Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Or (Score 1) 348

by pixelpusher220 (#47424119) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis

Nobody builds Chernobyl-type reactors any more. That simply can't happen with most reactors.

And you don't think they said that older reactors 'simply cant fail' when they built them?

(b) there was this tsunami that killed twenty-five thousand people going on, disrupting a whole lot of things.

Wait, if the reactor can't fail, why are you bringing up environmental/situational issues? It shouldn't matter...

My point is you can't tell me the issues that will be faced in the future and therefore can't claim a nuclear reactor is 'safe'.

The 'potential' liability of nuclear is far far far greater than anything else. Operational issues are relevant and coal has many bad things about it...but it simply can't fail catastrophically. A plant can blow up, a waste lake can collapse and flood a single valley. Both sites you can safely walk on the very next day. Nuclear can't do that....and won't every be able to do that.

And as I've said in other posts, nuclear is going to be absolutely required for the next century or so...simply because the scale of climate change damage dwarfs even nuclear's problems. Being the lesser of two evils doesn't make it less 'evil'.

Comment: Re:Or (Score 1) 348

by pixelpusher220 (#47419065) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
Ahead of time, with plenty of warning that it's going to happen. This is an operational impact and while not small is entirely mitigatable. Fair scenarios aren't because by definition stuff has failed and you can't know what will be working or available.

And of course if you dismantle the damn you can also reclaim the land rather quickly.

Need we mention the fishing and recreation industries that now take advantage of the new lakes? There isn't a 'positive' side to a nuclear accident...

Comment: Re:Or (Score 2) 348

by pixelpusher220 (#47418177) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
Nuclear isn't safer. It's only 'safer' until something goes wrong. Every reactor built was built 'to never fail' and yet we found ways to make them fail. New reactor designs may be 'more' resilient to our innate ability to screw something up, but that doesn't make it 'safer'.

Coal has massive 'operational' issues. It's failure scenarios are pretty mundane and localized.

Nuclear has some operational issues (storing waste being the biggest) but the failure issues are the big ones. They occur infrequently but unlike every single other source of fuel, render 100s of square miles uninhabitable for decades. Nothing else has that problem.

Comment: Re:WhatGoes Around (Score 1) 348

by pixelpusher220 (#47418117) Attached to: Blueprints For Taming the Climate Crisis
Nukes are unfortunately the only realistic answer in the short (100ish or so years) to solve this problem. Believe me, I *hate* nuclear, but I'm willing to realize that it's the lesser of short term evils at this point. Considering the massive damage climate change is going to wreak...it's not a high bar to be 'better' than that...

Comment: Re:Ruling doesn't change much. (Score 1) 558

I haven't RTFR but while yes he's said he's involved, I wouldn't expect he'd have to tell them WHAT his involvement was...that's the prosecutions job.

The ruling (from accounts) seems to be separating the providing of the password from the contents of the drive - which is an unreasonable search. If they already know what he's done from what he's said, they could easily give him immunity for anything else found on the drive except what backs up what he's already said - then there's no 5th violation.

Also generally speaking, the warrant to search a drive has to be pretty damned specific, so if they already know what he did...it seems odd to request access to the drive.

Comment: Re:in what way is this not self-incrimination (Score 2) 558

A key is a physical object and as such can be compelled. You aren't participating in your testimony by providing the physical item; you have to provide LOTS of other information during disclosure so it's not like you can't be compelled to provide something that physically exists.

The difference here is that the key is theoretically in his mind and so he would have to participate in providing that; hence why it's generally been found that keys can be compelled but combinations on locks can't and similarly passwords can't be.
BR Of course the amendments have been eroding for some time now...

Comment: Re:Kind of see their point... (Score 2) 207

by pixelpusher220 (#47248093) Attached to: Ikea Sends IkeaHackers Blog a C&D Order
Nope, it isn't. It's a very legal response but 'defend' can simply mean have the other party clearly indicate they aren't you.

I.e. every commercial says 'Coke is a trademark of Coca-Coal Industries' when they use a Coke product placement. As long as you assign who own the trademark you're using you can use it (with some legal caveats I'm sure).

Comment: Re:Kind of see their point... (Score 4, Insightful) 207

by pixelpusher220 (#47247829) Attached to: Ikea Sends IkeaHackers Blog a C&D Order
Yes, that's the wrong way. Allowing lawyers to run free and wild without any thought towards what it's going to look like when you're major fan base starts hating you.

IKEA could simply require them to have big 'We aren't IKEA" banners thus avoiding the 'confusion' they claim.

One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin

Working...