An editorial from a few days ago that implores security researchers to not contribute zero days to governments that use them to invade our privacy has nothing to do with "Speaking out against government malware"?
Maybe the part of the puzzle that you're missing is that 90% of the zero day market is nation states buying.
I don't see why I would dream up awesome motivations where the real ones are actually rather mediocre, if not even pathetic. I kinda prefer having eyes in the head, a working brain etc.
* Infrastructure (schema support - DTD, Schema, RelaxNG; transformation - XSLT)
* No obvious document format (What encoding are the strings? How to escape characters?
* Only used to describe predefined object types (boolean, strings, arrays, dictionaries
* Hard to ensure the integrity of the data without interpreting the data from the interpreter itself (no external validation)
You know this can be done on top when you have demand for this? I prefer a non-bloated protocol format over XML anytime. How often does the DTD not matter at all ? How often is the encoding fixed by convention ? ...
I use schemas (in the form of RelaxNG most of the time) almost every time I deal with XML. Together with schematron you can make very complex lint-like scripts to verify your data. Actually I program in XML with a self created programming language (formulated in XML). This together with RelaxNG and a good XML makes it fun writing XML and absolutely (syntax-)error free.
Likewise, when I post a sloppy, obscene comment, silly people without culture might get confused.
What they don't know is that I want the readers to feel like they're in a novel of Liselotte Hupenblum, where angry, half-finished gargoyles bark humiliating gibberish at them.
That's nice and all, but "help reduce" doesn't really equal a "solution for waste storage", and does not change the fact that society, not the companies that built, run and extracted profits from these plants, will have to pay the costs (which we cannot even calculate as long as we don't even have a storage solution, which makes shrugging them off even more criminal -- yeah, maybe it won't be so bad, but we shrug it off because we'll be dead by then, not because we know, and that's rather weak at best, disgusting at worst).
In that wikipedia article you linked, Germany only occurs only once on that page, with a facility that has been out of operation since 1990 - WTF?
I made a mistake about Germany (my info was from an old article) - sorry, about that. I did mentioned that it is not commercially viable (it requires government subsidies). Keep in mind that nuclear power is the backbone of France's energy needs (78.8%). I am sure they create a lot of waste - we should at least look at what they are doing to reduce their waste.
I agree that reprocessing is not a long term solution. However, we do have a lot of nuclear garbage and every little bit counts. Repossessing will slow the growth of nuclear garbage.
Look at the amount that is recycled every year (paper, cans, bottles). Now imagine that in added to the current landfills.
Recycling/Reprocessing buys TIME (and so does electric cars, higher MPG, etc). The question is which will kill us first? Nuclear poisoning, climate change, or ourselves.
That’s kinda beside the point, you know. We already have all that waste. We already have to deal with it somehow. There is no avoiding it. So we might as well add to it.
http://vimeo.com/22439234
What were we talking about again? Oh, LEGO. Bleh.