This is because America is without responsible civilians. Or non-civilians, for that matter.

The cleanup will consist of getting those bioconcentrating mushrooms to grow across the contaminated region, then harvesting and isolating them as nuclear waste.

Well, that sounds cost-effective. I'm sure the shareholders will be pleased. Unless they're not on the hook for this cost, and we taxpayers are.

Does not the fuel, inside the wreckage of the reactor building, continually produce new I-131, Cs-134, Cs-137, Sr-90, Radon, Xenon, and a host of others? The fuel is no longer critical, but fission of the enriched Uranium is ongoing. That's why the stuff is still physically and radiologically hot. Production of radionuclides will be ongoing for many thousands of years.

It's true that the nuclides will be more or less contained inside the reactor building, but some of it will seep out, because it's not hermetically sealed like the reactor containment was. If you seal it (ie. make an airtight sarcophagus) - then heat from decay will build-up. It requires air circulation to cool, and that's the whole point of the sarcophagus. It will still allow some byproducts to get out, and will affect all of those who are nearby; and this will continue until the fuel cools enough for workers to get in there, physically remove it, and put it into sealed storage.

It's the ongoing release and exposure of these materials that is the health-hazard. And it will remain so for thousands of years. This is precisely why safety systems for nuclear plants are so highly engineered. This was the scenario they never wanted to happen.

Chernobyl wasn't ever dangerous, since only a few dozen people were killed.

Selfies taken with front-facing cameras let you aim the camera for exactly the angle you want, as opposed to setting the timer and guessing. The catch, of course, is that you're limited by the length of your arm, and by having your arm in the picture unless you want the camera really close, so selfie-sticks give you more compositional flexibility. They're still annoying, of course, but if you want your picture in front of Mt. Rushmore, you want it.

Also; you can't call it "Engineering" if you don't have a process that is well-documented, tested, proven, and repeatable. Also: good luck with that.

Just remember to get buy-in from ALL stakeholders, first!

(good luck with that).

Yes, but even leaking/whistleblowing didn't "work".

A few of us are beside ourselves at the loss of our rights. A large number of armchair hacktivists are outraged that "The Man" is at it again. Most people are like **shrug** ". . . are we safe from terrorists yet?"

There's been no backlash I'm aware of. And no real change in how spying is being done, or accountability, or oversight.

The paper isn't mis-using religious concepts or entities or terminology for secular and negative purposes, it's using vulgar terms instead of more polite ones. People keep f******* mistaking the two concepts.

I did some work with the publishing industry back in the 80s, and one of the projects had some portrait-mode 200dpi monitors for editing. Absolutely wonderful things; we're only now starting to get that kind of resolution again.

As it was, I found it annoying enough to go from 1152x900 in 1992 down to 640x400 in 1993, and didn't get as good a monitor on my main work machine until maybe 2009 or 2010. (There were laptops with 1280 or more pixels before then, but we didn't have them; our Corporate IT department always preferred to get hardware with more color depth instead of more pixels, thinking for instance that 640x480 with 16-bit color was better than 800x600 with 8-bit color. Nope.)

Yes, it's much nicer to read portrait-mode documents on a portrait-mode or at least square display, not on landscape. It's especially the case for PDF files in multi-column formats where you otherwise have to scroll up and down and up and down to read the things.

But that's not a friendly shape for a laptop, unfortunately. I'd probably be ok with a tiltable display to get 4x3 or 16x9-10 portrait mode, though it seems manufacturers assume you're going to be using displays to watch movies on so the default position is landscape.

I'm looking for a small desktop BSD, something that runs Xorg and fits in a GB or less of disk, so I can run multiples of them as virtual machines. I need some kind of browser that can run YouTube, plus ssh, and otherwise I don't much care what it does, but small disk is good.

Yeah, there are some websites you might want to go to that still need Flash or some equally ugly support to get video to work. Right now I've been trying to get SliTaz Linux to let me watch YouTube as well as finding the right operating system and VMware settings to make the display resizeable, but I'm also trying out DragonFly BSD (still at the "installing Xorg" stage.)

If you really need computational horsepower, get yourself some kind of PC with a fast graphics card and run CUDA or one of the other GPU-based computation packages. (In my case, I went with a Raspberry Pi :-)

I hope they at least let you mount disk drives using Samba or NFS or whatever from your own file server at home, in addition to whatever walled-garden functionality they may be selling. Much of their target market is going to include people who have those, either purpose-built servers or terabyte-disk USB/Ethernet external drives or their old Windows box with file sharing turned on.