Sorry, but that’s a terrible idea. Submarine power plants are designed to meet a totally different set of design requirements than you want to set for a land based power generation plant. They need to be very small and quiet. Everything else, particularly cost, is secondary. Their fuel has to be highly enriched (>90%) U235, which is massively expensive and a proliferation problem. They are not designed for refueling – typically the whole core is replaced. Their ultimate safety feature in an accident relies on them being surrounded by an unlimited amount of ocean water.

If you take a submarine reactor and redesign it to be more suitable for a power reactor, you end up with a standard PWR.

"One of the most famous examples of the human artificial boundary phenomena is running. For the longest time, a four-minute mile was considered physiologically impossible. When the record was broken, it was swiftly broken again by another bloke a month later. Within a few years, everyone was running four-minute miles. It's now a standard, and the record is much lower than four minutes. "

The progress in mile records over time is linear. There's no evidence that people believing that it was impossible held anyone back.

$200 for the 40-year old paper includes membership. Non-members get the paper for $15. Can you please not misrepresent?

Not that I'm defending this. The article should be free, and $15 is way too much (even the 24-hour "rental" for $3 is too much). But it isn't $200.

Galliums a mild reactor poison; it's thermal cross section is a couple of barns. When it comes to super prompt criticality induced by fast neutrons in a bomb core it'll make next to no difference. I don't think it's a misinformation trap.

I totally agree with your point that nuclear terrorism is massively unlikely. This article is ridiculous scaremongering.

I'll politely disagree. I've been using Linux Mint Mate for a number of years with great satisfaction, doing anything from writing novels to hacking Lisp code to maintaining my websites. I don't mind the Chrome UI, but if I did, there would be other choices, such as Pale Moon.

I watch people struggle with Windows 8 and I'm glad I'm not there.

Ah, yes, the famous "silent majority."

Heh. I still use RCS :) Definitely good enough for one person projects. I use it (in conjunction with EMACS) for fiction writing.

My point? Fit the tool to the job. RCS is old and doesn't scale well, but what I'm doing only requires something simple and straightforward. CVS, SVN, GIT --- all are overkill for me.

The tradition was, in order to prevent the divine name being pronounced by accident, that the vowels for "adonai" were placed in the letters of the tetragrammaton. If you read that as written it sounds like "yehovah". As I understand it, a dumb Middle-Ages Christian scribe transcribed this as-is without knowing the background, with a "J" which sounds like "Y" in German. In English that got pronounced as "Jehovah."

So the JWs got it completely wrong. Their religion is named after a nonsense word due to a scribal error. But none of them seem to know it. A couple of times when they've come calling, I've asked them if they know the origin of the word "Jehovah" and I get blank stares.

Many modern plants have passive cooling that doesn't require mains power. Every plant I'm aware of has multiple generators and multiple redundant grid links. Disabling them all is not as trivial as you make it sound.

That aside, the compounding problem at Fukishima was that the surrounding infrastructure was totally wrecked because of the Tsunami. Most places in the world they'd just truck in a back up generator before anything untoward happened.

That's a misrepresentation. Feed enough different sets of red noise into the algorithm and you can get a hockey stick shaped result. Even the wikipedia article notes this;
"McIntyre and McKitrick's code selected 100 simulations with the highest "hockey stick index" from the 10,000 simulations they had carried out, and their illustrations were taken from this pre-selected 1%"

That's hardly surprising and tells you nothing about the validity of the analysis. Look at enough random data sets and you'll eventually find one that gives you the 'correct' result.