When you're the guardian for a child which could have enough meds to be lethal there's no time to fuck around for a judge to issue a warrant. If your child has a bunch of pills scattered around it are you going to call a judge to see if you can get a warrant to see if it took any?
If these goth kids had taken the pills and the supreme justice was calling the president to check on whether a search would be constitutional I think you would be just as pissed off. (Actually the scary thing is that you wouldn't be; for a child death is a much better fate than being seen in your underwear)
This ruling encourages: 1. Students to sue over nothing. 2. Teachers to care more about laws than the students they're the guardians of.. Way to go jcr, you noble pedophile slayer you.
Anyway I'm not American; doesn't bother me if this 19 year old gets a fat check from the taxpayer because she stood in front of two women in her underwear and it "ruined her life". Since you're getting played for a fool I guess you might as well feel righteous about it.
Are you completely insane? Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school? Is keeping kids in class false imprisonment/slavery too? When kids doodle on a desk should they stand trial and have to pay a fine?
There is absolutely *NO* excuse for school officials sexually abusing a 13-year-old.
So this is "sexual abuse" now? They didn't even make her take all her clothes off, and the search was done by women; some school admins suspected she had a certain drug, they checked her and found nothing. Why are you imagining some sort of sexual abuse?
I have a sneaking suspicion that if we saw a picture of this girl we'd have no more concerns about this being some bunch of perverts. Sounds like there was more than one of them, and they got her to show that she wasn't hiding anything rather than taking everything off.
Maybe they had good reason to search her (they were pretty specific about what they thought she had). I really think with some extra context you could see how they could have done this without needing to "have their skin peeled off with vegetable peelers."
I agree. I have a completely blind cat, and she gets around the house just fine, only running into stuff if I move furniture. It's really impressive to see, as she learns her environment the first time around. This article wasn't news to me.
How do you get you the install files for your old game?
You restore the game backups which Steam can take for you. I think you're more likely to scratch a CD than Valve is likely to go bust though, so I'd be more worried about getting backups of physical games.
You must have a pretty poor collection then.. I don't know how people can get so worked up over $20.
Before Steam piracy was often about what a pain CDs are, swapping them out and in, "I need to use nocd cracks anyway because of CDs" etc. Now it's about DRM, and I think next it'll be about the source being proprietary. "I'd pay money for this, I just refuse to on moral grounds"
I'm not "rabid", I like steam, I just honestly don't see what this allows me to do that I couldn't before, or even why they benefit. If the idea is "we encrypt the game with your key" what happens when someone decrypts it?
There's more to it than that. If I make a wrapper for a text file that lets me find and delete rows that's not really a database. (It only becomes a database when I call it TextDB and package it with an AJAX API)
But, if you want to put a billion records into a database, and sleep at night, there's only one game in town, and that's Oracle
The largest database I maintain for a site I coded has 15 billion records atm and it's doing fine in MySQL, with a relatively busy daily peak time with well over 100 users, all on shared hosting.
In fact the only problem I've had with database growth was when an auto incrementing ID went over ~2 billion in MySQL, which put it over PHP's 2^32-1 integer limit.
And yup this all has to do locking and transactions, not just MyISAM with basic queries.
My personal experience counts for nothing of course but Google,/., etc, etc all using free databases for big work too, so I think your attitude is a bit dated.
I think you're doing far too much holding of thought. In 30-40 years (best case, from a scientist who ran JET, who also supported fission as a worthwhile intermediate power supply) when the first fusion plants are rolling out we'll be half way down the IPCC's disastrous "business-as-usual" scenario, and we'll have to hope there's still enough political stability to get fusion technology to everyone.
There you go with the "varying degrees" thing again. It's the language of someone who wants to make something sound serious without knowing or committing to whether or not it actually was.
I've become very skeptical of stories of nuclear leaks because of stuff like this. It always turns out to be extremely low level stuff, or it leaked into a larger container.
Yesterday I found a nuclear power controversy sub-section which said "millions of gallons of tritium were leaked, but nothing was said about it for years", but millions of gallons of tritium doesn't exist, and it turned out that the water leak contained so little tritium that it was hundreds of times below background radiation levels.
Then you have absurdities like Yucca; a functional waste dump in the side of a mountain which environmentalists won't use, requiring the waste to be kept at plants. If the power company detects a waste leak (of any severity) the environmentalists won't consider that the waste could have been securely buried in a specialized facility; it'll be an example of why we should abandon nuclear power.
This isn't ignoring stuff on the drawing board, this is snubbing actual implemented projects; insanity!
However I don't know of any spilled waste incident that would have had serious environmental effects. I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any which go beyond other sorts of dumps and wastes, or the huge numbers of nuclear tests we conducted.
Also there are good solutions "on the drawing board" for dealing with fission waste products. Why discount these? Why wait and hope fusion's drawing board ideas bear fruit? Why is waiting for a waste disposal technology unacceptable, while waiting for the development of an entire power source is perfectly acceptable? Can't you see the double-standard here??
You've stated elsewhere that you'd rather see CO2 producing power than fission waste, because we don't know how to eliminate fission waste or that it's expensive etc. I'd say this is a dismissive attitude.
But you're willing to build fusion reactors when we're not sure what sort of waste it'll produce and how it'll have to be handled, or many of the other outcomes that the research will determine. This seems to be a try-and-see attitude; maybe it'll be the perfect power source and it's worth a thorough investigation, which is my view also.
The fission waste problem, and the cost problem, are key areas of research into fission reactors, but you seem to put far less faith in R&D into fission than R&D into fusion. (Even though fission produces commercial power)
iiNet isn't a family friendly ISP but they're participating in the trial. Besides how can you say "The internet censorship system is not yet in place", then go on to list ISPs in which the filters are in place, then tell me to check my facts?
Also I'm more worried about this slowing down the net and making censorship much easier than making it harder to get porno. Thanks for suggesting "what [I] should be concerned about" though, I'll take that on board.
Because from a blocked ISP you can access the sites which are listed as blocked.
Not enough? -> Each ISP was given their own copy of the list over a year ago which is supposed to have restricted access to.
How could Conroy replace the list on the ISP filter system which the reporter decided to use to check the authenticity?
Still got a theory that fits the constraints? -> Several ISPs are in the trial to try and show that it isn't feasible, and are desperate to point out any suspicious activity. If it got leaked Conroy would risk everything for nothing to try and deny it with the help of ISPs.
If you still have a theory other than "fake list" you should make a video. Perhaps you'll be able to relate it to the mysterious disappearance of the Australian stimulus packages
I read about this earlier today; news media really have to check WikiLeaks out carefully before reporting it.
I think the black-list is absurd, it's baffling that we can actually have censorship here in Australia, and my reps know how I feel at least. But I don't think stunts like this help:-(
We get fined if we dump electronics. In the EU lead free solders have to be used. Sewage is *not* dump into rivers. Really what part of the developed nations are still doing this?
And even if they are, how the hell does that make dumpping more dangerous waste valid?
It doesn't, it makes it hypocritical to have such high standards for nuclear waste while no-one seems to care about any other sort of waste.
People dump fridges in sink-holes, don't properly dispose of their electronics and batteries, countries blew up islands to test nuclear weapons, we line our childrens' lungs with smoke ash, pump tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, fertilizer from farms leaks out, suffocates fish and destroys ecosystems, etc, etc..
But for nuclear waste secure, responsible disposal in a radiation absorbing medium in sealed casks in a dedicated underground concrete bunker isn't good enough: We have to be able to eradicate it somehow, or transform it into something which you could inject directly into your veins, and we have to be able to do it now, not store it now and do it later.
When "environmentalists" block a world-class waste storage facility built into a mountain, insisting the waste is cached at power plants across the US rather than buried, it seems more like a bizarre religion than environmentalism
I don't? where did i say that? And as others have noted its LOW level waste from a fusion plant. And we can even tune how low. This is what ITER is about.
As I understand Iter is about finding out what medium should be used to capture the neutron flux for conversion into energy. A pretty major question which a lot will ride on; how much radiation will it produce when irradiated, how much heat will it generate, how long will it last, etc?
Hopefully Iter will give some answers, but at the moment there is definitely nothing to say that it'll be low-level waste. (In fact I usually hear advocates claim it'd be high-level waste with a low half-life.)
Simple. You get that part of the cost *when* they start to decommission it. There is not that much data on civilian plants getting decommission at this stage, so the cost are hard to estimate. Really there has been very little true commercial nuclear plants build. They have been tied up with a lot of military interests and subsidies.
France exports 18% of the energy it produces in its reactors (ironically to anti-nuclear pro-renewable neighbors like Germany), plus it exports plenty of reactors too, makes billions, and factors the decommissioning and waste storage costs in (even taking them to be 15% and 10% of the cost of construction respectively).
It is difficult to say how much they cost, the French power company only became partly public recently. But they made a push for nuclear during the 70's oil crisis, at the same time just about everyone did, so it does seem unlikely that it was uneconomical.
Same goes for US plants, which were bought by private companies and are also seeing huge profits, upgrading&refitting plants and getting licenses renewed, making money and pushing forward with the next generation of reactors.
Again calculating the costs is hard, and the next generation will require subsidies to compete with coal, but it has gone from a government business to a government sponsored business. If you take the subsidies in the context of the costs of global warming, and the conservative estimates usually given for the lifetime of a plant, the economics look good.
Most of all the shares are up and governments around the world are making U-turns on nuclear policy. If it's not economical then what are they all doing?
Why do you have a "let's try and see" attitude to the economic viability of a power source decades away, but a dismissive attitude towards testing the viability of a power source has had far more development time and R&D?
Definitely not bad, but why not add another 20B to move 20-40GW of power production over to a carbon-free alternative in the meantime? (Which won't be a huge amount more than new carbon sources which we would need anyway.)
"Hope for the best, plan for the worst." "Don't put your eggs in one basket." All that stuff.
But yes there uptime have been fixed more or less and they are proven and cheaper than R&D. But that doesn't mean we should avoid the R&D.
Agreed
Really is it so hard to see that trading CO2 for nuclear waste that has no long term plaining solutions is not a net gain?
Surely trading a potential future problem, which can be solved at any point up until the end of civilization, for a currently occurring problem that is starting to change world right now is a no brainer?
Slashdot Mirror
When you're the guardian for a child which could have enough meds to be lethal there's no time to fuck around for a judge to issue a warrant. If your child has a bunch of pills scattered around it are you going to call a judge to see if you can get a warrant to see if it took any?
If these goth kids had taken the pills and the supreme justice was calling the president to check on whether a search would be constitutional I think you would be just as pissed off. (Actually the scary thing is that you wouldn't be; for a child death is a much better fate than being seen in your underwear)
This ruling encourages: 1. Students to sue over nothing. 2. Teachers to care more about laws than the students they're the guardians of.. Way to go jcr, you noble pedophile slayer you.
Anyway I'm not American; doesn't bother me if this 19 year old gets a fat check from the taxpayer because she stood in front of two women in her underwear and it "ruined her life". Since you're getting played for a fool I guess you might as well feel righteous about it.
If so, they should get a fucking warrant.
Are you completely insane? Teachers should need to get warrants to stop children dealing drugs in school? Is keeping kids in class false imprisonment/slavery too? When kids doodle on a desk should they stand trial and have to pay a fine?
There is absolutely *NO* excuse for school officials sexually abusing a 13-year-old.
So this is "sexual abuse" now? They didn't even make her take all her clothes off, and the search was done by women; some school admins suspected she had a certain drug, they checked her and found nothing. Why are you imagining some sort of sexual abuse?
I have a sneaking suspicion that if we saw a picture of this girl we'd have no more concerns about this being some bunch of perverts. Sounds like there was more than one of them, and they got her to show that she wasn't hiding anything rather than taking everything off.
Maybe they had good reason to search her (they were pretty specific about what they thought she had). I really think with some extra context you could see how they could have done this without needing to "have their skin peeled off with vegetable peelers."
I agree. I have a completely blind cat, and she gets around the house just fine, only running into stuff if I move furniture. It's really impressive to see, as she learns her environment the first time around. This article wasn't news to me.
YouTube it: Instant 5 million views.
How do you get you the install files for your old game?
You restore the game backups which Steam can take for you. I think you're more likely to scratch a CD than Valve is likely to go bust though, so I'd be more worried about getting backups of physical games.
And when you get a new computer next year and Valve is no longer around?
You restore the game backups which Steam can take for you, and look back in amazement at how a thriving company tanked so quickly.
You must have a pretty poor collection then.. I don't know how people can get so worked up over $20.
Before Steam piracy was often about what a pain CDs are, swapping them out and in, "I need to use nocd cracks anyway because of CDs" etc. Now it's about DRM, and I think next it'll be about the source being proprietary. "I'd pay money for this, I just refuse to on moral grounds"
I'm not "rabid", I like steam, I just honestly don't see what this allows me to do that I couldn't before, or even why they benefit. If the idea is "we encrypt the game with your key" what happens when someone decrypts it?
There's more to it than that. If I make a wrapper for a text file that lets me find and delete rows that's not really a database. (It only becomes a database when I call it TextDB and package it with an AJAX API)
Microsoft will say during a downturn no-one will want to invest in training and software migration, and can make up some TCO numbers anyway..
My HP Pavilion dv5 1139tx has more or less equivalent hardware to the MBP, but when I checked online the MBP cost ~A$4000 whereas the dv5 cost ~$2100
But, if you want to put a billion records into a database, and sleep at night, there's only one game in town, and that's Oracle
The largest database I maintain for a site I coded has 15 billion records atm and it's doing fine in MySQL, with a relatively busy daily peak time with well over 100 users, all on shared hosting.
/., etc, etc all using free databases for big work too, so I think your attitude is a bit dated.
In fact the only problem I've had with database growth was when an auto incrementing ID went over ~2 billion in MySQL, which put it over PHP's 2^32-1 integer limit.
And yup this all has to do locking and transactions, not just MyISAM with basic queries.
My personal experience counts for nothing of course but Google,
Oops, I see
B-b-but mom and pop stores can crash.. Why not AIG?
Yeah! Isn't it suspicious how the big problems were just reaching their crescendo as Obama came into power? What a disaster he has caused.
He won't be saying "blame me" when the people have impeached him and drank his blood!!
Help us: The system is broken but we need a person to blame
At least we've now compiled a list of URL which returns an offensive web-page.
I think you're doing far too much holding of thought. In 30-40 years (best case, from a scientist who ran JET, who also supported fission as a worthwhile intermediate power supply) when the first fusion plants are rolling out we'll be half way down the IPCC's disastrous "business-as-usual" scenario, and we'll have to hope there's still enough political stability to get fusion technology to everyone.
There you go with the "varying degrees" thing again. It's the language of someone who wants to make something sound serious without knowing or committing to whether or not it actually was.
I've become very skeptical of stories of nuclear leaks because of stuff like this. It always turns out to be extremely low level stuff, or it leaked into a larger container.
Yesterday I found a nuclear power controversy sub-section which said "millions of gallons of tritium were leaked, but nothing was said about it for years", but millions of gallons of tritium doesn't exist, and it turned out that the water leak contained so little tritium that it was hundreds of times below background radiation levels.
Then you have absurdities like Yucca; a functional waste dump in the side of a mountain which environmentalists won't use, requiring the waste to be kept at plants. If the power company detects a waste leak (of any severity) the environmentalists won't consider that the waste could have been securely buried in a specialized facility; it'll be an example of why we should abandon nuclear power.
This isn't ignoring stuff on the drawing board, this is snubbing actual implemented projects; insanity!
However I don't know of any spilled waste incident that would have had serious environmental effects. I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be any which go beyond other sorts of dumps and wastes, or the huge numbers of nuclear tests we conducted.
Also there are good solutions "on the drawing board" for dealing with fission waste products. Why discount these? Why wait and hope fusion's drawing board ideas bear fruit? Why is waiting for a waste disposal technology unacceptable, while waiting for the development of an entire power source is perfectly acceptable? Can't you see the double-standard here??
You've stated elsewhere that you'd rather see CO2 producing power than fission waste, because we don't know how to eliminate fission waste or that it's expensive etc. I'd say this is a dismissive attitude.
But you're willing to build fusion reactors when we're not sure what sort of waste it'll produce and how it'll have to be handled, or many of the other outcomes that the research will determine. This seems to be a try-and-see attitude; maybe it'll be the perfect power source and it's worth a thorough investigation, which is my view also.
The fission waste problem, and the cost problem, are key areas of research into fission reactors, but you seem to put far less faith in R&D into fission than R&D into fusion. (Even though fission produces commercial power)
iiNet isn't a family friendly ISP but they're participating in the trial. Besides how can you say "The internet censorship system is not yet in place", then go on to list ISPs in which the filters are in place, then tell me to check my facts?
Also I'm more worried about this slowing down the net and making censorship much easier than making it harder to get porno. Thanks for suggesting "what [I] should be concerned about" though, I'll take that on board.
And we would take him at his word, why?
Because from a blocked ISP you can access the sites which are listed as blocked.
Not enough? -> Each ISP was given their own copy of the list over a year ago which is supposed to have restricted access to.
How could Conroy replace the list on the ISP filter system which the reporter decided to use to check the authenticity?
Still got a theory that fits the constraints? -> Several ISPs are in the trial to try and show that it isn't feasible, and are desperate to point out any suspicious activity. If it got leaked Conroy would risk everything for nothing to try and deny it with the help of ISPs.
If you still have a theory other than "fake list" you should make a video. Perhaps you'll be able to relate it to the mysterious disappearance of the Australian stimulus packages
Conroy and ISPs implementing the blacklist confirm that this is a fake:
:-(
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/19/2520929.htm
I read about this earlier today; news media really have to check WikiLeaks out carefully before reporting it.
I think the black-list is absurd, it's baffling that we can actually have censorship here in Australia, and my reps know how I feel at least. But I don't think stunts like this help
We get fined if we dump electronics. In the EU lead free solders have to be used. Sewage is *not* dump into rivers. Really what part of the developed nations are still doing this?
And even if they are, how the hell does that make dumpping more dangerous waste valid?
It doesn't, it makes it hypocritical to have such high standards for nuclear waste while no-one seems to care about any other sort of waste.
People dump fridges in sink-holes, don't properly dispose of their electronics and batteries, countries blew up islands to test nuclear weapons, we line our childrens' lungs with smoke ash, pump tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, fertilizer from farms leaks out, suffocates fish and destroys ecosystems, etc, etc..
But for nuclear waste secure, responsible disposal in a radiation absorbing medium in sealed casks in a dedicated underground concrete bunker isn't good enough: We have to be able to eradicate it somehow, or transform it into something which you could inject directly into your veins, and we have to be able to do it now, not store it now and do it later.
When "environmentalists" block a world-class waste storage facility built into a mountain, insisting the waste is cached at power plants across the US rather than buried, it seems more like a bizarre religion than environmentalism
I don't? where did i say that? And as others have noted its LOW level waste from a fusion plant. And we can even tune how low. This is what ITER is about.
As I understand Iter is about finding out what medium should be used to capture the neutron flux for conversion into energy. A pretty major question which a lot will ride on; how much radiation will it produce when irradiated, how much heat will it generate, how long will it last, etc?
Hopefully Iter will give some answers, but at the moment there is definitely nothing to say that it'll be low-level waste. (In fact I usually hear advocates claim it'd be high-level waste with a low half-life.)
Simple. You get that part of the cost *when* they start to decommission it. There is not that much data on civilian plants getting decommission at this stage, so the cost are hard to estimate. Really there has been very little true commercial nuclear plants build. They have been tied up with a lot of military interests and subsidies.
France exports 18% of the energy it produces in its reactors (ironically to anti-nuclear pro-renewable neighbors like Germany), plus it exports plenty of reactors too, makes billions, and factors the decommissioning and waste storage costs in (even taking them to be 15% and 10% of the cost of construction respectively).
It is difficult to say how much they cost, the French power company only became partly public recently. But they made a push for nuclear during the 70's oil crisis, at the same time just about everyone did, so it does seem unlikely that it was uneconomical.
Same goes for US plants, which were bought by private companies and are also seeing huge profits, upgrading&refitting plants and getting licenses renewed, making money and pushing forward with the next generation of reactors.
Again calculating the costs is hard, and the next generation will require subsidies to compete with coal, but it has gone from a government business to a government sponsored business. If you take the subsidies in the context of the costs of global warming, and the conservative estimates usually given for the lifetime of a plant, the economics look good.
Most of all the shares are up and governments around the world are making U-turns on nuclear policy. If it's not economical then what are they all doing?
Why do you have a "let's try and see" attitude to the economic viability of a power source decades away, but a dismissive attitude towards testing the viability of a power source has had far more development time and R&D?
Definitely not bad, but why not add another 20B to move 20-40GW of power production over to a carbon-free alternative in the meantime? (Which won't be a huge amount more than new carbon sources which we would need anyway.)
"Hope for the best, plan for the worst." "Don't put your eggs in one basket." All that stuff.
But yes there uptime have been fixed more or less and they are proven and cheaper than R&D. But that doesn't mean we should avoid the R&D.
Agreed
Really is it so hard to see that trading CO2 for nuclear waste that has no long term plaining solutions is not a net gain?
Surely trading a potential future problem, which can be solved at any point up until the end of civilization, for a currently occurring problem that is starting to change world right now is a no brainer?