If you look at the images on the site, you can see it is a Fusor. It has the wire cages and all of that.
Fusors are pretty cool. Was thinking of building one myself. You can definitely build one as an amateur. It's like 1950's TV era technology.
Of course a Fusor is not a power plant, but it's a decent neutron source.
They are trying to use the same concept for an actual power plant with the polywell, which uses magnetic fields instead of the wires to provide the confinement and the charged particle acceleration.
Since the Fusor's inability to be a power generating source is due to radiation and conductive energy loss from some of the particles impacting the physical surface of the wires, the magnetic confinement should dispense with that issue.
The major problem is that getting the right geometry for the magnetic fields is difficult and it hasn't been demonstrated whether it is possible to get the fields to allow for this approach yet.
Heh, you should read the new proposed security assessment guidelines for the FedRAMP Accelerated program for government Cloud purchases.
They basically suggest that containerized applications are a higher level of security than VMs. If you understand the sort of reasoning they're using it sort of makes sense, due to smaller attack surfaces and all of that, but I still found it amusing.
Unfortunately, that hilarity will likely become the standard for government Cloud security soon. So, biting my tongue, installing Docker, hoping for the best.
I think the idea is that "taking care of it" is what they believe they are doing by *not* giving it a vaccine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-vaxxer, I think they're irresponsible and uninformed. But we have to admit to ourselves that in the name of public health, we are forcing parents to do something they might truly feel is harming their child.
Mostly, I believe that most of our "rights" are anything but that. The state has always had the power to do what it takes to maintain what it believes is the interests of the population, for better or worse. While it is invasive, there is no reason that you can't force a woman to carry to term any more than you can't force a woman to have her child injected with a vaccine. You can do either or both, and ample justification exists for either one from the State's secular perspective.
It's all a matter of what is considered to be more effective at keeping order and maintaining the population in some semblance of safety.
So what you're saying is, if you're a Democrat and hate Republicans, don't enact revenge, join the Republican party?
Don't join a party at all. Vote for the best man or woman.
Admittedly.... not a lot of good choices, but at that point you start writing in people.
Washington was right but a little naive. Parties form in national politics because organization gets things done. Initially, the parties simply support people and philosophies. Eventually, they only support themselves.
The Republican Party freed the slaves. Full stop. Now they are the mortal enemy of the Black person, it seems. There are two things wrong with that.
First, the Republicans did it to themselves with the Southern Strategy. They basically signed up for being lumped in with the racists. They did that to simply beat the Democrats, who had decided to hang up some of the racism and corruptness that marked that party.
The second problem is that this forced that minority to become a safe bloc of votes for Democrats. And while it is understandable why that would happen, limits the actual power that blacks have to change their future. A Democrat must give them lip service, but a Democratic candidate knows that they can be sewn up and delivered by certain black leaders to any Democratic candidate that comes out of the convention.
All of that is motivated by the strong influence of factional and party interest over getting things done. And it is continued because groups see parties as things that they get power from by remaining loyal, even when loyalty to that party is nothing more than loyalty to a brand name that will do anything to keep getting elected.
So what happened is that Washington foresaw the problems of party, but really provided no advice on how to avoid it. And that's unfortunate, because that's really what we needed.
The problem is, as Reagan also found out with his nuclear brinksmanship, is that not everyone understands what you mean, and they expect you to do exactly what you say you are going to do.
Brinksmanship and hard negotiation is just as effective in politics and diplomacy as in business, but there are dimensions to it that make it incredibly dangerous.
While Trump thinks he's negotiating for a better deal, the people who are turning out for him are loading up with spades and rifles, ready to help build the wall and shoot anyone who tries to climb it. They believe him. And they won't rest until he starts deporting Muslims and turning the border into a hunting zone. If Trump can't do it himself, they'll "helpfully" get to work making it happen for him, despite what those obstructionists in Washington are trying to do to stop it.
US laws have a way of either finding ways to be enforced overseas or become "examples" for other countries to use. Do not take them lightly. The US Senate may not be the Supreme Senate of Earth, but some legislative bodies have more influence than others. If one government becomes infected with this nonsense, do not assume that your government is immune, even if they are resistant in some way.
It will keep many *businesses* cowed, which is more important. That's how strong encryption gets out into the general public... companies who built it into their apps. Without businesses and encryption for everyone by default, the "herd immunity" of general encryption adoption goes away and the remaining practitioners who might need or desire it are now in danger.
The programmer or the savvy user who knows how to get encryption is never going to be reached by this. But we need to remember that most people don't have those skills, but may well need privacy.
And we need them to have privacy because when everyone has privacy, then you can't put everyone on a list. If you only have a only few knowledgeable people who know how to do that, then anyone who simply *uses* encryption can be flagged for further follow up. And that follow up is usually more dangerous than anything they would have ever read on your internet communications.
There is something much more dangerous than not having privacy, and that is attracting the active interest of someone whose job is to find people to investigate and prosecute. Cutting out widespread protections from the general public puts you in the elite and undesirable class of people that someone in the government actually looks at for more than a tenth of a second.
It will work *very* well, just not at the ends that these Senators want.
Do you know how painful it is to work with European companies thanks to how shitty Facebook and company were with cooperating?
Now a law that ends all unbreakable encryption will make it impossible for me to convince anyone in Europe that they won't be owned the second they send some data over. Even though our app doesn't require any sort of private information, or take any credit cards.
Yes, the Europeans in that case will be technically wrong, but who can really blame them for not being at least a little gunshy in that regard? They not going to want to have to closely inspect every single purchase they make of a product where they can't make an assumption that we are making a good faith attempt to protect them because our fucking government won't let us.
These Senators are idiots and appear to want us to lose all our international business for some stupid terrorist fearmongering bullshit.
Probably does, although simply extracting the oil all over the world and distributing it may have less effect because its flow isn't all from one or two places in one continuous cyclic stream like movement of a giant icepack would. I'm also not sure how the actual mass of the oil we have pulled out compares to the mass of an ice sheet.
Docker isn't that bad. Although we did have some operations people who understand how it works, so we know that you have to scan the original host that the containers were made on for vulnerabilities and make sure it is patched and all of that before you deploy a new one. And that you have to rebuild and redeploy it when patches and vulnerabilities are released.
Yeah, there was a lot of "developers love Docker", but as an ops person, I think it can help with some of the real issues we have around scaling and even security. We don't "need" Docker for that, because there are other tools that could do all that, but it's actually okay.
It sounds like your company just hired a new executive with "ideas" and now you have to deal with that bullshit. I'm so very sorry.
DevOps, for all it's fabulous buzzword glory, actually sounds a little bit more sane than that. Especially, if your company managed to redefine it into something workable before it was deleted.
As an operations person by trade, and a developer sometimes by necessity, there is a lot of truth to the idea that a DevOps person is merely someone who used to be called "that System Administrator who codes stuff for us" or a "that poor Developer who has been stuck with the sysadmin tasks and setting up Jenkins"
While buzzwordy, that sort of work might be something that is worth having a name of its own. So I think something that happens to go by the buzzwordy title of "DevOps" is real, but not quite in the way it was being pushed.
I used to joke that DevOps was merely the massive campaign launched by developers who were tired of trying to get Operations to give them root access in Production so they could change things without having to actually fill out a change control and explain to someone who wasn't a developer how to do it. And some of the ideas behind it still sort of smell like that, but that really never became real practice outside of a few types of applications that really lent itself to that sort of pacing.
Instead, I think it has sort of matured into a sort of tools mindset where we are able to use more software defined infrastructure and certain tools to actually break out of the mold of the sysadmin who was first and foremost that guy who was responsible for going to the datacenter and installing Linux or a hypervisor aside from any other tasks. We still need those people, but I think it this is a milepost in the differentiation of admins.
I don't hire "DevOps" people, and while that is the name of a cross-team group where I work, we're still Operations and Development and under different management. And strictly speaking, I always believed that this was how it was supposed to work. If there was anything where DevOps really provided value, it was in the very simple proposition that Ops and Dev should talk to one another and work less like two walled fortresses that occasionally sent heralds between them with formal communications. There is also value in your Puppet/Chef/Ansible/Docker as well, although that could have happened without "DevOps".
But more importantly, as a reference "description", if I tell a recruiter what I need and I was to say a DevOps person, they usually get me exactly who I want. I don't think that usage is dead or dying.
So no, I don't think DevOps is meaningless. It just isn't the "movement" that it started off as and it matured into something slightly different. Perhaps we'll call that something else more descriptive someday and the term can be relegated to the trash heap of history. Until the next buzzword.
I am shocked, shocked I say, that this site which gets my hard earned money can't even have editors who can do their jobs. It's at though this was some sort of free site and not a journal of towering respectability. I will have to have a word with my account manager immediately about this insulting dereliction!
Really? Taxes are now about morality? I rather thought that taxes were about the people with guns who would come to repossess my house if I didn't pay them.
Yeah, I get that infrastructure improvements and all of that are paid for by taxes. I also note that our budget in the US is trillions of dollars a year, which dwarfs any company that I am aware of anywhere. Perhaps instead of setting up a pseudo-statist religion about paying taxes, we should maybe get the government to somehow make use of the incredibly large amount of money that we already do give them to run things. A budget, I might add, that dwarfs that which was made available to build the Interstate Highway system, let alone the lesser amount to maintain it.
And yeah, arrest those fuckers who are tax evaders, but don't start moralizing about people who save money on taxes via the same loopholes given to them by the government you want to give more money to.
What is going to happen is the government will nod their heads, pretend to be all about the People, stick out their hands for more money, and work out the donations and bribes needed to reinstate some new loopholes when the heat has died down. I don't feel anyone has a moral duty to support a government that can't seem to operate itself on its own tax laws.
After owning a tablet for awhile, I have to almost agree. The tablet is great for reading and web-browsing (when the crap on the page doesn't wreak havoc on the limited resources on the tablet), but I find that I'd rather stab myself in the thigh than actually try to type anything into one without a keyboard. And if I'm doing that, why don't I just get a very light laptop?
I think tablets excel when you need something like a big graphical control panel and readout that can be touch activated or if you have to read something conveniently, but unless you are doing more than reading e-books with it, you may be better off with something like a Kindle.
For the record, I don't own a Kindle, but my limited experience with one makes me think it is a much better reading experience.
Did they suddenly change recently and become pro-human? Or are they still hostile elitists who despise ordinary Americans?
Absolutely not. They're actually hostile elitists who despise everyone, including themselves. And they like it. Which only increases their self-loathing.
Odd. I get why no one would want to go to Tumblr unless they had to, but Twitter is usually considered part of the whole social media A-team. What better place to find salacious things to hate you for than abbreviated half-thoughts with perhaps a picture attached? Is it really not actually looked at by HR teams, or is it perhaps a little harder to link an actual individual to a Twitter account unless it is provided?
Yeah, that was a huge miss. Which is weird because they usually put out all these beta products to sink or swim on their relative merits, but for Google+ they absolutely rammed it down your throat. Perhaps they thought they were under-supporting their products and just went a little too far in the opposite direction that time.
Things that are intimate can be difficult to finance over time. Perhaps more to the point, they're that much harder to get suddenly and obscenely rich off of. So unless you can find someone willing to run a first rate company who isn't going to want to get rich off of it when it becomes popular and they see dollar signs, you're going to always see this sort of things happen. Google, for instance, is still a big, popular company that is doing lots of things, but "Don't be evil" is firmly in the past with them, and it always was destined to be when they made their IPO.
Slashdot Mirror
If you look at the images on the site, you can see it is a Fusor. It has the wire cages and all of that.
Fusors are pretty cool. Was thinking of building one myself. You can definitely build one as an amateur. It's like 1950's TV era technology.
Of course a Fusor is not a power plant, but it's a decent neutron source.
They are trying to use the same concept for an actual power plant with the polywell, which uses magnetic fields instead of the wires to provide the confinement and the charged particle acceleration.
Since the Fusor's inability to be a power generating source is due to radiation and conductive energy loss from some of the particles impacting the physical surface of the wires, the magnetic confinement should dispense with that issue.
The major problem is that getting the right geometry for the magnetic fields is difficult and it hasn't been demonstrated whether it is possible to get the fields to allow for this approach yet.
Heh, you should read the new proposed security assessment guidelines for the FedRAMP Accelerated program for government Cloud purchases.
They basically suggest that containerized applications are a higher level of security than VMs. If you understand the sort of reasoning they're using it sort of makes sense, due to smaller attack surfaces and all of that, but I still found it amusing.
Unfortunately, that hilarity will likely become the standard for government Cloud security soon. So, biting my tongue, installing Docker, hoping for the best.
I know what is in those papers. It talks about how you can do wireless electricity for the masses with this one weird trick.
I think the idea is that "taking care of it" is what they believe they are doing by *not* giving it a vaccine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-vaxxer, I think they're irresponsible and uninformed. But we have to admit to ourselves that in the name of public health, we are forcing parents to do something they might truly feel is harming their child.
Mostly, I believe that most of our "rights" are anything but that. The state has always had the power to do what it takes to maintain what it believes is the interests of the population, for better or worse. While it is invasive, there is no reason that you can't force a woman to carry to term any more than you can't force a woman to have her child injected with a vaccine. You can do either or both, and ample justification exists for either one from the State's secular perspective.
It's all a matter of what is considered to be more effective at keeping order and maintaining the population in some semblance of safety.
The Supreme Court already legislates. I see no reason that they shouldn't also determine who the President is.
Anyway, if you look into how they did contested elections in the past, the Court ruling seems positively aboveboard in comparison.
So what you're saying is, if you're a Democrat and hate Republicans, don't enact revenge, join the Republican party?
Don't join a party at all. Vote for the best man or woman.
Admittedly.... not a lot of good choices, but at that point you start writing in people.
Washington was right but a little naive. Parties form in national politics because organization gets things done. Initially, the parties simply support people and philosophies. Eventually, they only support themselves.
The Republican Party freed the slaves. Full stop. Now they are the mortal enemy of the Black person, it seems. There are two things wrong with that.
First, the Republicans did it to themselves with the Southern Strategy. They basically signed up for being lumped in with the racists. They did that to simply beat the Democrats, who had decided to hang up some of the racism and corruptness that marked that party.
The second problem is that this forced that minority to become a safe bloc of votes for Democrats. And while it is understandable why that would happen, limits the actual power that blacks have to change their future. A Democrat must give them lip service, but a Democratic candidate knows that they can be sewn up and delivered by certain black leaders to any Democratic candidate that comes out of the convention.
All of that is motivated by the strong influence of factional and party interest over getting things done. And it is continued because groups see parties as things that they get power from by remaining loyal, even when loyalty to that party is nothing more than loyalty to a brand name that will do anything to keep getting elected.
So what happened is that Washington foresaw the problems of party, but really provided no advice on how to avoid it. And that's unfortunate, because that's really what we needed.
Why? It seems like the dollar can make anything move, if you apply enough of them.
I think you're entirely correct.
The problem is, as Reagan also found out with his nuclear brinksmanship, is that not everyone understands what you mean, and they expect you to do exactly what you say you are going to do.
Brinksmanship and hard negotiation is just as effective in politics and diplomacy as in business, but there are dimensions to it that make it incredibly dangerous.
While Trump thinks he's negotiating for a better deal, the people who are turning out for him are loading up with spades and rifles, ready to help build the wall and shoot anyone who tries to climb it. They believe him. And they won't rest until he starts deporting Muslims and turning the border into a hunting zone. If Trump can't do it himself, they'll "helpfully" get to work making it happen for him, despite what those obstructionists in Washington are trying to do to stop it.
I don't think they will be fooled by you speaking Klingon.
US laws have a way of either finding ways to be enforced overseas or become "examples" for other countries to use. Do not take them lightly. The US Senate may not be the Supreme Senate of Earth, but some legislative bodies have more influence than others. If one government becomes infected with this nonsense, do not assume that your government is immune, even if they are resistant in some way.
It will keep many *businesses* cowed, which is more important. That's how strong encryption gets out into the general public... companies who built it into their apps. Without businesses and encryption for everyone by default, the "herd immunity" of general encryption adoption goes away and the remaining practitioners who might need or desire it are now in danger.
The programmer or the savvy user who knows how to get encryption is never going to be reached by this. But we need to remember that most people don't have those skills, but may well need privacy.
And we need them to have privacy because when everyone has privacy, then you can't put everyone on a list. If you only have a only few knowledgeable people who know how to do that, then anyone who simply *uses* encryption can be flagged for further follow up. And that follow up is usually more dangerous than anything they would have ever read on your internet communications.
There is something much more dangerous than not having privacy, and that is attracting the active interest of someone whose job is to find people to investigate and prosecute. Cutting out widespread protections from the general public puts you in the elite and undesirable class of people that someone in the government actually looks at for more than a tenth of a second.
It will work *very* well, just not at the ends that these Senators want.
Do you know how painful it is to work with European companies thanks to how shitty Facebook and company were with cooperating?
Now a law that ends all unbreakable encryption will make it impossible for me to convince anyone in Europe that they won't be owned the second they send some data over. Even though our app doesn't require any sort of private information, or take any credit cards.
Yes, the Europeans in that case will be technically wrong, but who can really blame them for not being at least a little gunshy in that regard? They not going to want to have to closely inspect every single purchase they make of a product where they can't make an assumption that we are making a good faith attempt to protect them because our fucking government won't let us.
These Senators are idiots and appear to want us to lose all our international business for some stupid terrorist fearmongering bullshit.
Probably does, although simply extracting the oil all over the world and distributing it may have less effect because its flow isn't all from one or two places in one continuous cyclic stream like movement of a giant icepack would. I'm also not sure how the actual mass of the oil we have pulled out compares to the mass of an ice sheet.
Now, now. Sometimes the CTOs or CIOs used the term to make themselves sound impressive and relevant. Let's not put it all on the consultants.
Docker isn't that bad. Although we did have some operations people who understand how it works, so we know that you have to scan the original host that the containers were made on for vulnerabilities and make sure it is patched and all of that before you deploy a new one. And that you have to rebuild and redeploy it when patches and vulnerabilities are released.
Yeah, there was a lot of "developers love Docker", but as an ops person, I think it can help with some of the real issues we have around scaling and even security. We don't "need" Docker for that, because there are other tools that could do all that, but it's actually okay.
It sounds like your company just hired a new executive with "ideas" and now you have to deal with that bullshit. I'm so very sorry.
DevOps, for all it's fabulous buzzword glory, actually sounds a little bit more sane than that. Especially, if your company managed to redefine it into something workable before it was deleted.
Respectfully, I've been reading about the death of the site for years. It may well be dying, but I don't think Netcraft has yet confirmed it.
As an operations person by trade, and a developer sometimes by necessity, there is a lot of truth to the idea that a DevOps person is merely someone who used to be called "that System Administrator who codes stuff for us" or a "that poor Developer who has been stuck with the sysadmin tasks and setting up Jenkins"
While buzzwordy, that sort of work might be something that is worth having a name of its own. So I think something that happens to go by the buzzwordy title of "DevOps" is real, but not quite in the way it was being pushed.
I used to joke that DevOps was merely the massive campaign launched by developers who were tired of trying to get Operations to give them root access in Production so they could change things without having to actually fill out a change control and explain to someone who wasn't a developer how to do it. And some of the ideas behind it still sort of smell like that, but that really never became real practice outside of a few types of applications that really lent itself to that sort of pacing.
Instead, I think it has sort of matured into a sort of tools mindset where we are able to use more software defined infrastructure and certain tools to actually break out of the mold of the sysadmin who was first and foremost that guy who was responsible for going to the datacenter and installing Linux or a hypervisor aside from any other tasks. We still need those people, but I think it this is a milepost in the differentiation of admins.
I don't hire "DevOps" people, and while that is the name of a cross-team group where I work, we're still Operations and Development and under different management. And strictly speaking, I always believed that this was how it was supposed to work. If there was anything where DevOps really provided value, it was in the very simple proposition that Ops and Dev should talk to one another and work less like two walled fortresses that occasionally sent heralds between them with formal communications. There is also value in your Puppet/Chef/Ansible/Docker as well, although that could have happened without "DevOps".
But more importantly, as a reference "description", if I tell a recruiter what I need and I was to say a DevOps person, they usually get me exactly who I want. I don't think that usage is dead or dying.
So no, I don't think DevOps is meaningless. It just isn't the "movement" that it started off as and it matured into something slightly different. Perhaps we'll call that something else more descriptive someday and the term can be relegated to the trash heap of history. Until the next buzzword.
I am shocked, shocked I say, that this site which gets my hard earned money can't even have editors who can do their jobs. It's at though this was some sort of free site and not a journal of towering respectability. I will have to have a word with my account manager immediately about this insulting dereliction!
Really? Taxes are now about morality? I rather thought that taxes were about the people with guns who would come to repossess my house if I didn't pay them.
Yeah, I get that infrastructure improvements and all of that are paid for by taxes. I also note that our budget in the US is trillions of dollars a year, which dwarfs any company that I am aware of anywhere. Perhaps instead of setting up a pseudo-statist religion about paying taxes, we should maybe get the government to somehow make use of the incredibly large amount of money that we already do give them to run things. A budget, I might add, that dwarfs that which was made available to build the Interstate Highway system, let alone the lesser amount to maintain it.
And yeah, arrest those fuckers who are tax evaders, but don't start moralizing about people who save money on taxes via the same loopholes given to them by the government you want to give more money to.
What is going to happen is the government will nod their heads, pretend to be all about the People, stick out their hands for more money, and work out the donations and bribes needed to reinstate some new loopholes when the heat has died down. I don't feel anyone has a moral duty to support a government that can't seem to operate itself on its own tax laws.
After owning a tablet for awhile, I have to almost agree. The tablet is great for reading and web-browsing (when the crap on the page doesn't wreak havoc on the limited resources on the tablet), but I find that I'd rather stab myself in the thigh than actually try to type anything into one without a keyboard. And if I'm doing that, why don't I just get a very light laptop?
I think tablets excel when you need something like a big graphical control panel and readout that can be touch activated or if you have to read something conveniently, but unless you are doing more than reading e-books with it, you may be better off with something like a Kindle.
For the record, I don't own a Kindle, but my limited experience with one makes me think it is a much better reading experience.
Did they suddenly change recently and become pro-human? Or are they still hostile elitists who despise ordinary Americans?
Absolutely not. They're actually hostile elitists who despise everyone, including themselves. And they like it. Which only increases their self-loathing.
Odd. I get why no one would want to go to Tumblr unless they had to, but Twitter is usually considered part of the whole social media A-team. What better place to find salacious things to hate you for than abbreviated half-thoughts with perhaps a picture attached? Is it really not actually looked at by HR teams, or is it perhaps a little harder to link an actual individual to a Twitter account unless it is provided?
Yeah, that was a huge miss. Which is weird because they usually put out all these beta products to sink or swim on their relative merits, but for Google+ they absolutely rammed it down your throat. Perhaps they thought they were under-supporting their products and just went a little too far in the opposite direction that time.
Things that are intimate can be difficult to finance over time. Perhaps more to the point, they're that much harder to get suddenly and obscenely rich off of. So unless you can find someone willing to run a first rate company who isn't going to want to get rich off of it when it becomes popular and they see dollar signs, you're going to always see this sort of things happen. Google, for instance, is still a big, popular company that is doing lots of things, but "Don't be evil" is firmly in the past with them, and it always was destined to be when they made their IPO.