I really would like to hear some more news on the Lockheed high-beta fusion project and the Pollywell program.

"What you're ignoring is that the support for free software is often better than the support for commercial software.'
I said free as in beer.
FOSS is not always free as in beer and some projects offer support contracts as well.

Is it a social issue or is it biology?
Maybe fewer women want to go into CS because fewer women actually like that type of work? I mean I do not see anybody upset over fewer men going into cosmetology than women. BTW at the top of the field you can make good money.

Maybe we should drop the idea that we need equal numbers to be equal. What we should care about is no one is restricted or prevented from doing into any field that interests them and they have a talent for. At my office we have lots of diversity in race and gender and I work at a tech company.

Wind and gas with nuclear will do the trick.
Your data on power from solar is cost at peak production and no storage costs for over night.
You put no value on zero carbon.
And I am not confused at all you are just a zealot.

Cable companies are granted "franchises" in most cities. If you want fast internet net you have no choice.
Add to the fact that we have been in a race to the bottom for customer service for a long time. You average slashdot reader calls anything that is available cheaper from china on Ebay over priced.
The constantly want free as in beer software.
And yet complain over bad customer support.
Back in the long dark history of computers I worked in a computer store. We had a large margin on the computers so we took the time help people learn how to use them. Today their is probably $10 margin on your typical PC and yet you wonder why companies farm out support.

I am afraid you did not read it.
It was comparing nuclears costs with Natural gas which produces a lot more carbon than nuclear or solar or wind. It is also using the costs of fracked gas. It said that renewables "wind" was becoming competitive with nuclear....
Wind is becoming but isn't yet.
The costs are also based on our aging reactors and does not look at the cost reductions available from mass production of a standardized design. Also does not touch on LFTRs which offer a much lower cost of construction since they do not require a full containment dome.
You are not even reading what you post.
Yes if want co2 and fracking you can not beat natural gas. Natural gas is much cheaper than even coal today much less solar, wind, and nuclear.
So if you are pro climate change dismissing nuclear makes all the sense in the world. Thing is that even fracked gas is not a long term solution.

Cost of solar at peak production? Sure it is cheap. Cost of solar at 6pm in December?
And your sites could not be biased at all since on is called greentechmedia.com and the other nukefree.org.
Puff propaganda pieces but the one from Austin supports my suggestion of solar as an opportunistic source not as a baseload.
As I said that you have so self identified with solar you have gone beyond reason.

Danger is inflated and the cost is still less per GW than solar but none of that will matter to you since you have made solar a matter of faith and identity.

Ahh no that is not a valid conclusion to draw from my post.
It is one drive by fear and ignorance but not from data.

Biase?
"About 3,500 of the jobs at the Clyde base are uniformed Royal Navy personnel, 1,700 are contractors and 1,600 are other civilian employees, most of whom work principally on other aspects of the Navy's submarine programme, rather than Trident."

If they move the Trident subs they will move all the nuclear subs. The RN does not have any large non-nuclear subs in service.
You would not just have those jobs leave but so would many of the jobs in the shops where the people from the base spend their money.

New Scotland Navy? Okay....

Really you just flat out trust a site that has a strong anti-nuclear stand to give you the truth about the down side of what they want? Do you no know human nature. They will do research and then stop once they get the answer they want. You have to have an open mind and try and see past any sites agenda.

RN closes the base and say good bye to the jobs, and the paychecks of the service people and their families that get spent in the community.
And Scotland has not voted yes yet.

1 That is just the active known reserves.
2 There has been no Uranium mines opened in decades.
3 Japan, France, Russia, and China already reprocess fuel and use plutonium for fuel. That stretches the fuel to many centuries. The use doing the same would not increase the risk of nuclear proliferation.
4 New reactors can use Thorium which is 3x as common as Uranium but only .72% of uranium is "fuel" while 100 of Thorium is.
So that means per pound of you have 137x the fuel in Thorium than Uranium. It is potential fuel because it has to breed but it is a proven process and it is breed in situ. So if we have 240 years at present levels 240 X 137 ==33120 years now 33120X3 for the fact that Thorium is 3 times as common = 99360 years at current consumption. So let's divide that by 7 and you have 14194 years of coal replacement for the planet just from Thorium. If we have not come up with something better by then we are in deep trouble.
So yes if we stick to just using the lest efficient way to use uranium as fuel we only have about 40 years if replace all coal.
  5. We do not have to replace all coal with nuclear because we can also use wind as baseload with natural gas fired backing plants to start.
6. In the near term not every nation will have the option to replace coal with nuclear because of economics and stability. For them coal and if they are lucky natural gas along with wind and solar will be their option. The good thing is that if the US reduces it's use of coal the cost will come down for poorer nations and the net CO2 emissions should still be lower. Once Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are in mass production then it can used by nations that are less stable since they have extremely high safety margins and very low margins for proliferation.

I did.
"You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not, and
you don't even know it. What you want is a stable running driver, and
you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree. You also
get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main kernel
tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable, and mature
operating system which is the reason you are using it in the first
place."

I do not agree that the only get this is if your driver is in the main kernel tree.

"This is complete BS. Drivers can be delivered as source and built on the target machine or as binaries with the appropriate packageing."
Which means when you get a kernel update things stop working until you fiddle with the drivers.

I do not see any value of not allowing an ABI. Even if you limited it to just FOSS drivers! I would like it to be universal but even FOSS drivers that are not included in the Kernel become a PITA when you do a update.

I think many people feel that Microsoft missed the boat on many opportunities.
The Mobile market to start with. They had a Mobile OS years before Microsoft and failed to innovate enough to move it into the consumer market. They had a lock on enterprise email but it was RIM that made the solution for mobile email.
They failed in the media market.
They are doing well in enterprise but Chromebooks and boxes are becoming more of a danger. They are not doing well in the tablet market at all. WP8 is good but maybe too little too late.

Yes he did well at making money during his time as CEO but is the company in a good position for the future? That is up for debate.
All in all I agree with you. Microsoft was not destroyed at all it may not have been lead as well as it could have but it did well.