Yet another failed troll, today's stories are far from humorous.

Why not make a story about the churches of Scientology and Pastafarianism merging? That would be much more interesting.

Being proficient in English is a mainstay of work. Common sense shows that using a mix-up of national standards can be quite costly and very retarded (remember the english/SI unit mixup with the space probe?).

If someone wants to code something in a different language, by all means let them. Just realize that if you as a developer code in something other than English, you are limiting your audience to people proficient in that particular language, the rest of the developers in the world are not going to take the time to learn your language simply to work with you, that is of course unless you offer them copious amounts of money.

The market is all about ratings. First off you have to think of who you are trying to market to, people that enjoy hero films. Now virtually anyone can enjoy Spider Man for example, because most people can relate to him with his ordinary life, and enjoy the loftiness that his superpowers give him over society. If we then contrast that with a classic superhero like the Punisher, you will obviously have a more restricted audience as not everyone can relate to or enjoy a wronged individual hell-bent on revenge.

What it all boils down to is they are finally realizing that the more people that can see the movie, or more importantly will consider seeing it, the more money they'll make. It's basic logic that the company is finally beginning to apply at what cost? The change of a few swears and slightly less gore?

If that is your claim, then what is the harm in teaching both theories? And creationism is no more scientifically discontinuous than evolution is. It all boils down to there is no way to conclusively prove that either is the case. All science can do is spin its findings one way or another.

Is it really so hard for schools to understand that their job is to provide education and information? They are not to dictate what is true and false, science will do that on its own and it is up to the individual to choose to believe what other scientists state, or disprove them.

With such a big concept as creation vs. evolution, why can they not just be made to teach that these are the two primary theories in existence, and present them in an unbiased manner? I see so many pro-evolutionist "scientists" completely discredit creationism before they even look at it, much the same as creationist fanatics would rather damn anyone who views differ from their own.

These are the two theories, leave it up to the individual and their families to decide which, if any, to believe.

It seems to me that the limitations of this would be astronomical in terms of what you could play. I have seen games run via cloud computing methods that have been compiled for such a use, however that is a very significant and difficult task, especially if you have to reverse-engineer or cross over to make a game function in such a way.

Furthermore, bandwidth is the real issue here. Yes, the majority of us have broadband internet, but this gets very tricky when we factor in packet shaping, especially for peak hours. Playing games that are very time-flexible are almost un-noticeable, but when you attempt to play an FPS game that requires SLI/Crossfire to run at max settings, you're talking about a LOT of data. If you did the "heavy lifting" server side, you would still have to transmit that data out, which I'm assuming is going to be the real choking point. If the data can cross from server-to-user with just a couple hundred ms of latency, they will have a fighting chance, otherwise it's just a waste of time.

Am I the only person who doesn't see any purpose whatsoever to have kids waste time watching garbage on TV when there are only a handful of shows that are worth watching?

But didn't Tesla come up with the concepts of both the telephone and radio and all Bell really did was just get the first patent?

First off, let me say that I come from an Engineering background, so my programming repertoire
is not as advanced as a comp sci is. That being said:

In my honest opinion the best way to teach problem solving is with something simple. Basic is a very good way to do this as it is very intuitive, but doesn't have all the shortcuts of other languages.

Some of the greatest problem solving ideas are designing well known games such as Monopoly. Obviously more advanced, but you can relate functions/subroutines, implement graphics (if you have the time), counters, and many other things.

The absolute most important concept is that you must teach, obviously, problem solving and NOT syntax. I would greatly discourage languages like C++ that, while powerful, take entirely too much time to teach the syntax when you can teach problem solving just as easily through Basic.

Maybe this will mean that there will be more college professors able to speak comprehensible English, and thus bring up the overall intelligence of our own collegiate population.

For those of you who probably are not familiar with the nuclear industry, let me make a very simple description of how "Nuclear Waste" is classified.<BR><BR>

Waste falls into three categories:<BR>
Low Level Waste (LLW)<BR>
High Level Waste (HLW)<BR>
Transuranic Waste (TRU)<BR><BR>

LLW is anything that has been exposed to a reasonably low level of radiation. This is typically things like gloves, towels, suits, etc. and their activity level is usually low enough to store in a temporary facility until the activity level in them dies off enough to be disposed of safely.<BR><BR>

HLW is primarily spent nuclear fuel that, in places like France, is usually reprocessed, but here it is typically either sent to be disposed of or onto research facilities, disposal, or weapons.<BR><BR>

TRU waste is what the article has been discussing, which is a big problem. TRU waste comes about as nuclear fuel is fissioned out into various fission products. Obviously these fission products are radioactive and all depend on the type of fuel, but for old LWR/BWRs, there is a significant amount of TRU waste coming out. If what they claim is actually true, then it will be a very big step in the right direction.

For those who don't know, perhaps this will shed some light upon the issue of "Nuclear Batteries." http://www.eoearth.org/article/Small_nuclear_power_reactors While this is a bit too verbose, if you read the section on Lead Cooled Fast Reactors, you will see that ANL has been working on this for years. The nuclear power industry has had two major accidents, TMI II and Chernobyl. In the case of Chernobyl, the scientists purposely disabled the safety systems on the reactor to run tests, which has been engineered out. With the new models, the passive safety systems prevent reactors from going above ALARA standards. For a quick lesson in reactor criticality, as others have stated when you attempt to power a reactor, you need at the very least, 1 neutron that is within the reactor's designed energy levels (thermal neutrons for thermal reactors, fast neutrons for fast reactors). This will allow you to maintain a power level, however if it is all you have, you cannot increase power. To increase power you need a surplus of neutrons being produced per fission that will reach the designated energy levels, which is mandated to be well below beta (the point where a reactor becomes prompt critical, i.e. likely meltdown). TLDR version: The industry is one of the most tightly legislated, and well trained in the world, and it is extremely improbable that the industry will ever have another significant accident.