Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Cecil Kelley (Score 2) 295

by TopSpin (#47378105) Attached to: Site of 1976 "Atomic Man" Accident To Be Cleaned

As far as I am aware the highest radiation dose

Naturally the `record' must be limited to the subset of known cases. I've been studying the history of Soviet nuclear science and industry for a few years. Things went on in the Soviet Union that beggars the imagination, as they say.

When the waste storage tank blew up in Mayak in 1957, 90% of the high level waste fell in the immediate vicinity. That's 90% of 740 PBq (740E15 decays per second) within about half a kilometer radius, in which there were certainly some number of workers, this being the most urgent period of nuclear weapons development.

There were criticality accidents at Mayak that killed people as well; the Review of Criticality Accidents (2000) mentions seven incidents at Mayak and eight at other Soviet sites.

Then there is Chernobyl. Shortly after the explosion soldiers on the grounds of the plant policed up pieces of graphite and other debris, including fuel, from the reactor core with simple tools, bare hands and no respiratory protection [1]. They were breathing particles of heavy metal isotopes so "hot" that they floated through the air on their own thermal output like little balloons. They were treated as military casualties and their numbers are not publicly known.

The worst case of radiation exposure took place in the Soviet Union. We do not know the circumstances, how severe it was, how many it killed, when or where it happened, but that it did is a metaphysical certitude.

1. The Legacy of Chernobyl, 1992 Medvedev

Comment: Re:Massive conspiracy (Score 1) 465

by davide marney (#47261481) Attached to: IRS Lost Emails of 6 More Employees Under Investigation

Anyone who would use "Only a godless sinner" to justify an evil action such as cutting off people's heads or driving jet planes full of fuel into office buildings is NOT a religious person, they are a political person who has hijacked religion in the name of their cause. Is the KKK a "Christian" organization? Please. There are millions of peaceable Muslims living in the US. Look around you.

Comment: Oh, so THAT'S how they do it "legally" (Score 1) 104

by davide marney (#47261421) Attached to: Google and Facebook Can Be Legally Intercepted, Says UK Spy Boss

Now this is making more sense. When the NSA says, "we aren't spying on all Americans", it means "WE aren't spying on all Americans, the Brits are, and then we get to see what they collected." So: technically correct, but morally bankrupt.

Is it any wonder that ordinary citizens are cynical about their representatives? Whose interests are they really representing? Not ours, that's for sure.

Comment: Cox is different (Score 1) 129

I've had Cox business service to my home for nearly a decade now. They have not raised the price one penny in all that time. The service is rock-solid, and the speed is exactly what they advertised; I have never experienced any bandwidth throttling that I can detect. There are no blocked ports or other shennigans, and their tech support staff answer the phone in person when you call for help.

My experience with other vendors was pretty miserable in comparison. YMMV, but Cox has earned my business.

Comment: "You're rich, I don't have to pay you back" (Score 1) 39

I tried out funding a micro finance loan, but was never paid back; the borrower basically said, "Everybody in America is rich, I don't need to pay you back." A friend of mine who worked for many years in East Africa said such feelings are very widespread. Take care; if people don't pay you back, they aren't really getting the point of financing growth, and will therefore stay stuck in poverty. It's not that I lost a lot of money (a few thousands), but I lost the relationship I could have built.

Comment: The publisher's response (Score 5, Informative) 82

From http://blogs.nature.com/ofsche...

"...NPG’s commitment to open access has been questioned, following our request that authors provide a formal waiver of Duke University’s open access policy. NPG is supportive of open access. We encourage self-archiving, and have done so since we implemented our policy in 2005:

'When a manuscript is accepted for publication in an NPG journal, authors are encouraged to submit the author’s version of the accepted paper (the unedited manuscript) to PubMedCentral or other appropriate funding body’s archive, for public release six months after publication. In addition, authors are encouraged to archive this version of the manuscript in their institution’s repositories and, if they wish, on their personal websites, also six months after the original publication. ' ...
We are requesting waivers from Duke University authors, because of the grant of rights asserted in its open access policy: 'In legal terms, each Faculty member grants to Duke University a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, worldwide license to exercise any and all rights under copyright relating to each of his or her scholarly articles, in any medium, and to authorize others to do so, provided that the articles are not sold. The Duke faculty author remains the copyright owner unless that author chooses to transfer the copyright to a publisher.'

If we do not request a waiver, the general language of this policy means that Duke University has the rights not only to archive the manuscript in Dukespace, but also to distribute and publish to the world at large the final version of a subscription article freely, in any medium, immediately on publication. We started requesting waivers recently, following an enquiry from a Duke University author." [emphasis added]

Since the issue seems to be about publishing in the open immediately vs. waiting 6 months, asking for a waiver of all moral rights seems like using a cannon to swat a fly.

Comment: Step1: Don't ignore instructions from judges (Score 2) 41

by davide marney (#46523159) Attached to: Judge Tells Feds To Be More Specific About Email Search Warrants

This judge has dealt with this issue in other cases, and in fact had previously told the government exactly what it should do in order to avoid the 4th Amendment problems of general warrants. FTA:

"[In a previous ruling, the Court] warned the government to “adopt stricter search parameters in future applications” or the Court would be "unwilling to issue any search and seizure warrants for electronic data that ignore the constitutional obligations to avoid ‘general’ electronic warrants.” Facebook Opinion, 2013 WL 7856600, at *8. The Court recommended several different approaches, including key word searches, using an independent special master to conduct searches, or segregating the people who are performing the search from those who are conducting the investigation.""

The government attorneys in this case are hopefully looking for a new gig. You don't ignore a judge and feed him boilerplate when he's already on to you.

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Working...