Uhg, this isn't knee jerk opposition to nuclear.

I'm not opposed to the continued use of nuclear power.

I'm in favor of moving to modern nuclear power facilities in place of the old ones. Yes, a 60 year old reactor can keep on chugging for another 20 years, but I'd much rather have a reactor designed with the safety of graphite or thorium running in their place for the next 80 years.

My opposition is not to nuclear power in general. My opposition is to saying that "we could have a Chernobyl every year..." without catastrophic repercussions.

-Rick

Would people paint their roofs to save money, you bet they will but how cheap is the paint, how clean does the roof need to be, how cheap is it to apply and how long will it last. I would have no qualms about painting my roof white, as long as I can get it done cost effectively enough. Of course one other thing, how well does it perform after it is no longer pristine, how self cleaning is it with rainfall or do I have to get up there and clean it every once a month to maintain performance. When it comes to using white as default for roofs, it is easy enough for many countries to legislate that for all new structures that is mandatory and provide subsidise for existing structures.

'Erm' yeah, like cos you know, innocent until proven guilty because we don't believe you, when the you is the government and they have to prove their claims in a public court. This of course because without public courts governments have proven to be totally 100% corrupt when it comes to accusing people of crimes and basically chopping off their heads for all and sundry reasons. So yeah innocent and the government most definitely does not have the legal right to use the prosecutorial system as a penalty into and of itself. Which governments around the globe have been doing and especially which the corrupted US government has been doing, even going to the extreme of torturing people to death as part of that prosecutorial system, without even bothering with kangaroo military courts based upon nothing more than other claims made under torture. So yeah the legal system in the US has turned to utter shite, where the rich get off even when convicted, the poor get maximum sentences in forced labour prisons and foreigners die without trial.

The whole idea is stupid. What governments should of course be considering instead, if they find biased internet searches so troubling, is to create a government body that provides the same service upon a completely neutral basis. The problem then comes into how to sort the list, who gets first page ranking and who misses out. So hold a conference, invite various groups and individuals and set rules for search sorting and set major penalties for attempting to search optimise, also provide the means for registered end users to readily filter out and promote sites based upon how well they match the search criteria. Do it all ad free, based upon the majority of companies getting better consumer access without bias, on consumers saving time without having to wade through irrelevant search optimised shit search sites, in fact allow users to flag them with a view to prosecution far disrupting user network search activity. Government spending should always have a focus on saving the majority of it's citizens money where that taxation investment is far less than the money citizens save in the more efficient provision of services.

So should internet search be private or public and should citizens have a choice whether to use the private service or the public service. In this case only a handful of private companies benefit and the cost of a huge number or private companies and this cost is inevitably passed onto the consumers.

So should net neutrality extend to search neutrality, well, at least search fully controllable by the end user and their choices of what a good search results and which ones 'search optimisely' suck.

Who needs a conspiracy. Just see how close you can fly to Diego Garcia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D... in what the US government now considers a flying bomb, it's not like they don't have a history of shooting down passenger jets, sometimes admitting it, sometimes denying it and sometimes pretending it never happened if they can clean it up fast enough whilst people are conveniently looking elsewhere. It's not like that particular pilot had an anti-US history and had been practising landing at Diego Garcia on a flight simulator.

Easy, start screaming at Google to pull it's bloody finger out and make a much needed modification to permission to differentiate between unlimited permissions and user confirmed permissions every time a request is made, plus the opportunity to change this on the fly. Add in logs for access, that the user can readily confirm in order to change permissions if they don't like them. Send them emails, blog nasty things about them and stop installing apps until changes are made.

Just a reminder GT did not sign on the dotted line, GT is not a real person not matter how many deceitful and disingenuous corporate types like to pretend it is, in order to shift responsibility away from themselves to other people and make them pay. So why would the corporate executives of GT sign, what kind of motivation would they individually need to risk their whole company in order to provide Apple the best deal possible. So how much money and risk could Apple save by investing in the executive team of GT, keeping in mind as per typical executive teams the one thing they always put in place for themselves is a golden parachute when it all fails. So how much would Apple have to shift from one offshore tax haven bank account to another offshore bank account to basically get corporate executives to stab their own company in the back, keeping in mind Apple could save hundreds of millions of dollars over the life of the contract or eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of risk.

Strange things go on in the world of finance where investment companies routinely buy into doomed companies, that enable vulture capitalists like Mittens Romney to make huge profits. For some strange reasons those executive teams of say pension funds go stupid and buy all sorts of crap for billions of dollars and yet they all still retire rich no matter how much other people's money they lose.

It should be pretty obvious by now when it comes to corporations, psychopathic corporate executives always act in their own interest and whether or not that serves the interests of the company they work for is completely arbitrary.

All you're doing is delinking from a search engine. If someone else comes along and builds a search engine and spiders your false accusation, then your right back in.

The rule is moronic, passed down by malicious halfwits.

Of the resumes, numerous were of quality. Of the applicants, I still have 8 more on my interview list, but 2 appear to be of high quality so far.

If I am unable to fill the remaining positions from my current list, I have the other resumes from people who like to write novels to go through.

Similarly, for a slew of mainframe developers I received 60 some resumes, about the same for software PMs, high 40s for a handful of BI/ETL/DBA/Reporting positions.

Filling a couple of spots for a modern technology really isn't hard to find quality folks. Filling 9 mainframe spots is rough though.

-Rick

I don't care about killing >a fish. I care about killing off fisheries. I don't care about killing off some bacteria. I care about killing off significant swaths of bacteria that allow other more resilient strains to take over and negatively impact our agriculture industry.

This isn't me being some high and mighty tree hugger. This is me being concerned that there are dramatic indirect impacts on our environment that aren't included in a 'direct human casualties' metric.

Coal and oil are also highly concerning. This isn't a free pass for them either.

There are safer nuclear options, as mentioned in previous posts, thorium salt reactors seem like a huge step forward in the safety department. Even with traditional uranium reactors, as you point out, massive improvements have been designed over the last 50+ years. But we are still depending on reactors that were built in the 50's and 60's that had an original planned lifespan of 40 years, but keep getting extended.

-Rick

At the end of the day, neither the Republicans or the Democrats are what they seem. The only real election that counts is the primaries, where the Republican and Democrat Party are created, once the primaries are over, so is the real election. This is where the electorates choices are currently all stacked in favour of psychopathic corporations, so no matter who the electorate vote for, they are voting for the corporations candidates. So the Democrats and the Republicans are only as bad as lazy stupid Americans allow them to be at the primaries, in which something like 10% of the eligible electorate participate.

How about politicians sitting through the normal employee application process and undergoing public testing to review their intellect, knowledge and psychology. So that when the electorate chose to vote for some know nothing idiot psychopath that will say for anything they are paid to say, the electorate will do so with full knowledge of how stupidly gullible they are to do so.

You are like that farmer that whines when they get paid bugger all for a crop that raked in huge profits for the few farmers that planted it last season, just like all the other farmers that switched to the high profit crop.

Demand does not function on it's off but is a partner with supply. When supply fails to meet demand, price rises and when supply exceeds demand price drops. There was an interesting period where old cobol programmers were paid heaps, not because there was growing demand but because no one was learning the language and supply of skilled coders had dropped right off and although very little new code was written, existing code had to be maintained.

A tricky point on the supply side, the easier the language is to learn and use, the more readily coders will learn it and of course the greater the supply. You also have to be careful with regard to the realistic stabilisation of applications. Change in applications now is largely driven by greed, with forced incompatibilities created purposefully to require purchasing the same software over and over again, they toss in some GUI changes to create the public relations illusion of a better product. Eventually this is going to hit a real wall, customers will no longer accept fake upgrades that waste huge sums in licence fees, retraining costs, installation costs and hardware upgrades, all with zero new benefit to the customer.

What creates the illusion of a money loser in the corporate tax lawyer parlance is shifting all revenue offshore against claimed costs in tax havens, including management costs and, licensing costs. So one company unit in a tax haven pays a negligible cost for the software and then places an enormous profit margin on the item, which is the bought by another company unit at the revenue point who then shock horror sells it at an imaginary loss (the profits hidden in the tax haven). All tax should be based on localised revenue, all offshore costs should be audited and any profit incorporated in them should be subject to taxation at the final revenue point. Any costs that fail audit or where information is not supplied should be excluded.

When corporations cheat of taxes, they, upon a user pays basis are stealing from that economy that provides the revenue opportunity. The basically are not paying for their access to that economy and cheating all citizens of that economy, keeping in mind those citizens pay for the social, administrative and infrastructure costs that make those revenue opportunities available. So they are acting as economic parasites, making use of the economy without contributing back to it, this parasitism resulting in loss of social services and infrastructure to those citizens that provided the economy from which the tax cheats benefited. When it is done upon a large scale those companies and the individuals behind those companies are as evil as imaginable as they are cheating citizens of essential social services and shorting their life expectancy.

I find it hillarious that they so easily conclude tor doesn't fill these gaps because they deem it too easy to break. That right there is some pretty extraordinary claim, I would want to see them do it if its so easy.

I don't think there is any evidence that tor, in this particular use case, is actually so easy to break. So far all evidence is that weaknesses lie in the services behind hidden services, in browsers used to use web based services in particular, and potentially in hidden services themselves.

A bitcoin node transmitting transactions really should be pretty safe, and if they have any evidence to the contrary, that would be much more interesting than their hand waving clickbait claims.

Because iOS and Android have no email and calendaring support whatsoever...