Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The central tenet of atheism (Score 1) 1304

by Poingggg (#47358873) Attached to: U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Religious Objections To Contraception

Being an atheist simply means you don't believe in a gods, goddess, etc.

Not believing in a deity means accepting on faith that the universe came into existence without the help of a deity.

And believing in a deity means accepting on faith that something or someone incredibly more complicated than the universe came into existence without any universe at all to help it come into existence, to create the universe and write a book about it that nobody really understands. Good luck with that one!

(Since this subthread is not really on topic I will just drop this comment and will not go into discussion.)

Comment: Re:Open source many eyes is pure BULLSHIT PR (Score 2) 218

by Poingggg (#47187639) Attached to: Microsoft Fixing Windows 8 Flaws, But Leaving Them In Windows 7

First: how long would this have lasted when the source had not been open? Three years? Four? Ten?
Second: The article you mention is from 2008, SIX years old so no longer relevant,
Third: Open Source is not ideal, nor is Closed Source. But WHEN a fault is found in OSS, as a rule it will be fixed. Failures may exist in CSS for long times, and be exploited, without anyone but the exploiter knowing about it. And when such a failure is exposed, you have to wait if and when the maker of the software fixes it.
So, OSS is, as a rule, safer then CSS. Maybe Linux is not THE answer, Windows should not even be asked for.

Comment: Re:Who would have guessed? (Score 1) 217

Where does this come from. Organic farming has never been about that. Organic farms use pesticide and fungicides, how else do you think that crops doing get naturally eaten before harvest otherwise?

A poster before me in this thread has already answered that one. See

Comment: Re:Who would have guessed? (Score 0) 217

Yes, because organic farming is strictly limited to older pesticides, many of which are even more deadly, especially to humans.

I prefer progress in my food.

The point of organic farming is NOT to use any pesticides. What you say here is total nonsense. (I could have mentioned manure produced by male bovines too).

Comment: Relidiots! (Score 0, Flamebait) 126

by Poingggg (#46933385) Attached to: Polio Causes Global Health Emergency

Most of the people who are not vaccinated are relidiots, either Islamic or Christian. Their imaginary friend makes plans and we, humans, are not to interfere with those. If their imaginary friend wants to make you ill, you better get ill instead of using a vaccination!

Here in The Netherlands it's the neanderthalers in the 'bible belt' who get infected because of the insane reasons mentioned above, and in the Middle East it's fundamentalist Muslims who prevent vaccination.

Oh, the blessings of religion!

Comment: Re:Using encryption is the better option (Score 2) 128

by Poingggg (#46128213) Attached to: Where Old Hard Disks (with Digital Secrets) Go To Die

Not to mention it appears they are still using voodoo like having to degauss drives instead of simply wiping them.\

So I wonder how long voodoo from the age of DOS is gonna be taken as fact? An encrypted drive with a single wipe would insure there was zero data to recover and wouldn't be based on 30+ year old info, it would also deal with the real issue, the fact that there is no way to securely wipe an SSD that I know of, because SSDs don't "erase", just mark sectors as available to minimize writes.

Maybe because degaussing takes seconds (i think) and wiping takes hours? Not unimportant for a business I would think. (You are right about the SSD's though).

Comment: Re:ODF (Score 4, Interesting) 275

by Poingggg (#45673447) Attached to: Munich Open Source Switch 'Completed Successfully'

More ODF files should be put into circulation in the business world.

I fullhartedly agree! When I have to send a company a file (most of the time my CV, alas :-( ), I always ask if I can send it as an .odt file. Many times I am asked what that is, and then I explain, but offer to send the file as .pdf. I do this, just to make clear that there ARE other things around than MS-Office. However, I find that, slowly, .odt files get accepted more, and companies that do accept them have a plus for me.
Problem is that most people, even when they use Libre Office or any other non-MS suite, will by default send everyone everything in the MS-Office formats, thus establishing the status quo. Non-MS users should use Open Document Format files, especially when sending documents to regulatory organs like city councils etc.
In Europe (where I live), governments and government organs are mandated (hope that is the right word) to be able to handle ODF's, but if they never recieve those, most of them won't even know about their existence, let alone know how to handle them.

(For those who want to tell me I am a pretentious prick: I know. :p )

Comment: Re:kWh/day is stupid. (Score 1) 424

by Poingggg (#45530185) Attached to: Tesla Model S Has Bizarre 'Vampire-Like' Thirst For Electricity At Night

You, as well as a previous poster who brought up the upper-/lower case thing, are right.
The Joule is indeed the amount of energy corresponding with one Watt for one second, hence the fact that I said that one Watt is one Joule per second. Both are the same, you are saying that J = W * s, I say W = J/s. IIRC I said so in my first as well as in my second post.

Comment: Re:kWh/day is stupid. (Score 1) 424

by Poingggg (#45527075) Attached to: Tesla Model S Has Bizarre 'Vampire-Like' Thirst For Electricity At Night

It is not that hard, maybe my explanation was not too clear :-)
The Watt is the quantity of energy used *per second*. A 60 Watt lamp uses 60 times as much energy *per given amount of time* as a 1 Watt lamp does. But if you let a 1 Watt lamp burn for 1 hour, and a 60 Watt lamp for 1 minute, they both have used the same total amount of energy, namely 1 Watt times 60 minutes (1 Watt lamp), and 60 Watt times 1/60 hour (60 W lamp) = 1 Watthour = 1Wh. A KWh is just 1000 (1K) Wh.
So if you have a battery, the total amount of *energy* stored can be expressed in KWh, the product of the *power* in KW that can be delivered and the time that power can be delivered. If you use more power, you have less time and v.v.
The confusing thing for many people is the difference between energy (Joules) and power (Watt). One Watt is one Joule *per second*. To measure the total amount of energy that has been used, you have to multiply the amount of power used by the amount of time the power is used.

I hope this clears things up a bit, although I'm afraid this is confusing as heck too :-)

Comment: Re:kWh/day is stupid. (Score 4, Informative) 424

by Poingggg (#45524771) Attached to: Tesla Model S Has Bizarre 'Vampire-Like' Thirst For Electricity At Night

The average PC draws around 50-200W idle.

And as you said, this is more or less what the author found, except that he apparently has no idea how to convert kW/h per hour into watts.

Yes, he's a fucking moron.

Sorry, but you are wrong her. First, it's KWh (KiloWatthour), not KW/h.
The Watt is a unit that is used for measuring the amount of energy used per unit of time, in short 1 Watt = 1 Joule per second.
When electric energy is stored, like in a battery, or measured, the total energy stored or used is derived by multiplying Watts by time, thus Watt * seconds. Since this is not an easy workable unit, KiloWatts are multiplied by hours, and there we have the KWh.
So, if a battery has a capacity of 100 KWh, it is able of delivering 1000W for 100 hours, 500W for 200 hours, 100W for 1000 hours and 1W for 100,000 hours.
So, to make a long story short, the lost capacity of a battery HAS to be expressed in KWh, and the resulting loss of range totally depends on the driving conditions. It might be (numbers pulled from lower opening of intestine) 100 km when driving a constant 20 km/h, or 5 km when driving a constant 150 km/h, since the amount of power drawn on these speeds vary. But I hope you get the picture.

The qualification as a copulating, low-IQ person is totally yours.

Comment: Re:Just one game? (Score 1) 410

by Poingggg (#45116325) Attached to: Battlefield Director: Linux Only Needs One 'Killer' Game To Explode

Not really a good example as one can install pretty much *anything* over Vista and never look back.

So true! But the point I was trying to make was that GP, although not using all the correct technical terms, might have had the same experience as I had in the early days of Vista. Linux distros were not adapted then to handle the changed boot procedure of Windows, which resulted in a non working system where neither Windows nor Linux would work when you tried to install Linux in a dual boot configuration. Later distros were adapted, but MS had possibly succeeded in spreading the FUD that 'Linux is hard to install yada yada' for a while, and people were discouraged to try Linux because initially it WAS hard to install besides Vista.

Support Mental Health. Or I'll kill you.