2038 is only the limit on 32bit platforms. On a 64bit platform time_t is 64bits, which will last "forever". We are already significantly on the way to switching to 64bit-only CPU operation, and I'm going to bet that by 2038 we'll switch completely, if only to avoid the end of time. Heck, if you could only have a working 64bit flash plugin on Linux, all Linux users would go 64bit already.
> They do what they can do well, we do what we can do well.
And what exactly is it that we can do well these days? Science and technology? Nope. Industrial production? Nope. Software development? Nope. Agriculture? Oh, yeah, we can still do that.
Well, I can think of something else I could use to query the navigation system while keeping my hands on the wheel. Granted, it's not usually used for communicating with a computer, but it does have a high bandwidth input and output interface, and it's way more fun than trying to flex my nonexistent muscles. And the collaborative mode really rocks.
> what has me is how this guy was allowed to land ALIVE
What you obviously don't realize is that the use of deadly force in self defense is permitted only in very specific and highly restricted circumstances. For one, the attacker must have caused an immediate mortal threat to someone. In this case, he wasn't the threat; the "bomb" was the threat, so unless you saw him holding a trigger, you would not have the justification to kill him.
Second, you are not allowed to kill him if he can be subdued, as indeed happened here. Self defense argument is only applicable for as long as the attacker is an immediate threat to your life. If he's in a headlock and has burning pants, that is unlikely to be accepted in court.
Third, depending on the jurisdiction, you may also have the duty to retreat and be allowed to kill him only if he pursues you into a corner.
Fourth, whether you were justified or not in killing him, you are going to jail anyway until the trial. Good luck trying to pay your $100000 bail (yes, they really can set it that high). Then you'll have to pay for a defense lawyer to argue why you committed justifiable homicide instead of murder. Lawyers are expensive, and due to your non-zero income you probably do not qualify for getting a public attorney. All the while you're missing work, getting your face plastered all over the newspaper, and being accused of being a cold blooded murderer.
All I can say is, you better think twice before using deadly force in self defense. Maybe even thrice.
Every generation acts as if it were the first to invent sex. Maybe it's because parents are so good at forgetting what they were like at 19... But every history geek ought to know that there were plenty of times in history when sexual mores were as free and relaxed as they are today. And no, your generation did not invent pictures of naked women either. Porn was around for as long as photography, and before that there were painters who could do much better than the porn you had in 1993. And heck, I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too, and had way more sex and you do today.
From reading comments on this and the other stories about the CRU leak, it's pretty obvious to me that nobody here appreciates just how big the problem is. That's understandable, of course, since most Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do. You see, the reason science works is that we trust the researchers to not intentionally mislead us, and that if they do, we could look at the data and see for ourselves whether their conclusions are true. In this case, however, it is the data itself that is now in question, so nobody can see for himself. Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies. The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more. Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data. Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it. The political influence is just too strong.
Without any data, all debate on global warming is simply going to end. Advocates will preach their side, detractors will preach their side, and neither side will have any evidence. And without any evidence, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to convince anybody. That's how big the problem is, and it's time you liberals started to realize it.
I had my own water cooling experiment about ten years ago. I had a two processor Athlon board and made two aluminium waterblocks for it. Since my metalworking skill was pretty low (and I was limited to hand tools), the blocks leaked, necessitating several patches. First with duct tape (:-), then with plumber's caulk, and finally by covering the whole thing with fiberglass epoxy, which plugged it up. Up to that time I had a nice little waterfall going from the waterblocks down onto the graphics card (a Radeon), onto the network card below that, and finally pooling at the bottom of the case. Surprizingly, the computer kept on working just fine for years, in spite of being constantly drenched. Then I got sick of messing with the plumbing and installed a fan, but then the motherboard failed after only a few months. Go figure.
Once you factor debt and fractional reserves into the picture, the game changes quite a bit. The current crisis is that the players bet WAY more than they had, and they are all afraid to call, since they secretly know that EVERYBODY is bluffing. So the game (and the stock market) keeps going up as the players trying to outbluff each other with "I'll see your billion and raise you three more". And it will keep going up until somebody has to actually put something of value in the pot.
4. You make a naked hot girl to wander the wasteland and fight supermutants with her bare hands. Because it's no fun to spend hours upon hours staring at some guys ugly butt.
> Bear in mind that a t-shirt is in no way less clean or neat than a dress shirt.
And oh look! A RED HERRING! This is precisely what I'm talking about. An intelligent man does not read the first sentence of an essay and proceed to write an indignant reply before learning the true subject of the rest of them. In case of my remarks, the theme was sloppiness and the typical example of a dirty tshirt and khaki shorts that comprise the attire of a great many men I know was intended to serve as an illustration, not a gospel. And while there are indeed men who think that a dirty flannel shirt (untucked, naturally) is formal attire, they are not nearly as common as their tshirt breathen, in spite of being equally despicable.
> There's some strange prejudice against seeing them as "ordered",
Tshirts are by their nature have less structure, and so conform to the contours of the body. Since most men's bodies, beer bellies and all, are not something worth showing, wearing a tshirt over them speaks of a perversion beyond comprehension. The lovers of ugliness are a true disgrace to humanity, more so even than morons, for while the latter have the excuse of having no mind to speak of, the former are guilty of using theirs to consciously destroy man's positive values.
> but that doesn't indicate the presence of actual disorder.
I'm not going to help you rationalize your tshirt preference. If you have such a disorder, at the very least you should admit its existence before you can be cured.
I just don't understand why your generation (well, all right, I suppose my generation (I'm 32) does too) has such an aversion to decent clothing. I, for one, wouldn't be caught dead in shorts or a tshirt. To me, neatness and good grooming is a sign of personal integrity and of intelligence, because a person of intelligence must order his mind to think coherently, and a person of integrity strives to appear what he is, thereby bringing order to the outside as well as the inside. If you appear sloppy, then I must assume that either your mind is a mess, or you want others to think it is. The latter, I suppose, comes in handy when you try to "fit in" with a group that sees stupidity and slatternness as a virtue. It boggles the mind that anyone would try.
Perhaps your aversion to uniforms is precisely due to this tendency of an honest mind to match the inside and the outside. A uniform forces neatness upon you in the area of personal attire, and I would assume that one of the goals of doing so is to encourage neatness and order in other parts of you. Hence, the sloppy monster inside you wails and screams bloody murder. The acquisition of these habits would kill it, and, since you belive him to be an essential part of you, naturally you recoil from the uniform. Perhaps you ought to instead reconsider the values he represents and why they are so precious to you.
I spent my own childhood in the Soviet Union, where schoolchildren were required to wear uniforms. Putting on the uniform meant changing the mindset from recreation to studying, and taking it off meant the reverse, marking a clear separation between school and play. When you were at school you were supposed to learn stuff. You were also supposed to learn how to be part of a team, for unlike in American schools, russian children stayed in a single group of 30 or so, every hour of the school day from the first grade through the last. (Thus encouraging the development of a few really close friendships instead of 200 Facebook acquaintances, but I digress) Since you couldn't take off your clothes at school, they remained a reminder of a specific "mode" of life, much like you are reminded to avoid extraneous code while holding a spinlock.
I might also point out that American private schools also require a uniform, perhaps for similar reasons. And then to point out that private school students and russian children are better at math and the sciences; tasks that require a clearly ordered mind to accomplish. So if I were a boss looking to hire a competent man for an intellectual job, like say, programming, it would certainly seem prudent to look for those who display an ordered appearance without to have a better chance of selecting a candidate with an ordered mind within.
It always amuses me to no end how people scream about increased memory usage on x64. Most don't have any numbers to back up their claims, of course, but those that do point to 10-20% increase in RAM usage. So "OMG OMG OMG x64 is bloated! We can't possibly use a platform requiring 10% more RAM!" That, in spite of DDR3 RAM (the expensive kind) now costing ~$100 for 6G triple channel, where 10% more RAM would cost $10. But, naturally, we're in a recession, and you might need those $10 to make rent.
What makes it even funnier is that those same people adopt an entirely opposite attitude when I point out that their code is bloated. "Guys, look here, I wrote a library that reduces your app's memory footprint by a factor of 6! Check it out!" And they look at me contemptuously and reply: "what, are you some kind of an embedded freak? Grow up man, RAM is cheap! We'll stick with the standard, 'cause that's more portable and, you know, more standard." To each his own contradictions...
> You don't think firefox uses a huge amount of pointers?
No. Most of the data is page content in various forms and stages of processing. The pointers would only be pointing to it, and would be comparatively few in number.
> The last time I saw a comparison by someone who was advocating that 64bit was always better > showed a 20-30% RAM increase, and then tried to pretend that "didn't matter".
Funny, I can't/find/ a decent comparison anywhere. All I see is blanket statements of "64bit is bigger", and all the examples usually only measure executable size. Yes, executable size is larger, but the reason is not obvious. If you do a size -A comparison of both, you'll see that the size increase comes entirely from the.eh_frame section, which is needed on x64 because code normally does not contain frame pointers. This section is loadable, but is not paged in unless you throw an exception (by definition, an exceptional event), or get a backtrace for debugging. The actual loaded code is 10-20% smaller for what I have tested, so what you get here is a disk size penalty (which doesn't matter because the extra data isn't read until an exception), and smaller code size in RAM (which DOES matter).
> if for some reason you can't get 8GB of RAM, then you should seriously consider only using 32bit, IMNSHO.
Man, you really need a reality check. My Linux system (x64, of course) is currently using only 308M total, with the KDE beast and whatever crap it thinks it needs, and firefox. There's absolutely no reason to require ungodly amounts of RAM for normal operation, whether on x32 or x64.
I'm sick and tired of people spreading FUD about how 64bit programs are larger due to 8-byte pointers. Yes, the pointers are larger, but the fraction of your program data used by pointers is so small, that any program will use an amount of memory not noticably larger than before. The hundreds of megs of RAM used by your browser and OpenOffice contain mostly your data (in really bloated format), in text, XML, ints, floats, or whatever.
Some people even go as far as to say that programs will run slower due to having to read 64-bit pointers from memory! Sure, it will take more time to load the pointers from memory. But considering the above point that pointers and longs comprise a very very small part of the program data, the effect, if any, would be unnoticeable. Furthermore, the x86_64 ABI allows passing function arguments in registers, completely bypassing memory accesses for a LOT of code, so 64-bit programs will run faster just because of that.
Let me give you an analogy: consider a container in the shape of half-a-donut, filled with salty water. Let's put a nonconductive barrier in at one point and place two electrodes on either side. Apply a voltage to the electrodes and ions will start moving through the water, sodium to the negative, chlorine to the positive. Although the ions are moving, we don't call this contraption a "motor". You could try to hook something up to the moving ions (good luck!) and try to move it, and if you succeed in this task it might become a motor. Until then I'd be more inclined to used the word "wire", or heck, no particular word at all.
Same in this experiment. So they make a little cage with a laser interference pattern. Then they stick two atoms in it. Apply some alternating voltage and one atom pushes off the other, hops through a series of "cavities", and hits the other atom again from the other side. Gee, somehow I am not terribly impressed. Not only does it do absolutely nothing useful, it can only complete a single revolution. Oh, and let's not forget all the energy expended on maintaining the lattice, and on keeping the atoms cold. That last requirement shows that you can't ever hope to scale this to room temperature - the more kinetic energy the atoms have, the more intense must the laser confinement be.
I can understand that there *might* be some problems if you dump some really poisonous stuff in a shallow sea (surely, even the Mediterranean has enough water to dilute any poisons beyond detection), but what's the problem with dumping radioactives? This is usually solid stuff, that will stay exactly where you put it. It's also encased in barrels, which in this sunken ship are still intact. The bottom of the ocean sounds like a pretty darn good place to put this stuff. If you avoid upwellings, where most of the ocean life exists, the rest of the ocean is a barren desert. No nitrogen - no plankton - no fish. So go out there and sink all this waste to some deep trench. Ten thousand years later it will all be harmless and we can mine it and make cars from it or something.
The next time a web designer tells me to clear my cache and cookies, I swear I'm going to slap him upside the head. There is no bloody reason to EVER make a user do this!
Slashdot Mirror
2038 is only the limit on 32bit platforms. On a 64bit platform time_t is 64bits, which will last "forever". We are already significantly on the way to switching to 64bit-only CPU operation, and I'm going to bet that by 2038 we'll switch completely, if only to avoid the end of time. Heck, if you could only have a working 64bit flash plugin on Linux, all Linux users would go 64bit already.
> They do what they can do well, we do what we can do well.
And what exactly is it that we can do well these days? Science and technology? Nope. Industrial production? Nope. Software development? Nope. Agriculture? Oh, yeah, we can still do that.
Well, I can think of something else I could use to query the navigation system while keeping my hands on the wheel. Granted, it's not usually used for communicating with a computer, but it does have a high bandwidth input and output interface, and it's way more fun than trying to flex my nonexistent muscles. And the collaborative mode really rocks.
Is Tektronix still making anything? It used to be THE brand for oscilloscopes, but I haven't heard anything about them since the 7000 series.
As most Slashdotters already know, a higher IQ is a great way to die a virgin.
> Here's your top quality suicide pants! I use them myself!
Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!
Well, it turns out he really is a son of a prominent nigerian banker. I'm not making this up :)
> what has me is how this guy was allowed to land ALIVE
What you obviously don't realize is that the use of deadly force in self defense is permitted only in very specific and highly restricted circumstances. For one, the attacker must have caused an immediate mortal threat to someone. In this case, he wasn't the threat; the "bomb" was the threat, so unless you saw him holding a trigger, you would not have the justification to kill him.
Second, you are not allowed to kill him if he can be subdued, as indeed happened here. Self defense argument is only applicable for as long as the attacker is an immediate threat to your life. If he's in a headlock and has burning pants, that is unlikely to be accepted in court.
Third, depending on the jurisdiction, you may also have the duty to retreat and be allowed to kill him only if he pursues you into a corner.
Fourth, whether you were justified or not in killing him, you are going to jail anyway until the trial. Good luck trying to pay your $100000 bail (yes, they really can set it that high). Then you'll have to pay for a defense lawyer to argue why you committed justifiable homicide instead of murder. Lawyers are expensive, and due to your non-zero income you probably do not qualify for getting a public attorney. All the while you're missing work, getting your face plastered all over the newspaper, and being accused of being a cold blooded murderer.
All I can say is, you better think twice before using deadly force in self defense. Maybe even thrice.
The server will forgive your sins, my son, if you say three Hail Linuses.
Every generation acts as if it were the first to invent sex. Maybe it's because parents are so good at forgetting what they were like at 19... But every history geek ought to know that there were plenty of times in history when sexual mores were as free and relaxed as they are today. And no, your generation did not invent pictures of naked women either. Porn was around for as long as photography, and before that there were painters who could do much better than the porn you had in 1993. And heck, I bet cavemen painted pictures of naked women too, and had way more sex and you do today.
From reading comments on this and the other stories about the CRU leak, it's pretty obvious to me that nobody here appreciates just how big the problem is. That's understandable, of course, since most Slashdotters are liberals and don't read right wing sites like I do. You see, the reason science works is that we trust the researchers to not intentionally mislead us, and that if they do, we could look at the data and see for ourselves whether their conclusions are true. In this case, however, it is the data itself that is now in question, so nobody can see for himself. Consequently, it doesn't matter at all if all the data is released, if all the source code for the models is released, if everybody apologizes and tries to sell the leak as a pack of lies. The damage is done: nobody will believe ANY temperature data any more. Personally, I'm tacitly accepting of AGW, but even I will no longer put any value on that data. Even if somebody tries to reconstruct this data from other sources, I'm not going to believe it. The political influence is just too strong.
Without any data, all debate on global warming is simply going to end. Advocates will preach their side, detractors will preach their side, and neither side will have any evidence. And without any evidence, there is absolutely no way you'll be able to convince anybody. That's how big the problem is, and it's time you liberals started to realize it.
I had my own water cooling experiment about ten years ago. I had a two processor Athlon board and made two aluminium waterblocks for it. Since my metalworking skill was pretty low (and I was limited to hand tools), the blocks leaked, necessitating several patches. First with duct tape (:-), then with plumber's caulk, and finally by covering the whole thing with fiberglass epoxy, which plugged it up. Up to that time I had a nice little waterfall going from the waterblocks down onto the graphics card (a Radeon), onto the network card below that, and finally pooling at the bottom of the case. Surprizingly, the computer kept on working just fine for years, in spite of being constantly drenched. Then I got sick of messing with the plumbing and installed a fan, but then the motherboard failed after only a few months. Go figure.
Once you factor debt and fractional reserves into the picture, the game changes quite a bit. The current crisis is that the players bet WAY more than they had, and they are all afraid to call, since they secretly know that EVERYBODY is bluffing. So the game (and the stock market) keeps going up as the players trying to outbluff each other with "I'll see your billion and raise you three more". And it will keep going up until somebody has to actually put something of value in the pot.
4. You make a naked hot girl to wander the wasteland and fight supermutants with her bare hands. Because it's no fun to spend hours upon hours staring at some guys ugly butt.
The Art of Transporter Warfare
> Bear in mind that a t-shirt is in no way less clean or neat than a dress shirt.
And oh look! A RED HERRING!
This is precisely what I'm talking about. An intelligent man does not read the first sentence of an essay and proceed to write an indignant reply before learning the true subject of the rest of them. In case of my remarks, the theme was sloppiness and the typical example of a dirty tshirt and khaki shorts that comprise the attire of a great many men I know was intended to serve as an illustration, not a gospel. And while there are indeed men who think that a dirty flannel shirt (untucked, naturally) is formal attire, they are not nearly as common as their tshirt breathen, in spite of being equally despicable.
> There's some strange prejudice against seeing them as "ordered",
Tshirts are by their nature have less structure, and so conform to the contours of the body. Since most men's bodies, beer bellies and all, are not something worth showing, wearing a tshirt over them speaks of a perversion beyond comprehension. The lovers of ugliness are a true disgrace to humanity, more so even than morons, for while the latter have the excuse of having no mind to speak of, the former are guilty of using theirs to consciously destroy man's positive values.
> but that doesn't indicate the presence of actual disorder.
I'm not going to help you rationalize your tshirt preference. If you have such a disorder, at the very least you should admit its existence before you can be cured.
I just don't understand why your generation (well, all right, I suppose my generation (I'm 32) does too) has such an aversion to decent clothing. I, for one, wouldn't be caught dead in shorts or a tshirt. To me, neatness and good grooming is a sign of personal integrity and of intelligence, because a person of intelligence must order his mind to think coherently, and a person of integrity strives to appear what he is, thereby bringing order to the outside as well as the inside. If you appear sloppy, then I must assume that either your mind is a mess, or you want others to think it is. The latter, I suppose, comes in handy when you try to "fit in" with a group that sees stupidity and slatternness as a virtue. It boggles the mind that anyone would try.
Perhaps your aversion to uniforms is precisely due to this tendency of an honest mind to match the inside and the outside. A uniform forces neatness upon you in the area of personal attire, and I would assume that one of the goals of doing so is to encourage neatness and order in other parts of you. Hence, the sloppy monster inside you wails and screams bloody murder. The acquisition of these habits would kill it, and, since you belive him to be an essential part of you, naturally you recoil from the uniform. Perhaps you ought to instead reconsider the values he represents and why they are so precious to you.
I spent my own childhood in the Soviet Union, where schoolchildren were required to wear uniforms. Putting on the uniform meant changing the mindset from recreation to studying, and taking it off meant the reverse, marking a clear separation between school and play. When you were at school you were supposed to learn stuff. You were also supposed to learn how to be part of a team, for unlike in American schools, russian children stayed in a single group of 30 or so, every hour of the school day from the first grade through the last. (Thus encouraging the development of a few really close friendships instead of 200 Facebook acquaintances, but I digress) Since you couldn't take off your clothes at school, they remained a reminder of a specific "mode" of life, much like you are reminded to avoid extraneous code while holding a spinlock.
I might also point out that American private schools also require a uniform, perhaps for similar reasons. And then to point out that private school students and russian children are better at math and the sciences; tasks that require a clearly ordered mind to accomplish. So if I were a boss looking to hire a competent man for an intellectual job, like say, programming, it would certainly seem prudent to look for those who display an ordered appearance without to have a better chance of selecting a candidate with an ordered mind within.
It always amuses me to no end how people scream about increased memory usage on x64. Most don't have any numbers to back up their claims, of course, but those that do point to 10-20% increase in RAM usage. So "OMG OMG OMG x64 is bloated! We can't possibly use a platform requiring 10% more RAM!" That, in spite of DDR3 RAM (the expensive kind) now costing ~$100 for 6G triple channel, where 10% more RAM would cost $10. But, naturally, we're in a recession, and you might need those $10 to make rent.
What makes it even funnier is that those same people adopt an entirely opposite attitude when I point out that their code is bloated. "Guys, look here, I wrote a library that reduces your app's memory footprint by a factor of 6! Check it out!" And they look at me contemptuously and reply: "what, are you some kind of an embedded freak? Grow up man, RAM is cheap! We'll stick with the standard, 'cause that's more portable and, you know, more standard." To each his own contradictions...
> You don't think firefox uses a huge amount of pointers?
No. Most of the data is page content in various forms and stages of processing. The pointers would only be pointing to it, and would be comparatively few in number.
> The last time I saw a comparison by someone who was advocating that 64bit was always better
> showed a 20-30% RAM increase, and then tried to pretend that "didn't matter".
Funny, I can't /find/ a decent comparison anywhere. All I see is blanket statements of "64bit is bigger", and all the examples usually only measure executable size. Yes, executable size is larger, but the reason is not obvious. If you do a size -A comparison of both, you'll see that the size increase comes entirely from the .eh_frame section, which is needed on x64 because code normally does not contain frame pointers. This section is loadable, but is not paged in unless you throw an exception (by definition, an exceptional event), or get a backtrace for debugging. The actual loaded code is 10-20% smaller for what I have tested, so what you get here is a disk size penalty (which doesn't matter because the extra data isn't read until an exception), and smaller code size in RAM (which DOES matter).
> if for some reason you can't get 8GB of RAM, then you should seriously consider only using 32bit, IMNSHO.
Man, you really need a reality check. My Linux system (x64, of course) is currently using only 308M total, with the KDE beast and whatever crap it thinks it needs, and firefox. There's absolutely no reason to require ungodly amounts of RAM for normal operation, whether on x32 or x64.
I'm sick and tired of people spreading FUD about how 64bit programs are larger due to 8-byte pointers. Yes, the pointers are larger, but the fraction of your program data used by pointers is so small, that any program will use an amount of memory not noticably larger than before. The hundreds of megs of RAM used by your browser and OpenOffice contain mostly your data (in really bloated format), in text, XML, ints, floats, or whatever.
Some people even go as far as to say that programs will run slower due to having to read 64-bit pointers from memory! Sure, it will take more time to load the pointers from memory. But considering the above point that pointers and longs comprise a very very small part of the program data, the effect, if any, would be unnoticeable. Furthermore, the x86_64 ABI allows passing function arguments in registers, completely bypassing memory accesses for a LOT of code, so 64-bit programs will run faster just because of that.
It's easy to maintain your girlish figure when you are embalmed.
Let me give you an analogy: consider a container in the shape of half-a-donut, filled with salty water. Let's put a nonconductive barrier in at one point and place two electrodes on either side. Apply a voltage to the electrodes and ions will start moving through the water, sodium to the negative, chlorine to the positive. Although the ions are moving, we don't call this contraption a "motor". You could try to hook something up to the moving ions (good luck!) and try to move it, and if you succeed in this task it might become a motor. Until then I'd be more inclined to used the word "wire", or heck, no particular word at all.
Same in this experiment. So they make a little cage with a laser interference pattern. Then they stick two atoms in it. Apply some alternating voltage and one atom pushes off the other, hops through a series of "cavities", and hits the other atom again from the other side. Gee, somehow I am not terribly impressed. Not only does it do absolutely nothing useful, it can only complete a single revolution. Oh, and let's not forget all the energy expended on maintaining the lattice, and on keeping the atoms cold. That last requirement shows that you can't ever hope to scale this to room temperature - the more kinetic energy the atoms have, the more intense must the laser confinement be.
With NASA's budget the way it is, that's all we could afford...
I can understand that there *might* be some problems if you dump some really poisonous stuff in a shallow sea (surely, even the Mediterranean has enough water to dilute any poisons beyond detection), but what's the problem with dumping radioactives? This is usually solid stuff, that will stay exactly where you put it. It's also encased in barrels, which in this sunken ship are still intact. The bottom of the ocean sounds like a pretty darn good place to put this stuff. If you avoid upwellings, where most of the ocean life exists, the rest of the ocean is a barren desert. No nitrogen - no plankton - no fish. So go out there and sink all this waste to some deep trench. Ten thousand years later it will all be harmless and we can mine it and make cars from it or something.
The next time a web designer tells me to clear my cache and cookies, I swear I'm going to slap him upside the head. There is no bloody reason to EVER make a user do this!