Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Bombing a city is ok ? (Score 1) 535

by dunkelfalke (#47555555) Attached to: Satellite Images Show Russians Shelling Ukraine

a) No one knows how the fire started, both sides were throwing molotov cocktails, and the majority of the crowd attempted to help evacuate the building.

You can see in numerous youtube videos that while some of the crowd helped the people out, others happily continued to throw incendiaries into the windows. Majority my arse.

b) Ally yourself with an enemy nation who has just invaded and annexed part of the country, take over buildings by force, then kill some peaceful protesters. You really expect to get a kind response?

Imagine that Yanukovich had done the same to the maidan thugs, what the current national guard does to civilists in Donetsk. For all his faults he was a saint in comparison.

They simply hand over half the country to actual murderous criminals and fascists?

Actual murderous criminals and fascists already own the majority of the country. What difference would it make?

Comment: Re:already done (Score 1) 119

by MrKaos (#47555511) Attached to: Report: Nuclear Plants Should Focus On Risks Posed By External Events

it was assumed a tsunami would never breach the protective wall and reach the plant

Tepco ignored geological evidence and relied on historical data when evaluating the height the sea wall *should* have been.

The key is not placing a plant that cannot withstand a tsunami where it can be hit by one, because designing to withstand a tsunami suddenly inundating the site it really not practical.

Another key issue is not grouping all of the backup generators on the sea facing side of the reactor with an inadequate sea wall was a disaster waiting to happen. Tepco had ample time to prepare but colluded with the regulator to prevent such changes in regulations which, according to the official report into the accident, was caused by an inherent belief that nuclear power was safe.

While your hindsight is all well and good now, this was all predicted and ignored. Worse still the report to the Diet highlights that these external events were human nonfeasance and "Wholly man made" - to quote the report. Criminal negligence through nonfeasance is an external threat the modelling is trying to predict.

Even with diesel failures at a unit, it could still have been safely shut down had the tsunami not hit.

You are incorrect, it could not have been safely shutdown with diesel failures. Design basis issues with the Generation 1 reactor mean that it must *always* have access to electricity. Specifically S and B class facilities in the installation must always be powered otherwise they are exposed to these design issues. Exposure to these issues are why the Fukushima plant exploded, as predicted by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Comment: Re:It's actually worse than that (Score 1) 39

True enough. I've never smoked, but I am overweight, and realize it is a form of suicide- if a very tasty and slow one. But I'd point out that if we had more localized solutions for food (eliminating the need to ship and store food except for famine protection) we'd eliminate much of that.

Comment: Re:It's actually worse than that (Score 1) 39

I was talking more about the Declaration of Independence with its enumeration of "self evident" rights in a specific order, and using those to interpret the Constitution. Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights is a more specific application of this; but is a federalist, central government solution to a basic problem that I believe would be FAR better handled locally.

Comment: Re: I know you're trying to be funny, but... (Score 1) 665

by chaboud (#47550017) Attached to: Linus Torvalds: "GCC 4.9.0 Seems To Be Terminally Broken"

I'm not missing anything. I think there is a balance between abusive language and professionalism to be had, and nothing in his incensed email steps over the line. Would I write it? No, but I wouldn't quit over it either.

It takes time to be measured and restrained, and the party that never snaps at someone doesn't have the hidden backstop of snapping to keep things in line. People should want to avoid disappointing Linus, and negative reinforcement matters.

It can't be all carrot. There has to be a stick.

What happens when you only stick to professionalism? I've worked in a couple of companies that stuck to professional communication only and strongly frowned upon brutal honesty. Guess what? They're inefficient, bloated, bureaucratic messes that allow horrible engineers to get by (or even ahead). Have I learned to play in that environment? Sure, but it's a losing formula.

Likely couples, teams should learn how to fight. If they don't, passive aggressive sniping and collective failure are almost certain.

A continuing flow of paper is sufficient to continue the flow of paper. -- Dyer

Working...