Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

My globe only has 4 oceans. And my American flag has 48 stars. ;-)

I think the fundamental problem being alluded to here is that there's a deadline for him to make them US citizens... and the deadline expires at the stroke of midnight on their 18th birthdays. So by definition, it's basically "now or never".

  If he leaves it up to them until they grow up, they'll be in the same legal position as someone who's never had ties to the US at all. He can get them basically free expedited US citizenship by filing some forms now. Frankly, I'd say it's a dirt cheap investment he'd be crazy to NOT do right now.

As others have pointed out, even though the US appears determined to compete in the English-speaking world's mad race to see who can become "Oceania" first, it still has a de-facto global empire that would have made just about any past world leader (besides maybe Queen Victoria and Genghis Khan) jealous, and there are concrete, tangible benefits to being a citizen of the world's dominant empire.

If nothing else, the fact that they COULD -- with minimal paperwork -- live and work in the US as a matter of birthright might someday come in handy for them if they're looking for a job during an economic downturn (especially if they're still early in their careers and don't have a lot of experience). The fact is, sometimes logistics triumph over other factors in a company's hiring decisions.

If you can keep your kids free of the War Machine, then do so.

-jcr

So if you violate an employement contract its a criminal offense? That you can be arrested for, and go to jail for? Noooope... its a civil contract dispute... employer can sue for damages, that's about it; even if the employer is the federal government.

How much effort is it to do so? If it's minimal and the cost is relatively insignificant, then why not?

However if it's going to be costly and take hundreds of hours of your time, you need to decide if you, or they will live in the US at some point. If not, then you need to decide if it's really worth it.

I'm rocking multiple new mac minis

Are you "rocking" them? Really?

Right, and when it comes to power generation deaths are the only metric that matters.

Well, don't keep us in suspense: what are these important metrics we should sacrifice human lives to improve?

Uhhhh, setting the coal on fire doesn't exactly render the region uninhabitable for generations to come. When the fire goes out, it's habitable again.

In 250 years, possibly more. After which you get to wait for the ground to return to normal again.

Rule number ONE of information security is that if you don't want it leaked online... DONT PUT IT ONLINE.

So your solution is not good enough.

You ask that I trade the physical security of an encrypted, air-gapped unit, physically in my hands with a solution that entails all kinds of possible network threats. MITM, SSL vulnerability, zero-day attacks, certificate compromises... and suggest this will improve my security??

No.

Not to mention that it assumes you're moving relatively small amounts of information between countries with good internet access... what if your destination just has shitty internet?

Plus if you legitimize their right to inspect all data at the border, then your just a hop and skip away from giving them the right to inspect your vpn traffic as it crosses the border; and they would be within their rights to demand the encryption keys from you or block your vpn connection. Some governments are already moving in this direction.

So your argument that "don't take it across the boder this way"... "take it across the border this other way" sort of falls completely on its face. Once you say "they can inspect and require you to decrypt data crossing the border" then your VPN is next.

For most legitimate business related cases border security wouldn't really be a risk, even if you gave them the password, and let them fish around in your laptop. They wouldn't know what to do with it, or how to capitalize on it.

But its the principal of the thing; they really have no business being in there. And there is a chance they could learn or reveal something that is damaging.

Frankly, it seems to me the best solution right now; is to ship yourself the data by traceable courier. Small chance it is lost or confiscated at the border. But they don't get anything valuable if that happens, and you can't be arrested on the spot.

The engineers should have put the brakes to any construction efforts taking place in those locations, based on that fact alone.

They can't. The spirit of the organization employing them does not let them. Their role is to implement the decisions of the leadership and rationalize them. Conforming to their role earns them social capital, and going against costs it. And they can't possibly earn that capital fast enough to pay for keeping a plant blocked for long.

That's a valid term as well and the more common one to my ears at least.

Its not so extreme as to be anti-french.

Quebecois is a francophone term. Its pronounced roughly kay-bek-wah. Most anglophones don't pronounce Quebec ("kay-bek") they pronounce it roughly "kwuh-beck". And "Quebecois" doesn't really anglicize well... so Quebecker is pretty common and not meant to be offensive nor anti-french.

"Is CSI on? Start drinking."

"Is the show over yet? Okay, now you can stop."

Yes, natural uranium can be dangerous. People who collect samples generally are careful to keep them shielded and have to be very careful regarding how they touch them and not breath any possible fragments in.

Setting aside Centralia, pretty much any area down stream of current 'blow the top off a mountain' coal mining operations are uninhabitable or at minimal quite toxic. It ruins the whole watershead of the area. We have similiar problems with other mining operations for things like iron, silver, copper, etc. While we all like having cheap power and metal, it is only cheap because we do not pay for any of the damage done or people sickened, it is simply written off as 'well, it is their fault for being poor and not moving!'

Taking a look at any coal production state, there are dozens of superfund sites that have rendered the region they contain unfit for human habitation.

Getting back to Centralia, it is a bit of a worst case superfund site, the fire is not going to 'go out' in any of our lifetimes. It is also different in that the fumes from national park fires are not toxic, while Centralia should not be entered without breathing equipement.

Coal with CCS is about the same price.

CCS - Carbon Capture and Sequestration? I wonder if you could drive the price down by keeping the carbon dioxide gaseous and feeding it to nearby greenhouses - possibly through a simple pipe. Heck, if you used the greenhouse products as biofuel in the plant you could create a completely closed loop :).