Even if this is less efficient than a conventional ICE, it's still less moving parts therefore less things to wear out, which should make it last even longer and require less maintenance.

This is why you encrypt EVERYTHING. Nothing should be sent in the clear, it makes it really friggin hard to identify what might be illegal and what might just a SSL session with your bank.

Will people EVER learn this? Encrypt, always, everywhere, excessively.

Direct money toward large nuclear reactors!

Who the hell wants a ton of little reactors all over the place that when they run out of fuel we basically bury it and hope no one stumbles upon it.

Stick with the big plants, just use the new safer designs and BUILD them. This was a complete waste of money. This idea was never going to fly and still won't. As a strong proponent of nuclear power, I don't even like this idea (due to the waste left behind.)

Wind is a really really bad joke I'm afraid.

It's unreliable, low power generation. It has to be backed up by something else (usually natural gas.) That is fact.

Another fact, just setting aside costs, assuming can build wind without limitations, we'd have to have these things pretty much EVERYWHERE on our planet and it'd take years upon years just to build the things. And how about maintenance for hundreds of thousands of wind turbines? Multiply the failure potential (and harm potential) of wind power by the huge number of new generators. You're going to see a lot more loss of life from building and maintaining hundreds of thousands of wind generators than any nuclear accident could or has caused.

It's the most absurd idea I've come across. It's a really bad joke.

Solar is nicer idea. At least when these things break down, they don't hurt people, but still intermittent, still needs to be backed up by a fossil fuel plant to compensate for intermittence. So its not a real answer, its another bad joke.

You're the one in a dream world if you think humanity is going to continue to flourish and prosper -without- nuclear power. We simply will not be a happy species without an abundance of power. This is the answer. Without it, the loss of life from wars over the dwindling resources will far exceed anything imaginable by nuclear power generation.

Some of the new designs are not water cooled at all, and the system has to be running for a reaction to continue firing. If something goes wrong (loss of power, damage to the system), the reactors simply cannot continue, they shut down for lack of fissile material, due to the very design of the system, if there's a loss of power to the system, the thing can't keep going, it just shuts down.

Please, try to read up on the new reactor designs such as LFTR and IFR designs. Both address safety in a passive manner and are capable of recycling most if not all of our current spent fuel sitting in pools all over the place. How are these designs NOT the direction we should be going? Nothing is 100% safe, but these are VERY safe, and considering the rather UNSAFE designs of the past which we're using all over the place, and nuclear's rather impressive safety record. I mean, three accidents over the entire life of nuclear power? That is really impressive. And these new designs just take the safety to a whole new level.

I think he meant, new reactor designs do not fail catastrophically. The built in *PASSIVE* safety of these new designs would mean it take a deliberate act (sabotage) to cause a reactor to fail in a way that involves the release of radioactive materials.

You can't put fail and sabotage together and say the reactor is unsafe. *ANYTHING* is unsafe if it's sabotaged correctly.

Fascinating paper you linked there. Thanks!

I'm starting to become convinced there is simply no way to travel in a meaningful way among the stars. No species has figured out how to do anything like FTL or even slow boating. Or they tried and failed.

Sad. But its really starting to seem like we're stuck here unless we wanna try to slow boat to another star system. I don't think there is a way to travel among the stars in a way that is actually useful.

As far as self-destruction.. dunno.. impossible to predict, but if the religious nuts get their way, we'll annihilation ourselves eventually.

Exactly. Does it matter if the project changes names? Why don't the people interested in 'fixing' OpenSSL just leave it named OpenSSL? Why change? Seems to me that forking OpenSSL to something new is giving the finger to those who developed SSL in the past, and saying 'we're not going to work with you.' It just seems very wasteful. Collaborate and fix it together, rather than splinter. Ever heard of divide and conquer? Why would open source community divide and conquer itself? Seems counter-productive.

It's almost sad the 'dialup' model of internet service died. Just imagine if dialup continued to evolve and achieve the speeds our broadband connections have now. Yes I know all about the physical limitations of dialup modems, but this is just a hypothetical.

Just imagine if all the lil mom'n'pop ISPs were still in business because dialup was the dominate internet service as it used to be. Net neutrality wouldn't even be a discussion right now, if that were still the way it worked.

I also imagine, the first person who comes up with a new 'dialup' like service that yanks the internet out of the grubby hands of big corporations, this issue will go away pretty quick, and that person is going to be very rich.

Race is on, folks, make dialup (though these days I imagine its going to be a wifi type solution) as fast as broadband, so everyone can compete and this problem simply disappears.

Don't fork SSL, we need to keep one standard, I'd think. This is a bad idea. These resources could be used to improve OpenSSL directly.

This part doesn't make sense to me, obviously these customers were just as active in defrauding Comcast, they should be required to pay the money they owe at a minimum, criminal charges seems more appropriate. Why play favorites? They're equally guilty as the perpetrators of the scam. Without them, the scam wouldn't have worked.

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree, that 'dark web' URL in slapped in such plain view.. screams honeypot. Pass.

Just as a side note, for any corporate intranet with VPN and web servers facing the outside world, it really is a good idea to isolate your various services, so if one is compromised, the others aren't. This is a classic example of why you should do that: If the web server and VPN were on separate VM's, heartbleed fishing through the web server wouldn't have exposed the VPNs keys.

I wish I could afford to practice that myself, I unfortunately lump all my internet facing services on one VM, but for a corporation with more assets, it really is a cheap way to cover your butt.