Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Brand? (Score 1) 198

by amorsen (#49635793) Attached to: 17-Year-Old Radio Astronomy Mystery Traced Back To Kitchen Microwave

The washer and dryer primarily spend their energy on heating, not on running the motor. Using less water means savings on electricity because there is less water to heat. Dryers jump dramatically in efficiency when you switch to a condensing dryer, since you save most of the heat that went into turning water into steam.

Comment: Re:Elude observation? (Score 1) 198

by amorsen (#49632893) Attached to: 17-Year-Old Radio Astronomy Mystery Traced Back To Kitchen Microwave

They did not spend millions of dollars looking for the microwave oven, and they knew all along that the signal was man-made. Figuring out precisely which item made it is the kind of thing that gets you in the newspapers, so they did a little PR stunt.

Their usual work changes our understanding of the universe but does not have a chance to make it into the mainstream news. Can you begrudge them their 15 minutes of fame?

Comment: Re:Gamechanger (Score 1) 514

by amorsen (#49602415) Attached to: Tesla Announces Home Battery System

Plus those installations can provide a shedload of REACTIVE power, very, very useful for grid stabilization.

They can, but are they? I have only seen residential solar which reacted to grid overload/underload situations (i.e. situations which should never occur in an ideal world), not any which reacted to constant requirements for reactive power. Do you know of any which take part in the standard grid stabilization in normal use, outside of grid emergencies?

Comment: Re:Gamechanger (Score 1) 514

by amorsen (#49597421) Attached to: Tesla Announces Home Battery System

When electricity is cheap, it is because the marginal cost of producing it is low. The marginal cost is low because it does not take very much extra fuel to produce it. In other words, when electricity is cheap, its production is also less environmentally harmful. (This only holds as long as the power stations are unchanged of course.)

The Economist regularly gets this wrong by saying that electric cars are polluting more if they charge at night rather than during the day. They base this on the average pollution per kWh being higher at night. However, the average pollution does not matter. It is the marginal pollution which matters, and that is very low at night. This is really the kind of thing that economists should be specializing in getting right; I do not understand how you can be an economist and get it wrong.

Comment: Re:What about servers run from home ? (Score 2) 321

by jafiwam (#49595103) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

As has been mentioned before in this thread, use the Let's Encrypt protocol to get a publicly valid cert for free, set up your own internal CA or just use self signed certs... not hard.

I am beginning to suspect this whole article's purpose for existing is to allow commenters to side-load a bunch of whitewashing about "letsencrypt"

I am going to respond with a resounding FUCK YOU when you offer to let some third party shit "reconfigure and do it automatically" the security on my web services.

Comment: Re:Wait a minute... (Score 0) 321

by jafiwam (#49595083) Attached to: Mozilla Begins To Move Towards HTTPS-Only Web

What you're website is serving has no relationship to what the browser gets if they do a man-in-the-middle attack and change the content.

...and?

I am supposed to care what some dumbass in china has happen to his pirated windows machine because his own government is trying to fuck him? He should remove his government if that's the case. Either way, not my problem.

Comment: Re:Devil's advoct ALL encryption has a good-guy do (Score 1) 173

by jafiwam (#49592231) Attached to: FBI Slammed On Capitol Hill For "Stupid" Ideas About Encryption

I agree this is stupid. Sometimes, though, I like to think of the best arguments I can for the other side's position. In other words, come up with reasons I might be wrong.

In this case, I'd have to admit that ANY time I send an encrypted message, it should always have a way for the good guy to read the message. For example, suppose I use https to send a secure request to bank.com. That must have a way for the good guy, bank.com, to read the message. There's no technical reason it can't be encrypted such that TWO good guys have keys, bank.com and the Good Guy Bureau.

In fact, standard encryption as used by tls does almost that - two people ALREADY have the key which is used to encrypt the message. The sender has the key and so does the receiver. The shared key is then encrypted by another key generated such that two parties can know it, without either ever transmitting it. Mathematically, one could certainly add the GGB key to the algorithm.

It could be just as unbreakable as the current encryption standards, though those do depend on keys being kept secret. The Good Guy Key probably wouldn't actually be kept secret for long. That's the huge failing that makes it a non-starter from a purely technical perspective- that we'd all be screwed if the FBI's key were ever revealed or cracked. Various attempts at DRM show that widely-used keys are always cracked.

Why bother with all that? The FBI walks in (or calls) the bank, and they hand over all your information just trying to be "helpful." This happens ALL THE TIME at ISPs and banks. Why do all the technical stuff to achieve it?

If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson

Working...