Tried Mosh instead of ssh? Supposed to be better over dodgy links.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
No! You're only allowed to worry about one or the other!
Really? If only there was some one out at sea on a boat who could corroborate that. . .
Anything that becomes molten will mix into the fuel and dilute it,
Not really. Anything that becomes molten, will pretty much vaporize, because Uranium melts at like 2000 F. If the Uranium is molten, everything else will boil away.
However: It's bollocks because the hole in which the uranium is burning, has fissures and crevases, and the Uranium would unevenly flow into small, tight spaces, spreading out and; ultimately diluting and cooling.
Experiments done at Argonne labs back a few years ago also suggested that the Uranium will form a cooler coating, as an outer shell. The core may remain molten, but the shell is cool enough to harden, and contain the molten core. The core may burn through the shell, but much of the mass will be left behind, as the molten part runs down into the burned-out cavity below, and the process repeats.
In any case, either of these scenarios would generate significant ongoing outgassing, and none of that has been observed at Fukushima; so it's likely the fuel melted and diffused and cooled. Just like Chernobyl.
Get a nicely configured MBP and be done with it.
It's the most common platform in research and academic settings for individual use these days, which means that there is a social dimension to the available support (i.e. people around you can help with problems). Meanwhile, the platform is narrow enough and the OS and hardware tightly bound together enough that one-off bugs and edge cases are exceedingly rare (which is not the case for Linux).
And Apple has very reasonable quality control in both hardware and software.
Having done a Ph.D. and dealt with the pressures and complexities that come therewith, I'd say that the overriding concerns should be reducing the PITA factor, keeping downtimes short, eliminating unexpected behavior and gotchas to whatever extent possible, and buying in to the largest on-the-ground support network (i.e. installed customer base) that you can find with identical hardware/software.
All of these things point to Mac for academic research settings.
If you buy a blender and it doesn't turn on, you'll take it back to the shop where they'll say things like, "You plugged it in? Locked the jug on top of the base correctly? Pressed this button here?"
"It doesn't print" is a bug report, but it's a report that implies a two-way conversation is going to take place. Perhaps Microsoft should have said in the app, "Hey, put as much info as you can in as to what you were doing at the time, because we can't get back to you once you hit submit."
The guillotine was originally adopted by the French as an evolved and humane method for taking a human life and, considering what we've seen with alternative methods this past century, I have to agree: It's fast, relatively painless (quite possibly completely painless when one considers the shock reaction of the body,) somewhat messy, but has great symbolic and even theatrical value. Granted, the upper classes world-wide hate this device with a fearful passion, but that is actually part of its value.
You're absolutely right about incentives and grant money.
How you tied this to the Nobel Prize is beyond me, so let's drop that.
The incentives are all about grant money and outside (the campus) capital. As a result, the science takes a back seat to market economics, market-ing (both of corporate partners and of academic institutions themselves, which increasingly operate in a competitive marketplace for enrollments), management concerns, investors, etc.
This incentive structure is increasingly becoming the norm well beyond U.S. shores.
So the problem isn't that science is increasingly wrong, it's that scientists are increasingly doing labor that may *involve* science, but that is in fact product-oriented R&D driven by short-term investment timelines and economic and investor-friendly optics, and whether any of it is good *science* is secondary or tertiary to whether it's profitable, whether directly or indirectly.
Let the scientists go back to doing science first and money-making (whether to support their own tenure lines or to support corporate profits) second or even better, third, fourth, or fifth, and you'll find that the ship rights itself.
I am not a participant in ANY social media at this point
You don't define slashdot as 'social media'?
But I know you live in the US. You're somewhere in your late 40's. And like to ride bikes. And train on said bikes a lot because you're on a road race team. And that's just the first page of your slashdot comments that I idly flicked through.
I suppose you could tell me that's all part of the plan and that you're actually a dog........
We knew there were a lot, but who knew there'd be so many. Which abandoned Google project do you wish were still around?
With regards to Voyager, you can view it as Janeway's slow descent into desperation. Starts out all do-goody then as time goes by, deals are made, morals are readjusted and by the end it's just, "The hell with this".
problems of epistemology, including in science.
Note that there are no shortage of facts whose veracity depends on nuanced facets of context and condition, some of which are disputed.
For example, fact or not: "Linux is a difficult operating system to use, and is a better choice for geeks and hackers than for regular users."
Or how about:
"Android is an operating system written by Google."
Or how about:
"The Bermuda Triangle region has seen an unusually high number of ship and plane disappearances over the years, and may be a particularly dangerous place to travel."
Because unless Google's algorithms are very, very nuanced in their approach, each of these is going to be seen as carrying high levels of factuality based on the preponderance of content out there, particularity in high-authority sources.
Of course, statements like the first and third are too complex for Google's rankings to evaluate and rank, and it can only work with very simple assertions on the order of "Milk is white," or "Obama is a Democrat," the it's going to do practically nothing (good or bad) at all for the rankings, since facts with this level of consensus are generally undisputed, even by those that promote falsehoods.
from gameability (in short, SPAM) to politics. Rather than punish above-board or non-predatory websites, it will punish both subversive and innovative thought that runs well ahead of social consensus. Sure, it will also eliminate willful misinformation, but it turns Google into an inherently conservative, rather than socially innovative, force.
Can't say I think it's better. Probably not any worse, but certainly not panacea.
Part of the problem is the CYA issue.
If you're writing the code, you sound like a laborer ("I have to..."). If it breaks, it's your fault and you're on the hook publicly.
If you present a third-party component in a meeting, you sound like a manager ("I propose that we..."). Once three or four other people in the meeting have concurred, if something breaks it's the third party's fault. A ticket or two are initiated, it's someone else's problem and everybody gets to cast blame somewhere beyond the walls of the company.
Rational behavior, regrettably.