Thats debatable. I'd argue removing personal responsibility for lifestyle choices and giving society a say in them weakens America.
I agreed with everything until here:
And the savings are clear and obvious, as more and more locations are finding.
This reeks of "Linux is the hammer for every problem" thinking. What if they require Quickbooks server? What if they have tried alternatives, but indicate that they need Microsoft Publisher, or Excel? I have heard all three of these before, and they make me hesitate to say "screw what you think you need, we're changing everything because FOSS!"
Sometimes its feasible. Sometimes you're just creating headaches and big sunk costs of conversion for no real reason.
It is true because without a NAT rule or a dynamic mapping, the router will discard the packet 100% of the time. There is nothing you can do that will convince a router to pass a packet onto a NAT'd computer that has not already initiated a connection.
like install software that (innocently or not) leaves the host exposed behind the NAT, the NAT might as well not be there.
The same is practically true of 99% of consumer firewalls out there, which allow outbound connections and return traffic.
And you could... but how will anyone find out you exist, and once they do, how will you convince them to buy from your site?
Google adwords, google checkout. Or Yahoo stores, if you prefer.
The problems youre proposing dont exist. And for the record, amazons prices tend to be higher, because they build the shipping cost into the item cost.
Except that they dont list what material they are talking about, and anyone who has done 5 minutes of research know that units like the Sievert and the Gray are far more useful when talking about human exposure, because they compensate for the different sorts of radiation and their effects.
Saying "1 curie" doesnt tell you much if you dont know what its 1 curies worth of, or how much total matieral we're talking about.
So in other words, its a non issue, but we should get pissed off over a non issue just so that when it hypothetically becomes a real issue we will have already expressed the correct amount of outrage?
Im not clear how this works.
It sounds like theyre saying this is only on cell towers under high demand: That means it is literally impossible to fulfill requests from all connected subscribers at full time. In that case, QoS is the correct thing to do.
No, thats not what theyre saying:
On Wednesday, Tokyo Electric Power Company presented the Nuclear Regulation Authority with an estimate that the removal work discharged 280 billion becquerels per hour of radioactive substances, or a total of 1.1 trillion becquerels.
Theyre treating Bq as if its a quantity of radiation. They dont know what theyre talking about. They multiplied 280 billion by 4, and ended up with 1.12 trillion-- which isnt how rates work.
There are two types of comments in this thread.
* Comments by people providing definitions for what a Bq is, talking about equivalent measures, giving conversion forumulas, and providing hard facts; generally these are saying that the number is either irrelevant, and / or not really that big.
* Comments by people who are being quite vague, and warning of various undefined threats to various undefined organs because of how big the number is.
Which type of comment do you find more credible?
The material from Fukushima bioaccumulates inside the body.
Nothing about being "from Fukushima" has any affect on what the material does. Its makeup does. Is it radioactive Iodine? Potassium? Thorium? Uranium? Cobalt-60?
How contaminated is contaminated?
As everyone else has said a milion times already, Bq is not a quantifiable "amount" of radiation, its a rate. You cannot release x Bqs in y period of time, any more than you can travel 50mph in 2 hours. You could say "I travelled 100 miles", or "I am currently travelling at 50mph", or "over 2 hours I averaged 50mph", but mph is not , itself, a quantity. Same with Bq.
One Bq is defined as the activity of a quantity of radioactive material in which one nucleus decays per second.
How are they going to make the strongest monopoly ever? More stores than ever before are online now. I can literally order everything I need and have it shipped to me, and never touch amazon. Lowes, Giant Foods, clothing stores, Ali Baba, Ebay, all have online stores.
The barrier to entry is so absurdly low that I dont think anyone needs to worry about Amazon's monopoly, at least in the shopping sector.
And the barrier to entry for cloud services is pretty low too-- all you need is space at a datacenter (which can be had for relatively cheap) and you can offer a cloud platform.
NAT provides "security" because it is actually impossible to hack a computer behind a NATing router, without A) hacking into the router (in which case a firewall doesnt matter), or B) having the end user poke a hole / port forward through the NAT (which they could do with a firewall).
I suppose if you were MITMing the connection and could see what ports got opened for outbound connections, and you could spoof inbound traffic, you could perhaps exploit something-- but this will not affect the majority of users. In that sense it certainly DOES provide security, unless your ISP or someone similarly equipped is out to get you.
Except that you cant predict the future, so you dont know how many will be reported by the end of 2014. Extrapolation only works when you have a reason to justify it; neither you, nor the article does, and the original paper does not make that (dumb) extrapolation.