The problem with these theories is the lack of evidence to actually support them.
For a specific US example you can examine the 2005 US energy Act, Sec 600-638 for an example of ratepayer funds being siphoned of to utilities companies.
No. In fact I am not even from the US
Then perhaps you should investigate if you are subject to such laws. I am and I've read them.
The truth isnt particularly compelling so instead you attempt to create false drama because real drama does not exist.
If you had read any of the anti-terrorism acts and attempted to understand their impact on the due process of law then you would understand just how ridiculous your statement is. There is no false drama in the passage of these acts.
You seem pretty intent on not answering the question and instead pretending I said something else.
Your question What would they get out of it? If they enacted change and government couldn't store metadata on who I spoke to how would that objectively change my life? assumes the change has occurred when it is still being implemented. Additionally legal anonymity is the first victim of meta data retention laws. That you are asking this question as an Anonymous Coward suggests you don't even know what you have to loose.
I wasn't trying to avoid your question, I was giving you a graceful way out of looking like a hypocrite.
This is information you often give out legitimately to many people, if the government were posting my name, address and credit card details publicly online then that statement might have some relevance but it is complete non-sequitur.
Since the act does not mandate the data be encrypted it is effectively the same thing. Criminal don't have regard for the law. Again you are arguing in ignorance.
But it doesnt, you really expect the US populace to get all angry and riled up about something that isnt even happening?
Correction: something that is in the process of happening. We are still in the implementation phase of these acts, which is roughly 2 years. Had you read the act you would know that. Like your other comments, it too is made in ignorance of the facts.
You can't trust the police so even if you are innocent, this is a very bad thing
With anti-terrorism laws (they are generally the same between UK,US,CAN,AUS,NZ - for obvious reasons), the onus to produce proof that you are innocent is on you, however the evidence is also seized by the police and you can't access it, there is also strict liability on the penalties - what it says is what it is.
It is clear that the threat of loss of control that the internet poses to government is something they are not comfortable with at all. If you read these laws you will find them a primitive reaction to the power of the internet that must be refined in time, lest we drown in waves of organised crime utilising it. However as technology people we should probably be more involved in providing government with more sincere guidance.
I think it is better to lobby your government for effective, better quality laws that protect privacy. Encryption should be seen as an enabler to delivering more effective internet commerce and also effective interaction with government. As such the technology is underutilised in the role of reducing the cost of government to the taxpayer.
What I care about is the government coming in and bungling the whole thing up and exposing me to organised crime via poorly thought out, incomplete legislation. The public should be in an absolute frenzy about being exposed to fraud and organised crime this way by our governments however they are not yet educated on the consequences. History has shown that the populous will eventually clue on and when they do all of this security charade we have been subjected to will suddenly come into context for the everyday person.
If police want access to my encryption key, get a warrant, present it to an Ombudsman who has the keys to my meta-data an go ahead and monitor my communications for crime. The same Ombudsman should have the power to tell the police or whoever else that their investigation is at an end and revoke the decryption access that they have.
I have no problem with my data being subject to scrutiny if it is by due process of law, with a warrant, interception or otherwise by professional police doing professional policing in the execution of their duties. I would expect professionals to have gathered sufficent evidence before confiscating equipment and that they improve their methods over time so they do minimum disruption to innocent parties.
If you look at the motivations for such powers being used, many times it is so a politician can avoid any embarassment as they ascend Maslow's hierarchy of needs towards self-actualisation. Since no-one is perfect and the masses generally unforgiving I think we are in desperate need of a circuit breaker so that "western democracy" stops being a parody of itself due to the ego behind these laws.
If you really want an effective solution to this predicament then you should be lobbying, by formal letter to your representatives, for better quality laws that balances basic principles of privacy, freedom of speech and rule of law - now.
I suspect the trigger will be when more and more people fall victim to Indentity Fraud as a consequence of mishandling meta-data. Consumer confidence will be impacted by mishandling of this data, the media will get involved and they will turn to some pre-canned ideas - so you may as well give them some good ones. I think it is inevitable.
In the meantime perhaps it is worth investigating the terms and conditions of Telecommunications provider agreements, and altering them to inform the provider they will be held financially liable for not protecting your meta data properly.
Yes. It is aggregated data... You don't think they are really only accessing metadata do you? How cute!
Almost. The real meaning of the term is data about data.
In the context of this act, and what is legal to collect, the definition of what meta data is, is defined by the act. That said, I agree with you because that is what metadata is and that is what metadata means.
Why the U.S population continues to tolerate this harrasment by government through the weakening of the fundamental citizen rights that makes a nation what it is, is confusing.
It is because it does not affect them in any meaningful way, it doesnt affect their daily way of life.
Probably because the frog has been boiled so slowly, people don't notice that the duration between road repairs gets longer and longer or that essential government services are stretched and budgets decreased. People get used to paying more to get less from their government.
The U.S is the only 1st world country that I know of that forces a citizen to choose between which fingers they have to loose because their insurance isn't enough to cover all of the medical costs for all of them and why other 1st world countries can afford to have healthcare systems to look after their citizens.
No sane person from the UK or Canada would *ever* travel to the US without medical insurance so, whilst perhaps you can't see from the inside what is wrong, it is obvious from the outside and perhaps you should let your friends help you.
Are your domestic enemies so powerful that it is easier for you to let them turn you into slaves begging for a job and hoping you don't get sick?
The problem here is that it is nothing of the sort in the literal sense and barely even comparable in the figurative sense.
Perhaps you are luckier than some of your other countrymen. As far as I know the amount of U.S citizens below the poverty line is 45 million, in the richest country in the world - roughly a sixth of the population. Someone controls that wealth.
Whilst your comment *is* insightful I doubt a single person reading it will write a letter to your politicians and do something whilst you are distracted by what is on TV.
What would they get out of it? If they enacted change and government couldn't store metadata on who I spoke to how would that objectively change my life?
People arguing for security theatre say 'I've got nothing to hide' however they don't ask themselves 'what have I got to loose'. The irony of that question asked as an anonymous coward when the answer is right in your face. Furthermore, the right to privacy and protecting your identity is the first line of defence from protecting yourself from 21st century criminal threats. If you don't believe me, post your name, address and credit card details then let the internet show you.
It is of no impact on the state that you are a subject of criminal fraud, it's a policing matter. However when the provision of intelligence material comes at the expense of exposing the general population to organized crime, you can really appreciate why you should not be trading essential liberty for temporary security.
In the US we should push for the Supreme Court to overturn...
The cornerstone of which all of these programs were built, which is the illegal authorization of wartime powers to.W.Bush that allowed the passage of all of the bills that made all this legal. This is not a political issue as it has continued via Obama, it is a structural issue of whether you have a democracy or a plutocracy. Whether you will accept responsibility to defend your several hundred year old democracy from attack from within.
Why the U.S population continues to tolerate this harrasment by government through the weakening of the fundamental citizen rights that makes a nation what it is, is confusing. You have the power to fix the issues however you don't use it. You founding father Franklin warned you about trading Security for essential Liberty and how the corruption of the people would lead to despotism. Are your domestic enemies so powerful that it is easier for you to let them turn you into slaves begging for a job and hoping you don't get sick?
You *should* do a lot of things however as we have seen net activism doesn't amount to much. Whilst your comment *is* insightful I doubt a single person reading it will write a letter to your politicians and do something whilst you are distracted by what is on TV.
I hope you can - the fate of the free world rests on what you do.
If you built it in my back yard, you'd be an idiot since I live near a sandy coastline, which means it could leech into the ecosystem rapidly.
Like the recently shut down SONGS plant.
Rather you bury it somewhere that its going to have a really hard time getting out of while its still dangerous... like all the current storage sites, you put it in a massive salt deposit, which naturally seals itself. Problem fucking solved.
The biggest issue waste repositories is water flowing through the facility through the waste products. Water erodes salt so that probably wouldn't work.
That would pretty much ensure you would have a lot of highly soluble plutonium chloride entering the water table.
I'll build a brand new house for me and my son right on top of the thing and live a happy life if it means we can actually fucking use nuclear power elsewhere without all you idiots acting like its going to kill as all.
In that scenario, the radionuclides you and your son accumulated would introduce a lot of issues into your DNA, if you survived ingesting the plutonium chloride. You would be sick - a lot.
I'm not an ignorant paranoid nut job and actually understand whats dangerous and why. You should try it sometime.
Indeed. You certainly seem to have a healthy understanding of the issues involved, you should persist.
And you'll ignore that that is only one plant out of thousands around the globe.
There are approximately 400 reactor sites around the world.
. It does however produce toxic waste that will need to be buried and managed for the next million years
No, it doesn't.
The decay rate of pu-239 for the first daughter product is 25,000 years. At twenty halflives for the remaining daughter products it is toxic for 500,000 years.
Photovoltaic is WAY fucking worse than nuclear when you take production byproduct into account.
It takes roughly 500 tons of rock to produce a kilo of uranium or the megalitres of sulfuric acid used in the leech minig process. Then there is CFC114 used in the enrichment process of making uranium hexaflouride, then 90% of the uranium is U-238 (only 10% is fuel) is waste and there is about 700,000 tons of that. The reactor process is pretty clean by this stage however in normal operation they vent radioactive gasses. You then have the spent fuels, of which there is 70,000 tons so far and of course the reactor itself which has to be disposed of at the end of it's service life, now with radio-activated parts.
Things with long half lives aren't very dangerous. Anything that last that long is about as dangerous as lead... If you EAT ENOUGH OF IT... Just like lead.
Which happens through bio-accumulation. For the case of pu-239, 1-10 micrograms which is the fatal dose. Plutonium is an iron analogue, and is very soluble in the form of plutonium chloride. Plutonium oxide is an inhalant. This would trigger leukemia or lung cancer
Additionally even low energy radionuclides can introduce transgenic disease as these are shown to damage the DNA if they accumulate around the stomach or genitals in fat tissue.
You have to get down into hours and minutes of half life before its dangerous just being near it as long as you don't inhale or eat it.
You wouldn't know if it was in the water or in the food you ate, nor the various mechanisms with which it travelled through the food chain to got there. Once it was organically bound in the body, or inhaled, it would substantially increase the risk of gestating a cancer through internal radiation exposure.
The fire extinguishers at any given data center in the US are far more toxic than the entire generator output of the life span of a nuclear planet's test cycles.
Oppenheimers work on pu-239 shows that it is a fatal dose internally in the 1-10 microgram range. The current stocks of pu-239 are around 70,000 tons which is more than enough doses, if released, to kill every person on the planet before considering other radioactive effluents of the Nuclear industry.
Who also has a great story about humans getting to the target star by sending genetic code and robot incubators in Voyage from Yesteryear. Thanks for the recommend, I will check it out.
...anything that needs to know what the PID of a process to manage the process should not be managing the process. That is what init does, and it already knows the PID.
Typically, a PID file is scripted when you need to maintain a process. If you need to maintain a PID file, chances are you are using a script in/etc/init.d linked to a runlevel entry in/etc/rc.whatever. The use case here is that you want to shut the process down on shutdown *OR* change of runlevel. In that mode you're trying to figure out K ans S scripts and what order the script is started and shut down so that you can kill your process gracefully on exit.
The answer is you let init manage it. People seem to get confused about setting up the "context" of a runlevel (/etc/init.d) as opposed to the "strategy" employed in that runlevel (/etc/inittab) and then try to write an unnecessary script. If you are scripting an init process and you need to use a PID file, then you are addressing the strategy of the system from within the context and I suspect this is where many people get confused.
init will manage the execution of the system strategy by managing the lifecycle of the process for you. If you want it to stay up, you tell init to "respawn" it, then if you kill it or the process exits, init restarts it. If the system changes runlevel, say for shutdown or other, then init shuts the process down. Or, if you want to take the process down, you disable it in/etc/inittab and kill -1 1 when you are ready. I think there is a vim inittab command that does this for you.
This is where systemd tries to mix the strategy of the runlevel into the context, whereas what you actually want is to have the two concepts loosely coupled so they are easier to manage by isolation. People might be surprised how much raw performance potential init has to offer when you get your head around it especially when you discover that in a lot of cases you don't need a script at all.
I agree. I just disagree that you should replicate a 100 line script for every bloody instance and every daemon over and over again when that should be handled by the parent part of the system.
No, you should have one script and 100 lines in/etc/inittab. Each line should have different arguments, ideally pointing to a configuration file for that particular instance of your daemon, i.e you have 100 differently configured instances of the same deamon. Then init manages them for you.
I don't buy that init scripts are simple or even particularly adaptable.
Hang on a minute - are you talking about/etc/init.d scripts that get linked to a runlevel in/etc/rc or a script called from/etc/inittab managed by init? - because they are different.
Using/etc/inittab it's pretty easy to make something a system managed service using init this way, to be either respawned, run once, on or off, from a single file.
Customizing rc level 4 is also an option, for example to make the system boot in a more specific way for a media centre client or something more specific. There is no reason why you can't mangle runlevel 4 to make it do what you want and then save runlevel 3 and 5 for more general purpose modes. Following thew media centre example to make an operational rc4 and maintenance mode rc3 or rc5 which you might configure as a boot option.
I think the reason people think it is difficult is because of context. The rc script in/etc/init.d should exit, however the script called from/etc/inittab should not, so that init can act appropriately to manage the process. Scripts in/etc/init.d should only run once at start up or when called manually.
However you can make init maintain a process easily with a line like:
mc:4:respawn:/etc/runMediaCentre
If the process is killed, init respawns it. I think people think it's some sort of secret sauce, however it is just a file and a line is similar in complexity to a unit file.
I've hand crafted a few in my time and they are always a pain in the arse to manage.
Yes, they can be however I found that was because of my thinking. I just remember scripts called from inittab don't exit.
When you get to the point of having multiple scripts bring called which then call sub scripts and all of them somewhat unique to that machine... It's time to look for something better.
It might help to think of the design pattern "Strategy". The runlevel scripts linked from/etc/init.d to/etc/rc.d set the context of the machine (like making vpn, db or other things avilable) and the entries in/etc/inittab define the aplication specific strategy that is dependant on that context.
Because init knows what the runlevel is, the strategies are only ever run in context. If there is something wrong with the context, then you have a problem (like no db or vpn).
I run systemd on desktops and test systems - mainly to see what the fuss is about and ensuring I'm prepared if I need to be. I just haven't seen a compelling argument for it. I ask why we are replacing something elegant and powerful.
If you are arguing for systemd, have you ever tried using inittab or customizing runlevels? It is powerful and demanding, but not impossible. As a core *ix paradigm it forces you to skill up to the next level of mastery over your systems and understand how your processes behave.
systemd seems to abstract away that knowledge of how processes behave, like wishing for less challenges instead of more skills.
It's as if the OS does what it can to take any hardware improvements away from you.
I've noticed the same thing myself, it's as if atrophy is included.
There were computers that were pretty close to fully usable almost immediately. They weren't as general purpose, or at least not as easily so, but they were snappy in some areas.
The more application specific they become the less the are perceived as friendly. People don't seem to understand 'application specific'.
With some work, I mean a lot of work, I got Windows 98SE running on a system from sometime around 2008.
That must have been fast, I was wondering about something similar.
Another fun one is to take something like Puppy or DSL
I've run puppy to build a box that power on and off things, I never thought to try it on a fast machine because it looked pretty cut down, then again maybe I was just focused on what I was doing.
Windows is 30 years old, and still in use. Hard to imagine that Windows 95 was far closer to Windows 1.0 than today.
Windows 3.11 was the most popular of that series of Windows. I retired a 3.11 system IIRC about 5 or so years ago, but the old lady who owned it used it for word processing and that was about it. It wasn't on the net, it didn't even have an IP stack, it had nothing else installed and she saved everything to floppies, even though it had a hard drive. I was amazed it even functioned.
Out of curiosity, I timed it go from power down to DOS 6.? to Win 3.11 UI in 17 seconds and to MS word within 34 seconds. Obviously systems do a lot more things when they start up now, but still pretty much shows it alligned with peoples expectations of how long it should take a computer to be ready to use after you turn it on.
The courts would disagree with you and no matter what your little child's mind can conceive no, the fans most assuredly DO NOT own anything.
You must be one of those people that keep the copyright extension lawyers in business.
They're consumers.
Just like you. Don't wake the Sheeple.
Star Trek is now mainstream. Just popcorn flicks. Everyone can go and enjoy.
Cool, we told you it was cool. Now that you think it's cool, we've already moved on to the next cool thing that you will think is cool when other people tell you it's cool.
It's funny how people like you get a thrill out of stomping on something that other people think is fun, luckily most of the time, you miss. Which is probably why you don't get invited to parties.
Enjoy irrelevance, geeks.
hahaha, always were and quite comfortable being irrelevant. I think there is something about ruining other peoples fun that makes them socially isolated though - so you keep enjoying that.
If you can't put together a good story, get the fuck out of the way. You would do a lot better if you used the lawsuit money as a contribution to the fan film. All it does is build a bigger fanbase from star trek.
But you gotta own something that isn't yours in the first place - it's they fans who own star trek.
AI running board meetings, AI management, AI HR, AIs in corporations connecting and co-operating to interact with AIs on K-street and the AIs in governments.
Kill me now.
Perhaps it would bring you back to life and put you on a performance improvement plan.
From you knowledge of the music industry, do you think it is possible for musicians to break free of it's machinations and become successful, profitable business entities focused on making good music?
That's actually one of the best descriptions of the problems facing a Nuclear Waste repository problem I've read. Thank you for taking the time to post it!
Which is why I have for decades posited that the ideal place for the UK's HLW waste is in the London Clay (a thick, low permeability claystone), with the entrance through the Houses of Parliament.
Genius!
I believe that America (and Sweden, and Finland) have also encountered political problems with their various waste repositories.
Can I presume from your pseudonym that you are a professional geologist RockDoctor? Have you seen this article from an Australian science show? Dr Birch's research seems to be cited a few times, it may interest you as it looks like it may lead to an interesting way to solve this waste issue.
People who cherish freedom and the ideals of democracy
That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.
Since you deign not to come down from your mountain to explain your statement I can only conclude that your opinion is merely cynicism that is not grounded in any reasoning and therefore of little or no use.
Have you considered that because you are unwilling to explain your statement that you are a part of the problem you 'describe'.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with these theories is the lack of evidence to actually support them.
For a specific US example you can examine the 2005 US energy Act, Sec 600-638 for an example of ratepayer funds being siphoned of to utilities companies.
No. In fact I am not even from the US
Then perhaps you should investigate if you are subject to such laws. I am and I've read them.
The truth isnt particularly compelling so instead you attempt to create false drama because real drama does not exist.
If you had read any of the anti-terrorism acts and attempted to understand their impact on the due process of law then you would understand just how ridiculous your statement is. There is no false drama in the passage of these acts.
You seem pretty intent on not answering the question and instead pretending I said something else.
Your question What would they get out of it? If they enacted change and government couldn't store metadata on who I spoke to how would that objectively change my life? assumes the change has occurred when it is still being implemented. Additionally legal anonymity is the first victim of meta data retention laws. That you are asking this question as an Anonymous Coward suggests you don't even know what you have to loose.
I wasn't trying to avoid your question, I was giving you a graceful way out of looking like a hypocrite.
This is information you often give out legitimately to many people, if the government were posting my name, address and credit card details publicly online then that statement might have some relevance but it is complete non-sequitur.
Since the act does not mandate the data be encrypted it is effectively the same thing. Criminal don't have regard for the law. Again you are arguing in ignorance.
But it doesnt, you really expect the US populace to get all angry and riled up about something that isnt even happening?
Correction: something that is in the process of happening. We are still in the implementation phase of these acts, which is roughly 2 years. Had you read the act you would know that. Like your other comments, it too is made in ignorance of the facts.
You can't trust the police so even if you are innocent, this is a very bad thing
With anti-terrorism laws (they are generally the same between UK,US,CAN,AUS,NZ - for obvious reasons), the onus to produce proof that you are innocent is on you, however the evidence is also seized by the police and you can't access it, there is also strict liability on the penalties - what it says is what it is.
It is clear that the threat of loss of control that the internet poses to government is something they are not comfortable with at all. If you read these laws you will find them a primitive reaction to the power of the internet that must be refined in time, lest we drown in waves of organised crime utilising it. However as technology people we should probably be more involved in providing government with more sincere guidance.
I think it is better to lobby your government for effective, better quality laws that protect privacy. Encryption should be seen as an enabler to delivering more effective internet commerce and also effective interaction with government. As such the technology is underutilised in the role of reducing the cost of government to the taxpayer.
What I care about is the government coming in and bungling the whole thing up and exposing me to organised crime via poorly thought out, incomplete legislation. The public should be in an absolute frenzy about being exposed to fraud and organised crime this way by our governments however they are not yet educated on the consequences. History has shown that the populous will eventually clue on and when they do all of this security charade we have been subjected to will suddenly come into context for the everyday person.
If police want access to my encryption key, get a warrant, present it to an Ombudsman who has the keys to my meta-data an go ahead and monitor my communications for crime. The same Ombudsman should have the power to tell the police or whoever else that their investigation is at an end and revoke the decryption access that they have.
I have no problem with my data being subject to scrutiny if it is by due process of law, with a warrant, interception or otherwise by professional police doing professional policing in the execution of their duties. I would expect professionals to have gathered sufficent evidence before confiscating equipment and that they improve their methods over time so they do minimum disruption to innocent parties.
If you look at the motivations for such powers being used, many times it is so a politician can avoid any embarassment as they ascend Maslow's hierarchy of needs towards self-actualisation. Since no-one is perfect and the masses generally unforgiving I think we are in desperate need of a circuit breaker so that "western democracy" stops being a parody of itself due to the ego behind these laws.
If you really want an effective solution to this predicament then you should be lobbying, by formal letter to your representatives, for better quality laws that balances basic principles of privacy, freedom of speech and rule of law - now. I suspect the trigger will be when more and more people fall victim to Indentity Fraud as a consequence of mishandling meta-data. Consumer confidence will be impacted by mishandling of this data, the media will get involved and they will turn to some pre-canned ideas - so you may as well give them some good ones. I think it is inevitable.
In the meantime perhaps it is worth investigating the terms and conditions of Telecommunications provider agreements, and altering them to inform the provider they will be held financially liable for not protecting your meta data properly.
That might be an amusing way to jam the system.
Yes. It is aggregated data... You don't think they are really only accessing metadata do you? How cute!
Almost. The real meaning of the term is data about data.
In the context of this act, and what is legal to collect, the definition of what meta data is, is defined by the act. That said, I agree with you because that is what metadata is and that is what metadata means.
Why the U.S population continues to tolerate this harrasment by government through the weakening of the fundamental citizen rights that makes a nation what it is, is confusing.
It is because it does not affect them in any meaningful way, it doesnt affect their daily way of life.
Probably because the frog has been boiled so slowly, people don't notice that the duration between road repairs gets longer and longer or that essential government services are stretched and budgets decreased. People get used to paying more to get less from their government. The U.S is the only 1st world country that I know of that forces a citizen to choose between which fingers they have to loose because their insurance isn't enough to cover all of the medical costs for all of them and why other 1st world countries can afford to have healthcare systems to look after their citizens.
No sane person from the UK or Canada would *ever* travel to the US without medical insurance so, whilst perhaps you can't see from the inside what is wrong, it is obvious from the outside and perhaps you should let your friends help you.
Are your domestic enemies so powerful that it is easier for you to let them turn you into slaves begging for a job and hoping you don't get sick?
The problem here is that it is nothing of the sort in the literal sense and barely even comparable in the figurative sense.
Perhaps you are luckier than some of your other countrymen. As far as I know the amount of U.S citizens below the poverty line is 45 million, in the richest country in the world - roughly a sixth of the population. Someone controls that wealth.
Whilst your comment *is* insightful I doubt a single person reading it will write a letter to your politicians and do something whilst you are distracted by what is on TV.
What would they get out of it? If they enacted change and government couldn't store metadata on who I spoke to how would that objectively change my life?
People arguing for security theatre say 'I've got nothing to hide' however they don't ask themselves 'what have I got to loose'. The irony of that question asked as an anonymous coward when the answer is right in your face. Furthermore, the right to privacy and protecting your identity is the first line of defence from protecting yourself from 21st century criminal threats. If you don't believe me, post your name, address and credit card details then let the internet show you.
It is of no impact on the state that you are a subject of criminal fraud, it's a policing matter. However when the provision of intelligence material comes at the expense of exposing the general population to organized crime, you can really appreciate why you should not be trading essential liberty for temporary security.
In the US we should push for the Supreme Court to overturn...
The cornerstone of which all of these programs were built, which is the illegal authorization of wartime powers to .W.Bush that allowed the passage of all of the bills that made all this legal. This is not a political issue as it has continued via Obama, it is a structural issue of whether you have a democracy or a plutocracy. Whether you will accept responsibility to defend your several hundred year old democracy from attack from within.
Why the U.S population continues to tolerate this harrasment by government through the weakening of the fundamental citizen rights that makes a nation what it is, is confusing. You have the power to fix the issues however you don't use it. You founding father Franklin warned you about trading Security for essential Liberty and how the corruption of the people would lead to despotism. Are your domestic enemies so powerful that it is easier for you to let them turn you into slaves begging for a job and hoping you don't get sick?
You *should* do a lot of things however as we have seen net activism doesn't amount to much. Whilst your comment *is* insightful I doubt a single person reading it will write a letter to your politicians and do something whilst you are distracted by what is on TV.
I hope you can - the fate of the free world rests on what you do.
If you built it in my back yard, you'd be an idiot since I live near a sandy coastline, which means it could leech into the ecosystem rapidly.
Like the recently shut down SONGS plant.
Rather you bury it somewhere that its going to have a really hard time getting out of while its still dangerous ... like all the current storage sites, you put it in a massive salt deposit, which naturally seals itself. Problem fucking solved.
The biggest issue waste repositories is water flowing through the facility through the waste products. Water erodes salt so that probably wouldn't work.
That would pretty much ensure you would have a lot of highly soluble plutonium chloride entering the water table.
I'll build a brand new house for me and my son right on top of the thing and live a happy life if it means we can actually fucking use nuclear power elsewhere without all you idiots acting like its going to kill as all.
In that scenario, the radionuclides you and your son accumulated would introduce a lot of issues into your DNA, if you survived ingesting the plutonium chloride. You would be sick - a lot.
I'm not an ignorant paranoid nut job and actually understand whats dangerous and why. You should try it sometime.
Indeed. You certainly seem to have a healthy understanding of the issues involved, you should persist.
And you'll ignore that that is only one plant out of thousands around the globe.
There are approximately 400 reactor sites around the world.
. It does however produce toxic waste that will need to be buried and managed for the next million years
No, it doesn't.
The decay rate of pu-239 for the first daughter product is 25,000 years. At twenty halflives for the remaining daughter products it is toxic for 500,000 years.
Photovoltaic is WAY fucking worse than nuclear when you take production byproduct into account.
It takes roughly 500 tons of rock to produce a kilo of uranium or the megalitres of sulfuric acid used in the leech minig process. Then there is CFC114 used in the enrichment process of making uranium hexaflouride, then 90% of the uranium is U-238 (only 10% is fuel) is waste and there is about 700,000 tons of that. The reactor process is pretty clean by this stage however in normal operation they vent radioactive gasses. You then have the spent fuels, of which there is 70,000 tons so far and of course the reactor itself which has to be disposed of at the end of it's service life, now with radio-activated parts.
Things with long half lives aren't very dangerous. Anything that last that long is about as dangerous as lead ... If you EAT ENOUGH OF IT ... Just like lead.
Which happens through bio-accumulation. For the case of pu-239, 1-10 micrograms which is the fatal dose. Plutonium is an iron analogue, and is very soluble in the form of plutonium chloride. Plutonium oxide is an inhalant. This would trigger leukemia or lung cancer
Additionally even low energy radionuclides can introduce transgenic disease as these are shown to damage the DNA if they accumulate around the stomach or genitals in fat tissue.
You have to get down into hours and minutes of half life before its dangerous just being near it as long as you don't inhale or eat it.
You wouldn't know if it was in the water or in the food you ate, nor the various mechanisms with which it travelled through the food chain to got there. Once it was organically bound in the body, or inhaled, it would substantially increase the risk of gestating a cancer through internal radiation exposure.
The fire extinguishers at any given data center in the US are far more toxic than the entire generator output of the life span of a nuclear planet's test cycles.
Oppenheimers work on pu-239 shows that it is a fatal dose internally in the 1-10 microgram range. The current stocks of pu-239 are around 70,000 tons which is more than enough doses, if released, to kill every person on the planet before considering other radioactive effluents of the Nuclear industry.
The Immoratility Option by James P Hogan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Who also has a great story about humans getting to the target star by sending genetic code and robot incubators in Voyage from Yesteryear. Thanks for the recommend, I will check it out.
is up with the login server? click a link, logged in. another, logged out. back and forth. randomly logged in and out.
Yeah, I thought it was just me - try this:
Go to you pseudonym 'home' and select log out.
refresh logged out, then log back in
select the /. logo, then spawn your pages from there and you should be ok to continue.
HTH!
because...
...anything that needs to know what the PID of a process to manage the process should not be managing the process. That is what init does, and it already knows the PID.
Typically, a PID file is scripted when you need to maintain a process. If you need to maintain a PID file, chances are you are using a script in /etc/init.d linked to a runlevel entry in /etc/rc.whatever. The use case here is that you want to shut the process down on shutdown *OR* change of runlevel. In that mode you're trying to figure out K ans S scripts and what order the script is started and shut down so that you can kill your process gracefully on exit.
The answer is you let init manage it. People seem to get confused about setting up the "context" of a runlevel (/etc/init.d) as opposed to the "strategy" employed in that runlevel (/etc/inittab) and then try to write an unnecessary script. If you are scripting an init process and you need to use a PID file, then you are addressing the strategy of the system from within the context and I suspect this is where many people get confused.
init will manage the execution of the system strategy by managing the lifecycle of the process for you. If you want it to stay up, you tell init to "respawn" it, then if you kill it or the process exits, init restarts it. If the system changes runlevel, say for shutdown or other, then init shuts the process down. Or, if you want to take the process down, you disable it in /etc/inittab and kill -1 1 when you are ready. I think there is a vim inittab command that does this for you.
This is where systemd tries to mix the strategy of the runlevel into the context, whereas what you actually want is to have the two concepts loosely coupled so they are easier to manage by isolation. People might be surprised how much raw performance potential init has to offer when you get your head around it especially when you discover that in a lot of cases you don't need a script at all.
* Learn the new tools: ip, ss, iw (not on his list, but on mine)
ip and ss are massive improvements over netstat, well worth learning. These tools are certainly more evolved than netstat
That's why systemd doesn't use "PID files". It's a broken concept.
You don't need a PID file if you use init properly.
I agree. I just disagree that you should replicate a 100 line script for every bloody instance and every daemon over and over again when that should be handled by the parent part of the system.
No, you should have one script and 100 lines in /etc/inittab. Each line should have different arguments, ideally pointing to a configuration file for that particular instance of your daemon, i.e you have 100 differently configured instances of the same deamon. Then init manages them for you.
I don't buy that init scripts are simple or even particularly adaptable.
Hang on a minute - are you talking about /etc/init.d scripts that get linked to a runlevel in /etc/rc or a script called from /etc/inittab managed by init? - because they are different.
Using /etc/inittab it's pretty easy to make something a system managed service using init this way, to be either respawned, run once, on or off, from a single file.
Customizing rc level 4 is also an option, for example to make the system boot in a more specific way for a media centre client or something more specific. There is no reason why you can't mangle runlevel 4 to make it do what you want and then save runlevel 3 and 5 for more general purpose modes. Following thew media centre example to make an operational rc4 and maintenance mode rc3 or rc5 which you might configure as a boot option.
I think the reason people think it is difficult is because of context. The rc script in /etc/init.d should exit, however the script called from /etc/inittab should not, so that init can act appropriately to manage the process. Scripts in /etc/init.d should only run once at start up or when called manually.
However you can make init maintain a process easily with a line like:
mc:4:respawn:/etc/runMediaCentre If the process is killed, init respawns it. I think people think it's some sort of secret sauce, however it is just a file and a line is similar in complexity to a unit file.
I've hand crafted a few in my time and they are always a pain in the arse to manage.
Yes, they can be however I found that was because of my thinking. I just remember scripts called from inittab don't exit.
When you get to the point of having multiple scripts bring called which then call sub scripts and all of them somewhat unique to that machine... It's time to look for something better.
It might help to think of the design pattern "Strategy". The runlevel scripts linked from /etc/init.d to /etc/rc.d set the context of the machine (like making vpn, db or other things avilable) and the entries in /etc/inittab define the aplication specific strategy that is dependant on that context.
Because init knows what the runlevel is, the strategies are only ever run in context. If there is something wrong with the context, then you have a problem (like no db or vpn).
I run systemd on desktops and test systems - mainly to see what the fuss is about and ensuring I'm prepared if I need to be. I just haven't seen a compelling argument for it. I ask why we are replacing something elegant and powerful.
If you are arguing for systemd, have you ever tried using inittab or customizing runlevels? It is powerful and demanding, but not impossible. As a core *ix paradigm it forces you to skill up to the next level of mastery over your systems and understand how your processes behave.
systemd seems to abstract away that knowledge of how processes behave, like wishing for less challenges instead of more skills.
It's as if the OS does what it can to take any hardware improvements away from you.
I've noticed the same thing myself, it's as if atrophy is included.
There were computers that were pretty close to fully usable almost immediately. They weren't as general purpose, or at least not as easily so, but they were snappy in some areas.
The more application specific they become the less the are perceived as friendly. People don't seem to understand 'application specific'.
With some work, I mean a lot of work, I got Windows 98SE running on a system from sometime around 2008.
That must have been fast, I was wondering about something similar.
Another fun one is to take something like Puppy or DSL
I've run puppy to build a box that power on and off things, I never thought to try it on a fast machine because it looked pretty cut down, then again maybe I was just focused on what I was doing.
Windows is 30 years old, and still in use. Hard to imagine that Windows 95 was far closer to Windows 1.0 than today.
Windows 3.11 was the most popular of that series of Windows. I retired a 3.11 system IIRC about 5 or so years ago, but the old lady who owned it used it for word processing and that was about it. It wasn't on the net, it didn't even have an IP stack, it had nothing else installed and she saved everything to floppies, even though it had a hard drive. I was amazed it even functioned.
Out of curiosity, I timed it go from power down to DOS 6.? to Win 3.11 UI in 17 seconds and to MS word within 34 seconds. Obviously systems do a lot more things when they start up now, but still pretty much shows it alligned with peoples expectations of how long it should take a computer to be ready to use after you turn it on.
Happy New Year /.rs
The courts would disagree with you and no matter what your little child's mind can conceive no, the fans most assuredly DO NOT own anything.
You must be one of those people that keep the copyright extension lawyers in business.
They're consumers.
Just like you. Don't wake the Sheeple.
Star Trek is now mainstream. Just popcorn flicks. Everyone can go and enjoy.
Cool, we told you it was cool. Now that you think it's cool, we've already moved on to the next cool thing that you will think is cool when other people tell you it's cool.
It's funny how people like you get a thrill out of stomping on something that other people think is fun, luckily most of the time, you miss. Which is probably why you don't get invited to parties.
Enjoy irrelevance, geeks.
hahaha, always were and quite comfortable being irrelevant. I think there is something about ruining other peoples fun that makes them socially isolated though - so you keep enjoying that.
If you can't put together a good story, get the fuck out of the way. You would do a lot better if you used the lawsuit money as a contribution to the fan film. All it does is build a bigger fanbase from star trek.
But you gotta own something that isn't yours in the first place - it's they fans who own star trek.
They served their purpose.
So... AI run lobbying groups on K-Street.
AI running board meetings, AI management, AI HR, AIs in corporations connecting and co-operating to interact with AIs on K-street and the AIs in governments.
Kill me now.
Perhaps it would bring you back to life and put you on a performance improvement plan.
Considering your experience with music technology, have you seen any new type of music technology that is really interesting?
Thanks
Hi Ray,
From you knowledge of the music industry, do you think it is possible for musicians to break free of it's machinations and become successful, profitable business entities focused on making good music?
Thanks
Which is why I have for decades posited that the ideal place for the UK's HLW waste is in the London Clay (a thick, low permeability claystone), with the entrance through the Houses of Parliament.
Genius!
I believe that America (and Sweden, and Finland) have also encountered political problems with their various waste repositories.
Can I presume from your pseudonym that you are a professional geologist RockDoctor? Have you seen this article from an Australian science show? Dr Birch's research seems to be cited a few times, it may interest you as it looks like it may lead to an interesting way to solve this waste issue.
That you do not understand that you've just combined two mutually incompatible ideas, is a symptom of our problem.
Since you deign not to come down from your mountain to explain your statement I can only conclude that your opinion is merely cynicism that is not grounded in any reasoning and therefore of little or no use.
Have you considered that because you are unwilling to explain your statement that you are a part of the problem you 'describe'.