Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:this is why I leased my Leaf (Score 1) 191

by cbhacking (#46803061) Attached to: Why Tesla Really Needs a Gigafactory

It's not "dead" at all. That's the point at which the company basically says "your battery is no longer worth as much as it was" or, to put it differently, "what you have now is a lower-value variant of the part we sold you". If you'd wanted a Model S with 80% the range of the one you bought, you'd probably have bought a different variant (and paid less for it). It's something the company can use when advertising how long their battery lasts, and estimating when they'll need replacement. It's something the buyers can use when comparing cost options.

Comment: Re:But is their criticism of Psychiatry wrong? (Score 1) 185

by cbhacking (#46802975) Attached to: Google Aids Scientology-Linked Group CCHR With Pay-Per-Click Ads

I usually refer to it as an organized crime syndicate, myself. The main difference that comes to mind is that instead of selling psychoactive drugs, they prohibit their people from buying psychoactives - even ones that they desperately need - from anybody.

Comment: Re:notepad (Score 1) 167

by cbhacking (#46802883) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Professional Journaling/Notes Software?

... Holy crap. There is an actual *feature* in Notepad beyond the bare minimum required for a GUI text editor?

I'm quite honestly astonished. I generally assume Notepad has no meaningful features at all. Tested though, and it worked. You don't even need to use a particular extension (or at least, both .log and .txt work); looks like it just checks that first line.

Comment: Re:Not sure about the recovery test (Score 3, Interesting) 125

by cbhacking (#46793155) Attached to: SpaceX Launches Load to ISS, Successfully Tests Falcon 9 Over Water

Bah, sorry for the self-reply...

"Data upload from tracking plane shows first stage landing in Atlantic was good! Flight computers continued transmitting for 8 seconds after reaching the water. Stopped when booster went horizontal. Several boats enroute through heavy seas..." is the latest we've heard. They're calling it a success, though, which is hopeful! I don't know if they were expecting to get more than 8 seconds or not, and whether "booster went horizontal" was expected or not (got hit by a wave, maybe?) - but they know a lot more about what constitutes success than I do.

Pity about the rough conditions, though. Would have been *awesome* to see the first stage re-light and hover after a real launch. Maybe next time...

Comment: Not sure about the recovery test (Score 3, Interesting) 125

by cbhacking (#46793133) Attached to: SpaceX Launches Load to ISS, Successfully Tests Falcon 9 Over Water

If you read the LATimes link, SpaceX says they believe the first stage recovery was probably not successful, on account of very rough conditions (25' waves - about 8m - where the rocket tried to come to a hover over the water's surface). They were sending ships out to see, but estimated the odds of success at only 40%.

If anybody has an update on that attempt, please post it!

Comment: Re:Step 2. (Score 4, Informative) 217

by cbhacking (#46784087) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

We already have very advanced containment systems. There's nothing about them that would be unsuitable for oceanic use, aside from requiring a whole lot of floatation. The containment system at Fukushima wasn't even close to modern, yet it did a pretty good job anyhow. Hell, the system at Three Mile Island contained nearly all the radioactive material, and that was 35 years ago.

With even the Mark 1 containment building found at Fukushima (which was 40 years old; the same age as TMI), an incident like Chernobyl (which had *no* containment building) wouldn't have been nearly as bad. Compared to modern containment buildings though, Mark 1 isn't even *last* generation; it's outright obsolete.

Comment: Re:We have them already. (Score 5, Interesting) 217

by cbhacking (#46783891) Attached to: MIT Designs Tsunami Proof Floating Nuclear Reactor

Still, it's a reasonable proof-of-concept in many ways. Scaling it up and using a tethered platform instead of a mobile isn't a trivial engineering exercise, but we already know how to produce multi-GW nuclear plants. This gives us a good, safe place to put them. It also means they don't have to go sucking up precious river water for their heat exchangers and cooling towers; the ocean is as big a heat sink as we could hope for on Earth.

Comment: Re: WIndows 8.1 preview install instructions (Score 1) 69

If you have a Nokia, it's easy enough to flash the stock (8.0) OS back again using Nokia Care Suite. Probably also true for Samsung WP8 phones, which have a Flashing tool and ROMs have been released at least for some of them. Not sure about HTC or Huawei, but the latter has custom ROMs (so it's almost certainly possible to go back) and the former has *historically* had lots of flashing tools and at least stock ROMs available. Not sure for WP8 though.

Comment: Re:Scrubbed ;_; (Score 1) 71

Space launches are tricky! SpaceX has an excellent mission success record so far, but a lot of that is because they're really, really careful around things that could cause a failure (distinct from an abort).

It's disappointing for sure, but it beats having a rocket blow up or lose control in orbit or something. That probably will happen eventually, but with any luck there will be a long-established safety record by then.

Comment: Re:To Crypt or Not To Crypt (Score 2) 171

by cbhacking (#46753395) Attached to: First Phase of TrueCrypt Audit Turns Up No Backdoors

A good strong PBKDF2 is probably sufficient, but yeah, 2k rounds is pathetic. iPhones were doing better (admittedly, their passphrases tend to be very short) several years ago, and that's on a mobile CPU. Having a limit of 2k rounds doesn't even make sense, it's not like it's harder to code it for more rounds or something. The only real limit should probably be 0xFFFFFFFF rounds (assuming 32-bit ints) because why have a limit at all?

Comment: Re:Fantastic Google Chrome marketing (Score -1, Troll) 204

by cbhacking (#46752919) Attached to: Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO

You are an idiot, several times over.

For one other, not everybody is fanatically partisan. I don't like Eich because he wanted to enshrine religiously motivated discrimination into law. I support gay marriage, and will continue to do so until the law gets out of marriage entirely and makes all the benefits which legally married couples receive instead available to everybody. I use Firefox just as much as I used to (it's not my primary browser, but I keep it installed and use it semi-regularly). The Democratic party receives more of my votes than the Republican party but I do not like Obama, Hillary, or the DNC; I voted for a third-party candidate. I will call anybody acting hypocritically a hyprocrite. For example, you took a non-partisan discussion (equality and corporate politics) and tried to imply that it was partisan (specifically, that Microlith is a blind supporter of the Democratic party) when in fact you just revealed your own partisan bias without refuting a single one of Microlith's points.

Comment: Re:It's not enough (Score 1, Insightful) 204

by cbhacking (#46752837) Attached to: Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO

Flamebait doesn't have to be off-topic. Off-topic stuff is supposed to get modded off-topic, not flamebait. Flamebait is saying things to get people pissed off, like talking about Congress outing and ostracizing religious people, and linking to a news story about the "gay mafia" (about as idiotic a term as I've ever heard).

The other of the post emself admitted it was flamebait.

Comment: Many, many ways (Score 1, Insightful) 204

by cbhacking (#46752789) Attached to: Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO

You distort facts to imply that they mean something other than what they mean, then act like you expect us to believe your "interpretation". For example, I don't really care what the Democratic party claims - I don't vote any party's line (nor do I support Obama generally speaking, except by comparison to some), and I look at voting records instead of claimed positions - but I doubt you'll find many on either side of the aisle who disagree with the claim that they support the constitution. The constitution explicitly gives the Judicial branch the ability to do what it did to Proposition 8 (overturn it on the basis of higher law). This is to prevent the tyranny of the majority over a disliked minority group, which is one of the obvious failures of a pure democracy. As for "activist judges", you do realize that 5 of the 9 current justices were Republican presidential nominations, right?

Oh, and lots of people who call themselves "orthodox" or "fundamentalist" members of the religions you listed are fine with gay marriage. *Your* view might be that this is inherently contradictory, but their view is that however unrighteous those people are is a matter between them and God but secular law should be fair to all, or that a God of love would not turn His back on somebody on account of who they love, or any of many other arguments. You will probably find many more such people like that than you will find people who believe that the wrathful or gluttonous are nearly so bad, and that (heterosexual) adulterers deserve death. As such, it is quite obvious that religious folk can go about their daily lives without trying to enforce their religious beliefs on others. If you personally cannot, that is a failure of you personally, not of society or even of religion.

Oh, and the bit about tolerance? You really didn't think that part through, did you... it's about creating a tolerant society, not about personally tolerating everything. You present a false dichotomy: tolerate everything including intolerance, or don't be "about tolerance". Try this thought on for size: "we advocate tolerance towards every individual's nature, but oppose those who choose to be intolerant of the nature of others." It may help some people to think of it as advocating tolerance towards the ways in which God created us, and opposing those who are intolerant of some of God's creations. After all, sin is supposed to be about (making the wrong) choice, right? Are we not innocent and pure, until we choose to be otherwise? Well, religious belief is a choice. Sexual orientation is not.

Finally, there's the fact that you cite Fox News, which is just stupid around here. Even assuming that the story was both accurate and unbiased (having read both sides, Fox's account is generally the first but far from the second), that's just asking for trouble. The stories were widely reported; you can find better sources than that.

For the first story, Emmanuel is, to the best of my knowledge (though IANAL), not allowed to deny or revoke business licenses on the grounds of an implied intention to discriminate; an actual act of discrimination or at least a policy requiring it would be required first.

For the second story, that's straightforward: if you run a business open to the public, you are not permitted to discriminate against certain classes of people and refuse them service. This has probably been law since before you were born, in the case of racial discrimination (incidentally, at least one religion in the US held that black skin was the "mark of Cain" and thus they were justified in refusing to interact with them) and for that matter in the case of religion (which, unlike skin color or sexual orientation, is a matter of choice) or several other classifications. Oregon had simply expanded the list of classes against which a public business may not discriminate to include sexual orientation. If "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" had in fact been a Christian bakery - that is, a religious entity only open to Christians - they would probably have won their case. They were not.

For the third story, I'm amused that you chose an article that, aside from using a deliberately inflammatory leading question as a title, really doesn't support your views at all. The conclusion of that article is essentially thus: "he stepped down because of internal opposition to having somebody whose expressed views were contrary to company policy running the company". Or, in a simple answer to the title headline (and usually the right answer, when a headline asks a leading question): "No".

I'd congratulate you on reading something other than Fox News, but it looks like you didn't actually read that article before linking it. Oops.

Offtopic warning
Speaking of Fox News' credibility (off-topic but it was fun doing some research), I'll grant that the popular version of the story of Fox News winning a court case on the right to intentionally spread lies appears to be misleading, but some digging suggests that Fox does not, in fact, believe themselves under any requirement to tell the truth. The Fox News station WVTV was sued after it fired two reporters for threatening to tell the FCC that they were being required to insert untrue material into their news stories. WVTV won the lawsuit (on appeal) on the grounds that the reporters where not whistleblowers (which would have protected them) because “We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.” (see comments as well) (1998)

Comment: Re:How do you know the company is dying? (Score 4, Informative) 204

by cbhacking (#46752061) Attached to: Mozilla Appoints Former Marketing Head Interim CEO

Normally I might agree, but Firefox doesn't need to market in the same way that other companies do. Their income comes from very non-traditional sources, and their products are free. That's not to say I *like* the idea of marketing running the place, but I think it's better than it sounds. Mozilla's marketing has been about awareness, much more than about trying to sell something.

Comment: Re:Small donations to organizations are one thing (Score 1) 267

by cbhacking (#46743869) Attached to: Apple's Spotty Record of Giving Back To the Tech Industry

Oh, please. OS X / Darwin's implementation of the Unix standard is screwier than half the Linux distros I've used. It's the same from Mac to Mac, sure, but that doesn't mean much; the same applies from SLES machine to SLES machine or from Nokia N900 to Nokia N900. Their filesystem layout is weird, they don't use standard files for some things, or do so bizarrely (some years back, I found their fstab manpage to be wrong and the file itself to be basically useless). Their user system is not entirely conventional.

There is no such singular thing as "the real Unix command line" but I could get a (descendent of) Bourne shell on versions of NT earlier than OS X existed.

Numeric stability is probably not all that important when you're guessing.