Yeah, that's the ticket. It takes a programming background to do the edit,
and typing skill makes the job easier.

Since a typing course is only gonna cost an hour a day for a few weeks, it's well worth
it for a long lifetime of easy access to the written word.

What's really old, is the knowledge that the Earth's core is hot. The crust has
a known thermal gradient, and is moving that heat at conduction-through-dirt rates
consistent with that gradient. You'd have to run a heat engine to bypass a LOT
of vertical distance, in the downward direction, to tap that.

And, as you tap it, the bottom of your heat engine gets cold. That means
it's not sustainable, unless you find a magma flow and tap the heat of a river of molten rock.

The sustainable 'amount of energy' (really, power) you can get from the planet in
this way is about 1/16 watt per square meter. Mile-deep holes are more
expensive than solar cells, and sunlight is delivering 'way more energy than that anyhow.

Good grief! To patent is to PUBLISH a description that allows replication
by an artisan of the invention. There's very little software
nowadays that could be contained, inclusive of the user interface,
the memory model, the subroutine libraries, and the output functions, in any
reasonable amount of patent office deposited paper.

Folk doing agile app development rarely envision a blueprint for their work,
it's just too much time to spend on a document
(that's why we see so many bugs).

Any attempt to fight in court on a software patent would be won by
whichever legal team has the most staying power,
and could easily drag on like the old SCO/IBM fiasco of 2003-2016...

Maybe there's something about supernovae that makes the black hole jet more visible, and there's just a cluster of supers near one axis of a major black hole. It's consistent with the other direction of jet being less bright. And, only requires a concentration of naturally occurring supernovae in that spatial region.

Yes, commercial nuclear power IS effectively delayed into uneconomic
timescales in many instances. But, it only takes the Navy a couple of years
to get a nuclear submarine built; those small reactors do not incur the time-waste
that a commercial power plant has to deal with.

It's entirely possible to make commercial nuclear power feasible, with modern
engineering designs, if by modular engineering we can employ a multiplicity
of small units, to suit prompt needs rather than projections 40 years into the future.

There's no need to have a complete network of 2G and 3G base stations, for a utility that only bills monthly; you could interrogate the meters by having a mobile cell (that only recognizes the meters, not old phones) and just applying a traveling-salesman algorithm to visit enough sites for brief powered operation. It only has to handle tiny transactions with a customer-list of addresses, not a full metropolitan area of active users. Retiring the older meters can happen at a sedate pace, starting with the most rural regions.

Neal Stephenson's Termination Shock (2021) does a good sci-fi treatment of
one scenario where this sort of thing makes economic sense. The fact is, we
need a billion-dollar sewage treatment plant to support a city, and to
support an entire planet... the cost, here, isn't much of a counterargument.

What IS a killer argument, is loss of glaciers and snowpack.

One possibility, that the Ganges might
run dry in summer, basically renders hundreds of millions of people homeless.

So, short of war, how do we propose to stop a deliberate emitter
of sulfurous sunblock, in a coming climate emergency?

The idea is out there. Like climate change, it can only grow.

Brazil, in the early days (1996?) gave access to source code
for auditing, and accepted signatures in the executables, on all their
'new' voting machines. No network, naturally;
without physical access, you couldn't hack them.
And, hacking would invalidate the signatures.

So far, the scheme has worked. There's a lot of noise claiming fraud,
but... good evidence says not.

It's an unconventional kind of waveguide, but at millimeter-wave frequencies it can only be a TEM (transverse electromagnetic)
waveguide, and the rectangular cross section suggests polarization specific.

Where did you get the idea that this was using waveguide properties? Waveguides are inherently rigid with, as you suggested,
very specific minimum radius bend ratios. If you follow the link Apple's page, TFA states:

Despite its slim size, it can carry a hefty load of data, since it sends signals over three different
parallel channels, separated by frequency.

This would also suggest that it isn't using any type of waveguide transmission since the cross section of a
waveguide is designed specifically for a single frequency and is hollow inside.

The physics of a waveguide allows for multiple frequencies, they just have to have good traveling-wave solutions
for the dimensions. It also allows the 'guide' to have either a fast core and slow guide (like a traditional pipe)
or a slow core and fast surround, like a piece of rope.

Seriously, early microwave researchers used a rope suspended with silk threads to channel microwaves.
This kind of flexible cable still can't make sharp bends, and it will attenuate over long distances,
but it's still a lot more private than WiFi.

What puzzles me, though, is how my PC is going to generate such
data volumes (or where it will put the data it receives). This looks like
a fiber-channel replacement, for big centralized data farms.

Think of chicken parts, you can get all legs, all wings, etc. in the stores,
but for quick frying, the shape of choice is that of the donut.

It just gives good contact with the oil, and uniform cooking.
Ideal shape, really, for nuggets.

So, look for the chicken-parts available in stores to be supplemented;
next to drumsticks, and thighs, and wings, there'll be... wheels.

Northern Scotland isn't on the equator, so an earth-axis-parallel flywheel will be a tilted spinner
(either that, or the precession of the gyroscope will endanger its moorings and crack the foundation).

And, spinning it up will change the length of the day slightly... unless you spin up several, in pairs, in opposite directions.

Have astronomers been brought in to discuss the side effects? And geologists, I suppose?
I'm envisioning a demonstration in favor of angular-momentum neutrality.

Since 70 C heat makes coronavirus non-infectious, I've got a few vegetable steamers
that can make my personal mask more-or-less safely reusable. It's unlikely anything
a COVID-19 victim exhales has other pathogens. The shortage of masks completely
changes the usual (disposables are best) hospital economics argument.

Autoclaves are pressure cookers, need some upkeep and suck lots of power. And, they're not DRY
heaters, which is encouraging for my veggie steamers since the 70C test was for dry conditions.

So what you are saying is, "Trust Us".

Not at all. Verify by communications (question and answer) with the researcher,
confirm with other studies, criticize at will.
That's science as usual. Trust is not basic.

And, it works; science corrects itself better than a bureaucratic rule could.
When Wakefield made his infamous vaccine study, he falsified not just the results, but the data as well.
When others couldn't see the effect, they (eventually) tracked down subjects and checked the data elements
WITHOUT going through Wakefield, and discovered the deception.
A requirement to dump the data into the paper wouldn't have had much protective effect.
What I'm trying to say, is that this is not a valid scientific measure, and is not protective in any useful way.
It's an impediment, a way to give deep-pockets entities an opportunity to force denial and delay.

A baseless slur on science goes like this:

Since they have a history of fucking with data, yes, there have been VERY serious concerns about raw data.

There are no employable scientists who have "a history" of this sort.
Junk science is a non-issue in the operations of the FDA, but there's a lot of noise
being generated by a group that wants to get lawyers involved and hobble the agency's fine scientific workers.

If it can't be checked, and repeated or falisified, it isn't science.

Sounds good, but that's totally bogus. Eyewitness accounts of a volcanic eruption can't be 'repeated', but DO
qualify as scientific observation. Why wouldn't you allow that?

The proposed rule isn't a precaution, it's a paralytic agent.

The suspicion of 'junk scientists' is best investigated by real scientists. Publication is a
good requirement, but show-me-all-the-raw-data is the way IBM fought
an antitrust suit some decades ago: they declared that all the experience of all their executives was
admissable as data underlying a business decision...

A few traincar loads of documents was read into evidence... thirty million pages

http://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=923