Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: 8.1 better than 7? (Score 5, Informative) 489

Just throw classic shell on it, 8.1 is way better than 7. XP was great in it's day - as windows goes - It's day was just stretched a bit longer than it should have because Vista.

Not quite. Win8 (and by extension) Windows 10, still has problems where previously unified interfaces for controlling system behavior have been split between Metro/Modern apps and traditional windows.

One example: in Win7 I click the network icon in the notifications area and a small window pops up with the connections; I can then right-click a connection and select Status for information on what IP/DNS is currently assigned or Properties to get to its security information.

Clicking the network icon on Win10 does the same thing as Win8: giant Metro panel covering a large portion of the screen, most of it wasted in "Airplane Mode" that I have no use for, and right-clicking the connection only has options that are more at home in a cellphone than in a desktop OS: estimated data usage, metered connection, forget this network. Clicking "View Connection Settings" opens another Metro-style "PC Settings" window that is designed for touch, so OS standards like right-clicking don't work.

http://i.imgur.com/8Csqe77.png

In short, it's still trying to integrate two different UI designs, and it still doesn't work. It's not as terrible as Win8 at it, but it's still in plenty of places to be annoying. It's also very inconsistent in what gets a Metro panel and what doesn't.

Comment Re:Honest question. (Score 2) 479

Men AREN'T compassionate enough to be nurses. That's why we don't apply for those positions! You're making my point! Source: my wife is a nurse.

And women in nursing eventually turn into lazy, tactless, soulless, cackling harridans. The REAL reason why men don't stay in nursing positions.

At least, this was the situation that chased me from my nursing position 13 years ago.

My compassion had nothing to do with it. I simply had had enough of the inconsiderate bitchiness and declined to stay employed in the nursing field.

Oh well. At least the stress levels working in IT is lower. And if I break a computer, I can fix it.

Comment Re:Honest question. (Score 1) 479

Conversely, denying someone a position because they do or do not happen to have a dick is also a bad move.

If I deny a nursing position to a man because "men aren't compassionate enough to be nurses," wouldn't you say that's a bad thing?

Having come from the field of nursing, that's NOT how they get rid of guys.

Basically, BECAUSE you're a guy, it means you're superhumanly strong, so that 800 lb double-knee patient who just shit the big-boy-bed down the hall can be gotten out of bed by you all by your lonesome, regardless of body mechanics, or regardless of how it affects YOUR patient load.

And you get female nurses of limited skills and unlimited volume talking to you like you're an idiot. But when you refuse to allow them to talk to you that way, you're being an unprofessional, misogynistic prick, and therefore must be fired for cause and a black mark set on your record.

And the laws regarding what can and cannot be said about a person by a former employer?

*Wink*wink*nudge*nudge*

Comment Re:Honest question. (Score 1, Informative) 479

Because humans, for the most part, are pretty stupid and fail to grasp that just because there's an uneven number of something, doesn't make it not normal or perfectly fine.

Yes. But, but having an uneven number of something doesn't mean it's automatically bad, wrong, exclusionary or in need of "correction" either.

Simply throwing someone into a position because they do or do not happen to have a dick doesn't mean you're putting someone competent or appropriate in place.

Comment Dark fiber agreements. (Score 1) 417

You want to work on something that could HUGELY advance connection speeds in the US?

Work on a law neutralizing all the contact clauses that keep municipally owned fiber networks dark.

Require a "must lease" clause for the municipality and specify a 5 year interval with exclusions of previous lesees if they didn't actively develop the network (to prevent the likes of Comcast from just leasing the networks from the municipalities and then sitting on them.

Comment Re:Why the overreaction? (Score 1) 166

And you keep forgetting that things like solar and wind cannot be used as baseline power without VAST implementation changes and an improvement in storage technology of several orders of magnitude.

Plus there's the face that there are places you simply should NOT be putting solar and wind power generation.

Comment Re:Why the overreaction? (Score 1) 166

So you're saying, without a carbon tax, with the other sources of power HEAVILY subsidized by pork, CURRENT low prices in a market the US simply DOES NOT control and with absolutely insane bias against implementation (with accompanying punitive levels of investment required), that Nuclear isn't price competitive. And with anti-nuke nuts going in circles with "This stuff needs reliable storage NOW!" and "Oh! Not THERE!", starting projects they have no intention of completing, and killing projects that already have sunk the majority of their budget. Costing taxpayers billions?

Well, DUH.

Comment Re:Why the overreaction? (Score 1) 166

Again, the sun doesn't shine all the time. And there's no storage grid large enough to actually hold that kind of power. Nor is there a planetary grid to help roll-over power.

And there are places that make solar panels seasonably unfeasible.

In the US, solar provides a scant fraction of total power use. Ramping it up several thousand percent just isn't do-able. It's not affordable for everyone to implement, the US power industry couldn't absorb that power and still afford to rebuild and maintain a grid and China couldn't supply the volumes you're talking about in a timely manner.

Instead of TL DR, learn to fucking read and stop trying to shovel your uninformed shit on everyone else you ignorant little nothing.

Comment Re:Why the overreaction? (Score 1) 166

Your argument is fallacious.

Luckily, your simply wanting this to be true in no way alters reality.

The inherent danger of or the damage to the environment of any other power source does not in any way make nuclear more attractive, which has the potential to be far more deadly.

Say it PROPERLY please.

It, in no way, makes it more attractive to YOU.

As for the "potential to be far more deadly". Bullshit. It's a binary equation. Sorry. All the relativism is just scaremongering.

Nuclear power is inherently more expensive than other sources of power, and always has been.

Again, keep saying it. It'll keep NOT being true.

Comment Re:Why the overreaction? (Score 1) 166

Unfuckingbelievable. Reasonably concerned individuals are "ninnies?"

When they stop us from doing what needs doing, and sets us to endless wrangling with no real solution?

FUCK YEAH!

WTF is up with nuke-nutters love-affair with this insanely expensive, forever deadly garbage?

Because it isn't "forever deadly". Sure, the current crop of 50-60 year old tech produces stuff that's hot (lukewarm actually) for tens of thousands of years.
But you're okay with it being stored outside on a fucking parking lot?

When we can produce stuff that's safer, and while it's more radiologically "active" (hot) than the current crop, ITS LIFETIME IS FAR SHORTER (decades or hundreds of years).

I look at it from a storage engineering perspective.

Can we build something that's going to last 100 millennia?
I dunno.

Can we build something that's going to last 500 years?
Probably. The odds are much better.

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE MORE EXPENSIVE AND MORE DIRTY THAN NUCLEAR

Bullshit. We've been pumping crap into the atmosphere for the last 200+ years. But you're going to try to tell us that nuclear is dirtier?
Nuclear's waste is more CONCENTRATED? YES! What's all the environmental pollution done to humanity over the last 200 years?

Oh. Maybe. GLOBAL FUCKING WARMING?

But hey, at least it's more diffuse!

As for more expensive. It's more expensive because the people who are terrified and equate nuclear with "nuclear war" have created a regulatory environment that's made it unfairly expensive.
Were fossil fuels required to comply with even HALF of the regulations slapped on nuclear, the price of energy would be unattainable.

But hey, feel free to give up your portion and go shiver in a cave over a meal of grubs.

Answer that, definitively, before telling me safely storing waste for 250--> 30K years is even remotely possible.

Or, howsabout we generate power using technology that produces waste that burns off faster or produces long-lived isotopes that are medically or scientifically useful (like plutonium batteries that NASA can't produce anymore because we're out of plutonium)?

Oh, but nuclear radiation kills less people than slippery showers? Except that all it takes is one good accident to throw your bullshit stats into chaos.

Like an oil spill?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... (Not to mention the oil lakes and oil fires)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

Or coal mine disasters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1...

The last not to be confused with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

Which will be burning for most of the next THREE HUNDRED YEARS.

But hey, natural gas is clean and safe right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

So, please, tell me AGAIN, about how DANGEROUS nuclear power is to everyone.

Comment Re:Why the overreaction? (Score 1) 166

Ah, the omnipresent "Nookyoolur = BOMZ!!!!" canard.

The favourite straw man of the pro-nuclear crowd. He sure takes a beating.

What strawman? HE brought it up.

Maybe that's true of what the US buys, but in the EU companies are required to care about where their raw materials come from. As well as meeting standards like RoHS, when calculating taxes on environmental damage what happens in China to mine the materials they use is taken into consideration.

It's not perfect but it has forced China to start cleaning up, at least when it wants to export to the EU.

And if they don't care to? Where does the EU get its rare earths products from THEN?

Or, on the flip side, once it decides to shift the cost of the "cleaner" procedures to the customer, and the prices of rare earths products skyrockets. What then?

No, the biggest problems are the cost and the fact that we want them to be run by people more interested in profit than safety. The latter problem is so bad that insurance companies won't touch nuclear power, and we have to have special regulatory agencies to force responsible behaviour, and even they don't work properly.

New reactor designs won't fix these problems.

The cost is a byproduct of the absolutely psychotic level of fearmongering the anti-nuke crowd has done and the ultra-paranoid regulations morass that's been put in place. And you're right, new, safer reactor designs won't fix people who are hell-bent on terrifying themselves and everyone else about "evil nuclear power".

Hmm... A concrete block with something that can potentially go into meltdown or produce explosive gas inside it. You would be totally reliant on whatever safety features were built in working perfectly, because clearly you can't get to it and just vent off some hydrogen or pump in some cooling water now. Yeah, that sounds like a great plan.

Did you even read...no...no you didn't. Because heaven forbid something contradict your little world view.

We have the ability NOW to produce reactors that simply CANNOT melt down. Where a FAILURE state results in the reactor shutting off, using natural forces like GRAVITY to remove the fuel from the reaction chamber and stop reacting. You pull the plug on the reactor, it shuts down and the fuel moves to a dump tank. The reactor starts to overheat, it shuts down and the fuel moves to a dump tank. Unless you're going to start proposing that we now need to plan for gravity utterly reversing itself....

No gas buildups. No explosions. No boiling water in the reactor.

So, we're back to "Well what if gravity magically reverses itself in a failure?" scenario.

No such design exists.

Please. Try not to show your ignorance.

Yes, the products of this form of reactor tend to be more radioactive. That's actually a fairly good thing believe it or not.

People gripe about things like Yucca mountain. Where they're storing stuff that's mildly radioactive and will be for tens of thousands of years.
Hell, at some nuclear plants, this stuff is sitting outside, in the open ON A FUCKING PARKING LOT.

Do we REALLY think we're up to engineering storage facilities with that sort of lifespan?
Maybe? I'd say they're being unrealistic.
The stuff that comes out of an MSR? VERY hot, but VERY short-lived (relatively).
Are we up to storing stuff that lives a few decades or a couple hundred years? Yeah! Easily.

Additionally I'm not saying "fission forever".

I'm saying "Fission for now, where it makes sense" (don't build them on active faultlines or near volcanoes, etc). And augment it with renewables.

Once we have a steady, clean power structure in place, BEAT FEET FOR FUSION (again, augmented by renewables).

The faster we get to the fusion stage, the less overall waste we produce.
The less overall waste we produce, the less we'll need to store.
The less we need to store, the sooner the stuff will break down safely and become inert, rendering the facility it's stored in safe.

As for proliferation risks.

Even if we decomissioned every reactor TODAY, you, and your children, and their children, etc, etc, etc would not be "safe". Because, as I noted, the stuff that runs those reactors (and can be made into bombs) is going to be around a long, long, LONG time. So, if you've been harboring such a vain hope, disabuse yourself NOW. Remember what I said? Radioactive material sitting in the open ON A PARKING LOT. All because NOBODY wants to deal with REALITY and just do what needs doing. They'd rather bask in their beautiful fantasy where everything is clean and safe and runs on the aforementioned fairy farts.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Working...