Better get ready for 1000 posts Fundraising for OpenBSD with the LibreSSL project.

Just remember, every dollar you donate for LibreSSL is not guaranteed to be spent on it, it goes into the general fund for OpenBSD.

Because there are a handful of billionaires who have a significant chunk of their money invested in carbon energy sources that are going to be heavily damaged by the rise of solar energy. As result they've been engaged in a several hundred million dollar propaganda campaign to discuss all the "problems" with solar and convince the public it needs to be destroyed.

What you see on slashdot is the result of that. People coming on here and quoting a talking point they saw on the news that's based on 30 year old data and completely irrelevant to the current situation.

Baloney. One of NAND's HUGE benefits is that it's failure mode is the loss of write but not the loss of read. What Intel has done is wipe out one of the prime benefits of NAND.

No Republixan is going to win yhe presidency in 2016. Between the tea-party, Koch brothers, the christian radicals and the racists no one coming out of the republican primary will be electable to the majority of americans. Romney was a good middle of the road pollitician until the primary where he had to reverse every position he ever had that appealed to any that wasn't one of those groups I listed.

The Republicans statistically can't win the presidency without about 40% of the latino vote. The last two elections they have barely gotten 15%. With the rabid anti immigration group that attacks anything hispanic as part of the GOP primary process it just isn't going to happen. In addition the millenials vote in force on presidential elections and they vote less than 20% gop. They have larger numbers than either gen-x or the boomers and more vote every year.

The statistics are pretty clear and every year the demographics get worse for GOP with a more ethnically diverse electorate that the GOP primary goes out of their way to alienate.

Damn straight, It's so much better to have a private company of unelected MBAs deciding those things rather than elected representatives.

I will correct you on one thing. We don't fear the NSA will turn into something evil, we know it will. Power leads to corruption and abuse of authority. 70,000 incidents of NSA operatives spying on their significant others in contravention of the law with NO repercussions to those individuals is proof enough that the NSA will eventually abuse it's authority in a significant and likely very bad way to our democracy.

The USB Type C connector was designed with future expandability in mind. I expect that it will reign for at least a decade and maybe more.

Thunderbolt is never going to be popular. Intel charges almost $50 per port. USB on the other hand can be had for pennies.

Even if it was true, a decade is literally a single data point in climate change analysis. Climate change is not local weather, it's not monthly predictions or even year to year values. About the smallest relative measure of time used in studying global climate change is roughly a decade. Any average data point less than a decade has a higher probability of being noise than actual average climate data. The climate models they are looking at do make predictions on the year to year stuff, but mainly as trends, but at an accuracy levels that's about as good as your local weatherman predicting weather 10 days from now. They can do it, but if you rely on it you are a fool because noise and random events have more local bearing than the trend. But once you get out to looking at climate change at the decade level the noise in the system is mitigated and the real data and trends become apparent. At that decade level the planet has been warming consistently and at an increasing rate since the industrial revolution.

And even at that the models are an estimation. There are IMO massive aspects of climate change that the models don't address because the systems aren't fully understood and in some case aren't understood at all. Inter-ocean currents that help regulate global temperatures are not understood very well, certainly not the same level as say wind patterns. Though we understand the basic mechanism we don't really understand the extent or how the climate change will affect them. As a result there are portions of the models inputs that are simply guesswork and will be refined as time goes on and more data is developed that will allow them to better tune the models. That in fact is the scariest thing about climate change, which is that our models could be completely wrong, in the wrong direction. Best case scenario is the oceans are able to absorb much of the additional heat with very little impact to global climate. Worst case is the model vastly underestimate the impacts of these inputs and in fact the consequences of global climate change are far more severe than predicted. For example, not a single model predicts much more than a gradual but small decline in the glaciers in Antarctica which will cause relatively minor sea level increases. If the models are wrong and in reality those glaciers melt, much of the worlds population is going to be displaced as sea levels increase 100's of feet (30+ meters).

Some say the models are alarmist. Others fear they aren't alarmist enough. Only time will really show how good the models are. But don't think even a decade of data contradictory to the models (not that there is mind you, that's a common myth others have addressed) is relevant, because a single data point isn't a prediction of a trend or even useful as an evaluation of the predictions. By the time 2030 rolls around we'll have tuned the models to be pretty good predictors, likely even of year to year trends. But if the models predictions are dire at that point and we haven't made reductions in C02 levels by that time, we may have already damned ourselves and our grandchildren to the worst climate change can offer. And that worst is a pretty scary future where humanity destroys itself in a fight over dwindling food and resources and displaced people.

He is right about the extent of Antarctic sea ice, increasing, in the last few years it's been the highest winter extent in recorded history. The problem is that the extent of sea ice (ice floating on the ocean) is an irrelevant measure of anything. There could be hundreds of causes and most have nothing to do with climate change (natural fluctuations) and the few that do actually relate to climate change point to severe consequences and are supporting evidence.

One recent study of salinity levels showed that antarctic sea saline levels were lower than previously recorded values. Lower saline levels would cause dramatically increased amounts of sea ice but there are only two major reasons saline levels could drop (other than bad measurements). The first is that the mixing currents at the pole that cause high saline warm water from the inter-ocean currents to surface are beginning to cease. This would be catastrophic to local climates and actually cause regions near each pole to get colder as the warm tropical waters that keep northern climates warm stop. The second is that significant melting of the glaciers on Antarctica have begun and at a significant enough rate that local ocean salinity is declining because inter-ocean mixing currents cannot keep up. Melting of the Antarctica glaciers (3 miles thick) would portend massive massive sea level increases on the orders of hundreds of feet. Not even the worst climate change predictions predict Antarctica glacial melt on this scale.

The reason the sea ice extent is most likely irrelevant is because it's temporary. It's ice that builds up in the winter and melts in the summer. Even if sea ice levels are the highest ever seen during the winter, they are at the same time the lowest ever seen during the summer. This includes the massive massive ice shelves (the portion of the glacier that is floating on the ocean) that have broken off and disintegrated.

The anti-climate change people like to point at antarctic sea ice levels without ever talking about the details. Most I doubt even understand what any of it is or means, they are simply reporting a sound bite they heard on TV or the internet.

The US government has already declared that they view a cyber attack as an act of war. You need to understand the ramifications of that declaration that is more than 5 years old at this point. What that means is the US reserves the right to respond to a cyber attack with bombs and guns, not the cyber kind.

Even if it wasn't classed as an act of war this would be international aggression and the power to respond to that is vested in the office of the president as commander in chief, NOT the courts. I don't want a judge to be deciding if a response is warranted if some foreign government caused a dam to fail and killed a million people. I want them to respond to that aggression like they would if that foreign nation had bombed the dam. The only thing different about this is that you have to determine who's doing it before you respond. I think the NSA should have broad authority to act in such an attack situation to determine who the actor behind it is, but their authority to act beyond that determination should be vested in the President and ONLY the president.

The president should then determine if the attack warrants a similar action against the attacker or a physical (guns and bombs) reaction. I would never ever trust the NSA director (an unelected person often of military backing) to be taking actions that our own government considers acts of war.

This is a serious speech restriction that won't last 2 seconds in court. Government as an employer receives no additional leeway on restricting free speech. This is censorship plain and simple and it's a prior restraint on speech that the courts will not allow.

All that's needed is a single employee to challenge the law.

You have to wonder how afraid the Republican party is of the day the Supreme court agrees and yanks the Health Insurance on 9 MILLION people. There will be so many stories like 8 year old kids with leukemia that die because they lost their health insurance that it will absolutely trash the reputation of the GOP. The media will have a field day with it running a constant stream of tear jerking stories about people who lost their health insurance. These stories are perfect ratings drivers and will draw huge viewership (which is all the media cares about anymore). The outrage will be extreme.

I almost want the court to rule against the obamacare subsidies just to see the backlash. Anyone that thinks this will be a win for the GOP are probably the same dumb-asses that thought shutting down the government was a good strategy. Of course I hope they don't because I don't want a bunch of poor people to die because they lost a subsidy the government really did intend to give them. Other than Scalia pulling out 200 year old dictionaries to justify a completely illogical opinion I do believe the court will side with the government.

Or Westinghouse or any of the major other industrial era inventors. In fact the more things change the more they stay the same.

Could you name a single person that developed something, patented and built a business on it? People like Edison that manage the development or purchase/steal the idea are the norm, not the solitary inventor who becomes a millionaire.

That's why you don't tell them and they are up shit creek when they do kill you. It's called revenge from the grave.