There is a very big difference between just dumping things into the oceans as is (which is what the article you've linked to is about), and encasing them into a strong protective shell that prevents leaking, and picking specific places that are studied in advance to guarantee enduring safety and proper long-term disposal.

There are some valid objections to using subduction zones for this, but everything that I've read indicates that it is, at worst, an engineering problem that could be solved if desired, not a dead end. The only reason why it's not seriously explored is because of the treaty prohibiting it, and the treaty was originally intended to deal with exactly the kind of thing you've linked to.

To see the actual minimums, look at the lowest-end devices that are sold with 8.1 preinstalled. These would be the 8" Atom tablets, like Asus VivoTab Note. Most of those are 1.6-8 GHz CPU and 2Gb RAM. That's the lowest end of the "comfort zone".

Remember that 8 (well, RT, but it's basically slightly trimmed 8) had to run on ARM tablets. So 7 -> 8 also had a lot of optimizations done for sheer necessity of it.

Political problems are self-induced. When there's a genuine engineering or scientific challenge to be overcome, we have an excuse for not doing it just yet. But when all that stops us is some form of NIMBY or "la la la it's not happening" or "I just don't care", there's no excuse, just stupidity. Same goes for AGW denialists, anti-vax etc.

The standard C++ library for multithreading is <thread> - <threads.h> is a C thing (which is still available in C++, but not preferred).

None of this make much sense. For starters,

The semantics of batch files is that every statement runs sequentially. This cannot be changed because all existing batch files assume that the previous line has completed processing, and the next one can use its results. Consequently, it doesn't make any sense to "multi-thread" a batch file, since it's entirely sequential.

Additionally, batch files spawn processes, not threads, so "multithreaded" is a misnomer here in any case.

Okay, now you really don't know what you're talking about. First of all, .NET is not really tied to Windows, and it has the same behavior regardless of which version it runs on. Second, GC always runs on a separate thread, and this has been the case since 1.0. Third, WinForms is a Win32 wrapper, and as such it has to run on the main thread, which is trivially observable in debugger - and nothing has changed here in Win7 or any recent .NET version.

Yes, exactly. We have been banning obvious solutions to problems, and then complaining that nuclear is hard. It's ridiculous.

You forgot natural gas. Though that may have unfortunate geopolitical implications depending on where it is.

Why would you want to discharge tritium? It has many practical applications (and is fairly expensive because of that).

How to cheaply, efficiently and safely dispose of nuclear waste:

1. Enclose it in a huge solid block of glass (just melted sand, so it's cheap).
2. Take it to any deep ocean trench and dump it.
3. Tectonic plate subduction takes care of the rest.

Libya? So will they trade with ISIS once it's running the place? (and let's face it, the way it's going, it almost certainly will... in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up running the entire North Africa)

What I'm saying is that "in" and "on" is not really something that is strictly defined (and, indeed, some existing laws already interpret "on" as "in"). And if you mount one on top of your vehicle, and then build an enclosure around it such that there is a hole for bullets to come out of, but the gun itself cannot be seen, which one is it?

Are you sure that's enough? They did just what you said in Australia in the 90s; now they're worried that lever-action guns are "too fast", and want to ban them, too. Pump-action is also pretty fast.

And then you have guns specifically designed to work around restrictions like these, which are still not technically semi-auto (because they require you to perform a manual action to chamber the round for every shot), but are almost as fast in practice. Presumably you'd want to prohibit them, too. How would you word such a law?

Oh, and no additional magazine restrictions? 10 rounds is good enough?

As a gun owner, I'll trust another person to pull or not pull the trigger as appropriate, but when it gets complicated enough that there are electronic components in play, I start getting twitchy. Too many variables. I mean, just try to mentally apply the four rules to this thing... you would have to actively maintain it in the right orientation to avoid pointing the barrel in the wrong direction, and the "finger" is basically always on the trigger (and that aside it could go haywire and activate by itself if it gets shortened or something). Since the gun is away it can't be safely cleared if there is say an FTF. There's no way to verify that a shot was not a squib, and firing a second one could just blow the whole thing up in pieces and rain shrapnel on anyone unlucky enough to be nearby.

It's not about criminals, it's about honest people playing with a fun new "toy" without proper understanding of how dangerous it can be, and with no proper protocols to even ensure said safety designed into it.

So they know what the law says, they just know what it means.