Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Then make the "aberration" return. (Score 1) 293 293

It varies a bit depending on the relative scarcity of your skills and jobs. For someone with skills in shortage, job security isn't that great a thing, as moving jobs will typically involve a pay rise. For someone with fewer options, it's much more important because there's going to be a gap between jobs and they're not in a position to negotiate a better package. Unions were supposed to redress some of this imbalance: an individual employee may be easily replaceable for a lot of companies, but the entire workforce (or even a third of the workforce) probably isn't.

Unfortunately, unions in the USA managed to becomes completely self-interested and corrupt institutions. This is partly due to lack of competition: in most of the rest of the world you have a choice of at least a couple of unions to join, so if your union isn't representing your interests you can switch to another one. Partly due to the ties between unions and organised crime in the USA coming out of the prohibition era. Partly due to the demonisation of anything vaguely socialist during the Cold War, which reduced employee involvement in unions (and if most people aren't involved in the union, then the few that are have disproportionate influence).

Even this has been somewhat eroded by automation. If you're replacing 1,000 employees with robots and 100 workers, then a union's threat to have 600 people go on strike doesn't mean much and even when it does it's very hard to persuade those 600 that striking won't mean that they're moved to the top of the to-be-redundant list.

But, back to my original point: lack of jobs for life isn't the real problem. A large imbalance in negotiating power between companies and employees is. When employees are in a stronger negotiating position, companies will favour keeping existing employees because it's cheaper than hiring new ones.

Comment Re:cue the nuclear fanbois (Score 1) 484 484

Your reading comprehension is incredibly bad.

Considering that you missed the point that the report is discussing Joules as opposed to Dollars I find the irony of your statement hilarious. Specifically EROEI, Energy Return On Energy Investment is the discussion at hand.

I'll also note that personal attacks on me aren't an argument that you are right, just that you are acting like an asshole.

The spot price of uranium oxide is $36.50/lb, which can produce 35,000,000,000 Btu of energy. Each and every pound.

Each and every pound of uranium produced takes different amounts of energy to produce. You are clearly missing the point. One kilo of Uranium from sandstone takes less energy to process than one kilo of uranium from granite. This is an energetic input cost not a financial cost. Below 200grams U per ton of rock Nuclear power is no longer viable.

Which is from the same site that has the quote I pasted in it. Which says "measured over the full cradle-to-grave period". That includes waste storage and mothballing the site of the plant. It says so. And includes the duty cycle of the plant, in sentences just prior to the ones I quoted. There is no massive debt, by their own measure.

No, the study specifically says Large uncertainties exist with respect to the last phase of the nuclear chain: decommissioning and dismantling of the reactor. Preliminary estimates point to a multiple of the construction energy investments.

In other words the decommissioning/dismantling of the plant is an energetic cost deferred to the future and not fully known.

In other words, that site is full of self-contradictions and FUD and can't be trusted to be right about anything at all, since it can't get its own story straight.

Another possibility is that you skimmed one, maybe two pages of a peer reviewed study used to advise European Parliament (including France) that challenge the social proof and rhetoric that you commonly accept and decide to deride the report because the actual science takes a lot more mental energy for you to absorb and process than making baseless criticisms.

Additionally, FYI, these are the Universities internationally that contributed to the report that you claim can't get their story straight:

Australia. University of Sydney, University of New South Wales, Monash University, Belgium. NPX Research Leuven, IMEC Leuven, Germany. Universität Regensburg, Öko Institut Darmstadt, Italy. University of Florence, Netherlands. University of Utrecht, Technical University Eindhoven, ECN Petten, Singapore. National University of Singapore, Spain. Bank of Spain Economics

Switzerland. CERN Geneva, ETH Zürich

UK. Imperial College London, University of Edenburgh, Oxford Research Group London, USA Brookhaven National Laboratory, Columbia University New York, Princeton University

If you are able to overcome your prejudices and stop relying on your assumptions then you might learn what and why the issues exist.

Comment Re:Would I eat it? (Score 1) 129 129

Your whole summary is quite telling. You say you use scientific methods to evaluate risk, yet you repetitively ignore probability. Probability is central to scientific evaluation of risk.

So is data. Where do you propose I get the data on the Fukushima fallout from to caclulate those probabilities if the Japanese government is withholding or not collecting it?

Without data you cannot calculate the probability so all you are left with is uncertainty. You said yourself [don't] tell us levels don't matter, when they certainly do. Now when the very same argument is in front of you you say that levels don't matter when calculating the probability. I feel that is a hypocritical way of twisting the argument around and it is clear you are now becoming emotional because the premise of your argument has collapsed.

I'll let you follow with a strawman that completely avoids discussion of probabilities

No, you continue to refuse to acknowledge that a discussion of the probabilities can only be statistical and thus abstract without supporting data as opposed to the the discussion surrounding possibilities that are based on known facts and the known impact. To answer your accusation here is my abstract discussion of the probabilities:

  • Athletes eating this food will probably be ok and probably be used to justify that eating food from Fukushima is safe.
  • The entire exercise will probably be used by the nuclear industry as justification to not compensate the Fukushima farmers.
  • Screening tons of food produced will probably be expensive and ultimately inneffective.
  • Some people will probably die of cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
  • Some people will probably suffer from cancer from eating food from Fukushima 6-15 years after they habitually eat it.
  • Some people will pass transgenic disease to their offspring via damaged dna.

There is your discussion of probabilities, if it isn't what you think it should be - then you discuss the probablites. Your next predictable response will be to accuse me of spreading FUD from such an abstract discussion because I should magically know what you are talking about because you are too mentally lazy to.

And you demonstrate your ignorance to the actual risk by comparing eating this screened food to racing cars and bungee jumping. The risks of the latter are many orders of magnitude greater.

Really, and just how did you calculate that without data on how much and what type of radionuclides were released?

You can go on and on about bio-accumulation and generally state that it is going to result in all these horrible outcomes, but reality shows that those outcomes will almost certainly not occur from ingesting such small amounts.

The reality is until there is data on those amounts we don't know if it is a little or a lot. Everything you have said is speculation. Available data shows that the bio-accumulation is already occurring based on what is already happening to insect species. Existing peer reviewed studies on low level tritium emissions don't conclude what you are saying.

Interesting you talk of the body's ability to heal in a car crash but not the human bodies ability to remain healthy despite the biological interactions that your fear.

I welcome your citation of how this occurs. Please provide citiations on how the body remains healthy after ingesting radionuclies like pu-239 and sr-90 as these are the type of materials ejected in the Fukushima reactor explosion.

If you applied your same logic regarding zero exposure to radionuclides to other things our do, you would certainly avoid any unneeded exposure to sunlight/UV, because you, as you accuse me, must be stupid and ignorant to allow any at all to hit your skin because of the horrible outcomes that might occur, I can see the cancer growing in my mind!

It won't happen, because in summer I avoid the surf between 10am-2pm for that very reason. Very bad sunburn is not only very painful it also causes skin cancer - and that is a very real risk in my part of the world. We have the data to produce the statistics.

I think you would be surprised to find out about all the potentially harmful chemical and contaminants you eat from out normal food supply chains, and how those risks compare with eating this screened food from Fukushima.

Reapeating yourself doesn't make you right, it makes you insane.

And to top it off, you seem to think that you are so objective that you are not subject to skewed risk perception influencing your decisions. But you are fooling yourself because we all are subject to it, and those that are most likely to be skewed significantly by it are those that don't understand just how susceptible they are.

I find educating myself to be an excellent and pragmatic way to deal with skewed perceptions, so if you want to discuss probabilities as opposed to possibilities, bring some useable facts on how much radionuclides were released at Fukushima.

Do complain to me when that happens.

What a nasty cunt of a thing to say. I have been very civil and good humoured to you.

With that, I'll let you follow with another poor example, using some activity which is much much riskier,

Actually this conversation has little to offer me other than more ad hom attacks. You are unable to conduct a conversation based on the science of radionuclide absorbtion. You refuse to answer my questions and complain when I don't answer yours. You don't contribute facts, you are unable to challange the science behind the argument (bio-accumulation) and now that your premise (based on a car analogy) has completely collapsed the only thing you can do is attack me. You have nothing to offer but a droll, often repeated fanboi-ism as a result of being programmed by Nuclear Industry PR.

and I'll let you go on thinking that you are not taking any unnecessary risks in your life that are many times greater than eating the food of topic. I'll you you go on believing your own little facade that your absolute zero exposure philosophy is being equally applied throughout your decisions in life.

For being so gracious, I'll allow you to continue push your beleif system around with your dogmatic skepticism and remain in your ignorant bliss looking like a rambling fool.

You have clearly answered all my questions.

Yet, you are no wiser

Comment Re:wft ever dude! (Score 1) 190 190

So "as long as you do nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" that REALLY your position? You DO know you are a felon, right? You are, I am, pretty much everybody is as You commit three felonies a day and the ONLY reason they do not go after you is how much work it would take. Now you have all these SJWs pushing for pretty much anything they find personally offensive (oh I forgot "trigger warning") to be labeled as "hate speech", you have people being investigated by Homeland for making a bad joke or daring to be seen with a sign at a protest, you have CEOs of media cartels saying every song you listen to without giving them money is really think we should make things EASIER for the state and the cartels?

If you are gonna keep that position I hope you are VERY careful with what you say, what you write, and watch, because all it will take is someone with a tiny bit of power deciding they do not like you. I personally don't have nearly as much faith in the government and cartels as you do, so I'll pass for as long as I can and buy a VPN to idoncareistan when I no longer can, thanks anyway.

Comment Re:They're going to be charging money for the OS s (Score 1) 281 281

That is because being "Windows ME Ready" meant that you had all WDM drivers. You see what I found the fatal flaw with WinME was some numbnuts at MSFT decided that BOTH WDM and VXD drivers should be supported...what a fuck up! If you mixed WDM and VXD drivers? It was pretty much guaranteed to shit itself and BSOD then only question was WHEN it would happen. I saw PCs at the shop (those Mini HPs with the CD holder on the top, can't recall the model ATM) that you could literally set your watch by, it would crash ME in less than 20 minutes from first boot every time. Replace the VXD only built in sound with a WDM card? Magically ran just fine.

So count yourself lucky, all WDM was a rarity when it came to ME thanks to all the Win98 parts the OEMs had, most were a mix of the two which is why IMHO Windows ME became so hated.

Comment Re:wft ever dude! (Score 1) 190 190

I found that above about 10Mb/s you start to hit diminishing returns. The jump from 10 to 30 was barely noticeable. The jump from 30 to 100 is noticeable with large downloads, but nothing else. From 100 to 1000, the main thing that you notice is if you accidentally download a large file to a spinning-rust disk and see how quickly your fill up your RAM with buffer cache...

Over the last 10 years, I've gone from buying the fastest connection my ISP offered to buying the slowest. The jump from 512Kb/s to 1Mb/s was really amazing (though not as good as moving to 512Kb/s from a modem that rarely managed even 33Kb/s), but each subsequent upgrade has been less exciting.

Comment Re:wft ever dude! (Score 1) 190 190

Because in 1981 or so, everybody was pretty sure that this fairly obscure educational network would *never* need more than about 4 billion addresses... and they were *obviously right*.

Well, maybe. Back then home computers were already a growth area and so it was obvious that one computer per household would eventually become the norm. If you wanted to put these all on IPv4, then it would be cramped. The growth in mobile devices and multi-computer households might have been a bit surprising to someone in 1981, but you'd have wanted to add some headroom.

When 2% of your address space is consumed, you are just over 6 doublings away consumption. Even if you assume an entire decade per doubling, that's less than an average lifetime before you're doing it all over again.

With IPv6, you can have 4 billion networks for every IPv4 address. Doublings are much easier to think about in base 2: one bit per doubling. We've used all of the IPv4 addresses. Many of those are for NAT'd networks, so let's assume that they all are and that we're going to want one IPv6 subnet for each IPv4 address currently assigned during the transition. That's 32 bits gone. Assuming that we're using a /48 for every subnet, then that gives us 16 more doublings (160 years by your calculations). If we're using /64s, then that's 32 doublings (320 years). I hope that's within my lifetime, but I suspect that it won't be.

In practice, I suspect that the growth will be a bit different. Most of the current growth is multiple devices per household, which doesn't affect the number of subnets: that /64 will happily keep a house happy with a nice sparse network, even if every single physical object that you own gets a microcontroller and participates in IoT things using a globally routable address.

IMHO: what needs to happen next is to have a 16 bit packet header to indicate the size of the address in use. This makes the address space not only dynamic, but MASSIVE without requiring all hardware on the face of the Earth to be updated any time the address space runs out.

This isn't really a workable idea. Routing tables need to be fast, which means that the hardware needs to be simple. For IPv4, you basically have a fast RAM block with 2^24 entries and switch on the first three bytes to determine where to send the packet. With IPv6, subnets are intended to be arranged hierarchically, so you end up with a simpler decision. With variable-length fields, you'd need something complex to parse them and that would send you into the software slow path. This is a problem, because you'd then have a very simple DoS attack on backbone routers (just send them packets with large length headers that chew up CPU before they're dropped). You'd also have the same deployment headaches that IPv6 has: no one would buy routers that had fast paths for very large addresses now, just because in 100 years we might need them, so no one would test that path at a large scale: you'd avoid the DoS by just dropping all packets that used an address size other than 4 or 16. In 100 years (i.e. well over 50 backbone router upgrades), people might start caring and buy routers that could handle 16 or 32 byte address fields, but that upgrade path is already possible: the field that you're looking for is called the version field in the IP header.

Comment Re:Wait Wait Wait... (Score 1) 190 190

It depends on the ISP. Some managed to get a lot more assigned to them than they're actually using, some were requesting the assignments as they needed them. If your ISP has a lot of spare ones, then they might start advertising non-NAT'd service as a selling point. If they've just been handing out all of the ones that they had, then you might find that they go down to one per customer unless you pay more.

Comment Re:Slashdot crying wolf again... (Score 1) 190 190

And you don't see a PROBLEM with this? You DO know you are advocating giving every single device a "digital fingerprint" which will be trivial for the governments and media cartels to use against you, yes?

You say something that offends a special snowflake of a protected class (thereby committing thoughtcrime...err "hate speech") online, watch a video some cartel thinks you should have paid them $$$ to watch (which is very likely they shared for that very reason) and no problem, simply look at the IP V6 and you'll know exactly who that evildoer was and what device they used at the time!

I'm sorry but with all the truly evil fascist shit we've seen from our corporate overlords and their government puppets I really do NOT trust them with that kind of power. Remember citizen you have committed three felonies today and the only thing stopping them from busting you for it and ruining your life? Is how much resources it would take to prove it. Lets not make it any easier for them,mmkay?

Comment Re:wft ever dude! (Score 2) 190 190

Am I the only one that sees IP V6 as a "cure" worse than the disease? From everything I've seen it looks like a police state and media cartels wet dream, the ability to assign a unique address to every.single.device like a digital fingerprint so they can trivially trace back every statement, every video watched, every move, for later prosecution? Am I the only one having a problem with this idea, or is the idea of always being under the all seeing electric eye something the young folks simply accept and don't care about?

"'Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis 'tis true." -- Poloniouius, in Willie the Shake's _Hamlet, Prince of Darkness_