Also as with all advertising you avoid mentioning the downsides, such as that it took me 4 restarts of firefox before flash decided to to shit itself so I could watch the video.
I admit I'm not an expert, but I was under the impression that RAID was mainly about ensuring you a large number of spindles and some redundancy so you can serve data quickly even if a couple of drives fail while the servers are under pressure. Surely you would not rely on a RAID to avoid data loss since you should be keeping external backups anyway?
If you are that concerned about battery life that 2% from changing browser makes a difference then you should really consider using a more lightweight operating system. That would also allow you to run with decent performance on hardware better optimized for low power consumption.
Effectively your argument boils down to "Sweden has a lower population thus it is not as expensive to power it". Problem is that we also have correspondingly less GDP to spend on power egneration.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this bit though: "We all want to pursue fission, it's less waste producing that burning coal but you've got fanatic green fucktards who lobby against it..."
Sweden gets 50% of electricity, and a quarter of our energy, from fission which largely explains our much lower CO2 emitted per capita. There's no partiuclar reason the US could not scale its nuclear generation capacity. Where I don't agree with you however is that this is caused largely by opposition by green groups. In reality nuclear is not favoured by American utilities because coal is cheaper. Cap and Trade "fixes" that by making coal more expensive. This does indeed raise energy costs, but guess what. Moving the entire US electricity production from fossils to low carbons oruces will cost money no matter how you look at it. If you ban or cap fossils the money will come from increased energy prices. If you continue business as usual then the cost will be even harsher when you are eventually forced to make the switch.
Btw, my argument was never that implementing cap and trade will not cost Americans money. My argument was that to conclude from this that there are nefarious motives behind politicians decision to implement the scheme does not follow. The US government may be doing a lot of things wrong, but the decision to start taxing fossils is not one of them and they are far from the only country doing it.
Why do you think that is? Because they can sit here and tax the US citizens for using oil, and quite dramatically at that, to get lots and lots of money -- but do you honestly think any of that money will come back to us?
Ok genious, explain why the present Swedish government has implemented a cap and trade system for CO2 and SIMULTANEOUSLY lowered the overall tax burden, precisely as they promised during the election.
Yup, you got that right, a party that went to election with the promise to lower taxes has implemented sharp taxation on CO2 without breaking their election promise of lowering the overall taxation level. Of course never mind us over here across the pond. The fact that we cut our CO2 emissions at the same time as we reduce our taxation pressure is obviously consistent with your deluded idea that this fuss about global warming is just about taxing Americans. Yea that's right, we are dramatically transforming our European economies just so your politicians can tax you. Makes perfect sense doesn't it ?
Can somebody explain precisely why this woman was not prosecuted under charges of harassment, mental abuse or similar ? Did some lawyer screw up, is the prosecution being twats or is the law just so weird that deliberately trying to hurt somebody by lying to them with the specific intention to cause harm is not criminal?
Don't get me wrong, charging her for violating a ToS was bullshit, but I just don't see why what she did would not be a violation of at least some other law. Libel, slander and bashing ethnic minorities is illegal, so why is deliberately trying to hurt a minor through carefully targeted verbal abuse, lies and harassment not? That it happened over the Internet is surely tangential to the real issue here, which is that a very cruel woman set out to mentally abuse a child.
Anyone who lives in a northern clime can tell you how the first snow after a warm period tends not to stick well.
Yet another reason why it would be better to build the cells as a roof above the road as I mentioned in a post further down this thread. Then you can give the cells a slight tilt and use electric heating to only melt a tiny layer of snow beneath them, causing the rest of it to slide off.
Build a roof of solar panels above the road instead. It has loads of advantages:
a)You don't get a load of dirt all over the cells thus reducing efficiency
b)The cells would actually help protect the road from rain and snow, thus reducing wear and tear on the road surface substantially.
c)The cells would be easy to clean since there is no traffic blocking access to it. You could even automate it by having a robotic vehicle drive on top of the roof without disturbing traffic. This is probably a good reason why solar cells could actually work if built this way. One of the huge problems they have elsewhere is the cost of the systems to clean the cells.
d)Reduced accidents due to super-cooled rain not hitting the road surface
e)It would most likely be an order of magnitude cheaper than the article's brain dead idea.
that doesn't make it math any more than a student "is" math when using a calculator.
It's all maths. Physics, Language, Music, Philosophy, Reality, Dreams, Fantazy... It may not look like it at first sight, but in some sense everything that can be said to be can be described in terms of mathematics.
The implication is that patents is a poor way to try to stimulate consumption of goods and services with positive externalities.
If they are taking hormones to support their neurosis then that'd likely count as 'doping' and they'd be banned for being a 'drug cheat'.
Otherwise they should enter events based on what you'd see when looking at their nuclei under the microscope.
From wikipedia:
Once a common psychiatric diagnosis, the term is no longer part of mainstream psychiatric terminology in the United States, though it continues to be employed in psychoanalytic theory and practice, and in various other theoretical disciplines.
Again, it's not that damn simple. Even if you start excluding anybody on HRT what about intersex individuals where you literally can't tell if they are biologically male or female. People who have dual chromosome sets, ambiguous genitalia and "in between" hormone levels ? You can try to call us ill or deviant or whatever you like but at teh end of the day sex is very much a grayscale and even those who insist it should be binary don't agree on HOW to do the split.
Kick them in the nuts really hard. If they don't fold over in pain and whimper an octave higher, they're female.
As a transsexual I can inform you that destroying/removing the the testicles does not result in your voice going higher in pitch once it has dropped. The larynx grow bigger under influence by testosterone, but it does not shrink again when testosterone is removed, nor does it do so under influence of oestrogen. Furthermore the difference in pitch between men and women is less than a full octave, which is why many transsexuals are still able to achieve a reasonably passable voice through voice training.
I suspect there will be a bunch of posts suggesting a simple genetic test will determine somebody's gender, but these tests were abandoned precisely because there are numerous cases where they fail. To mention a few examples:
Complete Androgen Insensitivity: There's a number of people with XY chromosome genotype for which teh cells don't respond to testosterone. These individuals develop as women, and because they don't even respond to the very slight amount of testosterone women have they can actually be more feminine in physical terms than XX women. Many don't even know about their condition especially sicne the sign that usually reveals it ( lack of menstruation ) is easily mistaken as being caused by the exercise many athletes undergo.
Chromosome variations: Not all peopel are XY or XX in chromosomes. There's Klinefelter ( XXY ) , Mosaics ( where some cells have one chromosome setup and some another ), and chimeras ( where different cells not only had different chromosome setups but the entire genotype can vary from cell to cell ).
Hormonal Variation: Genetics is only part of what determines your sex. Even if you have XY chromosomes that only really affects the pre-puberty development of your genitals. The other sex differences ( secondary sex characteristics ) are down to hormonal influences. This is why transsexuals that go on hormone replacement therapy and have their gonads removed through sex reassignment surgery develop characteristics similar to tehri desired sex ( breast development in Male-to-female transsexuals, facial hair and muscle growth in Female-to-male transsexuals etc... ). This of course brings me to the next point...
Transsexualism: Just like people can develop ambiguous genitals or chromosomes, some people develop a psychological gender similar to the opposite biological sex. It's not known exactly why this occurs, but it is currently believed to be neurological in origin ( i.e you could have people with a male brain in a female body or the other way around ). Often these individuals will undergo hormone replacement therapy in order to make their bodies more congruent with their psychological gender ( the only known effective treatment, attempting to resolve the situation with psychotherapy typically fails and has frequently resulted in suicides ). Male to female transsexuals tend to lose upper body strength while on hormones, female to male ones gain it. Thus classifying these individuals on the basis of genetics rather than their hormonal status would stick people with male muscle development among female competitors and vice versa.
Essentially your performance in sports is more closely linked to hormonal factors ( and how your body respond to them ) than genetics, and thus a karyotype test is a rally poor way to classify competitors. Believe it or not but you get people with XX chromosomes that have more testosterone than the average man, and conversely XY individuals with female Oestrogen and progesterone levels. What is more is that in some cases the individual in question is not even aware of their genotype and it has happened before that female athletes have been shocked to find out they have Y chromosomes.
Protesting racial segregation laws is fine. Protesting against rules that a private business sets for behavior on their own property is a ridiculous idea.
Take some time to think through what you just wrote.
I just tried it with an old and broken drive from a laptop of mine. Took a standards screwdriver, bent the protective casing away and took a stab at the drive platters. Turns out this particular one was ceramic ( or maybe it's some form of glass I can't quite tell ) and was easily broken. Now if I really wanted to I could dissolve the coating in battery acid or melt it or whatever, but quite frankly I doubt an attacker would bother trying to read data of the 10x10mm pieces that are left.
So if sell someone a box with a linux distribution installed on it do I need to print out all of that distribution's source code and ship it with the computer as well? If I make software that runs on a linux distribution and set linux to run that software at boot-up does that mean I'm really altering linux itself?
If you sell somebody a box with linux on it you need to at the minimum include a statement in the user manual which more or less says "This box has some GPL licensed software installed on it. You can obtain the source-code from the following website and you are free to modify it under certain conditions. Please see the complete license for more details."
Alternatively you can include a CD with the source code, or load the source code into the box's harddrive ( provided it is readily retrievable ). Basically you just need to make the customer aware you use GPL software on the box and tell them how to obtain the source code from you. There's various ways to do that but the easiest is probably to either include the source on a CD or to upload it to your website and tell the customer they can retrieve it from there. The main problem with the latter approach is that the GPL requires you to keep the source available for some years (can't remember how many ) and thus you may find it easier to just give the user a CD with the source code since you are then not obliged to keep a server running.
The difference is that while the windows fanboys are serious about it, the similar comments about BSD in this thread were quite clearly jokes. Seriously nobody denies that this is a serious bug, nor do I think you will find many people ( even Linux developers ) who deny that OpenBSD is one of the most secure general purpose operating systems there is. You do however have some people who have clarified exactly what problems this bug does and does not cause. In case you didn't catch it already I'll summarise:
-This bug on its own does not cause a remote exploit
-However, If you are running a service, and that service has an exploit in it, then this bug could allow an attacker remote root access.
-This bug could allow programs that are run without root privileges to obtain them, and this is a serious issue on multi-user set-ups.
-If you really must compare it to windows then Windows XP in its default configuration allows programs to do this BY DESIGN
So basically. Yes it is a very serious bug. Yes the fact that XP is retarded enough to allow this thing by default is not a reason for Linux users to be complacent. No this does not mean that Linux is not a lot more secure than windows.
A good heater shouldn't require more than around 1.5 kilowatts, the size of a space heater that can keep a small room toasty. The Volt's engine is rated at 111 kilowatts.
So running the heater shouldn't cost more than around 1% of your total range.
This is assuming you don't use a heat pump for improved efficiency. A good heat pump can have a coefficient of performance close to 3-4, so you would only need about 500W of electricity to move 1.5kW of heat, meaning it would impact your range less than 0.5%. In addition while electric engines are more efficient petrol ones, even if we assume 95% efficiency it is still plenty of waste heat to heat your car.
"Here's your password. Store it and keep it in a safe place ( your wallet is a good place ) so you don't forget it. If you lose it or think somebody else may have seen it, let me know and I'll give you a new one."
Ok, so some users may stick a post it on their screen, but that is still miles better than having a login with "password" remotely accessible.
OMG breeder reactor! Yes, yes of course! Breeder reactors make nuclear waste a GOOD THING by using it for fuel, and producing LESS but MORE DEADLY waste! And when the breeder reactor's owners don't have the money to clean it up after its usefulness has run its course, well... lemmie read that wiki again... yes! yes of course! MORE breeder reactors will fix even that!
Normally I would not be so blunt but quite frankly you started this one:
a)It is clear you don't understand how the energy produced in a nuclear reactor correlates to the quantity of fission products produced. b)It is clear you have no idea about what properties breeder reactor waste have and how it compares to regular nuclear waste. c)It is clear you don't understand how breeder reactors work or what impact the destruction of the transuranics would have on repository capacity and requirements.
For your ( and other's ) information this is how it works:
Nuclear reactors produce energy by splitting nuclei. If they split relatively safe Uranium or the much more toxic and dangerous alpha emitters ( such as neptunium and plutonium ) does not really matter in energy terms since the energy produced in each fission is about the same. As it happens the elements that make nuclear waste storage problematic are all very heavy transuranics that are alpha emitters since these decay with a halflife of a few thousand years. The problem is that even thousands of years from now they produce enough heat to potentially melt the fuel rods if you don't allow sufficient separation between them. It is this heat that limits how much radioactive waste you can store in a given space.
Thus if instead of splitting uranium you recycle and split these heavy transuranics you only end up with comparatively short lived fission products. It is true that the fission products initially has a higher radioativity than the transuranics, but the amount of fission products you get is exactly the same as if you ahd been splitting uranium. Thus by splitting the troublesome transuranics rather than uranium you end up with the same amount of fission products ( for a given amount of energy ), but you don't get any transuranics. I'll repeat that to make sure you got it:
Regardless of reactor design the quantity of fission products is the same for a given quantity of energy. The energy produced is directly proportional to the number of fissions that occur (and consequentially the amount of fission products in the waste. However, while regular reactors produce long lived transuranics that need to be safely stored for thousands of years, breeders only produce the fission products ( the same quantity as regular reactors would produce for the same energy ) and thus their waste reaches the same levels of radioactivity as uranium-ore within approximately 300 years.
Your assertion that the waste becomes more dangerous after recycled in a breeder reactor presumably refers to the fact that the radioactivity of the fission products is higher than that of the actinides. However as I mentioned above the quantity of fission products is no greater than it would have been for uranium. Also many of the fission products are so radioactive that they very rapidly decay to stable compounds that are not troublesome. Some of them have half-lives of minutes or even seconds, and after just a short period of storage they are less radioactive than what the actinides would have been. More importantly however is that the overall heat generation decreases rapidly and since you keep recycling the uranium you reduce the waste volume by almost a factor of 100. Because of these reductions in heat generation and volume, storing all the waste a power plant would produce within the 300 years it takes for breeder waste to decay is quite feasible to do on-site. Or in other words:
A breeder reactor produces so small quantities of waste that it would take much longer to fill the plant's storage facilities than it would take for the waste to decay to safe
Every time you add salt to a glass of water, the temperature of the water increases. Imperceptibly, to most people, but the water actually heats up. That experiment is usually a lab in a physical chemistry/thermodynamics class.
Quite the contrary, salt crystals are very ordered systems with low entropy and dissolving them in water thus results in a temperature decrease. This is how cooling packs you find in first aid kits work. They contain a bag of water and pellets of ammonium nitrate salt. When you break the water bag inside the pellets will dissolve in the water causing the pack to cool down. Depending on the salt and amount of water used the temperature drop can be quite large and care must thus be taken so you don't cause frost burn by applying the pack for too long.
The usual trick for this is to use an "exploding wire" detonator.
These days there is better ones called "slappers", and they are nto just used for nukes but mining operations benefit from reliable and safe detonators too. Wikipedia has a nice article on it which also cowers the use of lasers for setting of explosives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slapper_detonator
Forget holding a vacuum; properly designed, they can stand up to 100x atmospheric pressure against a total vacuum and not break a sweat.
That's all well and good but you're not dealing with a setup where a single dust spec will ruin everything. Ultra high vacuum systems don't merely need to hold the pressure, they need to ensure that nothing ( not even slightly too many helium atoms ) can diffuse into the system. To get a basic idea of what is needed of these systems, leaving fingerprints is an absolute no-go since the low pressure will cause the water to evaporate contaminating your setup. Also forget o-rings made out of rubber or any other polymer based material. They are too porous and allow stuff to diffuse through them. The o-rings used in practice for helium tight vacuum systems will be made of a metal alloy that has been carefully picked to be soft enough that you can squeeze it slightly (but not too much ).
Essentially while your scuba gear may be holding a very large pressure that's not quite the same thing as ensuring that it does not have a single atomic scale leak. It's a bit like comparing a fog-horn to a powerful amplifier and then proclaiming the amplifier must be primitive since the foghorn is louder.
Slashdot Mirror
Boring claims nobody bothers listening to don't sell stuff. If you want advertising you want to catch people's attention.
Something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI-ye1oa4N8&feature=related
Also as with all advertising you avoid mentioning the downsides, such as that it took me 4 restarts of firefox before flash decided to to shit itself so I could watch the video.
I admit I'm not an expert, but I was under the impression that RAID was mainly about ensuring you a large number of spindles and some redundancy so you can serve data quickly even if a couple of drives fail while the servers are under pressure. Surely you would not rely on a RAID to avoid data loss since you should be keeping external backups anyway?
If you are that concerned about battery life that 2% from changing browser makes a difference then you should really consider using a more lightweight operating system. That would also allow you to run with decent performance on hardware better optimized for low power consumption.
Effectively your argument boils down to "Sweden has a lower population thus it is not as expensive to power it". Problem is that we also have correspondingly less GDP to spend on power egneration.
I think you hit the nail on the head with this bit though:
"We all want to pursue fission, it's less waste producing that burning coal but you've got fanatic green fucktards who lobby against it..."
Sweden gets 50% of electricity, and a quarter of our energy, from fission which largely explains our much lower CO2 emitted per capita. There's no partiuclar reason the US could not scale its nuclear generation capacity. Where I don't agree with you however is that this is caused largely by opposition by green groups. In reality nuclear is not favoured by American utilities because coal is cheaper. Cap and Trade "fixes" that by making coal more expensive. This does indeed raise energy costs, but guess what. Moving the entire US electricity production from fossils to low carbons oruces will cost money no matter how you look at it. If you ban or cap fossils the money will come from increased energy prices. If you continue business as usual then the cost will be even harsher when you are eventually forced to make the switch.
Btw, my argument was never that implementing cap and trade will not cost Americans money. My argument was that to conclude from this that there are nefarious motives behind politicians decision to implement the scheme does not follow. The US government may be doing a lot of things wrong, but the decision to start taxing fossils is not one of them and they are far from the only country doing it.
Ok genious, explain why the present Swedish government has implemented a cap and trade system for CO2 and SIMULTANEOUSLY lowered the overall tax burden, precisely as they promised during the election.
Yup, you got that right, a party that went to election with the promise to lower taxes has implemented sharp taxation on CO2 without breaking their election promise of lowering the overall taxation level. Of course never mind us over here across the pond. The fact that we cut our CO2 emissions at the same time as we reduce our taxation pressure is obviously consistent with your deluded idea that this fuss about global warming is just about taxing Americans. Yea that's right, we are dramatically transforming our European economies just so your politicians can tax you. Makes perfect sense doesn't it ?
Can somebody explain precisely why this woman was not prosecuted under charges of harassment, mental abuse or similar ? Did some lawyer screw up, is the prosecution being twats or is the law just so weird that deliberately trying to hurt somebody by lying to them with the specific intention to cause harm is not criminal?
Don't get me wrong, charging her for violating a ToS was bullshit, but I just don't see why what she did would not be a violation of at least some other law. Libel, slander and bashing ethnic minorities is illegal, so why is deliberately trying to hurt a minor through carefully targeted verbal abuse, lies and harassment not? That it happened over the Internet is surely tangential to the real issue here, which is that a very cruel woman set out to mentally abuse a child.
Yet another reason why it would be better to build the cells as a roof above the road as I mentioned in a post further down this thread. Then you can give the cells a slight tilt and use electric heating to only melt a tiny layer of snow beneath them, causing the rest of it to slide off.
Build a roof of solar panels above the road instead. It has loads of advantages:
a)You don't get a load of dirt all over the cells thus reducing efficiency
b)The cells would actually help protect the road from rain and snow, thus reducing wear and tear on the road surface substantially.
c)The cells would be easy to clean since there is no traffic blocking access to it. You could even automate it by having a robotic vehicle drive on top of the roof without disturbing traffic. This is probably a good reason why solar cells could actually work if built this way. One of the huge problems they have elsewhere is the cost of the systems to clean the cells.
d)Reduced accidents due to super-cooled rain not hitting the road surface
e)It would most likely be an order of magnitude cheaper than the article's brain dead idea.
It's all maths. Physics, Language, Music, Philosophy, Reality, Dreams, Fantazy... It may not look like it at first sight, but in some sense everything that can be said to be can be described in terms of mathematics.
The implication is that patents is a poor way to try to stimulate consumption of goods and services with positive externalities.
From wikipedia:
As a transsexual I can inform you that destroying/removing the the testicles does not result in your voice going higher in pitch once it has dropped. The larynx grow bigger under influence by testosterone, but it does not shrink again when testosterone is removed, nor does it do so under influence of oestrogen. Furthermore the difference in pitch between men and women is less than a full octave, which is why many transsexuals are still able to achieve a reasonably passable voice through voice training.
I suspect there will be a bunch of posts suggesting a simple genetic test will determine somebody's gender, but these tests were abandoned precisely because there are numerous cases where they fail. To mention a few examples:
Complete Androgen Insensitivity:
There's a number of people with XY chromosome genotype for which teh cells don't respond to testosterone. These individuals develop as women, and because they don't even respond to the very slight amount of testosterone women have they can actually be more feminine in physical terms than XX women. Many don't even know about their condition especially sicne the sign that usually reveals it ( lack of menstruation ) is easily mistaken as being caused by the exercise many athletes undergo.
Chromosome variations:
Not all peopel are XY or XX in chromosomes. There's Klinefelter ( XXY ) , Mosaics ( where some cells have one chromosome setup and some another ), and chimeras ( where different cells not only had different chromosome setups but the entire genotype can vary from cell to cell ).
Hormonal Variation:
Genetics is only part of what determines your sex. Even if you have XY chromosomes that only really affects the pre-puberty development of your genitals. The other sex differences ( secondary sex characteristics ) are down to hormonal influences. This is why transsexuals that go on hormone replacement therapy and have their gonads removed through sex reassignment surgery develop characteristics similar to tehri desired sex ( breast development in Male-to-female transsexuals, facial hair and muscle growth in Female-to-male transsexuals etc... ). This of course brings me to the next point...
Transsexualism:
Just like people can develop ambiguous genitals or chromosomes, some people develop a psychological gender similar to the opposite biological sex. It's not known exactly why this occurs, but it is currently believed to be neurological in origin ( i.e you could have people with a male brain in a female body or the other way around ). Often these individuals will undergo hormone replacement therapy in order to make their bodies more congruent with their psychological gender ( the only known effective treatment, attempting to resolve the situation with psychotherapy typically fails and has frequently resulted in suicides ). Male to female transsexuals tend to lose upper body strength while on hormones, female to male ones gain it. Thus classifying these individuals on the basis of genetics rather than their hormonal status would stick people with male muscle development among female competitors and vice versa.
Essentially your performance in sports is more closely linked to hormonal factors ( and how your body respond to them ) than genetics, and thus a karyotype test is a rally poor way to classify competitors. Believe it or not but you get people with XX chromosomes that have more testosterone than the average man, and conversely XY individuals with female Oestrogen and progesterone levels. What is more is that in some cases the individual in question is not even aware of their genotype and it has happened before that female athletes have been shocked to find out they have Y chromosomes.
Take some time to think through what you just wrote.
Fixed it for you.
I just tried it with an old and broken drive from a laptop of mine. Took a standards screwdriver, bent the protective casing away and took a stab at the drive platters. Turns out this particular one was ceramic ( or maybe it's some form of glass I can't quite tell ) and was easily broken. Now if I really wanted to I could dissolve the coating in battery acid or melt it or whatever, but quite frankly I doubt an attacker would bother trying to read data of the 10x10mm pieces that are left.
If you sell somebody a box with linux on it you need to at the minimum include a statement in the user manual which more or less says "This box has some GPL licensed software installed on it. You can obtain the source-code from the following website and you are free to modify it under certain conditions. Please see the complete license for more details."
Alternatively you can include a CD with the source code, or load the source code into the box's harddrive ( provided it is readily retrievable ). Basically you just need to make the customer aware you use GPL software on the box and tell them how to obtain the source code from you. There's various ways to do that but the easiest is probably to either include the source on a CD or to upload it to your website and tell the customer they can retrieve it from there. The main problem with the latter approach is that the GPL requires you to keep the source available for some years (can't remember how many ) and thus you may find it easier to just give the user a CD with the source code since you are then not obliged to keep a server running.
The difference is that while the windows fanboys are serious about it, the similar comments about BSD in this thread were quite clearly jokes. Seriously nobody denies that this is a serious bug, nor do I think you will find many people ( even Linux developers ) who deny that OpenBSD is one of the most secure general purpose operating systems there is. You do however have some people who have clarified exactly what problems this bug does and does not cause. In case you didn't catch it already I'll summarise:
-This bug on its own does not cause a remote exploit
-However, If you are running a service, and that service has an exploit in it, then this bug could allow an attacker remote root access.
-This bug could allow programs that are run without root privileges to obtain them, and this is a serious issue on multi-user set-ups.
-If you really must compare it to windows then Windows XP in its default configuration allows programs to do this BY DESIGN
So basically. Yes it is a very serious bug. Yes the fact that XP is retarded enough to allow this thing by default is not a reason for Linux users to be complacent. No this does not mean that Linux is not a lot more secure than windows.
This is assuming you don't use a heat pump for improved efficiency. A good heat pump can have a coefficient of performance close to 3-4, so you would only need about 500W of electricity to move 1.5kW of heat, meaning it would impact your range less than 0.5%. In addition while electric engines are more efficient petrol ones, even if we assume 95% efficiency it is still plenty of waste heat to heat your car.
"Here's your password. Store it and keep it in a safe place ( your wallet is a good place ) so you don't forget it. If you lose it or think somebody else may have seen it, let me know and I'll give you a new one."
Ok, so some users may stick a post it on their screen, but that is still miles better than having a login with "password" remotely accessible.
Nonsense. It's applied physics ( Hey, what else other than the laws of nature ensure that mathematics is self-consistent? )
Normally I would not be so blunt but quite frankly you started this one:
a)It is clear you don't understand how the energy produced in a nuclear reactor correlates to the quantity of fission products produced.
b)It is clear you have no idea about what properties breeder reactor waste have and how it compares to regular nuclear waste.
c)It is clear you don't understand how breeder reactors work or what impact the destruction of the transuranics would have on repository capacity and requirements.
For your ( and other's ) information this is how it works:
Nuclear reactors produce energy by splitting nuclei. If they split relatively safe Uranium or the much more toxic and dangerous alpha emitters ( such as neptunium and plutonium ) does not really matter in energy terms since the energy produced in each fission is about the same. As it happens the elements that make nuclear waste storage problematic are all very heavy transuranics that are alpha emitters since these decay with a halflife of a few thousand years. The problem is that even thousands of years from now they produce enough heat to potentially melt the fuel rods if you don't allow sufficient separation between them. It is this heat that limits how much radioactive waste you can store in a given space.
Thus if instead of splitting uranium you recycle and split these heavy transuranics you only end up with comparatively short lived fission products. It is true that the fission products initially has a higher radioativity than the transuranics, but the amount of fission products you get is exactly the same as if you ahd been splitting uranium. Thus by splitting the troublesome transuranics rather than uranium you end up with the same amount of fission products ( for a given amount of energy ), but you don't get any transuranics. I'll repeat that to make sure you got it:
Regardless of reactor design the quantity of fission products is the same for a given quantity of energy. The energy produced is directly proportional to the number of fissions that occur (and consequentially the amount of fission products in the waste. However, while regular reactors produce long lived transuranics that need to be safely stored for thousands of years, breeders only produce the fission products ( the same quantity as regular reactors would produce for the same energy ) and thus their waste reaches the same levels of radioactivity as uranium-ore within approximately 300 years.
Your assertion that the waste becomes more dangerous after recycled in a breeder reactor presumably refers to the fact that the radioactivity of the fission products is higher than that of the actinides. However as I mentioned above the quantity of fission products is no greater than it would have been for uranium. Also many of the fission products are so radioactive that they very rapidly decay to stable compounds that are not troublesome. Some of them have half-lives of minutes or even seconds, and after just a short period of storage they are less radioactive than what the actinides would have been. More importantly however is that the overall heat generation decreases rapidly and since you keep recycling the uranium you reduce the waste volume by almost a factor of 100. Because of these reductions in heat generation and volume, storing all the waste a power plant would produce within the 300 years it takes for breeder waste to decay is quite feasible to do on-site. Or in other words:
A breeder reactor produces so small quantities of waste that it would take much longer to fill the plant's storage facilities than it would take for the waste to decay to safe
Quite the contrary, salt crystals are very ordered systems with low entropy and dissolving them in water thus results in a temperature decrease. This is how cooling packs you find in first aid kits work. They contain a bag of water and pellets of ammonium nitrate salt. When you break the water bag inside the pellets will dissolve in the water causing the pack to cool down. Depending on the salt and amount of water used the temperature drop can be quite large and care must thus be taken so you don't cause frost burn by applying the pack for too long.
Why is the parent modded funny when the comment is downright informative?
These days there is better ones called "slappers", and they are nto just used for nukes but mining operations benefit from reliable and safe detonators too. Wikipedia has a nice article on it which also cowers the use of lasers for setting of explosives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slapper_detonator
That's all well and good but you're not dealing with a setup where a single dust spec will ruin everything. Ultra high vacuum systems don't merely need to hold the pressure, they need to ensure that nothing ( not even slightly too many helium atoms ) can diffuse into the system. To get a basic idea of what is needed of these systems, leaving fingerprints is an absolute no-go since the low pressure will cause the water to evaporate contaminating your setup. Also forget o-rings made out of rubber or any other polymer based material. They are too porous and allow stuff to diffuse through them. The o-rings used in practice for helium tight vacuum systems will be made of a metal alloy that has been carefully picked to be soft enough that you can squeeze it slightly (but not too much ).
Essentially while your scuba gear may be holding a very large pressure that's not quite the same thing as ensuring that it does not have a single atomic scale leak. It's a bit like comparing a fog-horn to a powerful amplifier and then proclaiming the amplifier must be primitive since the foghorn is louder.