I recall a significant amount of people arguing for more verifiable studies, tighter acceptance criteria, and more peer-review. That says anything but "let's research more crazy things." While it's true that some of the most valuable information comes from data points outside the currently sampled range, we have a great capability to model proposed mechanisms these days. How about generating some data using more modelling and simulation to explore proposed mechanisms before jumping into lab research to verify those models? There are plenty of things that can always be done besides arguing that the funding environment is simply too hostile to grants that are off the beaten path; when has someone not argued that this was the case?
Although RBWRs use new core fuel concepts to burn TRUs, they use the same non-core components as current Boiling Water Reactors (BWRs), including safety systems and turbines.
They could be a little more specific.
What I don't get is that GPG's implementation is doing more or less work based the encryption routines being executed. Optimization always leads to saturation unless memory traffic is the culprit (can't optimize memory reads infinitely). Would read the paper, but oh look at the time.
One of the older justifications given for encapsulation and header files was to be able to sell binary objects. If you can't read the source for the library, you can't figure out how all the parts work, so you better use the public API or you might really screw something up. This is totally irrelevant in the world of open source software. Underscores are a totally valid solution to telling other programmers who might modify the encapsulation what the intent was at one point, giving them a strong hint that they need to dig deeper before messing around. If encapsulation is a gentleman's agreement, why does it need a language feature?