Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:process it in the biggest nulear reactor we hav (Score 1) 55

by HiThere (#48482339) Attached to: Shale: Good For Gas, Oil...and Nuclear Waste Disposal?

Geosync orbit is a bad idea. That orbit is very useful for other purposes and already a bit crowded.

OTOH, it wouldn't need to be *very* much higher to be much more reasonable...but be sure to put it all in one place. You don't want even more junk spread around.

Comment: Re:hum (Score 1) 216

by HiThere (#48482313) Attached to: Debian Forked Over Systemd

Well, I'm a current Debian user, and I switched from testing to stable because of problems with systemd. OTOH, there's a good reason that it's called testing.

Still, while I don't hate systemd, I also don't trust it. My current intention is to remain on stable while things shake themselves out, and then decide what to do. And the Devuan timeline doesn't show it being available even as a "testing" distribution until next spring. (I gather the current version is sort of a compromise between prototype and unstable[sid], or even experimental.)

By the time I need to decide, I expect I'll know how things are going to shake out. But I expect that I'll be keeping an eye on Devuan, and a few others. And perhaps systemd won't be as bad as I expect. Still, any init system that marks problems with its logging system as "won't fix" is dubious. That the main logging system is binary just makes things much worse. So does expansions like having the "init system" include things like terminal manager, etc. It even makes me tempted to go back to Etch (yah, that's a rediculuous thing to suggest, as the current stable works fine without systemd).

Comment: Re:Contamination (Score 1) 58

Another problem is that it's based on the fallacy that economics is a zero-sum game. And that physical money is a good analog of financial money. Both are false.

Another assumption is that feeding the starving is a reasonable approach. But population growth is exponential until a limiting factor is reached, and exponential growth cannot be sustained. Ever. So if you plan to "feed the starving multitude" you'd better have some plan in mind to feed twice that number of people in 20 years.

Personally, I think we are already beyond the sustainable capacity of the planet. We're emptying the seas of fish and the land of anything we can't eat. At some point we're going to crash, and crash badly. It would be highly deisreable if at that point there were some self-sufficient colonies elsewhere. But we are, to be optomistic, decades away from being able to do that.

Comment: Re: Mass produce! (Score 1) 188

by HiThere (#48470947) Attached to: Jackie Chan Discs Help Boost Solar Panel Efficiency

FWIW, if you have enough energy then synthetic gasoline can be manufactured. It's not the most efficient of processes, however. Using it for fuel would probably be unwise. (I think electric cars would work out better.) But you can also build lubricants.

Mind you, this process doesn't sound efficient enough to make the process practical.

Comment: Re:Fuck That Shit (Score 1) 64

by HiThere (#48469259) Attached to: The People Who Are Branding Vulnerabilities

How do you explain to a nervous boss who doesn't program that your program isn't going to be affected? Some people won't be reassured, and also won't understand. And they can always find someone to justify their fears.

My old boss came up through programming. I got a new boss. After a couple of years I decided to take early retirement. Some people you just can't explain things to...especially in areas they're ignorant of. (I'm willing to accept that he was a good accountant.)

Comment: Re:Can Iowa handle a circus that large? (Score 4, Insightful) 418

by plopez (#48467863) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Considering US Presidential Run

You must have missed the last election. Low turnout, which always favors Republicans, but every minimum wage increase passed, pot legaization passed, person hood amendments failed etc. In other words the liberal agenda made lots of progress. Here's a nice analysis by a GOPer:

3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound