In that story everything Human is destroyed, and I don't think you can get more darker than the destruction and revenge of Human beings.

I've noted on these links that when I use vim over the wire (so to speak) that the noise is so bad that it actually inserts characters into the session, which I thought that TCP/IP would make impossible however, sometimes, it still happens. When it happens I scp the files I need, edit locally and then scp them back.

Having said that do you compress the ssh session that you -X? or is it the latency of the gui response that you are talking about?

No. What it will mean is that of a whole lot of people who don't use IDEs because it doesn't allow them to use vim properly (yes I have tried the vim plugins to IDEs), will be able to access the benefits of an IDE without feeling like they have been suddenly lobotomized by it.

Handily enough, the original paper is not paywalled.

Wow, a freeby from Microsoft, how incredibly generous. Google will probably thank them for pointing it out. Isn't it nice how everybody just, *gets along*.

What about the parts?

This goes back to what offended me in the first place - yet another snide comment

First of all, if my snide comment offended you, I'm amused your fragile ego dictates much of the way you respond.

Second, I wasn't trying to offend you, I was more pissed off that the accident happened at all.

Three, until your 'back to the beginning' remark, I'd forgotten that you insulted me first and have never apologised. Now I feel like a real jerk for apologising to you for when I called you whatever I did because I don't actually like being a jerk to people. Perhaps that's where we differ.

It would be different if you had some humility and were able to say "Yeah - bad call on that" but you can't and so provide such entertainment as you completely humiliate yourself. I'm sure that you are quite an intelligent person, however your uninformed arrogant, pompus, dictatorial utterances when you are so utterly, completely, provably wrong, combined with your inability to present any fact or evidence that isn't the same ignorant "groupthink" that led to this 'wholey man-made disaster' in the first place make you an irresistable target for lampooning.

Consequently I will continue to challenge your bullshit, demolish your "arguments" and ridicule you as I see fit.

Once again, we see this calumny uttered, this time by someone in a position of authority.

You cannot make people make change unless they feel liability. You must be able to point to an issue and say "This is wrong and you must fix it". Obviously an appeal to the human impact is lost on you because you don't understand it. What you are doing is attempting to bring the commission into disrepute simply because you don't agree with the outcome and, with all of the resources to discover a cause, shows that you are wrong.

You don't like it and you're having a tantrum.

So what critical lesson from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl wasn't learned? I notice that the report never answers this. It's just a throwaway line by someone who will never be called on it.

For me it was a throw away line, turns out the commission found it to be a good way to characterise the disaster. The commission uncovered the issues. Applying the lessons of the nuclear industry is the nuclear industry's responsibility. As you seem to be a living example of the issue, perhaps you are not capable of evolving past your own beleif system, like any religious fanatic.

I don't buy that there was a lot to learn from these earlier accidents.

Because you don't understand the impact, and I'm not calling you ignorant, all I'm saying is that I gave you the benefit of the doubt. It is difficult to understand unless you are willing to try and I don't think you are. However that doesn't mean that the threat isn't there it just means you are not prepared to understand it.

that an experienced nuclear plant operator with a good operation record, TEPCO was the "worst option".

Which happened to be an accurate and succint paraphrasing of the entire situation. Tepco have a clear record of violations including accidents that killed workers at other sites.

a) these organizations have to be very conservative and not immediate act on "awareness" in a way that costs a lot of money and makes the problem worse

The report shows that there was a beleif system, from social proof, that the plants were safe and being operated safely. Human Error. Saving money just means it is a culture that is difficult to challenge. This is exactly the attitude that most nuclear fanbois (and I count you among their number) maintain. A beleif system that they are unable to challenge themselves because they lack the intellectual skills to absorb, not just the reactor technology (which they are generally enamoured with), but the remaining aspects of the industry which is beyond any interest or capability to explore.

b) the reactors in question were scheduled to be decommissioned starting in 2011.

I don't know how much more clearly I can say this: PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE OF THIS otherwise you are just bullshitting.

2006 is just not that long ago, and making a decision not to implement costly changes for reactors that are to be decommissioned anyway is not unreasonable.

I couldn't find any evidence that the reactors were to be decommissioned. If they were going to operate the reactor, they should have made the improvements.

Well, who would be better? As it turned out, TEPCO managed to handle the accident and is handing the subsequent cleanup.

Radioisotope propagation in the environment do not respect borders. Radioisotopes affect the human genome in a trans-generational way and are a source of Human cancers. This is an international issue and in all our interests to control and contain.

evil_villain_voice_on "Not for me. I see this as evidence that you reached a hasty judgment and have stuck by that poor judgment ever since despite becoming somewhat more educated on the subject. muhahaha"

he said, clinging to the dispersing ash of his credibility.

Well, I must admit to being a little disappointed that the usual dysfunctional, anti-nuclear theater appears to have gotten the better of reason in this case. Well, there's always next time.

Well let's have it in your backyard then. I mean seriously, could you make yourself out to be a bigger asshole, actually arguing for a Nuclear reactor plant accident to make a point. What a jerk troll move from khallow. And yes the 'anti-nuclear' lobby did fail to take the opportunity to push for even more safety standards within the Nuclear Industry that is still operating internationally. One can only hope they can become better focused on more constructive outcomes.

And when someone says "this is almost as bad as Fukushima," we can reply "and how many people actually died at Fukushima?"

and the answer will be "they're still counting".

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and explained the gestation period of cancerous cells through metabolic pathways in the body as dictating the beginning of when cancers *start* to manifest. The "Long Scale" which you still fail to grasp. 2017 is the minimum to *start* seeing the direct effects of people who have been exposed to radioisotopes either in the air (through fallout) or the water table as directly from the accident, hopefully there will be very few. On top of that is the years of suffering for the patient (from which ever cancer they contract) before final death.

Bio-accumulation through the food chain will also provide an ongoing source of radioisotopes adding a random element of time and of course analogue specific uptakes into the foodchain. My friends in San Fransisco, Sacremento and San Jose in the US will also suffer more than others. There is little doubt that they have, and continue to be exposed to radioisotopes from Fukushima care of the Jet Stream. 3/11 no doubt sprayed pu-239 and an array of heavy elements onto these poor people in these cities. It will be very difficult to detect now however, I have no doubt it is in the foodchain there.

I get that this might be to big for you to grasp. It's understandable if the biology is beyond you and you are left to focus on something simpler, like the reactor technology, but it's clear from our exchanges that you don't know anything about that either.

The impact of this accident requires significant intellectual capacity to absorb. Perhaps it is too much of a challenge for you, even if you were willing to try. That's my disappointment.

What ownership? I'm tired of the ignorant and the foolish (you are among their number) trying to shoehorn me into their little morality play.

Wow, you think this is about you, what an ego you must posess. I'm really entertained by exposing your ignorance on this subject, I can see you will be providing me entertainment for a very long time.

Your "opinion" about me will always be based, like your arguments, on more wrong assumptions, however it's refreshing that you finally admit that your Nuclear advocacy cannot possibly be responsible though. Perhaps it's irresponsible, ignorant, uninformed, whatever, it's definately pompus. Though, you are certainly the most effective anti-nuclear campainer I have seen with your pro-nuclear fanboi approach. In Japan they're shouting, Go Khallow, more wrong!!!

As for any "morality play" it's clear you are underqualified.

I don't know whether this report is an honest attempt to seek the truth of the matter or merely another hollow ritual for assigning blame.

Well the Chairman says; "This report singles out numerous individuals and organizations for harsh criticism, but the goal is not—and should not be—to lay blame. The goal must be to learn from this disaster, and reflect deeply on its fundamental causes, in order to ensure that it is never repeated"

I can see how it doesn't align with your beleif system, so the only thing it can possibly do is make you sink deeper into them making you even more convinced that the current state of affairs with the Nuclear Industry is just fine and dandy. Instead you'll call me an "armchair engineer" because it takes a lot less energy than actually examining the fact, evidence and science.

Then you will use weasel words like "Morality Play" to mask your lack of courage in confronting your beleif systems and lack of mettle to escape it by challenging yourself and understanding the neccessary science. It's clear you haven't.

Asking the very question shows that your dogmatic skepticism is already taking over because no proof is possible for you.

But I see how you use it.

After I fact check my argument and correct any misconceptions I may have about the matter I cite them, like any other documentation to demonstrate how wrong arguments like yours are:

"In other words, this is['nt] one of those dumb "human error" accidents that caused the other three meltdowns of civilian power plants, but a genuine natural disaster. And the reactors weathered it pretty well."

Fairly obvious you meant "isn't" or "is not" here however an examination of The official report of The Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission" in the Chairmans message he says, and I quote "Although triggered by these cataclysmic events, the subsequent accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant cannot be regarded as a natural disaster. It was a profoundly manmade disaster – that could and should have been foreseen and prevented.""

Dysfunctional regulation, I consider such regulation harmful enough that it can actually make risky activities less safe.

Fine, I'm all for functional regulation. It's clear it was not functioning within Tepco.

not spotting a single point of failure, and the inability to build safer nuclear plants so that old riskier ones can be decommissioned.

If you were better informed you would know what an ASP, in the context of a Nuclear Power Plant, is and what it is used for.

For some people, nuclear power is scary while a slow societal death from arbitrarily pushing up the cost of basic infrastructure (like a power system) isn't.

For you it's a technamalogicmal sooper marvel that you beleive you understand and think will save us all.

For me it's an un-economical technical marvel that ultimately has no net-energy return and so therefore is ultimately pointless. In its current state it is obselete.

It's worth noting that at the time of the meltdown, the reactors were running at 0% of production, having all been scramed or shutdown for maintenance.

However still at >%100 percent thermal capacity as it "melted down".

I present a perfectly reasonable way to run the reactor with the out of spec seawalls that may have prevented the accident and save the reactor yet all you can offer is double think.

But even if we consider the situation before the earthquake, the plant was operating at 50%!

I am having a discussion, not writing a specification. If I have to make it clear that I am talking about the maximum a single reactor is permitted to operate because you have chosen to be so tediously childish, I'm doing so now.

And why would the safety culture determine that the three reactors which did melt down, weren't safe to operate at 100%?

because the amount of thermal heat contained in the reactor would need to be brought under control proportional to the impact of the basis design issue exposed.

You have this assumption of omniscience which doesn't work in the real world.

Except that it is being used in the real world by the US Nuclear Submarine fleet.

The liklihood that something else, we have been doing since the dawn of the industrial revolution, will be the death of us all is greater than the chance that nuclear will be our downfall.

More than likely it will be an accumulation of our errors that will back us into a corner. Nuclear, due to the geological timeframes involved in the radioisotope decay, is already in that mix whether we choose to admit it or not. It is inevitable human enriched radioisotope effluents (from whatever source) will affect the the human genome because of the way they behave in the environment and the food chain.

In the end, so called "renewable" resources may be our best bet, but they are not sufficient for our needs currently, and may never be, and who knows what genie those technologies have bottled up for the future.

Every technology has a begining and is developed. The amout of raw energy that falls on the surface of the earth is well beyond what we consume and in fact, wind is more scaleable as advancements can be fitted in a modular way that is not available to large 'up-front' infrastructure projects like Nuclear or Coal power stations. Solar thermal works at night and many other technologies exist that have not even been explored.

As for the genies they hold, well Wind has an infrasound issue, so you shouldn't live to close to them and you can be severley burned by solar power, however none of these technologies are known to output carbon that exceeds the energy used to produce them and to this day there has never been a report of a Wind power plant that has spewed out radioactive isotopes.

I'd give long odds that if we still have a global economy by that time, the underpinnings will be a fission or fusion power grid. Nothing else has the where-with-all to produce the power we have come to demand.

I think that the odds are short that we will *have* to control the radioisotope inventory we have and that the neccesity to do so will be an infrastructure project so large it will change the very nature of the worlds economy. In the same way our generation is facing a carbon legacy from previous generations, future generations will face a radioistope legacy that they will be forced to solve.

Right now peer reviewed science shows us that the current Nuclear power industry does not provide a Net Energy return simply because of the energetic inputs from mining and the energetic inputs to decommission the reactor.

I support the development of a reactor that addresses the issue of 70,000 tons of Pu-239 currently stored in reactor sites around America, simply because it's irresponsible for our generation to foist this issue onto later generations.

Unfortunately, because there is no geologically sound Nuclear waste dump in operation it's totally inappropriate to discuss building a new reactor facility until a proper containment facility is available. Yucca mountain is not a suitable site because it is made of pumice and geologically active evidenced by recent aftershocks of 5.6 within ten miles of a repository that is supposed to be geologically stable for at least 500000 years. The DOE's own 1982 Nuclear Waste policy Act reported that the Yucca Mountain's geology is inappropriate to contain nuclear waste, and long term corrosion data on C22 (the material to contain the Pu-239 and mitigate the ingress of water - yet another Yucca problem) is just not available.

We need something made of granite. A human made structure with the potential to last 10000 years, so it has to be an engineering project of that scale, because the logistical problems of transferring the 70000 odd tons of Pu239 to the "waste repository" (in reality - containment facility) are so involved that you want to get it right the first time and only do it once.

Even doing that, just the infrastructure project will probably take 30 years to complete, but there is more to it than that.

I was a big fan of the Integral Fast Reactor, and in a way I still am. But the reality is 3rd and 4th generation reactors are a pipe dream because our material science is not advanced enough yet to produce a reactor design that will last thousands of years. If you are going to build reactors then do it properly and build a Terra-watt scale nuclear reactor facility the belly of a massive granite mountain with an attached waste facility that chomps up all your remaining plutonium or end all commercial nuclear activity altogether. As for the PBMR this reactor has some serious design flaws that, upon a closer examination of the design, makes them no better than RBMK as they age, especially when you are talking about a reactor design that lasts a inadequate 4-5 decades.

Nuclear power is energy intensive *after* the energy has been produced simply because our technology - especially material sciences - are not adequate to produce a Nuclear reactor (preferably a IFR style but safer) that has a life span that matches the geological time frames of the fuel. This exposes to all the issues associated with de-commissioning reactor sites every 4 decades or so. We need a reactor design that lasts at least 1000 years and is a closed loop, i.e. the plutonium goes in and nothing comes out (except electricity and possibly hydrogen). In short the smart thing is for us to do is stop producing toy nuclear reactors, while we still can, and build a dedicated place to store the plutonium (ie a granite mountain) that is also a suitable place to build a Terra-watt scale reactor that satisfies those characteristics.

I don't hide the fact that I don't like the constant failure of the Nuclear Industry. But I'm also being realistic. I realise that the only way out of this mess is a well thought out and designed project because we have no other choice due to the nature of the materials. You have to redesign the entire industry, and it's a long term solution, but a much better legacy for future generations than a long term problem that will last a minimum of 25,000 years.

In the meantime we need to invest heavily in undeveloped, low externality, energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and micro-generation so there is enough energy *available* to carry out such an infrastructure project properly.

This is why I support reactor research but not commercial nuclear power, because so far the entire nuclear industry has been an unmitigated failure marred by industrial accidents and incompetence. Any honest and realistic examination of the *facts* cannot draw any other conclusion of the Nuclear Industries characteristics to date.