GNU world now. I suspect without Linux, BSD et. al there would be no Apple and Microsoft's monopoly would be complete.
In fact I hear that Microsoft has built a Time gateway to send a terminator back to kill Linus (Linus Torvalds? - kome wid me iv u vant to leev) except they had to engineer it using Linux which will probably cause some sort of paradox, the first one ran Windows ME and shot itself, the second ran XP and was quit stable but couldn't be convinced to 'step indo no stinkin tyme fortex' and the third ran vista and just kept banging it's head on the wall.
Wow - that post didn't end where I thought it would!!! Happy Birthday Linus.
I've been reading you posts and I'm not sure if you have been able to extract your data from the machine and re-establish your sites elsewhere from when you paid the $35 for KVM access. If you haven't I would be noting *every* event in your diary - at least where I live diary entries can be used in court as evidence if you have a diary habit.
From what I understand you have/had an unmanaged service. I think the point that most posters here are missing is that you are trying to protect the interests of your users (who may be paying you). You may be forced to play a little politics here if you suspect ill-intent on the providers part, so whatever you do *don't threaten them* they will dig their heals in and make it harder to gather the evidence you need to make a case whilst recovering your sites. If they are asking for root access then it does sound like they are trying to cover something up, but I doubt it's malice - more likely a mistake bred from self interest.
Have you got a full backup of the machine off-site so you can re-instate the sites at another provider without having to return to the ex-provider? Reason I say this is that you want to be in a position to be able to have the machine in its original state at the time of the stand-off and still maintain the uptime of your sites.
You don't have to post the companies name but can you post the T&C's so we can look at them? Many eyes make light work here and there maybe something in them that makes you step back (or not) but it's hard to tell unless the T&C's are there to see. Did you authorise the move to new hardware - was it implicit that they could move you to new hardware.
Bottom line here is it could be that someone there fucked up and fried your server (maybe they plugged POE into your nic by mistake or some such stupidity) either way it sounds like there is a case of self interest here otherwise why would they bother giving you *new* hardware unless they moved your hosting to a different physical site which again is a question of authorisation.
Whilst the insights into your experiences are quite valuable I think you are well beyond the point of a pre-emptive technical solution, such as the one you have asked for, and into the realm of negotiating a settlement. It's hard to step back when you are that close to it, and it's understandable that you are pissed, but until the actual T&C's of your contract(s) can be viewed and an understanding of the time line of events can be gained any real concrete direction of what you can/should do is just postulation.
If your hosting provider wants the log files, they don't need root, just a copy of the files. Give them a user-level login, and put a copy of the files where that user can see them.
Syslog (and it's variants) already provides the functionality so a provider does not have to access a server. I can't think of a reason a provider needs to access a server other than to test their ability to sniff passwords. Hopefully the OP is exchanging ssh keys with their server.
Granted that, in this case, the provider wants access to the logs to determine the cause of an outage that has already occurred isn't easier just to tee the future logs off to a syslog server of the providers choosing? I am *fairly* certain that *most* applications can log via syslog and that the output can be stream edited for sensitive information and removed allowing the server owner ultimate control of what information is shared.
I'm not saying I approve of the provider's unauthorised access to the server, I don't, but access to the system logs can be provided without said provider even logging into the system. It's a compromise that has to be negotiated because maintaining the uptime of the server is in everybody's interest.
I think that Scientology would a pretty good video game. Scored in thetans you would lambast your opponents into submission so they were 'stuck in an incident' and use a variety of pyscological techniques to intimidate, cajole and threaten anyone who get's in your way.
Contact with any southpark characters or hearing music from Tool kills your character instantly with sardonic irony or an influx of conscious awareness. You can use Tom Cruise missiles and seeing a movie with John Travolta increases your health (If you really have to you can sing 'the one that I want' in the street for a slow recharge). Contact with anonymous anonymouses of anonymousland slows you down.
Once acquired, your trusty DC3 is upgraded until it is a *real* spaceship so you can move onto the ultimate of ultimate boss fights with the badest of badguys - only trouble is you have to pay real money to find out the bosses name or you find yourself dropped into a volcano and have to start again - penniless. You fail every level at least once. The game, called 'Fair Game', starts with the phrase 'This is an e-meter...'.
I say: Build more nuclear plants and reprocess the current waste. Hell, build one plant that specifically takes the waste from all the other plants and use it for generation.
I think you are missing the point of the battery technology. Rather than monetary cost it's the energetic costs of distributed infrastructure vs centralised infrastructure. Coal and Nuclear suffer similar problems because they have to be remotely located and suffer transmission losses to the consumer. This means it takes less time to have an energetic return on decentralised infrastructure than centralised infrastructure.
With better batery technoloy locating solar infrastructure at the consumer makes solar more viable as the distribution losses are eliminated and base load power requirements of the consumer can be augmented or met whilst taking pressure off the existing infrastructure. In effect it's a decentralised way of augmenting grid capacity by removing demand.
The 6 Earth-mass planet modeled by the Léger et al. paper I referenced has a 5000 km thick water mantle, but only the top 100 km of that would be liquid
If there was life on that planet, I'd imagine there would be some massive creatures living in an ocean like that.
Well if Roosavelt decided to join earlier than the last 5 minutes of WW2 you probably wouldn't have needed it AND you would have had a chance to annex the south of Russia and the USSR wouldn't of existed - as usual America manufactures it's enemies. Still the red's couldn't be all that bad, 20 million of them died stopping Hitler. It took Japan to give you guys a bloody nose before you woke from your collective apathy;-)
which was the metaphor you used for the creation of the bomb shows anything about my "talent for deceit.
It wasn't about *you* personally, so don't take it personally. It was about America being Pandora - talk about high fucking maintenance - take it fucking easy dood.
If there's a huge gap in my classical knowledge that's causing me to miss a reference, I'll give you the apology due.
Slashdot Mirror
"You can't call it Dorkz - anyone got any other ideas..."
Yes, get your own citations. I haven't seen anything other than rhetoric, ad-hominem attacks in your "argument".
Oh, ok heres one that doesn't include military waste. That should give you some scale.
Thats because it is. A person breathing in a microgram of plutonium *will* die of cancer. That microscopic radioactive isotope will continue to kill for as long as it's ingested and radioactive.
The disingenuous argument is ingoring the REALITY that CFC 114 is STILL USED for enrichment TODAY, and that 1 million pounds of CFC114 has leaked into the atmosphere per year since the inception of the Montreal protocol in 1995 and we can expect 1 million pounds of CFC114 to leak into the atmosphere every year it continues. What is disingenuous is ignoring that CFC 114 attacks the ozone layer that protects that algae that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE.
Ultracentrifuge is extremely expensive and the bearing technology is still problematic, the CFC method will continue to operate for a long time. Seen any announcements for building UC's lately?
No, I'm referring to the burn up rate of U-235 in the core of a PWR nuclear reactor, 0.3%. Best figure I have seen quoted is 3%. Nuclear Reactor technology is absurdly inefficient. Go look it up for yourself. 53 tons of u-235 each year into each reactor for re-fueling goes in and 53 tons come out, well 52.97 tons ;-)
Well gee wizz, thanks for pointing your straw-man out. So if the 52.97 tons of u-235 is the fissile substance, the 0.3% of the ore, how many tons of u-238 does that leave behind in the enrichment process. Wow, that's a lot of waste u-238 isn't it?
I'd imagine all the seawater in the sea. Question is how many gigalitres of seawater do you need process to get the 530tons of u-235 to re-fuel all the reactors in the US every year? I'd imagine it's a lot.
But not by the DOE standards. So what part of The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste didn't you understand?
O---K, what part of But to answer your question directly A geologically stable containment facility in granite didn't you understand? Look I'll make it r-e-a-l simple for you. A_containment_facility_that_would_satisfy_my_criteria: Take NORAD and make the containment facility like that, you could even convert NOR
70,000 tons of pu-239 alone in the united states. And thats before we start counting u-235 mine tailings, the reactors themselves when they are decommissioned, triated water, the list goes on. If you are referring to pu-239 it is an iron analogue and will, for example, cause leukemia when ingested into the body via leakage into a water table.
Spoken like someone who doesn't understand how bio-concentration and bio-accumulation works in the food chain. Radioactive isotopes that make it into the environment will eventually end up in the human food chain and they will poison until they are no longer radioactive. Nature might be able to adapt fast enough but it's very doubtful that human beings will be able to.
Again, you don't understand the issues at hand. The damage is caused by CFC114 greenhouse gases that the enrichment process release are not because they are 20,000 times more potent than C02 at retaining heat in the atmosphere but the effect of depletion of the ozone layer allowing UV destruction of phytoplankton and zooplankton that makes THE OXYGEN WE BREATHE. But you don't have to believe me just read the submissions made to the UN for the Montreal Protocol. Or of course Environmental effects of ozone depletion: 1998 Assessment.
Since the Nuclear industry is the number one industrial emitter of CFC's into the environment these oceanic effects can be directly attributed to the inability of the Nuclear Industry to act as a responsible global citizen. I have the EPA data, go look it up for yourself, it's a bit convoluted to extract but it is there.
On the point of carbon equivalence thats 8 618 255.03 kilograms of CFC114 since it was banned. That's the equivalent of 172,365,100,000 kilograms of carbon dioxide from the enrichment process alone and does not include the 1 Gigawatt of coal fired power used to run Paducah or the mining of Uranium. 2.4 gigajoules per ton for soft ores and 5.5 gigajoules per ton for hard hard ores. To get a kilogram of uranium you have to process 500 tons of hard ore (as there is almost no soft ore left) - and even that is assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 and that assumes you have a high grade ore. That's 8.4 Terrawatt hours just for the mining to fuel one reactor - all C02 consumption by the Nuclear industry. The 8.4 Terrawatt hours DO NOT include waste disposal, does not include treatment of mine tailings and my figures are generous with the overall concentration of ore per tonne of rock - once it falls below 0.01% there is a net energy debt with nuclear power.
So the carbon footprint of Nuclear is only 'staggeringly low' when compared to coal. I'd imagine it's 'staggeringly high' when compared to wind, wave, solar or geothermal, especially if the tower is constructed with low carbon concrete. So Nuclear is only a solution to global warming if you are prepared to pass on an environmental and radioactive isotope cost to future generations the same way our generation has been handed a carbon cost to deal with in the form of externalities.
For the minute concentrations of uranium in seawater the amount of energy used to extract the uranium would be
I've been confronted with the idiot at dinner(s) who says "what about that Y2K bug - what a load of crap that was, nothing happened". I gently remind them that a lot of people worked pretty hard to make sure nothing happened. Maybe this time around there won't be any budget to handle it. Guess we may find out on the 10/10/2010.
So you will be able to a) provide a link to a peer reviewed epidemiological study on the effect of noble gas effluents from Nuclear Reactors on human beings that spells out the mutative effects to children whose sperm or eggs were exposed to noble gases chemically bound to fat? Or b) admit you are just Talking.Out.Of.Your.Ass?
Clearly, you don't understand how bio-concentration and bio-accumulation occurs in the foodchain otherwise you would not make such a ludicrous statement. For example Krypton 90 decays into strontium 90 and Xenon 137 decays in cesium 137, you know with those a) half lives and all and b) accumulating in the foodchain.
This is A) the most idiotic straw-man arguments I've seen in a long time and B) using selective concern with the toxicity of radioactive effluents that suit your argument. The jewel in the Nuclear fanboi's argument is 'but coal plants emit radioactive isotopes too' that play on people's ignorance of the process that makes radioactive isotope effluents from Nuclear power plants millions of times more toxic than those from coal power stations due to Neutron bombardment within the core of the reactor. Is that a healthy enough use of bold to dispel A) Your ignorance and B) Your idiocracy or C)probably both your idiocracy and ignorance.
I've spent *my* time examining the science, engineering, politics and law that build the Nuclear industry to understand it's very real problems. Anytime you want to come with an actual argument that changes my mind, feel free, but do bring some facts instead of parroting blatant Nuclear Industry propaganda.
My point was that No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed. You seem quite adept at speaking with ignorance at the effect since we know that no science to understand those effects have been performed.
What we *do* know is that those noble gases are high energy gamma emitters and if you happen to be breathing where a concentration of noble gases are occurring they are easily absorbed from the lungs into the blood stream. Whilst chemically non-reactive they are fat soluble and have a tendency to locate where fat is stored in the body, adjacent to the reproductive organs where they can induce significant mutations in eggs and sperm.
Probably not good if you are trying to have children and you live near a Nuclear Reactor. Furthermore, as an exercise for yourself why don't you discover what the noble gases Xenon 137 and Krypton 90, both emitted from Nuclear reactors and in the scope of our discussion, decay into if you are so confident in your assertions?
Your 'cowboy' attitude towards the release of these radioactive isotopes is hardly the type of responsible Nuclear advocacy required to progress the industry and I would suggest that you lobby for more science to uncover the genealogical effects of these radioactive isotopes if you are sincere with your support of the nuclear industry.
I suggest you read up on the emissions that the NRC permit from a Nuclear reactor every second day that are NRC standard operating procedures before we start talking about unintentional or unauthorised radioactive effluent emissions. Additionally, every Nuclear power plant vents approximately 100 cubic feet of Noble gases roughly every two weeks. No epidemiological studies have been performed on noble gas venting so their toxicity to humans has not been assessed.
Coal plants emit un-enriched natural elements so they are, literally, millions of times less radioactive than Nuclear Reactor effluents.
Such an arrogant and condescending statement.
To bumble around life being afraid of the most superficial aspects of any spirituality. To be angry at human belief systems and blame it on spirituality. To espouse their disbelief in the most selfish way until their deathbed where they cry for forgiveness before they die.
You seem to carry the anger of an ex-theist, not disconnected ambivalence of an atheist. Fundamental a - theism is no different from *any* group who "knows the truth" and "seeks to liberate all" with their "higher understanding". Spirituality is an intensely personal thing. Rampant atheism sickens me as much as rampant evangelism and is just as hypocritical.
If you've got scientific evidence that god doesn't exist, produce it. Otherwise your opinion is based on a logical fallacy.
I actually comment the main parts of my code before I write the code. Reason being is I like to get the general layout of the code down first and then add further comments as I go along to explain my reasoning *to me*.
I don't know how long it's going to be before I come back to a piece of code and nothing annoys me more than having mental clutter in my mind. I don't want to have to *remember* what why or how certain bit of code does what it does. I just want to pull up my code and explain it to myself and say "thanks me of the past for considering me today". Coders that don't explain what they are doing in their code are just hard to work with.
Well commented code helps code look beautiful and flow like poetry. When you look at code you can see almost immediately if it is going to be painful to modify. I try to put as much back onto the machine as I can, like using database design tools so I don't have to keep stuff in my mind.
I use Nassi-Shneiderman mixed with pseudo-code on paper to do a design (I'm getting better at UML tools - so soon I hope to upgrade this part of my coding practise) and when I'm happy with that I move to comment before writing the actual functional parts of code, increasing the detail of the comments as I go along. I used to be shy about my code but now I'd be embarrassed if I didn't comment my code - because it's not polite to my colleagues. Comments mean I don't have to waste time trying to remember where I was up to as it's simple for me to compare it with my design and away I go.
think about it, free T-Shirts, no ironing. Sounds pretty good to me, why would I want to wear out my clothes.
I want gamers to have showers and wear deodorant when they go game and PC shopping.
I was discussing this very thing with some colleagues today and suggested maybe it's time to start pre-emptive invoicing of the music industry for filtering services conducted as a revenue stream for ISP's, and every ISP can do it. If the music industry refuses to pay then filtering services stop until the invoice is paid. If they demand filtering services be conducted then they must pay for the filtering being done - why should the taxpayer.
The way it stands is they expect everyone to pay for them. I wonder what the cost to the community is for the innovation they have impeded, now of course, the taxpayer has to pay again.
I think you mean a Brave New world where the world is a utopia of nearly clones and perfect interoperability but everyone is mentally programmed and quite insane. I'm glad it's a whole GNU world now. I suspect without Linux, BSD et. al there would be no Apple and Microsoft's monopoly would be complete.
In fact I hear that Microsoft has built a Time gateway to send a terminator back to kill Linus (Linus Torvalds? - kome wid me iv u vant to leev) except they had to engineer it using Linux which will probably cause some sort of paradox, the first one ran Windows ME and shot itself, the second ran XP and was quit stable but couldn't be convinced to 'step indo no stinkin tyme fortex' and the third ran vista and just kept banging it's head on the wall.
Wow - that post didn't end where I thought it would!!! Happy Birthday Linus.
Well that's two down, one to go.
I think you are right stick to your guns.
I've been reading you posts and I'm not sure if you have been able to extract your data from the machine and re-establish your sites elsewhere from when you paid the $35 for KVM access. If you haven't I would be noting *every* event in your diary - at least where I live diary entries can be used in court as evidence if you have a diary habit.
From what I understand you have/had an unmanaged service. I think the point that most posters here are missing is that you are trying to protect the interests of your users (who may be paying you). You may be forced to play a little politics here if you suspect ill-intent on the providers part, so whatever you do *don't threaten them* they will dig their heals in and make it harder to gather the evidence you need to make a case whilst recovering your sites. If they are asking for root access then it does sound like they are trying to cover something up, but I doubt it's malice - more likely a mistake bred from self interest.
Have you got a full backup of the machine off-site so you can re-instate the sites at another provider without having to return to the ex-provider? Reason I say this is that you want to be in a position to be able to have the machine in its original state at the time of the stand-off and still maintain the uptime of your sites.
You don't have to post the companies name but can you post the T&C's so we can look at them? Many eyes make light work here and there maybe something in them that makes you step back (or not) but it's hard to tell unless the T&C's are there to see. Did you authorise the move to new hardware - was it implicit that they could move you to new hardware.
Bottom line here is it could be that someone there fucked up and fried your server (maybe they plugged POE into your nic by mistake or some such stupidity) either way it sounds like there is a case of self interest here otherwise why would they bother giving you *new* hardware unless they moved your hosting to a different physical site which again is a question of authorisation.
Whilst the insights into your experiences are quite valuable I think you are well beyond the point of a pre-emptive technical solution, such as the one you have asked for, and into the realm of negotiating a settlement. It's hard to step back when you are that close to it, and it's understandable that you are pissed, but until the actual T&C's of your contract(s) can be viewed and an understanding of the time line of events can be gained any real concrete direction of what you can/should do is just postulation.
hey you are a coolgeek.
Syslog (and it's variants) already provides the functionality so a provider does not have to access a server. I can't think of a reason a provider needs to access a server other than to test their ability to sniff passwords. Hopefully the OP is exchanging ssh keys with their server.
Granted that, in this case, the provider wants access to the logs to determine the cause of an outage that has already occurred isn't easier just to tee the future logs off to a syslog server of the providers choosing? I am *fairly* certain that *most* applications can log via syslog and that the output can be stream edited for sensitive information and removed allowing the server owner ultimate control of what information is shared.
I'm not saying I approve of the provider's unauthorised access to the server, I don't, but access to the system logs can be provided without said provider even logging into the system. It's a compromise that has to be negotiated because maintaining the uptime of the server is in everybody's interest.
I'm a bit confused why this is flamebait moderators?
With apologies, but the wisdom of TRON seems so appropriate right about now.
I think that Scientology would a pretty good video game. Scored in thetans you would lambast your opponents into submission so they were 'stuck in an incident' and use a variety of pyscological techniques to intimidate, cajole and threaten anyone who get's in your way.
Contact with any southpark characters or hearing music from Tool kills your character instantly with sardonic irony or an influx of conscious awareness. You can use Tom Cruise missiles and seeing a movie with John Travolta increases your health (If you really have to you can sing 'the one that I want' in the street for a slow recharge). Contact with anonymous anonymouses of anonymousland slows you down.
Once acquired, your trusty DC3 is upgraded until it is a *real* spaceship so you can move onto the ultimate of ultimate boss fights with the badest of badguys - only trouble is you have to pay real money to find out the bosses name or you find yourself dropped into a volcano and have to start again - penniless. You fail every level at least once. The game, called 'Fair Game', starts with the phrase 'This is an e-meter...'.
I think you are missing the point of the battery technology. Rather than monetary cost it's the energetic costs of distributed infrastructure vs centralised infrastructure. Coal and Nuclear suffer similar problems because they have to be remotely located and suffer transmission losses to the consumer. This means it takes less time to have an energetic return on decentralised infrastructure than centralised infrastructure.
With better batery technoloy locating solar infrastructure at the consumer makes solar more viable as the distribution losses are eliminated and base load power requirements of the consumer can be augmented or met whilst taking pressure off the existing infrastructure. In effect it's a decentralised way of augmenting grid capacity by removing demand.
If there was life on that planet, I'd imagine there would be some massive creatures living in an ocean like that.
Apology accepted.
Well if Roosavelt decided to join earlier than the last 5 minutes of WW2 you probably wouldn't have needed it AND you would have had a chance to annex the south of Russia and the USSR wouldn't of existed - as usual America manufactures it's enemies. Still the red's couldn't be all that bad, 20 million of them died stopping Hitler. It took Japan to give you guys a bloody nose before you woke from your collective apathy ;-)
A service I am happy to provide
It wasn't about *you* personally, so don't take it personally. It was about America being Pandora - talk about high fucking maintenance - take it fucking easy dood.
then pay attention to what Hermes taught Pandora.