Re: Shouldn't that be...

This kind of watermarking is already done in cinemas. I read an interview recently with the producer of "Cloud Atlas" who said that with digital projections, he could identify exactly not only the cinema but the particular screening where a digicam recording of the movie was made. This doesn't prevent the copying, but could be used as evidence in the unlikely event that the perpetrator was caught. The soundtrack is similarly watermarked.

If nobody notices the watermarks in the digital projections in cinemas, then why should it be noticeable on a computer screen?

@JustaKOS Re: COSH

Good point. Increasing the size of the airbag would also reduce the space available for the helium, so no need to reduce the volume of the cell. (I was remembering when I built a model airship, filling the thing with helium is difficult when using rigid cells. Needs to be done very slowly, else too much air remains mixed with the helium)

Maintaining the shape of the airship is not due to the helium, though. You'd normally have some kind of outer hull.

Re: You mean 292279025167 years

No, given my age, I'm pretty sure that I'm still running a 32-bit system.

Re: Considering the distances from Earth for the *other* candidates this is pretty close.

"intergalactic interstellar"

or maybe intragalactic?

Re: At that speed Windows 3.1 did not disgrace itself.

My first own computer had just a single 5 1/4" floppy drive. Saving anything to disk from, say, Word, took about a dozen (maybe more) disk swaps. The 32 MB RLL was suddenly the highest priority on my wishlist...

Re: Errata

"stuffed"? Such a harsh word. Rather applies to Munich, 2001, I'd say. (or Oxford '09...)

Re: no emacs users?

C-x C-k? What's that? kmacro-edit-macro???

Excellent analogy. Hope it's "free", since I'd like to borrow it the next time I have to argue with an Apple fan!

Why?

1. its a stupid suggestion to get a meaningful ranking by googling that phrase

2. you get much more impressive numbers if you don't, so much less fun if you quote the phrase

3. the whole Assange(tm) saga is beyond satire anyway

yes, let's

Firstly, 15TW is the total energy consumption, not just electricity consumption. But anway, wind power already can already deliver 1% of that, and I don't see a 100-fold increase covering the whole planet.

Secondly, I personally wouldn't a priori exclude Antarctica or off-shore locations. Not many bees there to fret over, and plenty of wind.

Thirdly, given this government-sponsored study on leukemia incidences, if I'd live close to a nuclear power plant (which I don't), I would worry about the effects on the health of my children more than whether there's mobile phone transmission mast in the vicinity. (and actually I don't worry about those)

In another post you mentioned fusion energy. I'm 100% with you on that. I don't see wind as the sole energy source. (I prefer solar furnaces and solar updraft towers, btw) But until fusion power is ready, I much rather use renewable energy sources than nuclear technology. Do you have a problem with that?

Really?

Well, if "Japan's Self-Defense Forces have postponed a mission to dump water by helicopter on the No.3 reactor at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, because radiation above the facility has climbed too high for such work" (source: NHK), then I don't think that radiation levels are "quite safe". At least that's what my friend Harvey tells me. But then he's a white rabbit, so what does he know...

@Vladimir

"But how much damage thousands of *operational* bird-choppers do over a period of time? You cannot say that."

At least they won't give you leukemia. "A government-sponsored study of childhood cancer in the proximity of German nuclear power plants found that children < 5 years living < 5 km from plant exhaust stacks had twice the risk for contracting leukemia as those residing > 5 km." See: Kaatsch P, Kaletsch U, Meinert R, Michaelis J. An extended study on childhood malignancies in the vicinity of German nuclear power plants. Cancer Causes Control. 1998;9(5):529-533.

"How much damage to the environment their manufacturing does? No word on that either."

Most probably much less than the damage caused by processing and storage of Nuclear fuels and waste.

"you can't have enough of these to meet our needs for electricity unless you cover the whole Earth with the bee-smashers"

Any numbers? Any source? And who insisted on wind being the only option?

Anyway, let's be silly and suppose it should be wind only. Wikipedia says that world power consumption is on average around 15 Terawatts. Work is underway on 10 MW turbines. That would make it 1.5 million turbines when running at full power. On average one turbine every 340 square kilometers. I've got the feeling that we might be able to cluster the things a bit tighter, so that covering the whole Earth won't be necessary.

increase

"You wrote "...according to the IAEA the incidence of thyroid cancer among such children and young people rose to one case in 4,500" however you omitted to state the starting point this is to be compared to. One presumes it's a number smaller than 1/4500, however that is a rather large field :)"

In parts, the increase was staggering:

"In the age group of 9-year-old children, the incidences in three regions defined as the 'high-dose area', the northern, and the middle oblasts, increased by factors of 50, 20, and 6, respectively."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9402636

mSv -> µSv

According to Kyodo and NHK, it was 1000 µSv. BBC and all other Western news pages that I read must have copied from the same source.

Still, much too high.

El tit

The control rods just stop the chain reaction. The residual nuclear waste still produces heat through decay that must be dissipated. When pumps fail (as happened) this becomes a major problem. Hence the partial core meltdown that apparently now has happened at block 2 as the fuel rods became exposed.

And, btw, much as the resident pro-nuke faction might disagree, nuclear technology cannot be made safe. No technology can be made entirely safe. It's a question of whether we think the risk being acceptable, including the as-yet-unknown risks. Personally, I much rather use "green" energy (water, solar, wind) than nuclear, although I accept that nuclear is probably "cleaner" than fossil energy.

Exactly

I heard about it a couple of days ago on German radio. The FO will keep Linux for backoffice stuff (i.e., servers), but it was apparently impossible for all the years that they used Linux to train the normal users to use Linux-based desktops. Which actually paints a pretty damaging picture of the average FO staff's mental flexibility.

Just goes to show..

Just goes to show what a really sad bunch these fanbois are! Unable to keep focused on the job when their iPhone demands attention...