Even with the loss of the generators and distribution panels there was still a backup option. They used pump trucks to inject water into the system for emergency cooling. They were in place and operating in time to avert a major disaster, but a critical valve was in the wrong position so the pumped water ended up in storage tanks instead of the reactor cooling system. The valve could not be checked because the monitoring equipment was damaged, and damage to the plant made physical inspection difficult.
The real heart of the issue is that there was both inadequate tsunami resilience and due to management being cheap, and mistakes made by operators due to lack of experience, understanding and proper procedures thanks again to management being cheap.
No, the right to be forgotten only refers to the usual way that communities forget past actions because they don't spend much time checking microfiche at the local library for dirt on their neighbours. Search engines fundamentally change how easy it is to access that information - it goes from being a case of searching millions of articles in decades of newspapers manually to typing in someone's name.
Google pulled out of China due to the censorship demands. I somehow doubt that they will pull out of the EU though, they are too heavily invested.
STV produces a more representative government, if you group regions together so that votes are for a number of MPs rather than just one.
Districts would have to be grouped together to implement STV. It only works properly if there is more than one seat available.
I've been trying to think of a way we can get the Single Transferable Vote introduced. It's going to be difficult, especially since the people with the power to do it would be giving up some of their power. Also, most of the British public claim they are too thick to understand it.
Anyone have any ideas?
But to pursue this in the courts is ludicrous. Personhood is fairly well defined in most, if not all, jurisdictions and it pretty much explicitly excludes anyone who isn't a member of H. sapiens.
Their goal was to get these animals one of the legal protections afforded to humans, so the argument wasn't that they were people exactly. They were arguing that they should get some of the legal protections afford to persons, specifically the ones that prevent them being used for medical experiments without consent.
It's a subtle distinction, but as you pointed out in your own post most experts do agree that some animals experience emotions and suffering in a similar way to people. If the emotions and suffering are the same or very similar, it could be argued that laws protecting a person from suffering should apply to them as well.
Some of Cameron's friends of pornographers of one sort of another. From soft-porn in "newspapers" to "lad's mags" to soft child porn (e.g. the Daily Mail).
Age versification would seem to require entry of credit card data, unless they are going to accept a simple "I am 18 years old" tick box (Facebook uses that technique to "prevent" children under 13 from using it, LOL). Let's assume credit card, that means that free sites will die or be forced overseas. Pay sites won't be able to give much away as a preview either. So the competition for his friends in old media is reduced.
3KB is huge. Just avoid encoding the data as XML and you could fit all possible nutritional information anyone could need in there and plenty more besides.
Since we don't have AI yet, how on earth do you propose we 'teach' non-existent machines?
I don't. I propose we design robots to communicate in a way that shows empathy, like you would any software system.
Don't design a robot face that is always smiling if it may have to deliver bad news sometimes. If it can alter its expression, make sure it is always appropriate. If it can speak, consider the tone of voice to use when giving information that may be sensitive, in the same way as you might consider making text on a computer screen bold or hidden (for password entry). No need for AI, just good design.
The parts of their brains that handle communication are simply not advanced enough to handle writing, or speech for that matter. That's not really a criteria for personhood though, as for example humans with learning disabilities or severely impaired senses may not be able to write or be creative in the way you describe, but are still considered legal persons.
The only reason why there was a legal attempt to have them declared legal persons was to get them greater rights, because existing animal rights laws were deemed to be inadequate.
It shares an ENCRYPTED version. Not a hash. If it shared a hash, it wouldn't let them access it, now would it?
No, that's not how WPA2 works. One of the major security features of WPA2 is that it never transmits the password. In fact you never even store the password. It works like this.
1. User enters a password, and the computer hashes it and discards the plaintext. This has is called the PSK (pre-shared key).
2. AP sends a nonce (random number) to the computer, and the computer hashes the PSK with it.
3. Computer sends the hash of the nonce+PSK to the AP, so that the AP can authenticate the PSK but a fake AP with the same SSID can't reverse what it receives into the PSK.
So Windows never encrypts your password, it only ever hashes it to generate the PSK and stores. Your router never stores your password, only the hash of it. You never use the password to authenticate, only the hash.
By default, this OS will leak your local data. You can opt out of this, but good luck constantly finding that setting, and having one more horrendous weight to lug around every time you have to reinstall, or use a new machine.
You mean the handy options screen that shows up after installation, where you can turn all of sharing off with a few clicks? Do you have any evidence that using that screen doesn't turn off everything? It really seems like Microsoft listened to people's complaints about this and consolidated all the settings in one handy place, but maybe you know better.
It mentions giving law enforcement all your data if asked, which, I mean, we JUST saw that exact thing become both automated, and globally used against all Americans.
You find it surprising that Microsoft will comply with legal data requests, and they are legally required to do so? Note that they are fighting requests where they can (e.g. the current court case over data stored in Ireland), but can't refuse a court mandated legal request. It's not a question of just saying "no", it's a question of the executives going to jail if they refuse.
Many new features require you to opt in to wholesale uploading of your activities. Cortana is a huge feature of this OS, but everything from your location to *lists of played media files* is uploaded when you use this feature. You can opt out, but this disables Cortana.
Considering that Cortana works by knowing stuff about you, how do you expect it to work if you opt out of telling it anything? If you ask "what will the weather be like tomorrow?" how is it supposed to know where you are if you refuse to tell it? Note that using the standard non-Cortana-search with "what will the weather in New Deli be tomorrow?" still works, because you gave Bing enough information to answer.
You can't turn off a lot of the telemetry.
You can be specific about what telemetry you can't turn off?
How does his computer sign on to my wireless network knowing only the hash, 510ae47865e94f0e2165? That isn't the password for my network, the router isn't going to accept it.
In addition to my other post, to be absolutely clear your router will accept that hash*. It doesn't accept passwords, only hashes for WPA2 enabled networks. If implemented properly the router should not even store your password, only the hash of it.
That's the normal way passwords are handled - hashed and the hash used for comparison and storage. I'm kinda sad that Slashdot seems to have forgotten this and modded you up... It's basic computer security stuff. You never store or use the plaintext password.
* Okay, with WPA it actually accepts a hash of the hash, but anyway... You need the hash, not the password.