Not when you factor in that political decisions in Hungary only have one purpose: to steal as much as possible before the upcoming elections. Everyone knows they stand a snowball's chance in hell to get re-elected. "Gyurcsány takarodj!" (Gyurcsány GTFO) almost made it into the national anthem since 2006.
At least they're not naming Microsoft directly anymore.
More nuclear power plants are not needed. Alternative energy sources can generate plenty of electricity, even for electric vehicles. According to the article "A Solar Grant Plan" in SciAm by 2050 solar electricity can provide 69% of the US's energy. And the wind potential in the Rockies is enough to provide the 48 continuous states with electricity as well. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details by region the wind potential of the US. And for a baseload geothermal can be used, though the SciAm article also goes over energy storage.
The US is not the whole world, you know. Hungary for example doesn't even have a mountain. 40% of our electricity comes from Paks, and it's getting old.
But it doesn't answer to any of the 4 problems I pointed out (even if we can recycle it, doesn't solve that the waste is deadly, its deadly for a long time, no safe place for storage, no safe way to transport it to storage).
Umm...
You do understand the sentence "radioactive waste with meanlife of tens of thousands of years can be stimulated to decay into stable elements in short periods of time", right?
Since you didn't read the link I gave you, here's an excerpt:
Santillis method consists in certain resonating means which stimulate the decay of nuclei which are naturally unstable. Once decayed in a radiation protective environment (such as the pools of current nuclear power plants), the resulting debris are constituted by light, natural and stable elements, which, as such, do not constitute a threat to society. In this way, radioactive waste with meanlife of tens of thousands of years can be stimulated to decay into stable elements in short periods of time depending on the intensity of the resonating means, and can be of the order of minutes per pellet of radioactive waste. Santillis equipment is sufficiently small to be used by nuclear power plants, thus avoiding completely the transportation to a common dump. In particular, while the latter transportation would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to taxpayers, Santillis equipment is expected to be purchased by the nuclear power plants for future operations, thus avoiding a massive public expenditure.
Santillis recycling method has an unquestionable credibility, since the studies were initiated in 1978 at Harvard University under DOE financial support; the studies were then published in major refereed journals quoted in the references below; and the method has been confirmed by direct experiments also outlined below.
Despite that, according to documentation available to qualified observers, Santillis method for the recycling of radioactive nuclear waste via its stimulated decay has been STRONGLY OPPOSED by politicians and scientists alike. The strongest documented opposition has been that in the U.S.A. and the DGXII Division of the European Community in Bruxelles, which went to extreme of opposing first, and then disrupting an international conference in the field under organization by the Institute for Basic Research which was intended to be attended by the best minds in the field from all over the world, As of today, it has been impossible to organize such a conference, while thousands of other, comparatively irrelevant international conference are fully supported in the U.S.A. and Europe. Oppositions to Santillis method of waste recycling also exist in the politics of many other countries.
Thank you for keeping a civil tone in this discussion.
It still amazes me that we put full trust (and R&D $$$) into electronic banking systems yet can't get the same technology to work for something as simple as counting votes.
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this--who will count the votes, and how." - J. Stalin
Electronic voting does not have an inherent paper trail.
If 2% of the votes were lost, how many were incorrect or not registered properly? If the system can lose votes, it can very easily put them for the wrong person as well...
All of them. The voting device had serious usability issues, enabling people to get out of the booth without registering the vote.
Re:Usability Glitch? (Score:5, Insightful) by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on 2008-10-29 8:47 (#25552091) The card should have been locked into the machine until the voter said 'OK' or cleared the screen, and locked it in with an alert and a deactivation warning if the person left the booth without doing either. Anyone can get confused about simple directions for an entirely new system. How many of us have tried to walk away from an ATM with our card still in it because we were distracted?
How easy is it for some Javascript or something to poke around for e-mail addresses when you are at a site?
Decent browsers don't expose data not created by the site, aside from the standard browser ID, and even that can be turned off. And if you use a browser with the security profile of swiss cheese, your email adress is not your main problem.
Also, my e-mail providers know my address - i.e. yahoo, google, aol, apple and comcast. Could they be selling that information? I wouldn't be surprised.
That's just about the only thing I trust Google not doing. If you want to know how they get it, try giving out different adresses to different sites and see which ones get what spam.
I really want to see a Nuke and have been dissapointed my entire life that I never have gotten the opportunity to see one.
It's not a Nuke, but Paks Nuclear Power Plant is open for viewing. AFAIK that's the only one on Earth where they actually let you see the reactor and the 70's style control room. It's kind of fun to see Soviet technology still working as intended.
Because the director of IT or whatever his title is will want to be able to put on his resume that HE moved a company from a "Legacy" and "Outdated" system to a modern "web based solution" that enables "greater productivity" among the workforce saving "millions of dollars". Now, he can put that on his resume and go for the CTO, CIO, or whatever jobs.
If and only if they're able to pull it off. It's also a nice way to end your carreer if you fail.
It's very clear, and.. oh, useful -- when you uninstall an application but don't feel like rating it.
Shouldn't that be so much the default that you don't even need to ask? Uninstalling an application is not something you want to complicate. "Remove app? Y/N" and you're done. Anything more just leads to a bad user experience. Remember: at that point the user does not want to deal with your app anymore. Imposing yet another question on them is just rude.
They must have learned this from Windows, where a typical uninstall is a wizard, with 5 meaningless progress bars and windows popping in and out of focus at random, making keeping your attention on something else impossible.
Sadly, nobody seems to be helping (nor is interested in) the software makers to port their windows codebase (no, documenting the nice Linux api's is not enough.)
Sadly, nobody seems to be paying the ones interested to port their windows codebase.
What? You thought just because I submit the odd patch to Firefox I'll be interested in that for free? You know what a codebase looks like when deadline is your main concern, not readability?
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain physical quantities, like position and momentum, cannot both have precise values at the same time.
If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.
If by "physically impossible" you mean all the talented and independent artists who put their stuff on the net for free would be banned: maybe.
If you mean you can't listen to RIAA protected music without paying: the internet is much more powerful than that. Their stranglehold on content is broken. My favorite example: FankaDeli.
Slashdot Mirror
It's simply not cost effective to listen in on every call.
It's most likely not every call. Just by those on the List.
Of course, if you're not using p2p to download copyrighted material, that might not be a problem.
And to all of us who are not copyright lawyers, encryption is easier. BTW even Linux is copyrighted.
They are in bed with the RIAA and MPAA, but they give massive bandwidth, and do not block any ports or filter p2p.
So, they're letting you do whatever you want, to make sure they maximize the amount of money they can sue you for?
I don't know about that. The ruling elite in the US have made many trillions of dollars off of fearmongering.
There, fixed that for you.
Isnt FOSS free?
Not when you factor in that political decisions in Hungary only have one purpose: to steal as much as possible before the upcoming elections. Everyone knows they stand a snowball's chance in hell to get re-elected. "Gyurcsány takarodj!" (Gyurcsány GTFO) almost made it into the national anthem since 2006.
At least they're not naming Microsoft directly anymore.
More nuclear power plants are not needed. Alternative energy sources can generate plenty of electricity, even for electric vehicles. According to the article "A Solar Grant Plan" in SciAm by 2050 solar electricity can provide 69% of the US's energy. And the wind potential in the Rockies is enough to provide the 48 continuous states with electricity as well. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details by region the wind potential of the US. And for a baseload geothermal can be used, though the SciAm article also goes over energy storage.
The US is not the whole world, you know. Hungary for example doesn't even have a mountain. 40% of our electricity comes from Paks, and it's getting old.
But it doesn't answer to any of the 4 problems I pointed out (even if we can recycle it, doesn't solve that the waste is deadly, its deadly for a long time, no safe place for storage, no safe way to transport it to storage).
Umm...
You do understand the sentence "radioactive waste with meanlife of tens of thousands of years can be stimulated to decay into stable elements in short periods of time", right?
..it's dying.
Netcraft confirms it?
Since you didn't read the link I gave you, here's an excerpt:
Santillis method consists in certain resonating means which stimulate the decay of nuclei which are naturally unstable. Once decayed in a radiation protective environment (such as the pools of current nuclear power plants), the resulting debris are constituted by light, natural and stable elements, which, as such, do not constitute a threat to society. In this way, radioactive waste with meanlife of tens of thousands of years can be stimulated to decay into stable elements in short periods of time depending on the intensity of the resonating means, and can be of the order of minutes per pellet of radioactive waste. Santillis equipment is sufficiently small to be used by nuclear power plants, thus avoiding completely the transportation to a common dump. In particular, while the latter transportation would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to taxpayers, Santillis equipment is expected to be purchased by the nuclear power plants for future operations, thus avoiding a massive public expenditure.
Santillis recycling method has an unquestionable credibility, since the studies were initiated in 1978 at Harvard University under DOE financial support; the studies were then published in major refereed journals quoted in the references below; and the method has been confirmed by direct experiments also outlined below.
Despite that, according to documentation available to qualified observers, Santillis method for the recycling of radioactive nuclear waste via its stimulated decay has been STRONGLY OPPOSED by politicians and scientists alike. The strongest documented opposition has been that in the U.S.A. and the DGXII Division of the European Community in Bruxelles, which went to extreme of opposing first, and then disrupting an international conference in the field under organization by the Institute for Basic Research which was intended to be attended by the best minds in the field from all over the world, As of today, it has been impossible to organize such a conference, while thousands of other, comparatively irrelevant international conference are fully supported in the U.S.A. and Europe. Oppositions to Santillis method of waste recycling also exist in the politics of many other countries.
Thank you for keeping a civil tone in this discussion.
It still amazes me that we put full trust (and R&D $$$) into electronic banking systems yet can't get the same technology to work for something as simple as counting votes.
"I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this--who will count the votes, and how." - J. Stalin
Electronic voting does not have an inherent paper trail.
If 2% of the votes were lost, how many were incorrect or not registered properly? If the system can lose votes, it can very easily put them for the wrong person as well...
All of them. The voting device had serious usability issues, enabling people to get out of the booth without registering the vote.
Re:Usability Glitch? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on 2008-10-29 8:47 (#25552091)
The card should have been locked into the machine until the voter said 'OK' or cleared the screen, and locked it in with an alert and a deactivation warning if the person left the booth without doing either. Anyone can get confused about simple directions for an entirely new system. How many of us have tried to walk away from an ATM with our card still in it because we were distracted?
http://www.nuclearwasterecycling.com/
Thank you for calling me uninformed. Now go read it.
How easy is it for some Javascript or something to poke around for e-mail addresses when you are at a site?
Decent browsers don't expose data not created by the site, aside from the standard browser ID, and even that can be turned off. And if you use a browser with the security profile of swiss cheese, your email adress is not your main problem.
Also, my e-mail providers know my address - i.e. yahoo, google, aol, apple and comcast. Could they be selling that information? I wouldn't be surprised.
That's just about the only thing I trust Google not doing. If you want to know how they get it, try giving out different adresses to different sites and see which ones get what spam.
I really want to see a Nuke and have been dissapointed my entire life that I never have gotten the opportunity to see one.
It's not a Nuke, but Paks Nuclear Power Plant is open for viewing. AFAIK that's the only one on Earth where they actually let you see the reactor and the 70's style control room. It's kind of fun to see Soviet technology still working as intended.
and I don't trust your people more than the russian people.
The Hungarian army couldn't take over Heathrow Airport, so that's understandable.
Oh, you thought I was American?
they will be looked after by companies hiring security guards.
And that is worse than the Russian military how?
Developing commercial uses will only encourage us to build more.
Yes. And used responsibly that can be a good thing. We might even see new nuclear power plants, which is definitely a good thing.
Fearmongering will get us nowhere.
Because the director of IT or whatever his title is will want to be able to put on his resume that HE moved a company from a "Legacy" and "Outdated" system to a modern "web based solution" that enables "greater productivity" among the workforce saving "millions of dollars". Now, he can put that on his resume and go for the CTO, CIO, or whatever jobs.
If and only if they're able to pull it off. It's also a nice way to end your carreer if you fail.
I'm glad Gary didn't see D&D 4e. I'm glad Dave didn't see Hasbro's future attempts to kill Blackmoor (you know they will).
Too bad they never made any sequels.
How long does it take to make a new sun? I mean...it will run out eventually...
Let there be light.
It's very clear, and .. oh, useful -- when you uninstall an application but don't feel like rating it.
Shouldn't that be so much the default that you don't even need to ask? Uninstalling an application is not something you want to complicate. "Remove app? Y/N" and you're done. Anything more just leads to a bad user experience. Remember: at that point the user does not want to deal with your app anymore. Imposing yet another question on them is just rude.
They must have learned this from Windows, where a typical uninstall is a wizard, with 5 meaningless progress bars and windows popping in and out of focus at random, making keeping your attention on something else impossible.
The EU is first and foremost an economic power, and as such, it wants to expand. Ideals don't matter.
Sadly, nobody seems to be helping (nor is interested in) the software makers to port their windows codebase (no, documenting the nice Linux api's is not enough.)
Sadly, nobody seems to be paying the ones interested to port their windows codebase.
What? You thought just because I submit the odd patch to Firefox I'll be interested in that for free? You know what a codebase looks like when deadline is your main concern, not readability?
RTFW:
In quantum physics, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that certain physical quantities, like position and momentum, cannot both have precise values at the same time.
it's certainly easier to change your terms than to go to a new website.
In Opera and Konqueror switching search engines takes 2 mouse clicks.
If tomorrow it suddenly became physically impossible to listen to music without paying for it, would these friends of yours all sit in silence for the rest of their lives? No. They'd buy some music. Not nearly as much as they're willing to take for free, but some.
If by "physically impossible" you mean all the talented and independent artists who put their stuff on the net for free would be banned: maybe.
If you mean you can't listen to RIAA protected music without paying: the internet is much more powerful than that. Their stranglehold on content is broken. My favorite example: FankaDeli.