Except that wouldn't such a passive protest result is all manner of criminal charges? "Go slow" might work in other areas of employment, but in IT such things are likely going to be construed as hacking or violating computer security, in which the law has been dramatically strengthened in recent years. What a mess.
I understand what you are getting at but I don't think that is the case. I'm not suggesting anything criminal or exceeding any authorized access.
This practise of mass training replacements is completely unethical and it is the precursor to a massive salary slide in IT work. This is the end of the party in IT, we are a cost centre and unethical people are constructing methods to reduce that cost. There will be a venomous argument that capital can do what it wants to it's employs, and they are right. However you are still free and you can't be forced to work or do anything, you can only be coerced. If you weren't already the authority with authorized access to a system you wouldn't be training a replacement in the first place.
Slave or master, choose now to be respected professionals for what we do, or accept that we are no different from burger flippers. Wield power or be subject to it.
There is no talent or skill we have to overcome this type of deceit. You can only fight deceit with deceit. Business is war, dirty ugly, gloves off war. You have to fight for respect, no one gives it to you. It doesn't matter that you are replaced by incompetent talentless hires. In their eyes you're not a talented individual, you're just another hire: "great worker,,,, sincere" a smile and pat on the back that makes you feel good, is code for you are exploitable, contemptible.
You are right, it is a mess, I don't like it either, it's our new reality and it's time to get real about sorting the mess out.
Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay. I have no doubt some unions have become corrupt over time, but that doesn't mean a newly formed union can't be effective today.
I think one of the biggest issues is that there is no organization that lobbies for Technologists at a political level to maintain their interests. This is why it is easy to pit technology professionals from one country against another country and old against young. If it is us vs us then technologists can never be acting in our own interests because we are to busy competing with each other instead of co-operating to promote our interests. It should be the other way around, organizations should be competing for us to work for *them*. As a consequence all or our salaries are lower and it's all our own fault. We have no power because we are individuals saying *unions are bad* then whining when these sorts of things happen.
Call it what you will, a union, association, organization whatever. We have nothing representing our political interests. We have been naive and we now face the consequences of those many years of naivety. We have to face it before we can fix it. We have to own what we have done to ourselves.
For example, what do you suppose the management would do if nobody was willing to train their replacement or answer any questions?
This happened to me over 10 years ago. I was more than willing to train my replacement however everyone of them gave up because it was too difficult. I'm not saying that the work can't be learned but there is more than one way to comply with contractual terms. Mistakes happen and replacements sometimes cause downtime unintentionally whilst they learn, it's just an unfortunate consequence.
Sometimes people can't learn the easy way and there is certainly no obligation for you to teach it. Sometimes business processes require 2 or 3 times more steps to be certain they will work. If the ineffectualness of the replacement, combined with the "certainty", combined with the inability to innovate (people just surviving cannot innovate) will rapidly make such a plan cost ineffective and rapidly make any board member who suggests it look like a buffoon to the board and shareholders. There needs to be a track record of these failures and failures of the C level careers who suggest it.
Get creative people, it's what got you here and what will keep you here.
Two choices, cancel the layoff or go down in flames.
If I am reading you correctly I think that this is probably the time. Technologists don't need to picket. A passive protest could mean that any infrastructure attack on a company doing this is simply not resisted and no data is recorded, out of hours work is unsuccessful, incorrect commands, don't respond to outages.
It should only take about 12 days of downtime for any business to be completely on it's knees and willing to negotiate with those who have worked hard to make that business function. 14 days and they will be offering pay rises for you to stay. This is what a technologist's protest should look like. Just because we don't *want* to work in management doesn't mean we don't know what makes business function when threatened. Disney paved the way, and make no mistake *every* technologist here is being threatened and this will happen more and more.
We either control our own destinies or it will be controlled for us. In the 21st century anyone arguing against us organizing ourselves is effectively saying we should be slaves.
The OP said:if Indian point had a fukishima style issue Wall street is unlivable, un workable. and it's a pretty good point. Fukushima suffered a LOCA, Loss Of Cooling Accident when the pumps failed. That is the type of issue the OP was referring to, not a tsunami.
You said: And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.? If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down. So the question is if there is anything else that produces that same result do you agree it should be shut down because a tsunami isn't the only thing that can produce a LOCA. New basis design issues discovered in systems that should protect against electrical failures for pump systems and variability in river levels are both threats to this type of reactor that produces the same result that the OP is referring to. They produce the same results as a Fukushima type accident, aren't they valid reasons as well?
You also said but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe. and so I was
showing you that your assumptions are flawed.
but still didn't show one reference to a 'LOCA Attack".
Look no further than the official 9/11 report, page 245: During the Spain meeting,Atta also mentioned that he had considered targeting a nuclear facility he had seen during familiarization flights near New York a target they referred to as "electrical engineering". [reference 148: Intelligence report, interrogation of Binalshibh, Sept. 11, 2003. KSM has admitted that he considered targeting a nuclear power plant as part of his initial proposal for the planes operation. ]
So it is possible they were actually referring to Indian Point as a target. That's the public record.
You did define each term separately. Congratulations for that.
I'm curious to know why you think NP has no issues at all? Don't you think there are areas that it can improve? Why do you think Nuclear power is a solution anyway?
I like how creative folks can be when making stuff up.
That's how some security works, devise a scenario and then defend against it. Your suggestion a nuclear plant doesn't require assessment from such an attack is naive.
And also conspiracy theories
The cry of totalitarians everywhere.
regarding TMI.
To quote the NRC documentation of the incident A significant release of radiation from the plants auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core. That's coolant is officially recognised contamination.
Its public information what happened, yes there where human errors and design issues,
Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions." - So if they didn't know, how is it you do?
Expert measurements of radioactive iodine in farm animals nearby revealed Nuclear Industry estimates of contamination released to be 'grossly underestimated'. Radioactive iodine, plutonium, strontium, americurium, 172,000 cubic feet of high level radioactive water, large quantities of krypton 85 and later that year 8 million litres of radioactive water containing tritium that were evaporated deliberately were all part of the toxic cocktail that was released.
and yet the entire event never hurt anyone.
Of the states that were higher in the list of cancer averages the ones with similar population density surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred. New York, with roughly 3 times the population, topped the list, was also in the fall out zone.
The amount of release was so small, you could be right at the effluent point and receive less than a medical x-ray dose.
In reality large amounts of contamination were released beyond Nuclear Industry assurances. The gamma radiation monitors on the top of the auxiliary building were not designed to measure such high concentrations and they went off the scale when the accident *began*, the release of contamination went on for several *days*. Estimates were based on thermoluscent dosimeters on the fence and Alpha and Beta emissions weren't even measured.
But of course, you read somewhere on someone' blog that it was much more and a big cover up and you certainly like that better.
Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused.
Even the nuclear industry doesn't know how much radioactive elements they are releasing normally, it's based on mathematical models. The last *actual* study was done in 1978 when the reactors were in peak operating condition almost forty years ago.
The question was designed to expose a MrD's nuclear shill ignorance. It's something you can't search for on the internet because the NRC is not required to release terorism related portions of environmental impact studies. If you want to find out you're going to have to keep an eye on this thread.
If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down.
Indian Point is a reactor that is pretty fragile and vulnerable to LOCA attacks in quite obvious ways. An tsunami is not the only way to trigger that scenario.
Essentially you are suggesting that it is unreasonable to get an assessment of it's true state and the likely cost of upgrades.
, but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe.
Well thats a fiction because strontium-90 was released at TMI. Also dosimeters that measured the reactors effluents were overloaded very early into the accident and could not be replaced, so the reality was we don't know how much was released. It wasn't as massive as Chernobyl however it certainly wasn't zero either.
People that actually worked at TMI during that accident used to frequent this forum long before you were shilling here and they reported a comedy of errors preventing the reactor accident being much worse than it was.
It must be the NIMBY's fault because hippys and hicks can stop billions of dollars worth of reactor investments being deployed. You nutty nutty nukkers and yer crazy talk, it doesn't even make sense.
If you want to really help the nuclear industry you should lobby to repeal the Price Anderson act, that's what is really holding the nuclear industry back. How fortunate it is there to stop the Nuclear Inddustry growing any further.
There are other more affordable designs they could have used. Claiming all nuclear power is too expensive to bother because one company over ran costs is like claiming all cars are unsafe because a single drunk driver drove a car off a cliff while failing to buckle their seat belt.
There are more affordable cars you could drive. The issue is when you are in a severe accident and your family is in the car, do you want to be in the latest cheap Hyundai (AP-1000) or the latest model Mercedes-Benz (EPR) with all the latest safety features? So far the EPR looks like the safest reactor design to reach implementation phase, if you *have* to have nuclear power. I would be very surprised if this design goes ahead though.
Indeed. Everything about the EPR design seems to be about more and more complexity to deal with safety issues, and progressively bigger and bigger protection systems to provide "defence in depth".
Looking at the fundamentals the AP1000 is a single wall containment vessel as opposed to the double wall design of the EPR. Further the EPR is a design that is resistant to military attacks whereas the AP1000 is not. Sizewell B is a double wall implementation of the AP1000 so the experiences there maybe a contributing factor to selecting EPR over AP1000 simply because EPR is a double wall containment reactor by design.
The most concerning issue with AP1000 is it implements a major untested design change over the SNUPPS design that it was based on. In an emergency situation the containment vessel of AP1000 doubles as a heat exchanger which is an increased risk considering it has a reduced thermal energy containment ratio over earlier designs.
Consequently all of the math for estimating core damage frequency of AP1000 is based on simulations as opposed to reactor experience. Considering the density of population in the UK implementing a design that has only been tested in simulation is probably more of a gamble than the UK is prepared to take if they have to *have* nuclear power.
And if the system in case has several power save modes, does then the event manager power down services whose hardware was just put to sleep?
No. An event manager (or controller) should reconfigure the service via inittab and signal init to change that service's state because init is a *process* manager for system processes.
And if so, how does init react of some services it has started, are shut down without init's involvement?
It restarts them, as it should. init should be responsible for maintaining system services that require root permissions. An event manager is a good candidate because
Or should those services should be started from the event manager instead of init?
user level services that terminate at the end of their sessions should be managed by an application controller that interacts with the event controller.
And what's the point of init, if most services are started by the event manager anyway, because otherwise, the event manager could not manage them?
It should be managing events and not processes. It should be passing messages about them to various processes that perform the reaction. It should not even capture them, that functionality should be abstracted into an input or device controller that generates messages for the EM.
The problem was service inter-dependency in startup/shutdown was quite awkward in SysV, plus the opportunity to increase service startup/shutdown speeds by handling unrelated services in parallel.
People who have this perception aren't using inittab properly. We are yet to see a use case presented that init cannot deal with and these two are already covered. Dependancies are meant to be initialized via rc scripts and services are maintained via inittab.
People seem to be hung up on using runlevel scripts to do everything. It's this mis-use case of red hat's runlevel scripting system that is being used as an excuse to replace initd with systemd. It's pretty reasonable for people to be skeptical about these efforts to replace initd when the issue is not functionality but education.
I sometimes wonder if their is a perception issue with the use of inittab files, like the server will explode if you do something wrong in an inittab script. However it's quite simple once you get you head around three key things:
Use a combination of run level scripts and scripts executed from inittab to acheive a system configuration. Runlevels are available to inittab entries when the rc scripts complete or execute in the background. Make sure your inittab shell scripts don't exit if your service is running properly.
That's pretty much all you need to remember to create very powerful and elegant patterns to manage the activities of any *ix system.
The fact is that the food intake of the average Chinese has gone more towards rapidly digestible carbohydrates, just as it has done for the whole world.
Isn't it odd that other countries are trying to adopt western diets when western dieticians are saying that the nutrition in those countries are better than ours. Lots of people want western standards of living but ignore westerners when they say erh, we were wrong on that one.
These are basically the worst thing in the world when it comes to weight gain.
Let's call em for what they are, a molecule or two off being sugar. On processed foods though, I've found that eliminating as much processed food as possible from your diet helps make vegatebles and fruit much more appealing (I wish I could say that pun was intended, but it was an unfortunate accident). I personally found my sense of smell was much more sensitive which made it a lot easier to find, prepare and eat nutrient dense foods. That means you need to eat less and don't feel as hungry.
Not all "calories" are created equal, and suggesting that they are outright proves that you have no idea what you are on about.
I think they forget the energy expenditure to digest different foods. Peoples basal metabolic rate changes throughout the day too, so *when* you eat something is a factor as well. Even then we haven't begun to discuss the microbial activity in the gut and it's role. Fats take less energy to absorb, proteins increase metabolic rates. I think people count calories because it gives them some illusion of control when they don't exercise and continue to eat crap.
I think the point the GP is making is that the court of public opinion requires no evidence for conviction. Anybody can paint a picture, and if it looks real enough, who cares if there was ever an actual subject?
Oh for sure, I wasn't disagreeing, simply pointing out that there was an adage on the subject.
Always copy the URL in the address bar for later reference. It's the only way to be sure. Saving the page locally is even better.
This is the first time I caught them in the act with real proof. Previously I had doubts, but my local copy would always find the original post on the site. This time everybody can see what happened. I was counting on a major uproar over it, but it doesn't look like people care that much, so, I'm just going to drop it.
Don't drop it, I've noticed it too. I thought it was just me screwing up but it never occurred to me that it was happening to someone else. I do the same thing, I save links for later reference, there is a lot of interesting stuff at -1 and wondered what was going on when I could access the post from the links I recorded and not when I looked in the page itself? Even after both sliders were a -1 they would not show. I've never tried clearing the cache though, so I'll pay more attention next time. Thanks for pointing it out, I've also noticed some weirdness with the moderation system and looking at your relationship status to you - it does not exist - like you are AC.
I thought they were browser bugs. Peronally I like to see things that really offend me, even if I am repulsed by it, actually *because* I am repulsed by it - because censorship is more repulsive than thinking 'gee - that guy is a dick'. Were they your own comments or someone elses?
As a biochemist, LNT doesn't really make much sense when applied to a biological system. It seems odd that there wouldn't be any threshold when we know that there are biological mechanisms for repairing radiation induced damage.
Thank you for your insights. To be clear are you referring to external exposure from ionizing radiation as opposed to internal exposure to ionizing radiation from absorbing radioactive isotopes that remain in the body?
Also, a linear response is at odds with the saturation of these mechanisms which usually manifests as a sigmoidal dose-response and with normal immunological recognition and destruction of cancerous cells.
Very interesting, is this in humans or animals? This work says:Linear extrapolation of high LET radiation from high to low doses probably underestimates the risk at low doses in some cases. Is this what you mean?
LNT is used because it is very conservative and a better model hasn't been soundly demonstrated yet. From a public policy standpoint, that is perfectly reasonable. Don't mistake policy for scientific proof, though.
Sure, however that is a far cry from the OP's claim that the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model having been discredited decades ago. Where, when, who by? What's the new model?.
Apologies for repeating myself, I found a browser window with that comment and thought I hadn't responded. I just realized I've said this to you in another post.
I'm don't see this as a political issue in the sense of right or left, more of a matter government deceiving the electorate so that it can wield more power over the people, who are being deceived. This is more left *and* right.
These laws were presented with bi-partesan support in my country almost 18 months ago. There was the same public outcry about something that was irrelevant so they could pass something else. The contents of the both articles are identical in intent.
Section 4 in the US version contains meta data retention clauses that would include exactly the information required to directly map the associations of the countries internet users. I wasn't certain these were going to be the same, until I read the discussion draft of the law and then I knew exactly what I was looking at.
If such a claim is true then you should make regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure aware as they continue to use the LNT model to estimate exposure.
Unless you are completely clueless as to how IT security actually works, you are.
The backdoors will exist no matter what. As to their accessibility, that is different.
Have you read this proposed bill yet? Have you seen the meta data retention clauses in Section 4 provide no provisions to protect your data by encrypting it? This is what I was referring to as it is a common characteristic in these laws as they have been proposed. What I suggested is completely appropriate in that context and would slow the slide into fascism.
You also cannot deny that this data is a target for organized crime which again makes what I suggested, completely appropriate. So I think your accusation fails to consider the way these laws will function in terms of the infrastructure they will create.
People have been throwing around the term 'clueless' while they talk about anti-encryption laws they haven't read and I see no mention of the Sec 4 provisions for taxpayer funded personal meta data collection.
Your politicians are playing the same game our politicians did to pass these laws. No one paid attention to the really nasty bits until it was too late and they passed into law. Yours are worse than ours and you guys are falling into the same trap.
A warrant to go use the backdoor....Unless I'm REALLY mis-reading your statements.
Instead of not using a warrant to use a back door, that is correct.
That backdoor doesn't exist yet you know.
Show me a piece of software that doesn't have bugs. Backdoors can be placed in software unintentionally or intentionally.
Yes, they can essentially go snoop on a LOT of information about you, sans any real warrant, (Legally, they still need a warrant, but I think we both know that's been worked around).
Why don't you understand that they don't need a warrant. All the anti-te ww orism bills in western democracies exclude TLAs from that requirement.
If you're arguing that the FBI and CIA and the rest start getting warrants before snooping on people, GREAT. It's a really good idea.
That is exactly what I have been saying all along, why is it difficult to understand that? TLA - Three Letter Agency - get it?
Hard encryption is still beyond their power to break.
But you aren't and neither is the software implementing the encryption algorithm.
PGP is not a controllable munition.
I think you will find that ITAR restrictions cover that, depending on the key size, IIRC > 128 bytes classifies it as a munition in the US subject to export controls, thus it is a controlled export *because* it is a munition. If you want to test this theory send me source code of the Freeware version of MIT PGP in your next post and see if you get swatted. I dare you, I double dare you. I triple double dare you.
Ironically Americans may have less access to PGP, because of patent restrictions, than the rest of the world, which is an odd consequence.
Well, if you really want to be secure:
Being secure is a bullshit fantasy, I would rather be free and you be free. There is a point to hiding from crime however the state has many resources so it is better to shape the state using proper democratic process then to hide. Personally I think encryption should be treated as a free speech issues as opposed to being a munition because it makes more sense in that context.
What tracks you? Go pick up open Android if your paranoid.
The phone companies cell tower and all the meta data your phone generates is a good place to start. Your phone is just a terminal on a big network with lots of other phones. That's a lot more interesting that an individual.
It's NOT illegal to teach them. (Wait, US law, right? wtf kind of dystopia do you live in?)
Some countries have different constitutions than yours, so yeah, it's absolutely possible to do that. However I am not certain if that applies to US, it might under ITAR. So...
You teach them how to set up VoiP and enjoy hard encryption.
under this law you are obliged to provide the unencrypted data on request as you are now defined as the provider upon whom a judicial order can be issued. Are you prepared to go to jail for contempt of court for them or will you provide the content of their communications that you don't have the keys to?
Plenty of companies [innoport.com] repackage these tools to sell to clueless suits.
As will they.
Ok, you're clueless.
Have you actually read the proposed bill? I have, and not just the US version. If you had you would realize that Section 4 in the US version contains meta data retention clauses and that my suggestion to encrypt that data and provide key escrow or some form of warranted access to that information via a third party is completely appropriate.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that wouldn't such a passive protest result is all manner of criminal charges? "Go slow" might work in other areas of employment, but in IT such things are likely going to be construed as hacking or violating computer security, in which the law has been dramatically strengthened in recent years. What a mess.
I understand what you are getting at but I don't think that is the case. I'm not suggesting anything criminal or exceeding any authorized access.
This practise of mass training replacements is completely unethical and it is the precursor to a massive salary slide in IT work. This is the end of the party in IT, we are a cost centre and unethical people are constructing methods to reduce that cost. There will be a venomous argument that capital can do what it wants to it's employs, and they are right. However you are still free and you can't be forced to work or do anything, you can only be coerced. If you weren't already the authority with authorized access to a system you wouldn't be training a replacement in the first place.
Slave or master, choose now to be respected professionals for what we do, or accept that we are no different from burger flippers. Wield power or be subject to it.
There is no talent or skill we have to overcome this type of deceit. You can only fight deceit with deceit. Business is war, dirty ugly, gloves off war. You have to fight for respect, no one gives it to you. It doesn't matter that you are replaced by incompetent talentless hires. In their eyes you're not a talented individual, you're just another hire: "great worker,,,, sincere" a smile and pat on the back that makes you feel good, is code for you are exploitable, contemptible.
You are right, it is a mess, I don't like it either, it's our new reality and it's time to get real about sorting the mess out.
Don't forget, at one time unions forced massive reforms that were taken for granted decades later and to some extent still are. Things like the 8 hour day, workplace safety, better pay. I have no doubt some unions have become corrupt over time, but that doesn't mean a newly formed union can't be effective today.
I think one of the biggest issues is that there is no organization that lobbies for Technologists at a political level to maintain their interests. This is why it is easy to pit technology professionals from one country against another country and old against young. If it is us vs us then technologists can never be acting in our own interests because we are to busy competing with each other instead of co-operating to promote our interests. It should be the other way around, organizations should be competing for us to work for *them*. As a consequence all or our salaries are lower and it's all our own fault. We have no power because we are individuals saying *unions are bad* then whining when these sorts of things happen.
Call it what you will, a union, association, organization whatever. We have nothing representing our political interests. We have been naive and we now face the consequences of those many years of naivety. We have to face it before we can fix it. We have to own what we have done to ourselves.
For example, what do you suppose the management would do if nobody was willing to train their replacement or answer any questions?
This happened to me over 10 years ago. I was more than willing to train my replacement however everyone of them gave up because it was too difficult. I'm not saying that the work can't be learned but there is more than one way to comply with contractual terms. Mistakes happen and replacements sometimes cause downtime unintentionally whilst they learn, it's just an unfortunate consequence.
Sometimes people can't learn the easy way and there is certainly no obligation for you to teach it. Sometimes business processes require 2 or 3 times more steps to be certain they will work. If the ineffectualness of the replacement, combined with the "certainty", combined with the inability to innovate (people just surviving cannot innovate) will rapidly make such a plan cost ineffective and rapidly make any board member who suggests it look like a buffoon to the board and shareholders. There needs to be a track record of these failures and failures of the C level careers who suggest it.
Get creative people, it's what got you here and what will keep you here.
Two choices, cancel the layoff or go down in flames.
If I am reading you correctly I think that this is probably the time. Technologists don't need to picket. A passive protest could mean that any infrastructure attack on a company doing this is simply not resisted and no data is recorded, out of hours work is unsuccessful, incorrect commands, don't respond to outages.
It should only take about 12 days of downtime for any business to be completely on it's knees and willing to negotiate with those who have worked hard to make that business function. 14 days and they will be offering pay rises for you to stay. This is what a technologist's protest should look like. Just because we don't *want* to work in management doesn't mean we don't know what makes business function when threatened. Disney paved the way, and make no mistake *every* technologist here is being threatened and this will happen more and more.
We either control our own destinies or it will be controlled for us. In the 21st century anyone arguing against us organizing ourselves is effectively saying we should be slaves.
Holy crap. You are all over the map,
You've said a lot of disconnected things.
The OP said:if Indian point had a fukishima style issue Wall street is unlivable, un workable. and it's a pretty good point. Fukushima suffered a LOCA, Loss Of Cooling Accident when the pumps failed. That is the type of issue the OP was referring to, not a tsunami.
You said: And how is a tsunami going to hit Indian Pt.? If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down. So the question is if there is anything else that produces that same result do you agree it should be shut down because a tsunami isn't the only thing that can produce a LOCA. New basis design issues discovered in systems that should protect against electrical failures for pump systems and variability in river levels are both threats to this type of reactor that produces the same result that the OP is referring to. They produce the same results as a Fukushima type accident, aren't they valid reasons as well?
You also said but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe. and so I was showing you that your assumptions are flawed.
but still didn't show one reference to a 'LOCA Attack".
Look no further than the official 9/11 report, page 245: During the Spain meeting,Atta also mentioned that he had considered targeting a nuclear facility he had seen during familiarization flights near New York a target they referred to as "electrical engineering". [reference 148: Intelligence report, interrogation of Binalshibh, Sept. 11, 2003. KSM has admitted that he considered targeting a nuclear power plant as part of his initial proposal for the planes operation. ]
So it is possible they were actually referring to Indian Point as a target. That's the public record.
You did define each term separately. Congratulations for that.
I'm curious to know why you think NP has no issues at all? Don't you think there are areas that it can improve? Why do you think Nuclear power is a solution anyway?
"LOCA Attack"?
An attack designed to provoke a Loss Of Coolant Accident. An attack on Indian Point was one scenario put forward when assessing a plants vulnerability to a terworist attack. The NRC is not required to release terorism related portions of environmental impact studies.
I like how creative folks can be when making stuff up.
That's how some security works, devise a scenario and then defend against it. Your suggestion a nuclear plant doesn't require assessment from such an attack is naive.
And also conspiracy theories
The cry of totalitarians everywhere.
regarding TMI.
To quote the NRC documentation of the incident A significant release of radiation from the plants auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core. That's coolant is officially recognised contamination.
Its public information what happened, yes there where human errors and design issues,
Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions." - So if they didn't know, how is it you do?
Expert measurements of radioactive iodine in farm animals nearby revealed Nuclear Industry estimates of contamination released to be 'grossly underestimated'. Radioactive iodine, plutonium, strontium, americurium, 172,000 cubic feet of high level radioactive water, large quantities of krypton 85 and later that year 8 million litres of radioactive water containing tritium that were evaporated deliberately were all part of the toxic cocktail that was released.
and yet the entire event never hurt anyone.
Of the states that were higher in the list of cancer averages the ones with similar population density surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred. New York, with roughly 3 times the population, topped the list, was also in the fall out zone.
The amount of release was so small, you could be right at the effluent point and receive less than a medical x-ray dose.
In reality large amounts of contamination were released beyond Nuclear Industry assurances. The gamma radiation monitors on the top of the auxiliary building were not designed to measure such high concentrations and they went off the scale when the accident *began*, the release of contamination went on for several *days*. Estimates were based on thermoluscent dosimeters on the fence and Alpha and Beta emissions weren't even measured.
But of course, you read somewhere on someone' blog that it was much more and a big cover up and you certainly like that better.
Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused.
Even the nuclear industry doesn't know how much radioactive elements they are releasing normally, it's based on mathematical models. The last *actual* study was done in 1978 when the reactors were in peak operating condition almost forty years ago.
WTH is a LOCA attack?
The question was designed to expose a MrD's nuclear shill ignorance. It's something you can't search for on the internet because the NRC is not required to release terorism related portions of environmental impact studies. If you want to find out you're going to have to keep an eye on this thread.
If there is some other way it could be deluged, I would agree it should be shut down.
Indian Point is a reactor that is pretty fragile and vulnerable to LOCA attacks in quite obvious ways. An tsunami is not the only way to trigger that scenario.
Essentially you are suggesting that it is unreasonable to get an assessment of it's true state and the likely cost of upgrades.
, but a 'mishap' will result in an event like Three Mile Island, where essentially nothing is released, and the surrounding area remains perfectly safe.
Well thats a fiction because strontium-90 was released at TMI. Also dosimeters that measured the reactors effluents were overloaded very early into the accident and could not be replaced, so the reality was we don't know how much was released. It wasn't as massive as Chernobyl however it certainly wasn't zero either.
People that actually worked at TMI during that accident used to frequent this forum long before you were shilling here and they reported a comedy of errors preventing the reactor accident being much worse than it was.
It must be the NIMBY's fault because hippys and hicks can stop billions of dollars worth of reactor investments being deployed. You nutty nutty nukkers and yer crazy talk, it doesn't even make sense.
If you want to really help the nuclear industry you should lobby to repeal the Price Anderson act, that's what is really holding the nuclear industry back. How fortunate it is there to stop the Nuclear Inddustry growing any further.
Knife.
Yep, no doubt about it, the knife. I lead to clothes and artificial shelter (tents) long before the wheel, printing press, gun were ever around.
-- digital signature follows jsdflkjjqweoieuwqejhgsaljkhgdlakjshdbn23492dlkfndkjhsadkjh --
There are other more affordable designs they could have used. Claiming all nuclear power is too expensive to bother because one company over ran costs is like claiming all cars are unsafe because a single drunk driver drove a car off a cliff while failing to buckle their seat belt.
There are more affordable cars you could drive. The issue is when you are in a severe accident and your family is in the car, do you want to be in the latest cheap Hyundai (AP-1000) or the latest model Mercedes-Benz (EPR) with all the latest safety features? So far the EPR looks like the safest reactor design to reach implementation phase, if you *have* to have nuclear power. I would be very surprised if this design goes ahead though.
Good, cheap, safe - pick any two.
Indeed. Everything about the EPR design seems to be about more and more complexity to deal with safety issues, and progressively bigger and bigger protection systems to provide "defence in depth".
Looking at the fundamentals the AP1000 is a single wall containment vessel as opposed to the double wall design of the EPR. Further the EPR is a design that is resistant to military attacks whereas the AP1000 is not. Sizewell B is a double wall implementation of the AP1000 so the experiences there maybe a contributing factor to selecting EPR over AP1000 simply because EPR is a double wall containment reactor by design.
The most concerning issue with AP1000 is it implements a major untested design change over the SNUPPS design that it was based on. In an emergency situation the containment vessel of AP1000 doubles as a heat exchanger which is an increased risk considering it has a reduced thermal energy containment ratio over earlier designs.
Consequently all of the math for estimating core damage frequency of AP1000 is based on simulations as opposed to reactor experience. Considering the density of population in the UK implementing a design that has only been tested in simulation is probably more of a gamble than the UK is prepared to take if they have to *have* nuclear power.
And if the system in case has several power save modes, does then the event manager power down services whose hardware was just put to sleep?
No. An event manager (or controller) should reconfigure the service via inittab and signal init to change that service's state because init is a *process* manager for system processes.
And if so, how does init react of some services it has started, are shut down without init's involvement?
It restarts them, as it should. init should be responsible for maintaining system services that require root permissions. An event manager is a good candidate because
Or should those services should be started from the event manager instead of init?
user level services that terminate at the end of their sessions should be managed by an application controller that interacts with the event controller.
And what's the point of init, if most services are started by the event manager anyway, because otherwise, the event manager could not manage them?
It should be managing events and not processes. It should be passing messages about them to various processes that perform the reaction. It should not even capture them, that functionality should be abstracted into an input or device controller that generates messages for the EM.
initd starts the event manager in that use case.
The problem was service inter-dependency in startup/shutdown was quite awkward in SysV, plus the opportunity to increase service startup/shutdown speeds by handling unrelated services in parallel.
People who have this perception aren't using inittab properly. We are yet to see a use case presented that init cannot deal with and these two are already covered. Dependancies are meant to be initialized via rc scripts and services are maintained via inittab.
People seem to be hung up on using runlevel scripts to do everything. It's this mis-use case of red hat's runlevel scripting system that is being used as an excuse to replace initd with systemd. It's pretty reasonable for people to be skeptical about these efforts to replace initd when the issue is not functionality but education.
I sometimes wonder if their is a perception issue with the use of inittab files, like the server will explode if you do something wrong in an inittab script. However it's quite simple once you get you head around three key things:
Use a combination of run level scripts and scripts executed from inittab to acheive a system configuration. Runlevels are available to inittab entries when the rc scripts complete or execute in the background. Make sure your inittab shell scripts don't exit if your service is running properly.
That's pretty much all you need to remember to create very powerful and elegant patterns to manage the activities of any *ix system.
The fact is that the food intake of the average Chinese has gone more towards rapidly digestible carbohydrates, just as it has done for the whole world.
Isn't it odd that other countries are trying to adopt western diets when western dieticians are saying that the nutrition in those countries are better than ours. Lots of people want western standards of living but ignore westerners when they say erh, we were wrong on that one.
These are basically the worst thing in the world when it comes to weight gain.
Let's call em for what they are, a molecule or two off being sugar. On processed foods though, I've found that eliminating as much processed food as possible from your diet helps make vegatebles and fruit much more appealing (I wish I could say that pun was intended, but it was an unfortunate accident). I personally found my sense of smell was much more sensitive which made it a lot easier to find, prepare and eat nutrient dense foods. That means you need to eat less and don't feel as hungry.
Not all "calories" are created equal, and suggesting that they are outright proves that you have no idea what you are on about.
I think they forget the energy expenditure to digest different foods. Peoples basal metabolic rate changes throughout the day too, so *when* you eat something is a factor as well. Even then we haven't begun to discuss the microbial activity in the gut and it's role. Fats take less energy to absorb, proteins increase metabolic rates. I think people count calories because it gives them some illusion of control when they don't exercise and continue to eat crap.
I'm sure those crappy carbs are addictive too!
how will they get the files to have sex?
By
ing the filesystem. I'm not sure that fsck works on FAT filesystems though, you might have to force it.
I think the point the GP is making is that the court of public opinion requires no evidence for conviction. Anybody can paint a picture, and if it looks real enough, who cares if there was ever an actual subject?
Oh for sure, I wasn't disagreeing, simply pointing out that there was an adage on the subject.
Whom you would destroy, first dehumanize him by labeling him. It's OK to do anything to him, deny him any rights, if he's not human.
First they come for the suspected terrorists and suspected child pornographers. But it won't stop there.
You judge a society by how it treats it's most despised.
Wow - what a great post ProudRootser!
Always copy the URL in the address bar for later reference. It's the only way to be sure. Saving the page locally is even better.
This is the first time I caught them in the act with real proof. Previously I had doubts, but my local copy would always find the original post on the site. This time everybody can see what happened. I was counting on a major uproar over it, but it doesn't look like people care that much, so, I'm just going to drop it.
Don't drop it, I've noticed it too. I thought it was just me screwing up but it never occurred to me that it was happening to someone else. I do the same thing, I save links for later reference, there is a lot of interesting stuff at -1 and wondered what was going on when I could access the post from the links I recorded and not when I looked in the page itself? Even after both sliders were a -1 they would not show. I've never tried clearing the cache though, so I'll pay more attention next time. Thanks for pointing it out, I've also noticed some weirdness with the moderation system and looking at your relationship status to you - it does not exist - like you are AC.
I thought they were browser bugs. Peronally I like to see things that really offend me, even if I am repulsed by it, actually *because* I am repulsed by it - because censorship is more repulsive than thinking 'gee - that guy is a dick'. Were they your own comments or someone elses?
As a biochemist, LNT doesn't really make much sense when applied to a biological system. It seems odd that there wouldn't be any threshold when we know that there are biological mechanisms for repairing radiation induced damage.
Thank you for your insights. To be clear are you referring to external exposure from ionizing radiation as opposed to internal exposure to ionizing radiation from absorbing radioactive isotopes that remain in the body?
Also, a linear response is at odds with the saturation of these mechanisms which usually manifests as a sigmoidal dose-response and with normal immunological recognition and destruction of cancerous cells.
Very interesting, is this in humans or animals? This work says:Linear extrapolation of high LET radiation from high to low doses probably underestimates the risk at low doses in some cases. Is this what you mean?
LNT is used because it is very conservative and a better model hasn't been soundly demonstrated yet. From a public policy standpoint, that is perfectly reasonable. Don't mistake policy for scientific proof, though.
Sure, however that is a far cry from the OP's claim that the Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model having been discredited decades ago. Where, when, who by? What's the new model?.
Apologies for repeating myself, I found a browser window with that comment and thought I hadn't responded. I just realized I've said this to you in another post.
However, I can - and will, tell it like it is.
I'm don't see this as a political issue in the sense of right or left, more of a matter government deceiving the electorate so that it can wield more power over the people, who are being deceived. This is more left *and* right.
These laws were presented with bi-partesan support in my country almost 18 months ago. There was the same public outcry about something that was irrelevant so they could pass something else. The contents of the both articles are identical in intent.
Section 4 in the US version contains meta data retention clauses that would include exactly the information required to directly map the associations of the countries internet users. I wasn't certain these were going to be the same, until I read the discussion draft of the law and then I knew exactly what I was looking at.
Don't fall in the same trap we did.
Linear Non-Threshold (LNT) model having been discredited decades ago, one can at most say that they put it together in a pretty fashion.
That is a claim at odds with the most up to date research into ionizing radiation and a big claim like that really needs a citation.
If you are you talking about radiation hormesis that is a hypothesis who's claims are rejected by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation.
If such a claim is true then you should make regulatory agencies for human radiation exposure aware as they continue to use the LNT model to estimate exposure.
I am not arguing for a back door.
Unless you are completely clueless as to how IT security actually works, you are.
The backdoors will exist no matter what. As to their accessibility, that is different.
Have you read this proposed bill yet? Have you seen the meta data retention clauses in Section 4 provide no provisions to protect your data by encrypting it? This is what I was referring to as it is a common characteristic in these laws as they have been proposed. What I suggested is completely appropriate in that context and would slow the slide into fascism.
You also cannot deny that this data is a target for organized crime which again makes what I suggested, completely appropriate. So I think your accusation fails to consider the way these laws will function in terms of the infrastructure they will create.
People have been throwing around the term 'clueless' while they talk about anti-encryption laws they haven't read and I see no mention of the Sec 4 provisions for taxpayer funded personal meta data collection.
Your politicians are playing the same game our politicians did to pass these laws. No one paid attention to the really nasty bits until it was too late and they passed into law. Yours are worse than ours and you guys are falling into the same trap.
It's so ironic that you say I'm clueless.
Instead of not using a warrant to use a back door, that is correct.
Show me a piece of software that doesn't have bugs. Backdoors can be placed in software unintentionally or intentionally.
Why don't you understand that they don't need a warrant. All the anti-te ww orism bills in western democracies exclude TLAs from that requirement.
That is exactly what I have been saying all along, why is it difficult to understand that? TLA - Three Letter Agency - get it?
But you aren't and neither is the software implementing the encryption algorithm.
I think you will find that ITAR restrictions cover that, depending on the key size, IIRC > 128 bytes classifies it as a munition in the US subject to export controls, thus it is a controlled export *because* it is a munition. If you want to test this theory send me source code of the Freeware version of MIT PGP in your next post and see if you get swatted. I dare you, I double dare you. I triple double dare you.
Ironically Americans may have less access to PGP, because of patent restrictions, than the rest of the world, which is an odd consequence.
Being secure is a bullshit fantasy, I would rather be free and you be free. There is a point to hiding from crime however the state has many resources so it is better to shape the state using proper democratic process then to hide. Personally I think encryption should be treated as a free speech issues as opposed to being a munition because it makes more sense in that context.
The phone companies cell tower and all the meta data your phone generates is a good place to start. Your phone is just a terminal on a big network with lots of other phones. That's a lot more interesting that an individual.
Some countries have different constitutions than yours, so yeah, it's absolutely possible to do that. However I am not certain if that applies to US, it might under ITAR. So...
under this law you are obliged to provide the unencrypted data on request as you are now defined as the provider upon whom a judicial order can be issued. Are you prepared to go to jail for contempt of court for them or will you provide the content of their communications that you don't have the keys to?
As will they.
Have you actually read the proposed bill? I have, and not just the US version. If you had you would realize that Section 4 in the US version contains meta data retention clauses and that my suggestion to encrypt that data and provide key escrow or some form of warranted access to that information via a third party is completely appropriate.
If you were clued up you would realiz