An RTG wouldn't produce any waste, being completely self-contained. The Soviets used them for years to power lighthouses and other remote sites, as did the USAF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...

The objection might be price, since I have no idea how much a 100W or 200W RTG would cost. But you'd save all the manpower costs and risks of having to build something, they're quite tough and immune to most meteorological conditions, and easily replaced at the end of their life cycles (10 years in the case of the most common Soviet ones).

As I understand it, no one says you can't have a nuclear power plant (especially an RTG) in Antarctica. McMurdo had one for a decade (albeit with problems).

http://www.takepart.com/articl...

So these RTG's should do just fine .. if they can afford it.

Study what you know nothing about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...

"Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock."

That's right: we're STILL awarding Purple Heart medals manufactured for that invasion.

A friend suggested they just make the specs open source. Someone will build it :-)

Perhaps it wouldn't be completely infeasible to consider a large fixed-wing model aircraft (like a C-130 model?) programmed to autonomously land on an aircraft carrier? One nice and stable and stationary, like in Norfolk Naval Yard? With an onboard video camera transmitting to an external recorder of course, since the Navy probably wouldn't have much of a sense of humor about this sort of thing and you might not want to ask for it back.

Sure would make for a hell of a Youtube video though :-)

Not that I'm suggesting anyone try anything like that, of course, having no wish to visit Guantanamo (despite the friendly moose).

IF you're one dead-set on controlling others and their lives. Me, I'm a firm believer in "Darwin Rules". Make sure the truth is out there (e.g., if it's addictive like other medications that one horror story above describes). But if some damned fool is set on destroying his life (and possibly his liver, teeth, eyes, brain, etc.) with drug abuse .. hey .. I'm not standing in his way, not for a minute.

I fully agree. And, whatever you do, don't start any damned mass extinctions, okay?

Yes, still .. for 4-5 years now, and still enjoying it.

Years ago I used to enjoy the various "giant walking machine" sorts of games (MechWarrior and the like), the multi-user online MMOG ones. But the hackers and cheats spoiled them for me. I played Warbirds (a fairly realistic MMOG WW II flight sim) for years, until game changes and a loss of other users made it too boring. Battleground Europe, another MMOG (you see the pattern now?) was fun for a year, me and my trusty German antitank gun :-) But the game became non-fun for a solo player like myself and I dropped out of it too. Tried Star Wars: The Old Republic, too rigid and structured despite interesting graphics. Played World of Tanks for a while because of its highly realistic tank models and interesting terrain .. but the player interaction and totally silly "tactics" drove me away. Just couldn't get into Eve, despite its huge popularity.

Although I play solo in almost all my games (I'm not very social), I enjoy having other players around, the unexpected things that happen, even the occasional social intercourse. So I prefer the online multiplayer games rather than solo console games on my PC. However I'm not young and my reflexes are not as they once were, so these "twitch" shooter games are right out: no way I'm going to compete or even survive with the 14-year-old players. And if the game is a bloody trivia contest of things you must memorize, hugely complicated User Interfaces and keyboard commands .. fageddaboudit. I'm not spending my bloody LIFE on this thing, you know.

So I'm sticking with World of Warcraft. Thanks, Blizzard: you done good. And nothing in the game's turned me off yet.

Is American Idol still hiring?

I haven't walked the seashore. I haven't examined the sediments (and never will now, apparently). I'm certainly not the bearer of an archeology sheepskin from some exalted university.

But ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

http://www.independent.co.uk/i...

Does anyone see more than two prints in any sort of logical and likely walking pattern? You know, one in front of the other, left foot, right foot? No, I didn't think so.

"Of the 50 or so examples recorded, only around a dozen were reasonably complete - and only two showed the toes in detail. Tragically, although a full photogrammetric and photographic record has been made, all but one of the prints were rapidly destroyed by incoming tides before they could be physically lifted."

That's odd: EVERY bare foot print I've ever seen clearly showed the toes (even Bigfoot's!). And how curious, that "footprints" cast in rock-hard sediment that has survived for a million years beside a seaside that's repeatedly changed depth over the milleniums .. suddenly are totally and almost completely destroyed by the very next incoming tide? How .. unfortunate.

The Happisburgh geology (readily available with the most trivial search) also does not support this. The beach surfaces and their underlying sedimentary structure are NOT a million years old.

https://www.bgs.ac.uk/landslid...
http://books.google.com/books?...

No, I'm sorry, I'm not buying this. Someone was seeing what they wanted to see.

Yep, that's how I'd do it, if I had access to those kinds of networks and an overwhelming curiousity (or suspicion). Not that I'd ever do anything like that of course [glances over shoulder] .. or even think of harming one of our most valuable national assets [glances at black helicopter over trees and discounts] ...

Excuse me, there's someone at the ...

Look as closely at the "footprints" as you can in these images:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...

And then consider this statement:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...
"Of the 50 or so examples recorded, only around a dozen were reasonably complete - and only two showed the toes in detail. Tragically, although a full photogrammetric and photographic record has been made, all but one of the prints were rapidly destroyed by incoming tides before they could be physically lifted."

Sooooo .. they existed (presumably buried by the seaside) for almost a million years .. appear, and then are DESTROYED by the next incoming tide?

Riiiii-ight.

Now, no matter what the government demands, the Guardian can always say "Oh yeah, that .. it was on that laptop. Remember that laptop?"

Wouldn't that be quite trivial, since he wanted the @N handle so badly and all? Surely someone can now identify the new owner of that handle?

And contact their cousin Vinnie in Joisey to go speak to him?

Yep, he probably would've whipped me in three. Don't feel bad, Bill. Your talents lay elsewhere.

and if the PINs are not stored at Target (as they insist) but are decrypted and processed at the credit card hardware at the POS ..

Does this mean the malware on the POS systems and ATMs are monitoring and reporting the PIN decryption and processing? Now isn't THAT precious!

It also means that Target's encouraging words, "Oh, we never see or store the decrypted PINs, so they couldn't have been stolen from US!" isn't saying the PINs weren't stolen.

Can anyone explain this so a simple mind can grasp the extent of the threat? Or shall I just go back to pure cash transactions, and credit cards, debit cards, online shopping and transactions be damned?