Forgot your password?

Comment: How accurate is the Eurekalert article? (Score 5, Insightful) 108

by Mike Greaves (#47685139) Attached to: Fukushima's Biological Legacy

Did the AC submitter read the abstracts? Did they understand them?
* The papers on chronic (low-dose rate) exposures focussed on the DNA repair and other healthy mechanisms in the exposed organisms.
* Some of the butterfly exposures were done as high-dose rate simulations in the lab, not env exposures.
* The monkey blood-count study was mentioned in the Eurekalert article, but NOT in any of the *journal* (of heredity) papers that I could see; it has been widely criticized on several bases (improbably-low causative dose and insufficient statistical power).
* Look at the refutations at the bottom of this sensational Guardian article:
“Unfortunately yet another paper with insufficient power to distinguish real effects and relevance to human health”
"correlations between the caesium and low blood counts in the Fukushima study were not statistically strong."
"monkeys are about the same as those found in sheep in some parts of the **UK** following the Chernobyl accident, i.e. extremely low .."
"in terms of damage to the animals themselves. I think it much more likely that the apparently low blood cell counts are caused by something other than radiation"


by Mike Greaves (#47539121) Attached to: Greenpeace: Amazon Fire Burns More Coal and Gas Than It Should

Last time they ranked Amazon poorly for datacenter power, I checked some numbers and compared with other agencies rankings.

Amazon got about 27% of it's power from nuclear.
No CO2, but Greenpeace didn't credit anything for it.

Dell's datacenters had higher CO2 emissions, only ~7% nuclear, but a little more renewables.
The anti-nuclear geniuses at Greenpeace gave Dell a cleaner ranking than Amazon.

They only credit CO2 abatement, if they agree with the method.
Not only that, they don't even MENTION all CO2 abatements.

In fact, I found that Amazon's emissions were far better than average.
I think they had the 2nd lowest fossil generating share of about 10 US datacenter operators compared.

In addition, Amazon was investing heavily in PSU, rack density, and cooling improvements, and virtualization is a known resource saver across all components. Ever heard of virtualization at Amazon?

I doubt that anyone at Greenpeace understands any of this.
Any electrical engineers there? HVAC engineers? POWERPLANT engineers?

Greenpeace are dishonest, technically ignorant, and thoroughly foolhardy;
and will destroy your World if you let them.

TFA shouldn't have even been posted here.

Comment: OpenBSD's Fork Is The Answer (Score 1) 113

by Mike Greaves (#46828871) Attached to: OpenSSL: the New Face of Technology Monoculture

Too bad they hadn't forked OpenSSL a while back. Now there is a competing library.

Now we need to support that fork, and assess the feasibility of porting to Linux as well as the other BSD's, of course.

Do they have a new name for it yet?

If SSL = "Secure Sockets Layer", how about: ActualSSL (it's actually secure), DaemonSSL, Pitchfork(ed)SSL, something...

Comment: Read the article; do the math; calm down (Score 2, Informative) 308

by Mike Greaves (#37843692) Attached to: Fukushima's Fallout Worse Than Thought

These numbers aren't a big change from estimates 5 months ago.
42% of Chernobyl's Cs emission, but much lower land deposition - only 21% of total Cs emissions hit land.
And this is from 3 or 4 separate failures at old ill-prepared sites following a once-in-a-thousand-year quake which hit a chain of volcanic islands which are plagued by quakes.
Emission per failure is nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl.
Total land deposition is also nearly a full order of magnitude below Chernobyl.
The lesson is to improve your game, not loose your cool.

Comment: Re:C# is Proprietary (Score 3, Insightful) 115

by Mike Greaves (#12261895) Attached to: Programming Language for Corporate UI Research?
'consider that Microsoft has not given Mono a legal blessing'

IANAL, and I have myself had reservations about this point...

However, it seems quite unlikely that MS would succeed in choking off core (C# + CLR) Mono development - for a lot of little reasons:

1. Novell appears to be Mono's primary backer and they appear to have real patent leverage w.r.t. MS.

2. Probably not many of the patents covering the core can hold water due to prior art. I think it's been suggested that MS + Sun together could launch a more effective patent attack. How likely is that? (things like WinForms, ASP, ADO would seem to be in greater danger)

3. Mono could still ship with the odd feature stripped or workaround mechanism in place.

4. MS can not simply beat up on who it feels like nowadays; not with the EU and others breathing down it's neck.

As an aside, can anyone think of a *language* implementation that was killed by patent litigation?

Mike Greaves

Elegance and truth are inversely related. -- Becker's Razor