The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb
Acquiring a lot of radioactive material is easy. Acquiring enough to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction is hard. Initiating it on demand is properly difficult.
I could build a dirty bomb. Shit, I could self-fund one. I couldn't get remotely fucking close to a fission bomb, let alone a fusion one.
..uses his first rate university education to safely procure, manipulate and build an explosive device using highly radioactive isotopes and nukes your pathetic racist ignorance.
Really, are you this big a cunt off the internet too?
the immigration from outside the EU, allowed by their own government, is the largest part of recent immigration
On balance I don't think it's the largest part, but the numbers are both (EU vs non-EU) the same order of magnitude.
That was started under the Blair government but hasn't been addressed by Cameron. My understanding is that Labour wanted high immigration as that wins them votes. The Conservatives want high immigration as that keeps the economy growing.
I'd rather take slower economic growth and avoid the increased pressure on public services and simple physical space.
Over the six/seven year period from 2007 to 2013 your source states the UK received EUR8.8bn
In 2014 the UK contributed a net (so taking into account the 2014 addition to your stat above) GBP9.8bn to the EU. (source: Treasury White Paper on European Union finances 2015)
So basically one year's net contribution would cover six years of science funding.
The UK very clearly does not get more out than it puts in. Please stop lying.
Why do you think they're so keen on EU membership now that the English are responding to their constant hatred by questioning the subsidies they receive.
ove to an EU country. The UK funding having been gutted wouldn't be able to take up the slack so many research labs would be forced to shut. The scientists will follow the work, moving to EU countries. By the time the UK funding is brought up to scratch ( say 5-10 years depending on economy and political will etc)
About 5 minutes, by re-routing a subset of the UK contribution to the EU funding. Which, incidentally, means that EU based scientists would get less funding because the EU would have lost one of its biggest cash cows and wouldn't be able to hand out bribes for publicity.
You want us to take budget analysis from the organisation that can't even properly track how it spends its own budget?
Losing EU funding for science is a complete non-issue for any net contributor to the EU. It's the little countries that are getting substantial net handouts and whose citizens are sending home British benefits payments that will lose out and I'm kind of relaxed about that.
They'll get richer through trade. How about we just trade with them?
All-out European war is more likely if the EU continues on its current undemocratic course, although it's more likely to represent a combination of civil war and genocide than a purely military conflict.
There's a limit to how long you can keep telling people they have to pay for everybody else to enjoy a lifestyle they can't themselves enjoy.
There are over 2 million British people living in the EU who would be forced to apply for visas or return if we did. The flood of millions of unemployed, often retired and dependent on benefits, and in need of housing would cause some pretty severe problems.
There are over 2 million non-British people working in Britain at the moment, so even retaining your inherently flawed assumption that everybody would be kicked out of their current country of abode there'd be plenty of jobs to go around.
Net migration is at the 'over 300,000 people a year coming into the UK' level. Even if all 2 million return and nobody leaves it would represent less than five fucking years of net immigration.
So to recap: Your absolute worse-case doom laden scenario represents just five fucking years of 'keep doing what we do now' and you wonder why some people fancy trying a new approach.
Look you ignorant fuckwit, Britain is one of the - if not the - least xenophobic countries on the planet.
The UK did multicultural long before it was even a word, has strong trading relationships globally and incorporates other cultures with confidence and ease.
Try living in France while Muslim. Try living in Greece while Indian. Try living in Poland while black. Try living in Germany while Jewish if you really want to go that route.
Is there even the remotest chance that the fucking Europhiles could try engaging in the referendum debate using facts and not spurious insults and generalities? It might help me avoid having to respond in kind.
It's possible to want to be a sovereign nation, to set your own laws, control your own borders and support your native workers and at the very same fucking time think that foreign trade is a tremendous thing and there should be a lot of it
These are not mutually exclusive concepts and indeed represent the exact approach during much of a very successful period in British history.
Well aren't you just a sweetheart with your name calling and ignorance.
Check the population density in England. Consider the treatment capacity of the NHS. Look at wage growth rates. Try and find an affordable flat within walking distance of the City.
Fuck xenophobia and you're the only cunt mentioning race. The country is full. The population is too high.
If you love people from other countries that much just fucking go and live with them. Don't bring them into my overcrowded country.
I could write a full knowledge base article explaining why in technical terminology but I can summarise my point in four words that any Slashdot reader can easily grok.
Windows updates are no different. "Fixes remote access bug" is easy for users to understand. "Installs annoying fucking popup" is easy to understand. "Improves windows update" is a fucking lie, dishonest and fraudulent.
Sorry, yes. I meant it's well within current commercial airliner technology bounds; the lack of a London to Sydney non-stop flight reflects the relative demand/cost equation.
While everybody is rightly mocking the DA for being an idiot, the term Cyber Pathogen is actually a pretty good one.
It encompasses the whole range of naughty software. A Cyber Pathogen could be a trojan, a virus, a worm, ransomware, adware, some other form of malware. It's the catch-all term that acknowledges all of these are nasty and it doesn't really matter which specific flavour of nastiness it is.
I'd class it as a superset of malware. A worm isn't really malware, for instance.
Or just have it last longer than a day, which is perpetual as long as any powered craft is concerned: show me a commercial plane that stays up 20 hours or more.
Given commercial airliners are already capable of 15+ hour journeys with a full load of passengers I suspect switching all those seats, people and luggage for additional fuel would make 20 hours easily viable.
Slashdot Mirror
One in a billion? Sure, sounds low odds.
There are 7 billion people on the planet. That one in a billion is rather more likely all of a sudden.
Low individual probabilities start to add up at a population scale. But do keep talking total shit if it helps your ego.
The amount of radioactive material required to build a dirty bomb that actually did something would exceed the amount needed to build a real bomb
Acquiring a lot of radioactive material is easy.
Acquiring enough to initiate an uncontrolled fission reaction is hard. Initiating it on demand is properly difficult.
I could build a dirty bomb. Shit, I could self-fund one. I couldn't get remotely fucking close to a fission bomb, let alone a fusion one.
erm, no. He said Israel.
There's a difference you racist fuck.
Habeeb the Disgruntled Raghead
..uses his first rate university education to safely procure, manipulate and build an explosive device using highly radioactive isotopes and nukes your pathetic racist ignorance.
Really, are you this big a cunt off the internet too?
the immigration from outside the EU, allowed by their own government, is the largest part of recent immigration
On balance I don't think it's the largest part, but the numbers are both (EU vs non-EU) the same order of magnitude.
That was started under the Blair government but hasn't been addressed by Cameron. My understanding is that Labour wanted high immigration as that wins them votes. The Conservatives want high immigration as that keeps the economy growing.
I'd rather take slower economic growth and avoid the increased pressure on public services and simple physical space.
Over the six/seven year period from 2007 to 2013 your source states the UK received EUR8.8bn
In 2014 the UK contributed a net (so taking into account the 2014 addition to your stat above) GBP9.8bn to the EU. (source: Treasury White Paper on European Union finances 2015)
So basically one year's net contribution would cover six years of science funding.
The UK very clearly does not get more out than it puts in. Please stop lying.
Tim? Make an account, you have credibility and I miss your writing now that it's hidden behind a malware distributing firewall.
Still distressed that you no longer write for El Reg, however that happened to come about.
They do: EU handouts.
Why do you think they're so keen on EU membership now that the English are responding to their constant hatred by questioning the subsidies they receive.
ove to an EU country. The UK funding having been gutted wouldn't be able to take up the slack so many research labs would be forced to shut. The scientists will follow the work, moving to EU countries. By the time the UK funding is brought up to scratch ( say 5-10 years depending on economy and political will etc)
About 5 minutes, by re-routing a subset of the UK contribution to the EU funding. Which, incidentally, means that EU based scientists would get less funding because the EU would have lost one of its biggest cash cows and wouldn't be able to hand out bribes for publicity.
Sorry, I mean funding to Hawking and the BBC.
You want us to take budget analysis from the organisation that can't even properly track how it spends its own budget?
Losing EU funding for science is a complete non-issue for any net contributor to the EU. It's the little countries that are getting substantial net handouts and whose citizens are sending home British benefits payments that will lose out and I'm kind of relaxed about that.
They'll get richer through trade. How about we just trade with them?
All-out European war is more likely if the EU continues on its current undemocratic course, although it's more likely to represent a combination of civil war and genocide than a purely military conflict.
There's a limit to how long you can keep telling people they have to pay for everybody else to enjoy a lifestyle they can't themselves enjoy.
Have you ever tried to get a visa to immigrate to the UK from outside the EU? It's not at all easy
Yet over a hundred thousand people a year manage it.
http://www.migrationobservator...
There are over 2 million British people living in the EU who would be forced to apply for visas or return if we did. The flood of millions of unemployed, often retired and dependent on benefits, and in need of housing would cause some pretty severe problems.
There are over 2 million non-British people working in Britain at the moment, so even retaining your inherently flawed assumption that everybody would be kicked out of their current country of abode there'd be plenty of jobs to go around.
Net migration is at the 'over 300,000 people a year coming into the UK' level. Even if all 2 million return and nobody leaves it would represent less than five fucking years of net immigration.
So to recap: Your absolute worse-case doom laden scenario represents just five fucking years of 'keep doing what we do now' and you wonder why some people fancy trying a new approach.
an island of xenophobes
Look you ignorant fuckwit, Britain is one of the - if not the - least xenophobic countries on the planet.
The UK did multicultural long before it was even a word, has strong trading relationships globally and incorporates other cultures with confidence and ease.
Try living in France while Muslim. Try living in Greece while Indian. Try living in Poland while black. Try living in Germany while Jewish if you really want to go that route.
Is there even the remotest chance that the fucking Europhiles could try engaging in the referendum debate using facts and not spurious insults and generalities? It might help me avoid having to respond in kind.
It's possible to want to be a sovereign nation, to set your own laws, control your own borders and support your native workers and at the very same fucking time think that foreign trade is a tremendous thing and there should be a lot of it
These are not mutually exclusive concepts and indeed represent the exact approach during much of a very successful period in British history.
Well aren't you just a sweetheart with your name calling and ignorance.
Check the population density in England. Consider the treatment capacity of the NHS. Look at wage growth rates. Try and find an affordable flat within walking distance of the City.
Fuck xenophobia and you're the only cunt mentioning race. The country is full. The population is too high.
If you love people from other countries that much just fucking go and live with them. Don't bring them into my overcrowded country.
Bitching about MS and Windows is a Slashdot tradition. It'll only ever end the same way bitching about SCO did.
Hopefully.
You are a cunt.
I could write a full knowledge base article explaining why in technical terminology but I can summarise my point in four words that any Slashdot reader can easily grok.
Windows updates are no different. "Fixes remote access bug" is easy for users to understand. "Installs annoying fucking popup" is easy to understand. "Improves windows update" is a fucking lie, dishonest and fraudulent.
If someone else can access your data outside of your control, it is not secure.
Whether that data is transient on a stateless system or carved 3 inches deep into granite is irrelevant.
Without control over the access to data you have no security. The confidentiality is the outcome of exercising that control.
If you can't understand this then you may be in the wrong job.
If Microsoft have it, every tla in the US has it.
That's not secure.
Sorry, yes. I meant it's well within current commercial airliner technology bounds; the lack of a London to Sydney non-stop flight reflects the relative demand/cost equation.
While everybody is rightly mocking the DA for being an idiot, the term Cyber Pathogen is actually a pretty good one.
It encompasses the whole range of naughty software. A Cyber Pathogen could be a trojan, a virus, a worm, ransomware, adware, some other form of malware. It's the catch-all term that acknowledges all of these are nasty and it doesn't really matter which specific flavour of nastiness it is.
I'd class it as a superset of malware. A worm isn't really malware, for instance.
Or just have it last longer than a day, which is perpetual as long as any powered craft is concerned: show me a commercial plane that stays up 20 hours or more.
Given commercial airliners are already capable of 15+ hour journeys with a full load of passengers I suspect switching all those seats, people and luggage for additional fuel would make 20 hours easily viable.
Hardly 'perpetual'.
Well, until the Israelis turn up, clearly.
I only know one, and she's white and native to her home country.
May not be your country though.
They promise they'll only use them for severe crimes
Now that's unfair. Sometimes they're use them investigate crimes too.
(I know it's not funny. That's because it's not actually a joke.)