They were selling the database. The PMs aren't encrypted in most forums, I'm not sure about phpBB. The passwords are salted and hashed so they're not gonna be digging out rainbow tables and getting passwords. They'll have email addresses that tie in with usernames. They'll know a little about the person so spear phishing is a possibility as is just plain phishing.
I've got some data involved in this one. Nothing major, nothing important. I am not the least bit concerned. I did not download any of the torrents. I do have the legit versions of the.ISOs seeding - all current versions and some older versions - going back to at least v. 14. So, it sucks but it's not the end of the world - unless this damages their reputation so much that people bail on them.
I like Linux Mint. I call it Linux for Retards - which means that I can use it without even looking at the manual. They're well supported, give access to the Ubuntu ecosystem, a cautious and safe build, and not a horrible community. I have a laptop with me that has Cinnamon on it. They'll be okay.
But, there's a few things that make the database valuable. The emails and username combinations are a good start. They can then do some work and figure out more personal traits and then attempt some social engineering, phishing, and even targeted malware - if they want to invest enough energy.
I've bumped into them before! For whatever reason, the History Channel decided it was the Science Channel - at least that's what the evidence suggests. They did a bunch of science documentaries according to the credits, though some are from other channels and are just repackaged if the credits are to be believed. She was on a few of those.
I've been stupid enough to go look at the math. No, I still have no idea. Well, I have an understanding at some level. I can probably fake an understanding at some level - if the person I'm talking to doesn't need a whole lot of details and is not, themselves, a physicist. However, I watch documentaries as a form of entertainment. It is not a scholastic pursuit. That and I go through binges where I watch a lot of lectures but that's also an entertainment.
I'm thinking that they'd learn more about our values by seeing what we do as opposed to what we say we do. Have them learn by reading court documents, "hard copy" news, and business, politics, and classifieds also should be thrown into the mix as well - then let's see what they really "think" of us. Stuff the dictionary and all of Wikipedia and all of Wikipedia's edits in their for some added views. Maybe even cram in Reddit, Voat, Slashdot, and YouTube comments to see what pops out at the other end. Hell, throw in EncyclopediaDramatica for some more data.
You have not spent much time in with the quantum mechanics/string-theorists/quantum physics people, have you?
They would almost certainly tell you that not only has that exact thing happened but that it has happened at least a few times. There is no law that means things tend to disorder. There is just observations of that as a tendency on a macro scale. On a really, really small scale there is a chance that such a man could be created - or so they assure me. There is a chance that you'll open the box and find a diamond in it. They assure me that this is true. I can't not imply that I'm the best to explain it. Brian Greene does a decent job as does Brian Cox. I'm partial to what I can find of Feynman and I like Susskind too.
There's the Greek guy who likes Hawaiian shirts, the frazzled black dude, some big Eastern European blond dude, a nice pretty lady at Cal Tech, and a few others. I don't know 'em or anything - they just pop up in documentaries on a regular basis. They've all pretty much told me that there's no law prohibiting such things. The atoms could, by number alone, assemble to make such a thing, purely by chance and given enough time. It's a lot of time before that probability approaches zero but there's some time length where that has an equal probability to happen as it has to not.
No, no I do not understand it all. And if it didn't happen in this universe, it could have happened in another one. It kind of makes my brain hurt.
I once played a D&D campaign with my son where he felt it was his goal to assemble a goat army. He worshiped a goat god, he herded his goats, and even went so far as to make a "goat-cart." I was unsure if he was familiar with the goatse man. So, he had lots of fun and puns. I found out he was familiar with the actual meme when he burst out laughing when we were quite a few sessions in and he noticed how the maps went together and the resulting image they made.
Oh, I'm one of the ones who mentions LTSR or LTR as options that need consideration. I'm a little familiar but not an expert or anything. I know about the chocolate chip cookie and that you can eat one, throw one away, and put the other one in your pocket. I know that the long-lived stuff is actually only emitting a little at a time - and not really all that dangerous. I know that which burns the brightest burns the shortest so things with a half short-life are more dangerous immediately but that they lose potency quickly as they unleash their energy with greater ease.
I kind of understand thorium (I might have seen the YouTube link before - I didn't click it) and I've read a bunch about that as well as watched a couple of documentaries on the subject. I've kind of kept tabs as people have been giving it some more attention. I'm amused by the disinformation that I see out there but I'm not knowledgeable enough to counter it so I let it slide. I think we should be alert to the dangers but not overstate them - with regards to handling of radioactive materials, for example. I think we get enough fear, hype, and defensive responses concerning the subject that it's not going to be easy to get past certain hurdles without massive efforts made to make information easily available and in a digestible format.
The first link wasn't helpful but I bet the talk it went with was pretty good. I'd have enjoyed that talk, I suspect. Was it a TED Talk? The second link is a bit too big for me but I'm tackling it. I'll have it stuffed into my head (I have to right click > search | define quite often) in a few hours. I'll probably have to save some of it for tomorrow. Thanks! I appreciate it. I'll have to look for a documentary on the subject tomorrow. Sometimes I can find some neat stuff that way.
It does have some similarities with warrants but it is not the same as a warrant and thus the protections, rights, and details are probably more concerned with things other than the 4th. I wonder if there's some tangential merit to consider an approach with the 5th, for example. What's important to figure out is - what authority does the court have when there is nobody currently charged? This might seem insignificant but it actually matters and can give Apple more time - as well as give the government a way out with saving face.
They can simply say that there's no authority for the court to issue this writ, as nobody is being charged. Apple can't be compelled to testify against themselves and, as there's no specific named party being, they can not be compelled to submit to this writ. What's the proper procedure? I imagine, and I'm not sure, the government could just charge someone (even a dead someone) and then request that the judge issue this writ. The judge may then opt to not issue the order and the matter is settled - or at least only subject to appeal if the matter is heard.
The usual protections afforded by the 4th may not apply here but the 5th might. There is nobody charged - this could give Apple more time to prepare a defense. This could also give the government an easy way out without having to resolve the matter.
When I was younger, it was still in the middle of the Cold War. I took a couple of years worth of political science. During that time, we were taught that the government was made up of the people, that anyone was equal in power, that the power was shared equally among the people and the people controlled the economy and the government - thus, the State, which was the people, controlled the economy and owned the means of production. The key was that the people were the government and that, ideally, that control should not be seated in one group or one small group but a shared responsibility. E.g. as you might see in a 'commune.'
Everyone would have equal power and equal ownership. Everyone would have equal representation and control - as much as any other. Anyone was everyone and all people were considered equal (and the USSR's problem was that some were more equal than others, among other things). That really was the important part, the State was no more powerful than the people, it was the people. They were to be given no more power than a commoner, that the power was in the hands of the collective and all were a part of the collective. To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. That sort of things...
So, dunno... That's what we learned but I hear so many people describing it in so many different ways, so many different rules, so many different views, so many different interpretations, and I think the definition might have changed and nobody actually told me the differences in it now. The important bit, the most important bit, was that the whole was equal - government was powerful but only as powerful as the collective and government was not to benefit personally from it, really. At least not individually. That whole "commune" thing in the name and all...
She's probably about my age or a bit older than I. I am 58. The realization that our government wasn't always being honest, on a more public level of awareness, was probably the start of this. But, the contrast would be that it was bad in the US but it was the status quo in less-free societies. It's not okay when either government does it but it is even worse when it is a government that professes not to or even violates it laws to do so. They're two separate things and not a distinction without difference.
At least that's my view of that. I imagine that there's some further refinement as to how she was at the time. Was she a part of the counter-culture or was she a square? That would color their views. Given that many things are entirely subjective or not-concrete (like the believed definition for communism) it's not easy to say where she got the views in the first place. I imagine it might be a bit complex but it's true that the age has a bit to do with it, as will situational awareness, and environment/locale.
I am not a head-doctor or sociologist. So, I can only throw out what I think of and imagine that it's somewhat similar given the similarities in age. Hmm... One difference would be that my kids came around when I was older and I enlisted. I was kind of a square. I got better.
Opera has "discover" on its home page and that can be used to recommend sites if you want to use it. It's optional and I have not used it so I have no idea how good it is.
For reasons,* I adhere to their wishes. If they specifically request that I not view their content without allowing their ads, I close the tab. I even open most links in new tabs just to be able to close it.
* I figure it is their property and I am their guest. I am there by their graces. They set the rules. They do not want me to view the content unless I disable my ad blocking application. It is up to them to decide to place whatever controls they want on their property. If I want the content bad enough, I can disable my ad blocking utility. I've never once seen any content compelling enough for me to disable my ad blocking. Funny...
Also, I sort of cheat. I will change the http:/// to cache:// and bring up the Google cache. Why? If they wanted to present a different version for Google and allow Google to cache it then I will simply view their cache. That is no longer their hardware, it is no longer their property. Thus, I will block the ads as needed/desired per the request of the property owner. I am making use of their hardware, they can set the rules and I'm a good guest and will adhere to any rules they want to impose if I want to use their hardware. I do not accept their rules, I do not use their hardware.
I dunno? It makes sense to me. It's how I've rolled for a long time. They've been detecting ad blockers for a very long time and they've been issuing notices because of it. It's now much more common than it used to be. I still don't turn off my ad blocking to use their hardware. I just get it elsewhere or go without. 'Snot really likely that I can't find the information elsewhere.
No, not if I'm reading it correctly. He's not making it up. They really *are* unhappy. The Republicans really are upset. There's no making that up - they're quite displeased. They went off on it for hours on Fox News Radio. Fox News Radio has lots of things other than news. It's got a bunch of talk-radio, call-in shows, and opinion pieces.
But no, the person's not making that up. Perhaps you misread what they wrote but the Republicans are, indeed, quite displeased with Mr. Pope. The veracity of the complaints is immaterial. It's quite factual that they're expressing displeasure with the post in some number and with some degree of outrage.
For the record... Productize is a word. It's not just a word, spell check knows it is a word. It even has a meaning. However, I am pretty sure you're not actually supposed to use that word.
No, no... He's not making it up. Really. The Pope said something about Trump not being a good Christian because a good Christian tries to build bridges and not walls. Needless to say, this has made some folks unhappy and they are (now) very much in favor of keeping the religious leaders (or at least this particular one) out of politics. Then, to top it off, one of the persons given airing and a voice, one that voiced agreement with this principle, was none other than Jerry Falwell Junior.
Yes, yes I was (and still am) confused on a whole bunch of different levels. I guess it's more nuanced than I might have expected. They have brought up Kennedy and how he was a Catholic and the people were afraid that the Pope would be running the country - that Nixon's adds warned of this and how we needed to keep a separation between Church and State. It's a bit confusing when taken into account with a number of other views that are held and offered.
How do I know? It's a long story. In short, Pope (our Slashdot Pope) mentioned Fox News Radio so I turned it on. I must admit, it's among the most entertaining things I have ever come across. Albeit, I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be entertained in the manner that I am. I find it immensely funny. It is thought provoking and there's even some insightful comments. And no, there's propaganda outlets that rile people up on the opposite side of the political spectrum. They're dishonest, misleading, and selective just like Fox.
However, I've been enjoying my Fox News Radio and have left it running for a few hours a day since. I switch to NPR or BBC later. But, hands down, it's some of the most entertaining radio I've heard in a long time. It's comedy gold! And yes, yes I do hold the opinion that the people at either end of the political spectrum tend to be dimwitted and reactionary. There are brilliant and astute views and opinions on the Right just as there are on the Left. They seldom are exciting enough to get media attention. There's even a few candidates (at various levels) on the Right (and the Left) that aren't bad at all.
I'm pretty sure that I can not only give you legal advice but I can practice it on your behalf. I'm also reasonably certain that I can charge for that service so long as I make it clear that I am not actually a lawyer. I have actually not just given legal advice to friends, I've gone in and represented them in a court of law, spoken with the DA on their behalf, and even arranged a plea agreement, twice, on behalf of a friend. All of which is perfectly legal - though I've never charged for the service. I believe I can charge for it so long as I do not portray myself as a lawyer or do the few things that are strictly within the purview of those who have passed the bar.
Due to a long story, I am even a notary public. So, I can do some of it. I am not a lawyer. I've never actually charged money for my help and I am not skilled enough to do so. But, if it's something simple and you're just going to be pleading guilty then you don't really need much. 'Snot hard, really.
As I understand it, that's not really true. On a global scale, we're increasing nuclear capacity. In the West, we're not building out new capacity and replacing closed facilities. However, China and India both are increasing their capacity at levels that more than make up for the closing facilities when we consider the global scale and not just our own corners of the world.
Thank you for taking the time to make that clear for them. If they're like many of the others, they'll disbelieve you and repeat the same things next time. Hopefully, you'll at least have impacted some. We can hope... I am not an expert and am comfortable acknowledging it and deferring to those who are. In short, your statement is identical, or nearly identical, to many others I've read from people who appeared to know what they wrote about. Nothing conflicts with the little I do know.
Which leads me to this... I've heard that you can concentrate, extract, and use actinides in what we currently consider spent fuel. How, physically, is that done? I'm given to understand that it involves melting and separating it - but I'm not sure if it is at that point in the stage. The more detailed accounts reference doing so at the end of the cycle and they weren't exactly clear. What does that look like physically? What's the proposed process?
I did some looking online and my search terms must suck. I tried to answer this for myself but I did not find (as far as I know) anything at my level of understanding. I'm not quite a five year old on the subject but I am not an expert. I was unable to find anything on what this process might entail - the actual physical how and, ideally, what it's doing.
I don't suppose you know where I can get that information or you know a way to express that? You mention burning the actinides. What's that entail?
I'm not sure what exempt means in this instance. In my area, we had a number of people protesting wind power because of environmental impacts including the birds that are potentially harmed by them. They even protested that the noise was harmful to the local fauna - and to people. They protested that it damaged the view, that they needed clearings, that there would be increased traffic through the woods to maintain them, and a few other things. I have some that aren't far from where my home is. I even went down and watched 'em assemble them on multiple occasions. I have two of my own but they're much smaller.
Aren't nukes base-load and at 100% design capacity (or very close) nearly all the time? I believe the 90% figure is actually averaged out and isn't due to scaling but for down-time to maintain and refuel. I just did a quick Google and I didn't find anything to indicate what I'd been given to believe is wrong.
I am not an expert but I've paid attention to a bunch of 'em. I'm pretty sure they run at top speed and that they use coal or gas to adjust for spikes. The reason is, as I understand it, the current gen reactors do not actually adjust that well. LTSR would/could be designed as to work as more than just base loads as they cool and heat more easily, safely, and quickly.
That's what I get from the people who are actually experts in the field. Or at least they claim to be and others believe 'em.
At least they wrote "capacity" instead of the more common mistake that the numbers are what is actually being produced.
While I use both solar and wind, I am a big proponent of LTSR and nuclear in general. We're probably going to need those in the interim as we wait for realistic storage options to improve.
Thank! I'm usually hoping to refine my beliefs and hold them up for scrutiny in order to do so. It's nice to know that some of them seem to hold up to reason.
That's fine but, again, the question remains - has that person been charged? If not then, following procedural law, by what authority is this writ handed down? Who has been charged?
Perhaps you didn't notice the "if they're doing" part of it. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. However, that's still not actually an answer.
Correct. So, where are they in the procedure and what applicable protections are there? If there have been no charges then by what authority is this writ given?
I know just enough law to not be too confused - I actually have done my own legal work and represented myself more than once. I hire legal council. I use them as council. I do not use them as legal representation. I have a pretty good track record but that's because I hired council *and* listen to council.
One of the things I know about is a subject called procedural law. I know that this is very important. There are very few places a judge deals well with semantics arguments. Normally, a judge doesn't take kindly to a clever but stupid argument. However, when it comes to procedure, there's some creativity.
So, where in the stage are they? Who, specifically, has been charged? If nobody has been charged, and I think that might be the case, this order may not actually have any bearing. In that case, they simply need to arraign the dead on charges associated with this incident. Otherwise, what authority does the judge have to order this act for discovery?
You can fit Lubuntu in a small area and it's very light - it runs LXDE. It's actually my preferred distro on old or new hardware. I've dug out a ten year old PC and installed it on that. It was stable enough that I left it running when I went on wanderlust. I'm connected to that one now as it's technically a backup and I wanted to make sure it was running. I'm using VNC to send this through that. I left in September.
Slashdot Mirror
They were selling the database. The PMs aren't encrypted in most forums, I'm not sure about phpBB. The passwords are salted and hashed so they're not gonna be digging out rainbow tables and getting passwords. They'll have email addresses that tie in with usernames. They'll know a little about the person so spear phishing is a possibility as is just plain phishing.
I've got some data involved in this one. Nothing major, nothing important. I am not the least bit concerned. I did not download any of the torrents. I do have the legit versions of the .ISOs seeding - all current versions and some older versions - going back to at least v. 14. So, it sucks but it's not the end of the world - unless this damages their reputation so much that people bail on them.
I like Linux Mint. I call it Linux for Retards - which means that I can use it without even looking at the manual. They're well supported, give access to the Ubuntu ecosystem, a cautious and safe build, and not a horrible community. I have a laptop with me that has Cinnamon on it. They'll be okay.
But, there's a few things that make the database valuable. The emails and username combinations are a good start. They can then do some work and figure out more personal traits and then attempt some social engineering, phishing, and even targeted malware - if they want to invest enough energy.
I've bumped into them before! For whatever reason, the History Channel decided it was the Science Channel - at least that's what the evidence suggests. They did a bunch of science documentaries according to the credits, though some are from other channels and are just repackaged if the credits are to be believed. She was on a few of those.
I've been stupid enough to go look at the math. No, I still have no idea. Well, I have an understanding at some level. I can probably fake an understanding at some level - if the person I'm talking to doesn't need a whole lot of details and is not, themselves, a physicist. However, I watch documentaries as a form of entertainment. It is not a scholastic pursuit. That and I go through binges where I watch a lot of lectures but that's also an entertainment.
I'm thinking that they'd learn more about our values by seeing what we do as opposed to what we say we do. Have them learn by reading court documents, "hard copy" news, and business, politics, and classifieds also should be thrown into the mix as well - then let's see what they really "think" of us. Stuff the dictionary and all of Wikipedia and all of Wikipedia's edits in their for some added views. Maybe even cram in Reddit, Voat, Slashdot, and YouTube comments to see what pops out at the other end. Hell, throw in EncyclopediaDramatica for some more data.
You have not spent much time in with the quantum mechanics/string-theorists/quantum physics people, have you?
They would almost certainly tell you that not only has that exact thing happened but that it has happened at least a few times. There is no law that means things tend to disorder. There is just observations of that as a tendency on a macro scale. On a really, really small scale there is a chance that such a man could be created - or so they assure me. There is a chance that you'll open the box and find a diamond in it. They assure me that this is true. I can't not imply that I'm the best to explain it. Brian Greene does a decent job as does Brian Cox. I'm partial to what I can find of Feynman and I like Susskind too.
There's the Greek guy who likes Hawaiian shirts, the frazzled black dude, some big Eastern European blond dude, a nice pretty lady at Cal Tech, and a few others. I don't know 'em or anything - they just pop up in documentaries on a regular basis. They've all pretty much told me that there's no law prohibiting such things. The atoms could, by number alone, assemble to make such a thing, purely by chance and given enough time. It's a lot of time before that probability approaches zero but there's some time length where that has an equal probability to happen as it has to not.
No, no I do not understand it all. And if it didn't happen in this universe, it could have happened in another one. It kind of makes my brain hurt.
I once played a D&D campaign with my son where he felt it was his goal to assemble a goat army. He worshiped a goat god, he herded his goats, and even went so far as to make a "goat-cart." I was unsure if he was familiar with the goatse man. So, he had lots of fun and puns. I found out he was familiar with the actual meme when he burst out laughing when we were quite a few sessions in and he noticed how the maps went together and the resulting image they made.
Oh, I'm one of the ones who mentions LTSR or LTR as options that need consideration. I'm a little familiar but not an expert or anything. I know about the chocolate chip cookie and that you can eat one, throw one away, and put the other one in your pocket. I know that the long-lived stuff is actually only emitting a little at a time - and not really all that dangerous. I know that which burns the brightest burns the shortest so things with a half short-life are more dangerous immediately but that they lose potency quickly as they unleash their energy with greater ease.
I kind of understand thorium (I might have seen the YouTube link before - I didn't click it) and I've read a bunch about that as well as watched a couple of documentaries on the subject. I've kind of kept tabs as people have been giving it some more attention. I'm amused by the disinformation that I see out there but I'm not knowledgeable enough to counter it so I let it slide. I think we should be alert to the dangers but not overstate them - with regards to handling of radioactive materials, for example. I think we get enough fear, hype, and defensive responses concerning the subject that it's not going to be easy to get past certain hurdles without massive efforts made to make information easily available and in a digestible format.
The first link wasn't helpful but I bet the talk it went with was pretty good. I'd have enjoyed that talk, I suspect. Was it a TED Talk? The second link is a bit too big for me but I'm tackling it. I'll have it stuffed into my head (I have to right click > search | define quite often) in a few hours. I'll probably have to save some of it for tomorrow. Thanks! I appreciate it. I'll have to look for a documentary on the subject tomorrow. Sometimes I can find some neat stuff that way.
Then you have a very strange definition for third world or are hyperbolic and should know that you're being disingenuous.
It does have some similarities with warrants but it is not the same as a warrant and thus the protections, rights, and details are probably more concerned with things other than the 4th. I wonder if there's some tangential merit to consider an approach with the 5th, for example. What's important to figure out is - what authority does the court have when there is nobody currently charged? This might seem insignificant but it actually matters and can give Apple more time - as well as give the government a way out with saving face.
They can simply say that there's no authority for the court to issue this writ, as nobody is being charged. Apple can't be compelled to testify against themselves and, as there's no specific named party being, they can not be compelled to submit to this writ. What's the proper procedure? I imagine, and I'm not sure, the government could just charge someone (even a dead someone) and then request that the judge issue this writ. The judge may then opt to not issue the order and the matter is settled - or at least only subject to appeal if the matter is heard.
The usual protections afforded by the 4th may not apply here but the 5th might. There is nobody charged - this could give Apple more time to prepare a defense. This could also give the government an easy way out without having to resolve the matter.
When I was younger, it was still in the middle of the Cold War. I took a couple of years worth of political science. During that time, we were taught that the government was made up of the people, that anyone was equal in power, that the power was shared equally among the people and the people controlled the economy and the government - thus, the State, which was the people, controlled the economy and owned the means of production. The key was that the people were the government and that, ideally, that control should not be seated in one group or one small group but a shared responsibility. E.g. as you might see in a 'commune.'
Everyone would have equal power and equal ownership. Everyone would have equal representation and control - as much as any other. Anyone was everyone and all people were considered equal (and the USSR's problem was that some were more equal than others, among other things). That really was the important part, the State was no more powerful than the people, it was the people. They were to be given no more power than a commoner, that the power was in the hands of the collective and all were a part of the collective. To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability. That sort of things...
So, dunno... That's what we learned but I hear so many people describing it in so many different ways, so many different rules, so many different views, so many different interpretations, and I think the definition might have changed and nobody actually told me the differences in it now. The important bit, the most important bit, was that the whole was equal - government was powerful but only as powerful as the collective and government was not to benefit personally from it, really. At least not individually. That whole "commune" thing in the name and all...
She's probably about my age or a bit older than I. I am 58. The realization that our government wasn't always being honest, on a more public level of awareness, was probably the start of this. But, the contrast would be that it was bad in the US but it was the status quo in less-free societies. It's not okay when either government does it but it is even worse when it is a government that professes not to or even violates it laws to do so. They're two separate things and not a distinction without difference.
At least that's my view of that. I imagine that there's some further refinement as to how she was at the time. Was she a part of the counter-culture or was she a square? That would color their views. Given that many things are entirely subjective or not-concrete (like the believed definition for communism) it's not easy to say where she got the views in the first place. I imagine it might be a bit complex but it's true that the age has a bit to do with it, as will situational awareness, and environment/locale.
I am not a head-doctor or sociologist. So, I can only throw out what I think of and imagine that it's somewhat similar given the similarities in age. Hmm... One difference would be that my kids came around when I was older and I enlisted. I was kind of a square. I got better.
Opera has "discover" on its home page and that can be used to recommend sites if you want to use it. It's optional and I have not used it so I have no idea how good it is.
For reasons,* I adhere to their wishes. If they specifically request that I not view their content without allowing their ads, I close the tab. I even open most links in new tabs just to be able to close it.
* I figure it is their property and I am their guest. I am there by their graces. They set the rules. They do not want me to view the content unless I disable my ad blocking application. It is up to them to decide to place whatever controls they want on their property. If I want the content bad enough, I can disable my ad blocking utility. I've never once seen any content compelling enough for me to disable my ad blocking. Funny...
Also, I sort of cheat. I will change the http:/// to cache:// and bring up the Google cache. Why? If they wanted to present a different version for Google and allow Google to cache it then I will simply view their cache. That is no longer their hardware, it is no longer their property. Thus, I will block the ads as needed/desired per the request of the property owner. I am making use of their hardware, they can set the rules and I'm a good guest and will adhere to any rules they want to impose if I want to use their hardware. I do not accept their rules, I do not use their hardware.
I dunno? It makes sense to me. It's how I've rolled for a long time. They've been detecting ad blockers for a very long time and they've been issuing notices because of it. It's now much more common than it used to be. I still don't turn off my ad blocking to use their hardware. I just get it elsewhere or go without. 'Snot really likely that I can't find the information elsewhere.
No, not if I'm reading it correctly. He's not making it up. They really *are* unhappy. The Republicans really are upset. There's no making that up - they're quite displeased. They went off on it for hours on Fox News Radio. Fox News Radio has lots of things other than news. It's got a bunch of talk-radio, call-in shows, and opinion pieces.
But no, the person's not making that up. Perhaps you misread what they wrote but the Republicans are, indeed, quite displeased with Mr. Pope. The veracity of the complaints is immaterial. It's quite factual that they're expressing displeasure with the post in some number and with some degree of outrage.
For the record... Productize is a word. It's not just a word, spell check knows it is a word. It even has a meaning. However, I am pretty sure you're not actually supposed to use that word.
No, no... He's not making it up. Really. The Pope said something about Trump not being a good Christian because a good Christian tries to build bridges and not walls. Needless to say, this has made some folks unhappy and they are (now) very much in favor of keeping the religious leaders (or at least this particular one) out of politics. Then, to top it off, one of the persons given airing and a voice, one that voiced agreement with this principle, was none other than Jerry Falwell Junior.
Yes, yes I was (and still am) confused on a whole bunch of different levels. I guess it's more nuanced than I might have expected. They have brought up Kennedy and how he was a Catholic and the people were afraid that the Pope would be running the country - that Nixon's adds warned of this and how we needed to keep a separation between Church and State. It's a bit confusing when taken into account with a number of other views that are held and offered.
How do I know? It's a long story. In short, Pope (our Slashdot Pope) mentioned Fox News Radio so I turned it on. I must admit, it's among the most entertaining things I have ever come across. Albeit, I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be entertained in the manner that I am. I find it immensely funny. It is thought provoking and there's even some insightful comments. And no, there's propaganda outlets that rile people up on the opposite side of the political spectrum. They're dishonest, misleading, and selective just like Fox.
However, I've been enjoying my Fox News Radio and have left it running for a few hours a day since. I switch to NPR or BBC later. But, hands down, it's some of the most entertaining radio I've heard in a long time. It's comedy gold! And yes, yes I do hold the opinion that the people at either end of the political spectrum tend to be dimwitted and reactionary. There are brilliant and astute views and opinions on the Right just as there are on the Left. They seldom are exciting enough to get media attention. There's even a few candidates (at various levels) on the Right (and the Left) that aren't bad at all.
I'm pretty sure that I can not only give you legal advice but I can practice it on your behalf. I'm also reasonably certain that I can charge for that service so long as I make it clear that I am not actually a lawyer. I have actually not just given legal advice to friends, I've gone in and represented them in a court of law, spoken with the DA on their behalf, and even arranged a plea agreement, twice, on behalf of a friend. All of which is perfectly legal - though I've never charged for the service. I believe I can charge for it so long as I do not portray myself as a lawyer or do the few things that are strictly within the purview of those who have passed the bar.
Due to a long story, I am even a notary public. So, I can do some of it. I am not a lawyer. I've never actually charged money for my help and I am not skilled enough to do so. But, if it's something simple and you're just going to be pleading guilty then you don't really need much. 'Snot hard, really.
As I understand it, that's not really true. On a global scale, we're increasing nuclear capacity. In the West, we're not building out new capacity and replacing closed facilities. However, China and India both are increasing their capacity at levels that more than make up for the closing facilities when we consider the global scale and not just our own corners of the world.
Thank you for taking the time to make that clear for them. If they're like many of the others, they'll disbelieve you and repeat the same things next time. Hopefully, you'll at least have impacted some. We can hope... I am not an expert and am comfortable acknowledging it and deferring to those who are. In short, your statement is identical, or nearly identical, to many others I've read from people who appeared to know what they wrote about. Nothing conflicts with the little I do know.
Which leads me to this... I've heard that you can concentrate, extract, and use actinides in what we currently consider spent fuel. How, physically, is that done? I'm given to understand that it involves melting and separating it - but I'm not sure if it is at that point in the stage. The more detailed accounts reference doing so at the end of the cycle and they weren't exactly clear. What does that look like physically? What's the proposed process?
I did some looking online and my search terms must suck. I tried to answer this for myself but I did not find (as far as I know) anything at my level of understanding. I'm not quite a five year old on the subject but I am not an expert. I was unable to find anything on what this process might entail - the actual physical how and, ideally, what it's doing.
I don't suppose you know where I can get that information or you know a way to express that? You mention burning the actinides. What's that entail?
I'm not sure what exempt means in this instance. In my area, we had a number of people protesting wind power because of environmental impacts including the birds that are potentially harmed by them. They even protested that the noise was harmful to the local fauna - and to people. They protested that it damaged the view, that they needed clearings, that there would be increased traffic through the woods to maintain them, and a few other things. I have some that aren't far from where my home is. I even went down and watched 'em assemble them on multiple occasions. I have two of my own but they're much smaller.
Aren't nukes base-load and at 100% design capacity (or very close) nearly all the time? I believe the 90% figure is actually averaged out and isn't due to scaling but for down-time to maintain and refuel. I just did a quick Google and I didn't find anything to indicate what I'd been given to believe is wrong.
I am not an expert but I've paid attention to a bunch of 'em. I'm pretty sure they run at top speed and that they use coal or gas to adjust for spikes. The reason is, as I understand it, the current gen reactors do not actually adjust that well. LTSR would/could be designed as to work as more than just base loads as they cool and heat more easily, safely, and quickly.
That's what I get from the people who are actually experts in the field. Or at least they claim to be and others believe 'em.
At least they wrote "capacity" instead of the more common mistake that the numbers are what is actually being produced.
While I use both solar and wind, I am a big proponent of LTSR and nuclear in general. We're probably going to need those in the interim as we wait for realistic storage options to improve.
Thank! I'm usually hoping to refine my beliefs and hold them up for scrutiny in order to do so. It's nice to know that some of them seem to hold up to reason.
That's fine but, again, the question remains - has that person been charged? If not then, following procedural law, by what authority is this writ handed down? Who has been charged?
Perhaps you didn't notice the "if they're doing" part of it. I'll give you the benefit of doubt. However, that's still not actually an answer.
Correct. So, where are they in the procedure and what applicable protections are there? If there have been no charges then by what authority is this writ given?
I know just enough law to not be too confused - I actually have done my own legal work and represented myself more than once. I hire legal council. I use them as council. I do not use them as legal representation. I have a pretty good track record but that's because I hired council *and* listen to council.
One of the things I know about is a subject called procedural law. I know that this is very important. There are very few places a judge deals well with semantics arguments. Normally, a judge doesn't take kindly to a clever but stupid argument. However, when it comes to procedure, there's some creativity.
So, where in the stage are they? Who, specifically, has been charged? If nobody has been charged, and I think that might be the case, this order may not actually have any bearing. In that case, they simply need to arraign the dead on charges associated with this incident. Otherwise, what authority does the judge have to order this act for discovery?
You can fit Lubuntu in a small area and it's very light - it runs LXDE. It's actually my preferred distro on old or new hardware. I've dug out a ten year old PC and installed it on that. It was stable enough that I left it running when I went on wanderlust. I'm connected to that one now as it's technically a backup and I wanted to make sure it was running. I'm using VNC to send this through that. I left in September.