God damn you!!! You just don't understand science! If we were to take those becquerels and put them into a right triangle... we divide 1 trillion by 2 for the a and b... so we get 500billion Bq... so thats 2*500,000,000,000^2 that means the hypotenuse of the radiation is 50 Quintillion becquerels! By my back of the envelope numbers by next year news stories about fukishima will have release more radiation than a small supernova. A year after that even Andromeda is going to be pissed at Japan.

Agreed. Most of the country doesn't have a problem. The people living in the Arizona desert watering their Golf courses are running out of water... well surprise surprise. Let them run out. They can move... pretty much anywhere else in the country to avoid that problem. The solution to this problem is simple... ignore it.

Because they don't have a giant fucking hole drilled strait through the middle of them?
The waters at 1 PSI and the Frack well is at 15,000 PSI.
The Fracking solution is designed to erode those very geologic structures...
Should I go on? or are you getting the idea?

I've never gotten a permit to drill a well.
There are some things the government can't regulate because they're impossible to regulate.
Granted, I'm lucky that I live in an area where I know people that will borrow me the equipment to do such things. If you're living in the middle of town the rig might become obvious...

Who says I was talking about a planar triangle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... :-p

Ok, I was... but the oldest geometry typo since the pyramids does not invalidate relativity.

You're misinterpreting the meaning of "infinite" here.
You're assuming density measurement has an infinite value. Like "How many dollars are there?" Well, you could have any number of dollars from 1 to infinity.
That's not how density is measured.
Another type of measurement is "What angle is the corner of that triangle?"
That could be anywhere from 1 to 359 degrees (rounding to whole numbers)
It's kind of like a percentage.
Infinite density would be like saying the angle is 360 Degrees. That breaks the triangle. The angle is effectively infinite.
Mass, density, momentum, time, etc... are all treated like geometry when you get into relativistic effects.
You can't exceed the speed of light because that to would break the geometry of the system. Once you hit the speed of light, you again are doing the equivalent of making one of the angles 360 degrees.

The "Triangle" of this system is Speed, time and mass. So for speed to exceed the speed of light and therefor be the "360 degree angle" of this triangle, the other two angles... time and mass, must be 0. Therefor time stops, and the moving object must be massless. Does that make more sense?

At least thats how I've always understood it.

But that's exactly what they are saying.
You need to differentiate. Blackholes are NOT singularities. A blackhole is the collection of phenomena and objects in an area of spacetime. It is believe that at the center of the blackhole is a singularity. What this new theory suggests is that there is not a singularity there, but instead that it just behaves very similar to one.

It's actually not as mind bending as you might think.

Quantum mechanics is "Time Symmetrical" meaning that, the laws of physics work the same irrelevant of the direction of time.
This is only at the quantum scale so real world stuff doesn't work so hot.
But take a quantum particle falling into a blackhole...
If the blackhole consumed it, destroying all information about it... if you reversed time, the particle would never exist, and never be ejected back into space.
If, however, time slows as it approached the blackhole and the particle never actually crossed the event horizon... then if you reverse time, time would speed up and the particle would eventually be flung away.

This all depends on you accepting the standard model, and the current interpenetration of quantum physics. They are becoming more rock solid every day however, it would take some pretty amazing discoveries to break them.

The data he updated was someones password. Wouldn't that concern you? ;-)

Because the majority of the people getting CS degrees now-a-days have no idea what they are doing.
And I don't mean, they just aren't good. I mean they barely even know how to type.
I worked with a guy a while back that was given 4 projects in a row and did absolutely no work on them. I liked the guy personally so he felt safe in asking me questions... He didn't even know how to define a variable or call an Object in the Language he specialized in. And I've met LOTS of people like that. He was probably the worst, but the quality of people with degrees in programming is awful. I'm not sure if it's just because it's something really hard to test for or if cheating is rampant. But there is definitely a problem. Most of the people I work with that don't have a degree and had to claw their way up are a lot better than the people that have 4yr degrees.

Also, programming jobs don't pay crap anymore. Managers at McDonalds make about the same as entry level program jobs.

You've clearly never worked in security.
You can never fully secure anything. All you can do is shift liability away from your business.
You need to reduce the chances of a breach to the point that the number that occur and lead to lawsuits costs you less than the effort to make it more secure.
You could technically require every customer to drive down to your main office in person and show ID before logging in... but what would that do to your business?
Secondly, procedure is everything. How do people handle data? What is the process for updating a router? LDAP? the VPN? etc?
90% of security is writing bulletproof process. 9% are the people that follow that process. 1% is HR firing people that don't.

If you just hire "Security people" and expect them to act "securely" you're just asking for trouble.

Right, Google is very friendly with the ISPs. I doubt there is any throttling of Youtube happening.

ISP's get fined all the time. The fines are not advertised unless the FCC wants to make a political statement. I suspect this press release is a shot over the bow of one or more ISP's over a particularly egregious case that may even be local and not on our radar yet.

Yea, we use a very expesnsive cloud service that per the contract is encrypted at rest and in transit. After 5yrs I happened to have a networking issue and did a packet capture on the stream... no encryption. So we approached them... "Encryption? No, we don't do that..." We explained that it was in the contract and they HAD to do that. So after 2 months they had to move us to a "Special" server and we were encrypted. I checked the packets again and we were at least encrypted in transit. A few months later we had another trouble ticket with them. One of their techs was working on it and explained how he logged in an edited the table raw to fix it. So I asked how he could do that if the data was encrypted. "Encryption? No, we don't do that..." ugh... so now we're supposedly "really" encrypted.

The problem with cloud services is they can lie cheat and steal with your data and there's nothing you can do about it. You can't verify it, you can't test it, and if anything happens to it you wouldn't have a clue. You're entirely at the mercy of the provider and as time goes on their internal staff can turn over, competence can wane, controls can get lax, and you'll have no idea any of that is happening.

Right? This is like the 4th RaspberryPI gameboy on slashdot this year.