I think what some people forget is that the plant was hit with the worst natural disaster, short of a meteor strike, that it could be. A 9.0 quake, which are exceedingly rare (and remember the scale is logarithmic) and a massive tsunami. Then there were a number of fuckups in the response, like not having the right kind of generator on hand. All that, and it still didn't "do a Chernobyl."

None of that is to say it is perfectly safe, but it should provide some perspective on the thing.

The guy is a professional troll (actual name Mark Stephens). Literally, he writes stupid shit designed to inflame people. He's wrong all the time (he predicted big Y2K problems on account of Windows NT), he's a liar (claimed to have a PhD from Stanford, was in fact a TA) and so on.

Don't give his dumb ass the ad revenue from links.

Just as a simple counterpoint, his data about earthquakes is totally fucked. This was the biggest quake on record in Japan, previous winner was an 8.6 in 1707. Also, while quakes happen over there all the time, they don't all happen in the same spot. For example in 2003 there was a pretty big one in Hokkaido, an 8.3, that only caused one death. However if you look at a map you find that Hokkaido is quite a distance from Tohoku where the last quake was off of. So even if a quake happens in 10 years (like he has any idea if that will happen) there's no saying if it happens in the same place.

Guy is a moronic troll that has made a good living of it for years. Stop feeding him.

People (Americans in particular) want to discount genetics, pretend that we can all be anything we want to be, that we have no inbuilt limitations.

Of course we know that is false. Most simply it can be seen (and strangely the one area it is accepted) is athletics. Some people have the genes that allows them to become top athletes, the rest don't and that is that. We also see in athletics the difference between men and women, that the genders are not equal at the top, they have areas they are better in.

Well, this carries over to mental, emotional, and other differences as well. Your genetics don't dictate who you are, but they do define some limits on you and also what you might be interested in.

So you are going to see differences in the interest of the genders, even without any societal forces. One interesting example I see is veterinary medicine. Since it has become a field that was acceptable for women to work in (used to be teaching and nursing was all that was considered "ok" for women to be in) it has become very popular for women. The vet office I use is ALL female. All the vets, all the vet techs, all the receptionists, all women. From what I've learned, the heavy amount of women is not an anomaly, it is a field that women have a lot of interest in.

Now why is that? I'm not sure, I've never seen any research on it. Perhaps it is the nurturing aspect that appeals to many women. Whatever the case it certainly isn't something where there's a big push in society to "get women in to veterinary medicine" yet it is happening. It appeals to women, so they go in to it.

None of this is to say that culture and childhood encouragement don't play a part, of course. If a girl is interested in computers but continually told that "girls don't play with computers" that can well change the course of her life. However we have to be open to the idea that just as different individuals have different predispositions, so do the sexes.

We may always see a situation where there are less women interested in IT than men. Frankly I don't think that should be a concern, so long as we make sure it isn't because women are being unfairly forced away from it. I would think it far worse to try and start pressuring women in to careers they don't like all with some misguided idea of "balance".

I guess I feel pretty strongly about this because computers were something I always wanted to do, since as long as I can remember. This wasn't because of my family, mom, dad, grandparents, none of them are technically savvy. However I loved computers and electronics and was fascinated by it from age 3. Clearly it is just one of those things about me, a genetic predisposition. I'm glad I got to follow that, and I wasn't told to do something different because people decided that I should have interests other than that.

I see the value in HTTPS Everywhere for sites big enough to run on a dedicated server. But TLS as it is implemented today requires a separate IPv4 address per domain, and this won't change until Windows XP and Android 2.x are no longer in use. What's the best practice to secure a smaller site on a budget shared hosting plan, one that shares its IPv4 address with upwards of 1,000 other sites?

But in practice, they aren't. Restrictions on the public tend to have a ratchet effect, becoming tighter over time. When was the standard term of copyright rolled back in the three-century history of copyright?

People like to repeat it without much actual proof.

HOWEVER even if true it doesn't matter. Why? Because after Apple entered the market price fixing was clearly in place. Ebooks cost MORE than their physical counterparts. There is no way anyone can say that is reasonable or necessary. It costs less to distribute an electronic copy than it does to distribute a physical copy. As such there's no way the final price should be more.

If prices had risen a little, I'd say "Ok, maybe Amazon was forcing the publishers in to prices that were too low." However I'm sorry, but this shit does not need to cost more than physical books.

Also, surprise, surprise, now that the DOJ is involved that has been changing. Ebook prices aren't as low as they were initially but they are lower than the physical book prices (from most publishers at least).

I don't mind companies needing to make a reasonable amount of money for their product. I mind being screwed. When I go to Amazon to buy Dune and the paperback version is $12 but the Kindle version is $15 along with a "This price was set by the publisher" message you telling me there isn't some bullshit collusion going on? How the hell can a digital edition cost more than the paperback (brand new paperback mind you).

Same shit but worse at B&N. They'll sell me Dune for $10 in paperback, they are undercutting Amazon on it but the Nook Book? $15. Hmmmm...

So sorry, but Apple and the publishers colluded to raise prices, and it has hurt consumers, and the DOJ is on to them about it. They can't white knight their way out of this.

Nor did George Dantzig at UC Berkeley in 1939. Without him, Good Will Hunting would be a movie about buying a suit at a thrift store.

That would work only if the writer actually owns the copyright in the show's setting. If the publisher owns it, and the publisher wants it canceled, no amount of crowd funding is going to bring it back.

I can't type at 100+ WPM period. Last time I was tested, I was around 85 WPM, but I think I could maintain that speed on a Bluetooth keyboard paired to an iPad or on the keyboard dock that connects to the Transformer.

A tablet shares these drawbacks with the netbook into which I'm typing this comment. Some of those limitations can be worked around on both tablets and netbooks with clever user interface design, unlike the artificial cryptographic limitation of code signing verification with no owner override. A Transformer or virtually any other Android-powered device has owner override; an iPad does not without paying $650 for a Mac plus $99 per year for the certificate allowing owner override.

Then explain how locked-down game consoles still beat PCs in several genres despite the obvious disadvantage of not having mods or locally developed games.

The scenario I want to avoid involves a tablet owner not being able to afford a PC once he realizes that a task that he wants to perform needs one. If locked-down tablets become so ubiquitous that people decide they don't need PCs, this scenario will become more and more likely, and people will become discouraged from performing such tasks in the first place outside of a paying job. Such discouragement would serve only to cement a "creator"/"consumer" divide as opposed to a "participant" culture.

Yes, Comcast's cap is 250 GB per month. Perhaps you're trying to say that everyone in your state lives in the service area of DSL, cable, or fiber. But for people who live in areas not serviced by DSL, cable, or fiber (which I admit is an edge case), the only available Internet connections apart from dial-up are satellite and cellular, which have a single digit GB/mo cap.