* Posts by Trevor_Pott

6990 posts • joined 31 May 2010

A very Canadian approach: How net neutrality rules reflect a country's true nature

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge
Coat

Re: there aren't any derogatory terms used by Canadians to describe their continental cousins...

@Dan55

I was about to say...

Also: Isn't "American" a derogatory term? I'll get my...

0
1

Alert: If you're running SquirrelMail, Sendmail... why? And oh yeah, remote code vuln found

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Why?

Why not use Squirrelmail + Sendmail? They've served me well for over ten years, I don't see any benefit in changing...

0
0

Data trashed? When RPO 0 isn't enough

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Pay per mention?

According to ctrl-f, 3 times. If you have a better example of a zoom zoom post-today's-NAND tech that is actually sampling amongst companies, I'd love to know. Or even a term that is better than "zoom zoom post-today's nand tech".

If I say "3d xpoint" people get what I mean, even if xpoint isn't the actual technology that's relevant there. It's a placeholder. Kleenex, without being Kleenex branded tissues. But I'm open to a better term...

0
0

Take that! FCC will hand net neut to FTC – reports

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: No.

Old people aren't wise either, though clearly they retain the arrogance of youth.

Here's a shocker: the percentage of people who are actually smart is pretty small, and doesn't correlate with age.

6
0

Twitter's motto: If at first you screwed developers over, try, try again, eh?

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Only twits tweet.

"I never used no 'Internet', and never needed it! There's pornography on there. Tells you something about the mentality of the people who use it!"

TL;DR: oldmanyellsatcloud.jpg

2
0

Coppers 'persistently' breach data protection laws with police tech

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: @David 132

Then 2% of cops should be jailed every year. You or I would be in their place. If the cops can't handle being held to higher standards, they shouldn't get exceptions to breaching the standards to which mundanes are held.

0
0

Finally – from brandbox to whitebox: Storage fabric is SDS realised

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Welcome

It's worth pointing out that fabrics can install onto bare metal by integrating with a Linux kernel. So HCLs can be the Microsoft HCL or the VMware HCL if you ware using the hyperconverged VSA-style solution on top of an existing hypervisor, or it can be "pretty much anything you can find" if you are using a bare metal scale-out solution native to the fabric vendor's software/integrated with KVM. Interesting times.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Welcome to the world of tomorrow

ViPR's cute, but to my understanding is still pretty limited compared to modern SDS platforms. Yes, proper fabrics exist today, but none of them have all the pieces together and have enough funding to go big. There are startups with all the bits, but they're tiny. There are big companies with SDS solutions, but they don't have all the bits.

Storage fabrics are today where hyperconvergence was circa 2010 or 2011.

Also: ScaleIO as a storage fabric? No. Hyperconvergence is only one feature of a storage fabric. It is not a fabric in and of itself.

1
0

Linux, not Microsoft, the real winner of Windows Server on ARM

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Not so sure

I don't need Red Hat support for all my instances. Just my dev and test instances. As long as I know that everything with a given config set works I can use those same config chains on CentOS. Desire state config is amazing.

And it's beyond TCO. There are multiple companies willing to provide Linux (or BSD) support. You can choose whom you trust. You can have one of your devs submit patches directly to an offending project. You don't have to trust one company that - let's face it - has done everything they can to destroy trust.

This would be a different conversation if Microsoft gave a bent fuck about trust and acted in a responsible an honourable manner towards it's partners, customers, or even staff. It doesn't. Thus it can't be trusted.

In the open source community there are always alternatives. From hiring freelancers to whack a particular mole to working with companies to solve your problems...where there exist professionals at most open source companies ready and willing to work in a professional and trustworthy manner.

Microsoft dug their own grave. Let the bastards rot in it.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

The growth is on Azure because Microsoft have sacrificed everything in order to force the growth to be there. See here.

Microsoft went to the cloud because of two things: a) subscription revenue and b) lock-in. Windows had reached the place where Office had been for some time: sure, there was some lock-in, but there was no room for growth and all the features that needed be already were.

With Azure, Microsoft could create a whole new form of lock-in, charge even more, and do it all as recurring revenue. Win, win, win for MS. Lose for customers.

Windows is legacy. It will shrink and then stabilize, and sit at that level with no appreciable growth for decades. Just like mainframes.

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Not so sure

"Windows is still much easier to deploy and manage, and the reliability and security of Windows have improved dramatically in the past decade."

This depends entirely on whether or not you're comfortably blindly trusting Microsoft and whether or not you believe in actually having control of your operating system. Microsoft is steadily moving away from administrators being able to control everything and towards just having to trust Microsoft because Microsoft knows best.

See: cumulative updates, as one example.

I have some lovely stories of Windows updates breaking things at fortune 2000 companies and, because of cumulative updates, not being able to subsequently update systems. Administrators fighting with Microsoft support for quite some time to get them to acknowledge there was a problem, hotfixes being slow and then the next cumulative update breaking things all over.

A couple of reasonably large orgs I know of have called halt to the idea of "Windows by default" and are now requiring justification for why Windows should be used instead of SaaS or LAMP.

Windows is the easiest for people who have built their careers on Windows. But there are now enough people out there who have built their careers on other technology stacks that they're simply not afraid of looking elsewhere. And it's starting to show, in enterprises and even in governments deployments.

Windows is a hell of a lot more secure than it was. But it has gone backwards on manageability, and that's hurting Microsoft in a big way.

7
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Someone did create a nice UI for Linux. It subsequently claimed the endpoint crown, completely crushing Windows.

It's called Android.

Yes, Windows dominates a specific chunk of the endpoint market - desktops - and leads in another chunk of the endpoint market - notebooks - however, both those segments are in overall decline. Not merely as a percentage of total endpoints deployed (which has been catastrophic from that standpoint,) but in terms of total units shipped per year. Not one quarter's decline, or a year. Desktop and notebook sales have been for over 5 years.

So go right ahead and cling to your Windows uber alles fantasy. Actual facts don't back you up. As for the rest, most ITDMs I've talked to in the past 18 months have been reigning in purchases of new Windows applications and moving towards either SaaS or in house LAMP applications for new projects.

Like mainframes, Windows will take a very long time to completely die...but it's days of maintaining datacenter market share - let alone growth - are over. It's about time.

6
1

Algorithms no excuse for cartel behaviour, says European commish

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Duh

So what you're saying is A) you don't want Google Search to exist any more (because a search engine isn't profitable without other components, like advertising), and B) you want all the rest of Google's offerings to no longer be available as the entire company collapses (because the only thing that makes any money is the ability to advertise against things, with search being the real money draw).

If you broke up Google you might have one piece - website advertisement - that could survive independently, but it would be a pretty small entity that would fade pretty quickly as the market turned to Microsoft. Having the only major search engine left with an integrated advertising system, Microsoft would be able to provide the targeted advertising that advertisers want, leaving the on-website advertising solution that was hived out of the former Google to wither and die.

Everything else Google does would cease, because it's funded by advertising. Amazon would own shopping outright and Microsoft would own everything else. Microsoft, of course, wouldn't be anywhere near as objective as Google, and our ability to search the web effectively would be reduced to pre-2000 levels.

That's what you want?

How many shares in Seattle tech companies do you own, anyways? Google aren't the good guys, but they're a fuck of a lot less awful than the alternatives.

Killing Google to solve perceived conflicts of interest is like trying to solve perceived governmental inefficiency by completely eliminating the government and saying really loudly "no, we won't end up like Somalia, because this time it will be different". There's nothing rational about it, and it won't make anything better for anyone except some sociopathic warlords.

1
0

One IP address, multiple SSL sites? Beating the great IPv4 squeeze

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Wrong.

@Orv: then you'd clearly be surprised at the number of network equipment vendors still shipping models today that don't support it. Let alone any of the midmarket, SMB or consumer level stuff, which are the folks that really need it. You know, because of renumbering. We're still a decade away from NPT getting to the folks as need it. And judging from the reactions of IPv6 purists here in this very thread, we might have to wait more than a decade before the purists decide they'll support NPT in the software they develop.

Awesome. And just think, had the IPv6 elites not been stubborn asshats for 15 years, we could have solved all of this ages ago and could be using it today in a manner that met everyone's needs. But people suck.

1
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: End to end is a myth

Quit being rational, sir. There's no place for that in an IPv6 discussion.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Wrong.

An RFC existing doesn't make anything supported or usable. Being incorporated into working products does. Having applications not coded to expect end-to-end and having them not die when there's a prefix change does.

In short: years and years of IPv6 "support" has to be completely undone and redesigned. NPT hadn't been done then, and is still incredibly rare today. Of course, we could always use the traditional IPv6 purist answer: everyone should throw away everything they have and buy the most expensive possible new everything and just hope it supports what you need. Just do that regularly and you'll clearly be fine.

Or, you know, not use IPv6 until everyone gets their shit together.

RFCs are only "usable" once broadly implemented. Still fucking waiting...

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Thumbs up, but have to respectfully disagree with some things

End to end princess. Got it. You're on the list. Cheers.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: TREVORRRRR!!!!!

Yes. Yes it is. I was defeated.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Wrong.

And it took 20 years to get the bastards to admit we needed Network Prefix Translation, and it will be 20 more before it's widely supported enough for use. NAPT in IPv4 scared the IPv6 purists enough for them to fight a generation-long war against the simple idea ease of use matters for someone other than developers, universities flush with grant money and large corporations.

4
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: SixxS

Well, I don't go hanging websites off of a SixxS tunnel. But it's really the best solution for the end-users who want to, for example, learn about IPv6 at home so that they aren't left behind as the rest of the world moves on. You know, because their ISPs are from the bloody dark ages.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: NPTv6

Um, I said NPT was the same as 1:1 NAT. Not that NPT was the same as NAPT. Nor did I say "NAT = security", which you have clearly ascribed to me without my having said it anywhere.

Do try to keep up.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: You dont need a reverse proxy to do this

What makes you think all of a person's websites can even run on the same version/configuration of Apache, PHP et al. Indeed, by using nginx I can inject a bunch of security into the stream for those sites that demand usage of ancient versions of things.

2
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Thumbs up, but have to respectfully disagree with some things

But if I used Varnish, I'd never get the taste of DevOps hipster out of my mouth! Nginx has been tested for about the right number of years to trust it.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Simple answer

I know pfsense. I prefer Linux. The reason is simply Webmin. Webmin is a great GUI. We use it for other Linux endeavors. Also: I can load up the edge device with a bunch of filters, packet sniffing and the like and roll to taste.

Familiarity does have its positive attributes.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

NPT *is* 1:1 NAT, and IPv6 purists hate the ever-living crap out of it, with many refusing to code for it, add support for it, etc.

I even wrote about it in the article I linked to...

2
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: chmod 0755 or similar...

Crud? Crud? Why you young whipper snapper, I'll have you know...

...and get off my goddamned lawn!

5
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Thumbs up, but have to respectfully disagree with some things

A) I'm sorry, NAT has a purpose. That purpose is renumbering. SO I'm not listening to anything else you have to say about IPv6. Your opinions are now invalid.

B) You don't have to have one certificate with all the domains on your server using my method. Only one certificate per server {} block. Each server {} block gets it's own cert and you can have multiple server {} blocks point to a single backend server, if you want.

So um...NEXT!

12
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: TREVORRRRR!!!!!

There shouldn't be a chmod 0777 in any of those files...I removed that after I found out that SELinux was the culprit...

Damn it, did I use the wrong files? <grumble>

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Microsoft TMG

TMG has the best thing Microsoft ever made. R.I.P.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Simple answer

They supply a media converter. I build my router out of an Atom and CentOS. :)

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Letsbecareful

Certbot is your friend. Certbot is always your friend.

2
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I use SixxS tunnels. They randomly stop working and cause problems. I'm not a fan.

Even if they did work, however, there's still the renumbering problem, which was never solved. Every other complaint I have aside, renumbering is a massive problem that you simply can't get around without 1:1 NAT, something which causes the purists to ooze out of the wall and start wailing about how the world isn't fair and we're trying to take away their toys.

Which means, of course, that you have to choose between downtime and a :lot: of administrative effort whenever you need to fail over between links (because you don't get BGP access for SMB internet connections) or you have to very carefully pick your software such that it doesn't require some stupid end-to-end configuration because there's some gods-be-damned IPv6 purist working as a dev at the wretched urine factory that made the app you want to use.

So you know what? Not so fond of IPv6. Maybe if it wasn't drafted by, and subsequently lorded over by, a bunch of elitist fuckbaloons that don't give a rat's ass about anyone who can't stump up a few million a year in internet connectivity I might care. Bunch since the poxy whoresons decided to just abandon the majority to the wolves because we "don't matter", I'm not particularly inclined to give them a free ride.

12
3

Controversial opinion alert: Privacy and the public cloud – not just possible, but easy

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Embedded?

The existence of an exception does not invalidate the broadly general applicability of the rule.

4
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Embedded?

Lots of other countries in the world. Many that give negative fucks about fines. For that matter, plenty of executives don't give fucks about fines. You're IT. Make it work. You don't get to dictate to executives, etc.

Sysadmins aren't the iron rulers of their little fiefdoms anymore. They're digital janitors. Best invest in industrial cleaning products.

5
2
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Embedded?

I'll wait here whilst you explain that to the executives far above your pay grade. And by wait here, I mean laugh until my ass falls off.

9
5

You're Donald Trump's sysadmin. You've got data leaks coming out the *ss. What to do

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: seriously Trevor

Addendum re this section: "First off, Caesium 137 isn't all that harmful. It decays via beta emission into Barium 137(m) which pukes out a gamma ray on its way to ground state. The Barium is what's bad for your health."

With science not being your strong suit, I'm assuming humour probably isn't either. So you should read that paragraph with a smiley at the end. Barium itself isn't bad for you (in smallish quantities), but the gamma ray that Barium 137(m) pukes out on its way to Barium 137 is.

More accurately: one gamma ray is statistically unlikely to be bad for you, but a whole bunch of them probably are. To wit: even if one gamma ray it hit some DNA, or knocked free an oxygen somewhere that could mess with DNA your natural DNA repair mechanisms would handle it. Typically, you'd need to get dosed with a lot of high-energy photons in order to do more damage than your body could repair.

We're talking statistics here, however. Theoretically you could get dinged by a gamma ray from decay of any of the many radioactive isotopes naturally present in your body - or randomly hit by a cosmic ray - and have everything align against you such that your DNA repair mechanisms missed the alteration and you get cancer. That's life.

The more high energy photons you're exposed to, the greater the chances you'll develop a cancer. This is less of an issue with alpha and beta radiation, but I'd stay away from things that emit neutrons in their decay chain. Again: quantity is relevant.

If you want to freak out about something, however, why don't you go study the effects of mercury on humans and start learning about how it is being concentrated via the food chain and posing an actual threat to us...

4
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: seriously Trevor

First off, Caesium 137 isn't all that harmful. It decays via beta emission into Barium 137(m) which pukes out a gamma ray on its way to ground state. The Barium is what's bad for your health.

Now, a single atom of Caesium converting into Barium and emitting some electrons and a high energy photon is statistically unlikely to harm you. Think "one in a number large enough to take you until the end of the universe to write out" chances of giving you cancer. I wouldn't want to sleep on several kilgrams of Caesium 137, but you are not going to run into large quantities of Caesium 137 due to the Fukushima event.

If all the Caesium 137 - and Iodine, and Strontium and all the other nasty crap - released by Fukushima were to be gathered up into a ball it would really, - really - suck to be anywhere near that. As in "your skin melting from your face and you die in agony" levels of bad. Fortunately, the way it all went kablooie means the radioactive badness was dispersed pretty far and wide.

Even accounting for concentration of isotopes through the food chain - and remember, most of the really nasty stuff has some pretty short half lives - you're still not getting to "omg zombie mutant cancer fishes that will kill your children" territory here. You're talking about "irrelevantly increased background radiation" for the overwhelming majority of the world and "mild-to-irrelevant increased cancer risk" to a few specific areas in Japan proper. Areas that have been fenced off.

Maybe you should stop pissing your pants in terror whenever the word "radiation" is used and learn how the world works. Now, if you'll excuse me, I am going to take my life in my hands and go eat a radioactive banana. OMG potassiums!

P.S. I had pacific tuna for lunch today. It was delicious. I think I'll order my next bottled water from Hawaii. I'd actually be less afraid of that than where most of the bottled water on this continent comes from (Ontario), largely because there's less pollution and horrible metals in most Hawaiian water sources. They'll do a lot more damage to me a lot more quickly than a few high energy photons and some emitted electrons.

P.P.S. Seriously, how do you cope with flying. Do you have any idea how much radiation you're exposed to on a transcontinental flight? Do you avoid medical imaging? Egads, man...

6
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: White House Leaks. Leaky Leaky.

made it about 1/3 the way through and realized I was reading Trevor

*smoochies*, Alastair. :)

3
1
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: seriously Trevor

Bye. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Also: I really don't care what you say about the queen. She's a big girl and I assume she can handle herself. I'm not nationalist, especially for the remnants of some other country that invaded this continent, committed genocide several times then established colonies without any real representation.

As for pooping on the US of A and it's grand poobah, well...I calls 'em like I sees 'em. If he wasn't a douchecanoe there wouldn't be so many people leaking (or need to cover so much up) and thus no point in writing such an article. Don't blame me for not having an economical relationship with the truth.

As for the Fukushima radiation not really hurting anything...please point to any actual evidence of where it has actually hurt something. And while you're at it, maybe understand something about radiation.

Science! It works, bitches.

11
1

Get this: Tech industry thinks journos are too mean. TOO MEAN?!

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: As usual...

While I agree, this goes both ways. Yes, there absolutely are journalists, editors and so forth who basically refuse to report anything positive because they view it as their personal mission in life to report only scandals, misery and negativity. Their story is always an attempt to see someone or some organization brought low and they feel mighty in their quest to vanquish that dratted windmill.

On the other side, however, there are always the True Believers who are just as guilty of dragging up ancient, debunked myths, FUD and liberally misapplying a whitepaper for the enterprise to the SMB. They clog up comment sections, flood social media and turn to other media outlets to voice their own negativity and hate.

In our collective race to vilify and dehumanize we've lost that sense of wonder that is, quite frankly, why most of us got into this business in the first place. Curiosity and an endless sense of possibility have been replaced with cynicism and outright paranoia. A desire to serve the greater good gives way to a siege mentality and seeing villains where none exist, and malice where simple human error is more likely.

Anyone who says something positive about something we dislike is a shill. Anyone who says something negative about something we like is a troll. So liberally do we cast our aspersions that all of us on all sides have become pre-emptively defensive. We lash out at others not because of what we are sure they've said, but because so many times in the past we have heard hateful and hurtful narratives begin that way.

We fear being labelled a shill, or a troll, so we don't speak out about what we know to be true. We hold our tongues, we temper our comments, we allow ignorance to be perpetuated and we participate in it through acts of omission, downregulating of speech into political correctness and avoidance of controversy.

We can broach difficult topics and speak uncomfortable truths without lashing out. By the same token, we must not lash out at those who speak that which we do not want spoken...especially if the truths being disbursed are not hateful and cynical, but examples of joy, or at least reasoned moderation.

The first duty of us all is to the truth...but the hardest truth of all to recognize is that the world is not so filled with bleakness, hate, polarization and cynicism as we both allow ourselves to believe and insist that all others also take to heart. The world simply is, and it is filled with people who mostly do the best they can.

And when everything else on the airwaves is unrelentingly negative taking time to talk about what's not horrible can be the revolutionary act each of us actually needs.

1
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Press' Responsibility

'Enlightened' self-interest almost never is. It's just the term Randians use to mean 'sociopathic selfishness'.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Press' Responsibility

"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it's scientific truth, or historical truth, or personal truth! It is the guiding principle on which Starfleet is based, and if you can't find it within yourself to stand up and tell the truth about what happened, you don't deserve to wear that uniform"

The first duty of every journalist - indeed, ever decent person, in my view - is to the truth, not to loyalty.

1
0

'We need a new Geneva Convention to protect all citizens from snoops'

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

I will not believe Microsoft as a corporation collectively gives a rat's ass about privacy until Endpoint Antichrist is fired in disgrace, and blackballed from the industry with the most vehement prejudice possible.

0
0

As South Australia blacked out, PM's office was told renewable power was not to blame

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Just the beginning

As a matter of fact, you are misinformed. From your statement I'm betting that you're referring to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE). Most thorium proponents who haven't read up much do. The US ran molten salt reactors in the 1960s (a type of reactor that is the most likely candidate for Thorium use today), however, the MSRE didn't actually use thorium during the experiments.

Now, there have been many Thorium reactors built and run over the years. A smallish Thorium reactor actually isn't that hard to build, and they don't technically have to be molten salt reactors. (That's just the sanest way to do it at any scale.) The ticket here is that you can't just shove Thorium into a reactor, wave a magic wand and poof have power.

So here's the deal: the Thorium you can pull out of the ground on Earth is Th232. In order to get Th232 to split you need to modify it, generally into u233 via the absorption of a Neutron. In order to do that you need a neutron donor. This mean feeding the thing materials that barf neutrons.

Back in oldentimes, that was easy. We cranked that stuff out of breeder reactors all the time. Today, we do this a lot less. What's more, while you can technically crank a Thorium reactor with just about anything that will emit neutrons, in reality only a few isotopes are ever going to be okay for civilian use. This is because, for one reason or another, they're considered really, really stupid for people to try to steal for nuclear proliferation purposes.

The big problem we have today is that we just don't make a lot of those isotopes any more. (Consider, for example, that we're almost out of Plutonium for RTGs.) What we do make has everyone under the sun - from existing Thorium burners to researchers - clamoring for it. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, but international politics have become pretty xenophobic and awful of late, which doesn't help.

So, if you really want to go Thorium in a big way, you're going to have to build a Thorium program. That means building non-Thorium reactors to provide your jump-start isotopes, the security apparatus around their use and transport etc. etc.

You are also most likely to try to use Thorium in a molten salt reactor these days (for various practicality reasons), which means additional investment in facilities which clean impurities from the salts. Oh, and you have to figure out what to do with all the Neptunium.

The other alternative is you just wait around and hope to your deity that the proposed experiments to modify a CANDU reactor to burn Thorium work and are considered generally safe. Almost everyone has CANDU reactors, so if we can just stuff Thorium in there maybe we can run a hybrid facility with one reactor that's not Thorium and the rest that are.

It's important to note here that the big drivers behind the CANDU Thorium cycle are the Chinese. This is because they're not batshit crazy about nuclear waste like the Americans (and their empire of lacky nations) are. The Americans think piling up a bunch of highly radioactive nuclear waste (almost all of which could be refined and used to build bombs) without any long term storage facility is a really great idea an everyone should do that.

The Chinese, on the other hand, think that's raw lunacy and said "hey, can we take this pile of highly radioactive slag and burn it?" (Answer: yes, you can do that in a Thorium reactor. They're great for that.)

But the Chinese are rational about such things and basically the entire rest of the world (except India) isn't. The Chinese are perfectly willing to take their 300+ nuclear reactors worth of waste, drive the waste via heavily armed whatever on a shoot-first-and-take-questions-never approach to a giant Thorium facility and burn the whole thing until all that's left is a bunch of Neptunium and some decay products that have half lives so long they're not a threat.

There is no way you get a western nation to make that kind of decision. "Nuclear" is a boogyman and some group somewhere will terrify the populace into screaming their heads off. So meanwhile, we all live with giant piles of insanely radioactive material for the next several thousand years and expensive electricity whilst the Chinese build a way to dispose of nuclear waste, drive down electricity costs and, oh yeah, figure out how to turn a really small amount of naturally neutron-emitting material into something that can power humanity for the next million years.

That's why it takes 50 years to build a proper full-scale Thorium program. (See: India.) Because the US won't give you what you need to start burning Thorium today even though they are literally sitting on metric tonnes of it that they don't have a long term facility for.

Because politics. Because humans are morons. Because we live in the darkest possible timeline and everything is awful forever.

3
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Just the beginning

*sigh*

Thorium isn't some magic want. You need a lot of U-232. This means breeder reactors to start. Then it takes 30 years to ramp up to being able to even use Thorium in a reactor, which needs a completely different reactor again.

Realistically, going from "we have no Thorium program" to "burning Thorium to make power" is a 50 year project, and it involves breeding isotopes of fissionables that can be used to make badda-big-boom. That is politically difficult for most to accept, and practically difficult to safeguard and protect through the life of the project.

Not saying it can't be done, but it isn't the sort of thing that fits within one PM's term, and doesn't occur at the stroke of one PM's pen. This is the sort of thing that is a national infrastructure program that requires broad multi-stakeholder support and a commitment by the populous to see it through over generations.

5
0

Lovely. Now someone's ported IoT-menacing Mirai to Windows boxes

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: Bored of hearing crap about IoT

To late. IPv6 idiots baked publicly addressable IPs for every device directly into the standard and cockblock any attempt whatsoever to remedy this idiocy.

8
0

Grumpy Trump trumped, now he's got the hump: Muslim ban beaten back by appeals court

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

"Trump can't be elected for more than two terms."

There is more than one Trump.

Dynasties. They're a thing.

0
0
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

"everything else is alternative facts and fake news"

And? So? What does that mean?

If the people whose votes actually matter only care about alternative facts and fake news then why does the truth, evidence or actual facts matter? Have you even read 1984? It has some lessons about how you can run a post-truth nation that I think you missed.

I promise you: Steve Bannon didn't miss those lessons at all.

33
4
Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: "SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!"

Uh...what? "He made the promise, it's up to him to keep it within the bounds of the law and the Constitution of the United States."

Stop right there, buddy. That's not how this works. Trump made promises. Trump drained the swamp. Trump shook up Washington. Everything that didn't happen exactly as he said it would is because of obstruction by disgusting progressive liberals who hate America. The only way to make America great again is to elect Trump a second time. And then a third! And a fourth! Never elect someone who is not Trump!

This thing where you think Trump voters are going to look at Trump's record as though he hast o play by any rules whatsoever is...wrong. That simply isn't how his base performs communes with alternate facts.

59
3

Senator wants a piece of Pai: FCC boss blasted for ripping up schools, libraries internet report

Trevor_Pott
Gold badge

Re: you must know the drill by now . . .

I did not disagree that the people - both those in charge and those being led - actively want the Brawndoing of America...I'm just saying that it's ridiculously shortsighted. Once the 1% have sucked every last bent copper out of America, which nation will take them in and let them repeat the process?

Okay, well, the UK and Australia...but really, they'll probably have ruined themselves by the time the US milked dry anyways...

13
1

Forums

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017