I've done this on Twitter (signed up, thought it crap, forgot my password, never returned(as that same account)) at least a dozen times.

Same with Facebook. I have one throwaway facebook account for just about every damn application or website that makes me "log in / sign up using facebook" - and in each case I promptly forget my username and password and never log in again.

I imagine that's more typical than those companies care to admit.

Here is the 900 pound elephant in the room.

middle class office workers *are* incompetant. They have nice paying "intellectual labor" jobs not because they are smart, but because they fit the cultural mode that the boss wants them around the office.

When they are too stupid to figure things out they point fingers at other's shortcommings as the reason why.

"you smelly perma-virgin neckbeard fedora wearing misogynist prick".

and before homophobia fell out of tune with mainstream society, the word "faggot" and inuendo of homosexuality was common as well.

I actually use gnome 3, and I'd hate to see it gone. I think even with its problems, its the future.

Sure they made some bad decisions.

>"The Outreach Program for Women (OPW) helps women (cis and trans) and genderqueer get involved in free and open source software." They've had around 30 interns for their most recent cycle.

I agree with the fact that someone needs to do this, but a desktop like gnome shouldn't be burdend. Why can't all the wealthy philanthropers with lots of money pay for these girls, instead of making a broke non for profit do it.

Or why can't be just start a foundation to teach minorities and women to code, funded by itself?

I see you have absolutely no understanding of how science works, or have any understanding of the current state of research into fusion power, if you suggest that we could have had it already based on the money spent so far.

If we'd have spent two orders of magnitude more money on it over the past 40 years then that's still less than a year's expenditure on oil surveying by a single oil company.

Bargain.

So, given how you're clearly an expert on these sorts of things, how much should we be spending on cryogenic coal cracking as a way to extend our useful fossil fuel lifetime?

The evidence is the amount of money that has been spent on that research - it's a tiny drop.

Large scale research projects are required to probe science at this level - look at the development of fission reactors, for example. The money poured into that was vast, and it cracked the fundamental engineering problems associated with it.

Fusion power is not a theoretical concept - it happens all the time (and life on earth is reliant on it), but the practical challenges are large. The lines on that graph are obviously projections, but they are projections based on the science and engineering of the time as it pertained to fusion science. They weren't just "made up", and they do not take unforeseen circumstances into account, but they are based on the costs of solving the challenges inherent in fusion power production which were known at the time the graph was made.

You don't believe that fusion researchers are doing anything useful, so it's clear you don't understand how science works, so this is likely lost on you, but the amount of money on that graph in total since 1978 is so small that it is laughable, and yet here we are. It outlines one of the main problems with large scale science - that short sighted people such as yourself consider pure research to be "harmful" because it isn't immediately profitable or an obvious path to near-term profits.

From my perspective, the 20 billion per year air conditioning the desert in Afghanistan is wasted - what exactly has the war in Afghanistan accomplished? Apart from destabilising the region, increasing xenophobia, damaging the USA's reputation and giving a few people some closure because some terrorists who weren't from either of the two countries you invaded in response flew some planes into a couple of buildings in NYC.

Solving fusion power will change the face of civilisation and is an almost-necessary step in transitioning into an era where the bulk of our energy doesn't come from fossil sources (it could be done with purely fission power too, but again, PR issues and funding problems dog it). The worst part is we could have already solved it by now had we actually spent any reasonable amount of money on it. If it had been funded at 5 billion dollars per year since 1976 then you could have had twenty thousand simultaneous fusion power research programs running over those 40 years for every eight-year Iraq war (using low estimate for the cost of the war).

The point being, fusion power is being funded for peanuts, and even the "aggressive funding" is a tiny amount.

It's actually vastly, vastly, vastly underpriced and underfunded.

It is an absolute disgrace that fusion power hasn't seen the funding necessary to succeed given the importance of energy to modern civilisation.

ITER is a necessary step in the chain to produce working fusion power plants. It's amazing they've come this far while being funded with what amounts to hunting for pennies in vending machine coin return trays.

Here's a picture that paints a thousand words that makes the laughable troll headline of "skyrocketing" cost for ITER make the idiot who wrote it seem like he has trouble tying his own shoes:

http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg

Also note the scale on the y axis, and remember that the annual cost of the air conditioning the troops in Afghanistan is $20 billion.

Keep to the science! ahahaha ahahahahahaha! AHAHAHAHA

You are fucking gold.

The efficiency of fusion power doesn't come from anything as trivial as the energy used to grow food or refine the fuel. Fusion power derives its energy from the strong nuclear force. This energy density is already present in each atom of your fuel.

When you start fusing atoms and releasing the energy from those reactions it starts going well beyond "well, it cost us x amount of energy in the truck to bring the fuel to the reactor". The strong nuclear force is orders of magnitude above any of the other forces involved and that potential energy has been locked up in your fuel since the beginning of the universe.

Processing it into usable fuel, transporting it, feeding the workers that do that is not even a rounding error in the calculations.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how fusion (and fission for that matter) works.

I think you misunderstand the laws of thermodynamics.

The sun converts mass into energy at an enormous rate. There is no "net power gain" in any closed thermodynamic system, but from the reference frame of the earth, the sun "makes power" insofar as it takes the fuel it has in the core and fuses it, and as a helpful side effect it the energy released in said fuel consumption is released as heat, light and other EM radiation.

It doesn't even compare.

For example, the cost of running the air conditioners in the tents in Afghanistan is $20 billion *per year*. So, if the US just pulled out of Afghanistan a few weeks ahead of schedule, they could fully fund their minuscule contribution to ITER.

To quote a statement apocryphally attributed to Lord Kelvin: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement" And then came Quantum mechanics, Relativity... don't worry... there's heaps to play around with

I think Ubuntu has user shares turned on. In which case you right click on the directory and click on the 'share' menu item, just like Windows.

Disclaimer. I wrote the Samba code for this feature...

... is not a French film, it's Italian, written and directed by Federico Fellini (together with several other heavyweights of italian contemporary culture.) That's like saying that sombreros are typical of the USA... pfff

Sure. Heat it up past the critical point in the presence of oxygen.

Graphene is carbon, and the thermal decomposition of carbon as a fuel source has been documented for many many centuries.

A complex designed to thermally decompose the graphene (and any organic substrates it may be bound to), followed by acid and alkaline recovery washes to reclaim the doping agents from the ashes could effectively handle graphene ewaste.

The issue with silicon, is that the thermal decomposition temperature is very excessive, and difficult to contend with. It likes to form this stuff called "glass", instead of decomposing into an easily separable substance, like CO2.

There are other high-temperature materials besides ceramic that can be used as the outer casing.

Graphene is an organic molecule, which will have thermal expansion properties more closely related to those of other organic molecules containing aromatic ring structures, because of the bond energies and bond angles involved.

Say, something like aramid.

The only issue with aramid that I can think of is that it cannot be melted. (It has no melting point. It thermally decomposes before melting.) To "mold" aramid, the molecules have to be dissolved in a very strong acid. This would greatly complicate chip casing manufacture.

There are other aromatic ring structure based polymers though.

Wine on Mint probably is compatible with more XP software than WIn8 is anyway.