2559 posts • joined 4 Jun 2010
Re: What's with all the stupid codenames?
"What's with all the stupid codenames?"
You really want them to ditch the codenames and instead refer to 'Our cable tap to the UK' and 'Our cable tap on C&W'?
I don't think you understand the point of code names, do you?
"Put a bullet in the little traitor."
For what exactly? Letting us plebs know just how routinely we are spied upon?
Or do you genuinely have the lack of wit to believe that the nation's enemies did not consider that any communication infrastructure wasn't secure and should never be treated as such prior to Snowdow's leaks?
"The same Green-Freaks lead by"
I was not aware that environmentalism was an organisation with an appointed head.
Gore attempted to become a spokesperson. Badly. To everyone's detriment apart from those who which to tar the entire movement with his reflected stupidity.
Re: reducing energy consumption
"Thank godness China is a one-party state. "
Big supporter of Communism, then?
I guess in our primitive democracies we'd have not bothered putting out those massive underground coal burns or dealt with the choking pollution issues, either.
"So tell me: What exactly is it that keeps desperate little states from repeating the mistake of employing outdated first generation nuclear reactor designs _today_?"
The threat of the US dry-gulching them financially, with the potential for being bombed if that doesn't curtail them.
"And how does this situation change as the western world turn to gen IV designs?"
It doesn't. Other factors come into play there, such as convincing the majority of people [voters] in the Western world that Gen IV designs are safe.
We see prior disasters. We see that our governments can't even manage to run a bus service and that people who sit on the boards of things like banks willingly break the rules to take more profit and are never held criminally responsible.
Can you blame people for not wanting to live 20km from a fission plant in the Western world?
Re: I seem to remember
"Aluminium is lovely stuff from a green perspective."
Well, apart from the extracting it in the first place. Rather a lot of 'leccy there.
But yeah: Great to recycle.
Re: I seem to remember
"And thats the problem. So much public "knowledge" of the problem is nothing more than faith."
I've worked in the energy sector, have a mate who is a nuclear engineer, and another who 'buys' energy for the nation as a day job. Just because I'm not agreeing, it's not grounds for saying that I don't understand the maths. What are your qualifications in the field, if I may ask?
"Fission reactors are mostly horrifically expensive to construct because of the red tape"
Damn all those safety regulations and public opinion, eh?
The answer is not to trample public opinion and make them jump through less safety inspections and other red tape though really, is it?
Ultimately, public opinion does matter; hence my comment that building them in a centralised manner a long way from anywhere is the way to make fission viable to the majority.
"we would not need to be "scattering our nations" with them, as we would need less than the number of coal or gas plants"
I know. But still more than one or two for a piece of land the size of the UK. That's 'scattering our nations', to my mind.
"they are less difficult to remove (and leave the environment radioactive in the surrounding area www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/)"
Wow, really? Not convinced.
And ash is indeed unpleasant. Burning black rocks is not the answer to the problem; we can agree on that.
"and the waste produced is actually only deemed unsafe because of the paranoia of people."
Depends what flavour. Plenty of it is VERY nasty. And it's often not the fission waste but the equipment it's been in contact with that's the problem. Ultimately though, if the majority of the public disapprove then it's not viable, because we are lucky and live in a democracy. yeah, it sucks. And I'm not saying that fission is an out-and-out bad idea because 'radiation is bad, innit'; I'm saying that it's not viable for us to build a dozen plants in a nation as densely populated as the UK because there are some issues with it historically which have ensured that the majority of the voting public won't accept it.
"Nuclear "waste" is mostly less radioactive than the soil of Devon or any other area on granite bedrock."
Yes, but 'mostly' doesn't really cut it in such cases, unfortunately. Would you fly in a plane which was only 5% lethal?
" The reactors are far less of a danger than coal, oil or gas overall, but people are not interested in the hundreds of thousands of deaths from these every year, as they are not sensational."
True. but -historically - people have a damn good reason not to want to live next to a fission plant.
Re: I seem to remember
"ONLY 20km from geothermal energy?"
Much less than that, obviously. Been down a mine recently? It's hot. Real hot. We wouldn't need anything like 20km in reality: Just some clever thinking.
"drilling deep isnt as simple as you are...."
At least I can use an apostrophe and discuss energy consumption without going straight for the personal insults. Hope you're proud of your intellectual capacity.
"the wattage per square meter from solar radiation is next to nothing"
100W+ is nothing? We suck at converting it, but that's an engineering issue, not physics. And again: It's a stop-gap, not a solution. Our own Fusion is the real solution, rather than the sun's.
You're not thinking big enough either. It's not like we need the Sahara for anything much, for example. Big power production needs to be a global project, not national ones. Scattering fission plants all over the place is a bad idea when we can centralise to large areas of sand that nobody uses, to my mind.
" you did not even read this article, or didn't understand it....the only sensible stopgap to fusion is called nuclear energy, "
Lol. No, I read and understood it. But that does not mean that I was instantly converted to Lewis' solution. Did you have an open mind before reading, or were you already pro-Lewis? If the later then I suggest you look up confirmation bias. Or are you suggesting that I should be utterly swayed by Lewis' article ?
"you are absolutely clueless"
".the only sensible stopgap to fusion is called nuclear energy"
It's not black and white. Having worked in the energy industry, I know just how crap we are at making them on-budget and shutting them down on-budget. they cost a lot, too. And y'know: People hate them. I don't have such issues, but the majority do, and we live in a democracy, not a technocracy. Fission is not something that human beings are willing to accept living next to, so as a solution it's not as good as it is on paper (A bit like Communism, which is rendered utterly unworkable by basic human nature).
"STOP lobbyen for us to get stuck with nuclear waste forever"
I don't recall 'lobbyen' for anything, and certainly not that.
"and mainly stop participation in discussion on subject you are 100% clueless about..."
So, you want people who do not agree with you to butt out of the discussion. Not really a discussion, is it? I don't think you understand the word 'discussion'.
Re: reducing energy consumption
" Got to keep their poor/stupid/low pay workforce growing." - Well, who else is going to pay your pension?!
Re: reducing energy consumption
"Just because you don't like their conclusions doesn't mean they're wrong."
/facepalm. smiley face + pint glass = joke, trite comment.
It doesn't mean they're right, either. Or indeed that I don't think they are.
We have two people here saying it won't work, and that's good enough a sample for Lewis to churn an article out.
"Like the article said, anyone with a decent understanding of physics knows that "renewable energy" isn't the answer."
That's not true at all. Quite the reverse: I'm fully aware of just how much energy pours down on our heads. Given the size of that number it's more likely people who DON'T understand physics who see it as insufficient. Anything like a decent conversion rate and we should be harnessing that free stuff. We can't because we're not good enough and need something else, but in theory that's an insane amount of energy.
"Those of us with degrees in engineering figured it out right away."
Never been down a hot, sweaty mine, either then?
Playing the 'I've got an engineering degree and you'd have to know nothing about physics to see that renewables don't work" is essentially your argument, and one based on smugly demeaning others, rather than facts. Your engineering degree does not make renewable enrgy your field of expertise, which you know more about than anyone else, so don't pretend that it does.
"And the people that claim that "we need to make new discoveries" are people that don't understand basic physics."
We need better engineering solutions. Those are new discoveries.
"If you want to have fun with someone who keeps making claims about renewable energy and climate changes"
wow: Seriously: For all your intellect you're still in the tiny minority of educated minds who don't swallow the climate change thing, despite the...y'know...tons of evidence?
"Or perhaps we need to relocate the server farms somewhere it is cold all year round, making more passive A/C possible? "
I believe Google are also doing that.
They also use propriety kit which reduces energy consumption. They tell us that this is done because they care. (but obviously not enough to let everyone else use the same kit!)
"Maybe the elephant in the room is that we need less internet capacity sucking up all the megawatts?"
Apparently Google searches use a crap-load of energy.
So too does bitcoin mining.
I read something the other day that said 5% of our energy consumption is spent crushing and grinding up rocks. I'd be interested to know if that's true.
"And Chernobyl was caused by: an antique flawed reactor design that no-one but a Stalinist state would ever have thought of building."
If we're talking about using nuclear in the future, then plenty of desperate little states will repeat the mistake.
"and an approach to operational safety that can only be described as bordering on lunacy. "
And which wasn't even living under the capitalist pressure of a continuous desire to reduce costs, in a nation where senior figures are never held adequately criminally accountable for their actions. Imagine how much worse it could have been.
C'mon: Let's not be dishonest with ourselves: we build a thousand reactors to solve the problem in the places and manner that we have built them in the past and there is going to be trouble: Corners will get cut for political reasons *somewhere*, *somewhere* natural disasters will cause mayhem, and *somewhere* conflict will overspill. It'd be asking for it.
Not that it completely writes off the fission option, of course. Personally, I'd build a massive 'reactor farm' in the middle of a few of our deserts and put them under UN guard the moment the local situation started looking fishy, and have them controlled in a way that maximised safety and never cut corners to save a few bucks. Of course, that'll never happen because it's far too sensible a way to deal with the issues.
Re: three "disasters" so far - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima
"Fukushima was NOT a nuclear "disaster" it was a severe natural disaster which impacted an otherwise safe nuclear power plant."
So if - during bad weather - a tree falls on a train and kills 50 people, it's a natural disaster, not a train wreck?
C'mon: Stop playing semantics. It was ultimately an engineering failure: we weren't smart enough and didn't plan for something that happened.
Re: I seem to remember
"Some depth" - I wouldn't call a one-sentence statement any kind of depth at all. Call me a cynic but it was rather brushed past in a hurry to get across a message which coincidentally completely agrees with that of the piece's author.
"It is a good approach, but not many places are suited to using it (i.e. close to the magma's heat). Iceland is a good example, but few others I can think of."
Chap, we're all only 20 km from geothermal energy!
The whole thing defies basic rational common sense to me. We have a massive fusion reactor in the sky that pours down an impressive Wattage per square meter and a bunch of heat only a few tens of km straight down. If we can't figure out how to harness that, then we're not as smart a species as we think.
Ultimately, renewables should be a stop-gap until we figure out how to make fusion work. However, I do believe them to be a more viable and sensible stop-gap than scattering our nations with piddly little fission reactors, which are horrifically expensive to construct, just as expensive to take down, create waste that we don't want to face up to and deal with properly, and occasionally go wrong in ways that we don't like things built near population centres to go wrong.
Re: reducing energy consumption
I'm not sure how they're 'Top Google enginners', either: There were only two of them and they couldn't do the job they were asked to. They sound like dregs to me! :)
Same drum, same drummer.
"The Piper Alpha gas rig explosion of 1988 on its own caused three times as many deaths as the nuclear power industry has in its entire history. Bizarrely though, no nations ceased using gas."
There are plenty of good arguments for nuclear energy, but that's not one of them.
We can make more humans. We can't make more land to replace Chernobyl.
"That way they help weed out crazy people and liars but not normal people."
There's a good way of solving the social problems of crazy people: Don't fix them; fine them!
"who will check their solution for $50, although he will not provide any more clues."
Nice gig if you can get it.
Re: They seem to have told the lie enought times...
"People is starting to forget what this is all about..."
Crying wolf to avoid prosecution.
"Next thing you'll be talking about 9/11 as an example of a terrotist act orchestrated by some guy in a cave in the middle east..."
Pass me the tin foil, I desire new headwear!
"Which advances things how?"
It stops a wanted bail-jumper wandering free.
Seriously: Why does it have to 'advance' things. It's an inescapable siege. If the castle is impregnable, you don't have to let the inhabitants out. You make the buggers miserable until they give in, as much as an example as anything else.
"Your suggestion is functionally equivalent to 'don't talk to him at all'."
On the other hand is it *isn't* functionally equivalent to back-pedaling and compromising the legal system of your sovereign nation, surrendering to the whims of a fugitive and potentially screwing up a chance of prosecution by dong so.
"He's bound to come out and face the music now that you've laid that down."
I think you may be labouring under the impression that I in an way view him as being holed up in a box of his own choosing something other than a satisfying result. By ignoring our laws he's given himself a longer sentence than he would have earned and make a joke of himself far more effectively than the States could have dreamed of doing. His bid for freedom and limelight has had the opposite effect. I like irony.
"And people the world fucking over escape justice by hightailing it off to some fuck-off nation."
Yeah, at which point the authorities don't say "well done, old bean: you outwitted us this time, so we'll call it quits. Be on your way you jolly scoundrel!" It sets rather a bad example to others considering the same thing.
"Russia houses fucking WAR CRIMINALS in luxury villas...<rant>"
Erm... what has that got to do with it? Is the inference that other people have got away with it before, so why shouldn't he?
Remember that those people who went on the run before weren't let off with a rubber stamp: Protests with the hosting governments were lodged and are ongoing. Breaking the law is one thing, but making a mockery of a nation and their legal system is something the State is a little less forgiving on.
Re: Flame Suit Donned
"UK Police travel all over the damn world to interview suspects....
The Swedish prosecution..."
You realise that different nations have different laws, right.
What you appear to be saying is that something that's ok for UK law should be ok for all of those Johnny Foreigner types.
Re: How long does Ecuador's London embassy lease have left?
"The embassy is part of the state of Ecuador."
No it isn't.
"The saga of the Iranian Embassy some 30 years ago plus the shooting of the WPC Elaine Fletcher outside the Libyan Embassy set the precident here."
No it did not. It in no way set any form of legal precedent.
"There are all sorts of international treaties govening this."
No: There's one. The Vienna Convention.
"You could expell the ambasador etc but you can't take (legally) take over something that is part of a foreign country."
Embassies are STILL PART OF THE HOST COUNTRY. they have a lot of leeway, but ultimately that piece of dirt is still property of the UK.
"In the scope of things his crimes are fairly minor."
Saying 'fuck you' to our entire legal system is not minor.
Re: However in the UK he is a guilty criminal
"Can that be done by swedish police on foreign (UK) soil?"
They say no.
" quite clearly guilty (no judgement required for this, its automatic) of jumping bail & contempt of court."
Quite. Traditionally a crime that's treated with quite harshly, as it should be.
"he is convinced that if he goes to Sweden he will end up in a US prison for charges utterly unrelated to the matter at hand."
So- just to view that in perspective - any mentally unstable and paranoid homeless person should be spared the indignity of being Sectioned or imprisoned for a crime, so long as they're totally convinced in their head that they will do bad things to him there and never let him out again?
Re: "select markets"
"There is no doubt in my mind that he truly believes he will be extradited to the US if he ever sets foot on Swedish soils again"
That's absolutely no defense.
If you or I elected to go on the run from the police pending a trial because we thought we genuinely believed that we were going to be sent to jail for a long time, would that be ok? Would a court see that as an ok justification?
Re: Tough choice...
"35 years in prison"
"Why? BECAUSE HE'S NOT GOING TO LEAVE THE FUCKING ECUADORIAN EMBASSY!!!"
Oh, ok. So that's an ok legal precedent to set is it: If you evade police questioning then we just drop it and let suspects dictate terms?
"HE IS NOT LEAVING. You can say WHATEVER you want but he is NOT LEAVING.."
Good. I'm glad. I'm really quite happy that he has imprisoned and humiliated himself far more adequately than anyone else could have done.
"If you are the person in charge of this investigation you have two choices:"
3, actually: Don't negotiate to a wanted bail-jumper and let the bugger sit and stew.
"There does seem to be a strong anti-Assange sentiment pervading this site "
I'm anti- anyone who tries to buy their way around my nation's law by fighting to the last via the medium of expensive lawyers paid for by influential friends, who then elects to ignore a contrary court ruling, thumbs his nose at my nation's court system and then runs away, shouting 'waah conspiracy'.
Frankly anything before then was eclipsed by that series of deeds.
" track customers’ one-night stands"
Having followed the links, I'm fscking appalled.
Playing fast and loose with customer data for your own entertainment might be funny behind closed doors (who hasn't read out funny UIDs to other sys admins when they've been stumbled upon?) in a limited manner, but isn't Christmas party fodder. And the tracking 'rides of glory' thing is utterly beyond belief.
I quite liked the idea of Uber breaking the monopoly of cab drivers in a few cities, but I'm distinctly repelled enough not to entertain using them, now.
Re: @ Yet Another Anonymous coward -- or...
"And the cap that causes said explosion? IIRC C4 takes a cap that vaguely resembles a quarter-stick to get it lit, and IIalsoRC, that required atmospheric O2 to get that lit."
Blasting caps don't require oxygen either. Only a decent size electric charge.
Re: Is there not enough junk up there already ?
"Why would anybody in their right mind take the trouble to launch space junk into orbit ? "
Used rocket stages, shrouds/casings, and payloads that failed to function are all space junk that we paid to put up there.
"Doberman That is my name for this weapon."
You're late to the party.
Call them Rods From God or Thor munitions like everyone else has for 50 years:
Also: Utterly prohibited by convention.
Re: It scares me that people here seem to think the US and Russia are equivalent.
"One is a functioning democracy with rule of law and free speech"
So one should be allowed to weaponise space freely and without comment, the other [ie Russia] shouldn't?
"Nobody tries to retrieve, or even approach, enemy military satelites."
I wouldn't bet a penny on it.
"A block of C4, some ball-bearings and a proximity fuse and the other side loses a $$Bn space plane."
Except they wouldn't. They'd just fly cubesats up to every bird they can find, writing off a billion-dollar assets for the price of a cubesat. You could take out someone's entire orbital capabilities for a fraction of the price they cost, and requiring several years of launches for them to get back up to capability. I do not buy that spy satellites have such trigger-happy self-defence methods.
"That's why the air force space shuttle never happened"
Err... there were plenty of reasons, but exploding soviet sats wasn't near the top of the list.
Re: @ Yet Another Anonymous coward -- or...
"Oh, and oxygen...don't forget the oxygen, or your block of C4 is nothing but a bad imitation of Silly Putty up there."
That's not how explosives work. They contain their own Oxygen atoms.
Re: sattelite spying sattelite?
Not only a Bond-ism, this was within the capabilities of the shuttle (which was primarily a military toy).
"It's the shape that makes stealth planes hard for radar to detect. Not having any large flat surfaces for the radar to give a simple return off, but to be all angular, so it reflects off in different directions. That's going to make solar panels particularly problematic,"
So hang a large, radar absorbing 'balloon' underneath the bird which deflects energy upwards and away, instead of reflecting. A bit like this handy patent suggests:
"Provide a way to position the solar panels so that they never reflect sunlight earthwards and use a very wide channel for your spread-spectrum comms and it should be invisible to earthly detection."
Low orbit is not very far away, so visual making is as important as RADAR. Anyone with a decent telescope can get some fairly good pictures of spy sats. Some of them are the size of a bus. Photos of some here:
"So we can assume that anything with is easily tracked like the X-37, is probably a decoy or not very important."
They're not far away and not hard to track. You'd be making an incorrect assumption.
Are all these decoys?
X-37 is relatively easily tracked when you have LOS and know where to look. Except it side-steps this issue by being very maneuverable, so you don't know where or when it's going to make an over-pass, making it much harder to counter than something in a typical orbit.
Re: Do any of you realize...@Pat Volk
"Obama and Holder are historically sympathizers/participants with that whole 60's movement."
Equality, peace, free love and mind expanding drugs.
I'd vote for them, based on that.
"The Ferguson PD only dealt with the problem using the tools they had. "
Yes: we noticed. Fully automatic weapons, balaclavas and surplus military kit.
Re: Do any of you realize...
"And before you or some other retard discredits my sources, any mainstream news source is deliberately not reporting this news because they are in the pocket of Obama and the rest of the liars."
So we have to read the crazynews because it's not in other news sources?
How about you provide a primary source, instead of crazynews?
Re: KKK= arseholes
'Rod and Gun Club' - RAF Lakenheath?
Pretty sure they still will be.
It's the long tail of racism: Once it counted 40% of white american males as members.
Re: Do any of you realize...
"that over 70% of the so called protesters are actually shills for the New American Black Panthers?"
No, we did not. You can of course provide some kind of citation from a reliable source and evidence to back that up, right? Because otherwise you're just spouting propaganda.
"Any of you old enough to remember the Watts riots? NOW THATS domestic terrorism!"
No, that was a riot. One in their own community. You might want to look up the word 'terrorist' in the dictionary.
"That the communist party organization of Chicago is paying to bring out of towners to stir up"
A political organisation busing in protesters? Say it ain't so!
That's legitimate protest and happens everywhere. It's just this time the people doing it are people that you don't like. Suck it up: Rights to gather apply to both sides.
"they are distributing literature"
Holy crap. Arrest them all!
I'll bet it's something horrific like Jayne Eyre. They deserve locking up.
" and training "protestors" to hurt cops?"
"Tell me how any of those people are any less wrong than the KKK?"
It doesn't matter if they're equally criminal really, does it: Two wrongs do not a right make.
Yeah, ironic from an organisation who burns crosses in people's yards and lynches people.
Re: Secret mode?
Correct me if my memory has done me a disservice, but isn't any carbon-based chemistry 'organic'. And carbon is pretty common. So this isn't really news.
If it's COMPLEX organic chemistry taking place that would be good news, but that's not what appears to be announced
/puzzled by the excitement.
" Football is not about sport, it's about entertainment. "
I think the club owners and players would be appalled and utterly in disagreement.
It's all about the Benjamins!
Yes: Apparently, if you have a monopoly, you can gouge the crap outta punters!
"Who could possibly have seen that coming?"
It's not really competitive capitalism if it's a monopoly though, is it?
Re: How to bring competition
"Expect collusion between the clubs and the media and a few people skating off any jail time or penalties because they can afford expensive lawyers as a result."
Fixed for you!
Re: No option?
"Just to clarify, I am not a football fan. The only sport I follow is F1"
Ditto. And there is no real customer 'choice' available: Either watch the BBC's excellent but 50%-of-races-as-highlight-shows-only OR pay for Sky channels that I wouldn't watch in order to then watch 6 hours of TV every three weeks.
It's a gouge.
Except it's worse than a simple gouge on sports fans, because it costs so much for the TV rights that *everyone* helps bear Sky's costs *even if you don't have the sports channels*.
Re: ...for the nth time....
Building them and getting them to only explode in the direction you want them to is indeed engineering.
But getting them to fly to where you want them to is science.
"My bus driver vents gases too -- but it's not AIR."
Technically, they would be air as soon as he vents the gases, as they're then part of Earth's atmosphere. A very unpleasant part, but air nonetheless!
Re: First landing on a comet?
A bit late there: The ESA already did that joke! [check their Twitter feed]
- Hi-torque tank engines: EXTREME car hacking with The Register
- Review What's MISSING on Amazon Fire Phone... and why it WON'T set the world alight
- Product round-up Trousers down for six of the best affordable Androids
- Antique Code Show World of Warcraft then and now: From Orcs and Humans to Warlords of Draenor
- Why did it take antivirus giants YEARS to drill into super-scary Regin? Symantec responds...