I mean, as far as I know, no one has properly, fully decommissioned a nuclear power plant and effectively long-term-stored its waste yet, have they? Why shouldn't the cost of doing that, completely and adequately, be built into the cost assumptions for nuclear?

Why shouldn't there have to be an extremely large security bond put up when building one of these things that covers:
a) Full cost of full decommissioning and million-year safe storage
b) Fukushima/Chernobyl scale disaster insurance coverage, covering full remediation costs and damage payments for all surrounding economic losses and health costs caused by a major nuclear plant disaster.

my grammar can beat up your grammar

where we still have some freedom, Putin is a hacked up, soggy, cheese-curd potato.

But the JEE framework went against some of the Java founders' quest for simplicity, and byzantine configuration-based frameworks were not brought out at dawn and shot soon enough, so they took over. And the language has some annoying verbosity and stuttering.

20 years later we need to move on. Less is more.

My site uses regular http for the "brochure" like main page and info pages (e.g. FAQs, how-tos), and uses https for the login pages and software-as-a-service web-app pages.

Is there something wrong, conceptually, with doing it that way?

Is that hybrid approach going to lower my ranking?

Not sure why one would go to https (and more intensive server-side processing) on the brochure and FAQ type pages.

Wouldn't they realize that humanity would do better if we could "all just get along", that is, govern certain aspects of our global-impacting activity at the global level, based on rationally arrived-at policies, and also define and enforce human and ecosystem rights at the global human level.

That kind of enlightened, future-projecting realization and viewpoint would not be consistent with working for a US intelligence agency.

Object? What's an object?

Hmmm. As a CS who often works with engineers (and scientists) from various disciplines (or managers who come from those backgrounds), I can say that many of them have a blind spot regarding software. Some see the surface and not the ocean. Their questions amount to "how long will it take to implement a user interface that is like this, using software", and that reflects their lack of grasp of the depth of issues that may be dealt with in software specification, design, and construction.

Symptoms of this are:
- "Let's build this critical system (which should be network-centric and reliable-server-based) using a Windows PC glommed onto my techie hardware (because windows PCs, that's what computers are, aren't they?)"

- "The demo/prototype worked, what more work could there be to do? Aren't we done?"

- "Let's use circa 1970/80s serial communications protocols for this distributed monitoring and control system, because they're fast!" (What do you mean that security, and future-proof, scalable, standard TCPIP-based architecture is more important than latency and bandwidth in this supervisory control application?)

- "What's an interface and design by contract? Here's the signal list. There couldn't possibly be any disagreement about it."

- "You asked for an interface with 3 monitored value communications one on/off control, and one setpoint setting method. We gave you this 100 signal signal list. Why would you be complaining when we gave you so much more features and flexibility. You can toggle them in any sequence. Of course turning it on is a 20-step flow chart of signals list monitoring and toggling. See how flexible that is?"

- "I haven't seen a software problem for which visual basic, matlab, Fortran, or C was not the answer."

I remember learning a couple of assembly languages, 3 procedural languages, sql, lisp, and prolog during my undergrad CS degree, while learning three more languages including Forth, Basic, and SmallTalk in summer jobs around that time.

But in my recollection, particular programming language (details of) was not the main point of the majority of my CS (or EE elective) courses, especially not after first year. Quickly learning any programming language was just the price of admission to learning and practicing other CS knowledge. Computing general concepts, algorithm and database general concepts, intro to and practice with different styles of programming such as functional, declarative, procedural, particular types of applications as examples, cool AI'ish stuff, and a few things about software engineering practice, were much of the point.

So if your degree program is "about Java" and "experience with Java and an N-tier JEE stack", then RUN and take some MIT or Stanford online courses in more interesting and useful stuff!

Some people use this to advantage to deliberately re-fight the same debate that they lost last time.
That's one reason minutes, with clearly marked decisions and actions are so important.

blog is writing on wall for YOU!

My understanding of time in physics and thermodynamics is that time-forward is the direction in which information spreads out in space (at least on average). That is the meaning of increasing entropy. Time is not symmetrical backwards forwards, once you take into account the spatial location of information.

What this would mean is that as time passes forwards, information about other things becomes less and less accessible/available to an observer at any particular point/trajectory, because the (same amount of i.e. universally conserved) information is being diluted and mixed into more spatial locations.

"Information radiates" (at max C^2, notably!!) is pretty much the same thing as "thermodynamic entropy increases".

Couldn't the information falling into black holes just be a part of that "information becoming less and less accessible to any particular observer" trend of universal entropy increase.

Interestingly, black holes (any mass, actually) would seem to be local concentrators of information, acting in opposition to the normal tendency of information to radiate/spread with forward passage of time. Note the close relationship also of density of mass and density of local mutual information. Very interesting.

Just because the information might have gone somewhere (inside a black hole) where we can't determine the information any more doesn't mean the information was lost to the universe.

It just means it was lost to us (and others on the outside of the event horizon.) It takes a pretty enormous ego (as an observer) to think that it matters to information's existence whether some particular external observer (like us) can detect the information.

So I don't get the paradox at all. The information is just inside the event horizon, isn't it? Inaccessible to us, but accessible to something else that was also inside the event horizon.

Anyone see where I'm going wrong here?

Where is that person that wanted to buy the world a coke when you need them?

But seriously, if polar bears are happy drinking coca-cola to cool off in the global warming, it should be good enough for the rest of us.

Yes but the toilet seat has downward facing fricking lasers that scan your "bodily output" to provide full medical tri-corder capability. A bargain at twice the price.