I have heard that Sony executives have indeed had their personal details published and been subject to a similar degree of exposure for actions their company has taken.

Being adults and professionals, however, they do not whine on the Internet about how unfairly they are being treated.

Glenn Beck is the Paris Hilton of political pundits, the few times I have seen his show he struck me as amazingly shallow. If he has spoken out against Republicans I can only imagine that it was when they were acting like responsible adults instead of spoiled children who have to have their way.

Are you kidding me? His campaign manager should have arranged for this domain to be purchased as soon as he launched his exploratory committee.

Failure to understand that the Internet is an important communication channel and deal with it appropriately does not bode well for his ability to deal with unexpected changes in the geopolitical landscape.

I wish you were joking.

That would be the traded velocity component. You trade speed for direction using a planetary gravity well as intermediary and you end up in a nice solar orbit at a high inclination.

"who puts a nuclear plant right next to a well known tsunami zone?"

People who live in a well-known tsunami zone already.

The difference is very well defined. Decay comes in 3 forms: Alpha, Beta, and Gamma (named for the form of radiation given off by each type of decay). Fission is the splitting of an atomic nucleus into two parts that are (by the nature of the nuclei that *can* undergo fission) much larger than an Alpha particle.

Even in nuclei that are large enough to undergo fission normally undergo one of these forms of decay unless encouraged to do otherwise (in a reactor the encouragement is typically in the form of a neutron).

Atheism is just the lack of a belief in gods. No more, no less.

Rationality might be a one reason for someone to be an atheist, but it is not the only one and they are only tenuously connected at best.

Yeah, VMware or KVM with licensed MSWindows virtual machines is a better bet if you need/can expect support from companies with applications that step on each others shared libraries, but that is making the assumption that such support is even available.

Many of the misbehaving applications do so because the support is sub-standard or non-existent, such as mission critical applications that have outlived their support window (or the producing company, even).

Codeweavers makes their money by providing support for Wine, just as RedHat makes their money by providing support for Linux. This can give companies caught with mission-critical orphan software a vendor of last resort to get some degree of support. They certainly can't get support for the application itself this way, but they can get an environment that will support the application (and still gets security patches!)

If RedHat were building all their own from scratch that argument would hold more water, but RedHat benefits from the development efforts of programmers that they don't need to pay as well as having others benefit from their efforts. Their main staffing costs are for the support they get paid for.

Mind you, a lot of those programmers are paid by other Libris software providers, but others are use-value programmers who submit the odd bugfix or already-programmed feature request upstream.

Of course, some MSWindows apps benefit from the sandboxed environments that Wine can provide, allowing multiple apps to run on the same machine that would otherwise step on each other's shared libraries.

Others require truly native MSWindows support.

So it depends on a lot more than what platform an application says it's for.

Unfortunately, Austrian School adherents seem to think that having "discovered" the law of economic gravity they have the secrets to governance and a host of other issues as well.

Anybody with the observational skills of a blind hamster and a mind that is open to more than one possibility can tell you that no trend is forever and assets must fall as well as rise.
Unfortunately having those traits makes Austrian School economists better than average for their profession.

I got them, too. Amazing!

There's types of proof for a case like is proposed that are difficult enough to fake and easy enough to test that the failure to even make the attempt is damning.

For an energy source that is supposed to be able to provide steady-state energy supplies, a steady-state power analysis is a test that is so blindingly obvious to perform that the lack of one is a major alarm bell.

To do a steady-state test you take a system like the one they are showing off, go through the tests that they have displayed, then when the output temperature stabilizes you put a load on the output. The load in this case could be a simple steam engine instrumented to read the output power, though any sensor suite that could measure flow+temperature+pressure would suffice.

The key to the steady-state power analysis is it starts at the end of the tests they have released.

There are other tests that would show what is going on internally that would prove or disprove their claims for a mechanism quite clearly, but they have consistently denied the level of access required for an independent researcher to perform an isotopic ratio measurement or any similar test.

It is the lack of tests that demonstrate what they are claiming to produce as well as failing to give evidence for their proposed mechanism that cause me to dismiss their claims out of hand.

Your comment exhibits a fundamentam misunderstanding of the process involved in making fusion happen to begin with.

There are two layers of electromagnetic walls around the nucleus that must be overcome before fusion can occur, the electron shells form the first. If there isn't enough energy in the process from some source to breach the electron shells (on both atoms involved!) then you can't get the nuclei close enough to each other for fusion to occur even by quantum tunnelling. This first requirement makes fusion in solid (or even liquid) state materials so highly improbable that it must be proven by the claimant before it is worth looking at by anyone else.

Once this first barrier is breached, there is a second, much higher, EM barrier of proton repulsion around the nucleus itself. While it is possible to breach this barrier with quantum tunnelling the probabilities are such that you won't get useful energy out unless you don't need to tunnel to pass this barrier.

Since temperature is the proxy for energy in bulk materials, this means that you have to have a very high tepmerature to ensure that your collisions occur at sufficient energy to breach both these barriers, and the temperatures experimentally proven to do the job effectively are high enough to fully ionize the atoms involved before they collide (thus removing the outer wall completely).

tl;dr version: a darn sight higher temperature than the melting point of nickel for useful quantities of fusion.