[Update 5: All done. Nuttin but net. --TMB]
[Update 4: As of 20180509 @ 11:55 UTC, beryllium has been successfully rebooted. This leaves hydrogen to be rebooted in just over 13 hours. --martyb]
[Update 3: As of 20180509 @ 0414 UTC, both lithium and sodium appear to have successfully completed their reboots. That leaves beryllium (1hr45m from now) and hydrogen (20h45m from now) to complete their reboots. --martyb]
[Update 2: The second round of reboots went peachy keen as well. Next round starts at 3AM UTC (7 hours from this story's time) with our dev server (lithium). An hour later the load balancer (sodium) that I switched us off of this morning will reboot. Two hours after that the box (beryllium) that hosts the wiki, mail, IRC, and some other lesser-used stuff will get bounced. If you can't stand being disconnected from IRC for a few minutes, add irc2.sylnt.us (6667/6697) to the list of servers for this network. --TMB]
[Update 1: The first scheduled reboot (of fluorine) was successful. The two-hour reboot window for helium starts 1.5 hours from the date/time stamp for this story. Two hours after that marks the commencement of the two-hour reboot window for boron, magnesium, and neon. We do not anticipate any site interruption as a result of these reboots. --martyb]
We have been informed by Linode (on which all of the SoylentNews servers are hosted) that maintenance is required to mitigate against the Spectre (v1 and v2) attacks. As a result, all of our servers will require a reboot. Historically, any given server is down for anywhere from 15-30 minutes. We have redundancies in place for many of our operations, but there may be some unavoidable downtime. We ask your patience and understanding during this process.
The scheduled reboots are:
Sat | 2018-05-05 1:00:00 AM UTC | fluorine [1] | Production Cluster | Completed |
Tue | 2018-05-08 1:00:00 AM UTC | helium | Production Cluster | Completed |
Tue | 2018-05-08 3:00:00 AM UTC | boron | Services Cluster | Completed |
Tue | 2018-05-08 3:00:00 AM UTC | magnesium | Frontend Proxy | Completed |
Tue | 2018-05-08 3:00:00 AM UTC | neon | Production Cluster | Completed |
Wed | 2018-05-09 3:00:00 AM UTC | lithium | Development Cluster | Completed |
Wed | 2018-05-09 4:00:00 AM UTC | sodium | Frontend Proxy | Completed |
Wed | 2018-05-09 6:00:00 AM UTC | beryllium [2] | Services Cluster | Completed |
Thu | 2018-05-10 1:00:00 AM UTC | hydrogen | Production Cluster | Completed |
[1] Unable to process subscriptions or update comment counts or deliver messages until it reboots.
[2] IRC (Internet Relay Chat) server will be unavailable.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 08 2018, @02:20PM (3 children)
Disagree.
They have.
Permanently keep it in temporary storage.
Problem solved.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday May 08 2018, @08:56PM (2 children)
Temporary storage can easily be reopened and reused if we somehow run low on nukes during a fifth pass at blowing up the whole world. Strategic asset!
If we wanted to get rid of it, we'd bury it deep near a subduction zone, and be permanently and safely done.
Whatever OriginalOwner implies, it's only a few thousand cubic meters, and we know how to move that puny amount of material really easily when we want to, and do that every single day.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 09 2018, @12:26AM
It was a concept car.
It never saw production.
In fact, it never made it past the stage of being a scale-model mock-up.
The folks at Ford anticipated that a submarine-sized nuclear reactor would, in time, be reduced in size to something car-sized.
Now, the things they put on space probes use the heat from fission to power a thermopile.
OTOH, Ford envisioned using a mobile reactor to generate steam and have that drive a turbine.
A couple of things occur to me:
There was a model of Chevy's Corvair that had a turbocharger.
It used a water injection system to control pre-ignition.
The thing there was that some of the car owners weren't fastidious about keeping water in the reservoir, resulting in engine damage.
Another thing is that Navy personnel who operate nuclear reactors spend something like 6 months being trained on those systems.
I don't think that the notion of a nuke-powered car ever would have ever seen production, even if a suitably-sized power plant -had- been available.
.
Now, the early models of GM's 1996/1997 EV-1 used lead-acid batteries.[1]
Lead in car batteries gets recycled routinely.
Additionally, going back to the early 20th Century, there were some electric cars, so the notion has had some popularity since the advent of the horseless carriage.
So, they've had options all along other than burning fossil fuels[2] for transportation.
...and most EV-1 drivers[3] were really pissed when GM wanted them all back so that they could destroy them.
[1] The EV-1 used IGBTs for pulse-width modulation to attain speed control.
That had to be better efficiency-wise than earlier efforts, but clearly they had things working a century ago.
[2] The buses here burn natural gas and produce CO2 and water which dribbles out the tailpipe.
So, a bit better than gasoline|diesel (and they hadn't yet extrapolated Venus' runaway greenhouse effect to man-made pollution in Earth's biosphere in the 1950s).
[3] Just *drivers*; NOT **owners**.
GM would only lease the things.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 09 2018, @05:10PM
Yep. If we really wanted to get rid of it, we would.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.