Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Figures (Score 1, Troll) 112

Their adversaries and a few other rogue states and groups are not above using a nuclear bomb to get what they want, a tiny strip of land or even the whole western world.

The construction of this statement is priceless if not vague, inaccurate and worthless. The intersection of adversaries of Israel and lunatics particularly is quite laughable.

Comment: I don't trust "secret circles" (Score 1) 170

by WaffleMonster (#46788083) Attached to: Heartbleed Sparks 'Responsible' Disclosure Debate

This is foolish when you apply a patch to an open source project it essentially becomes public knowledge to anyone who is paying attention at that point. The more you do this the more eyes on patches. This only yields ignorance and suppresses urgency.

Only telling a select few (normally by subscription to very expensive security services) gives giant media an advantage it is not clear to me they have a right to or in any way deserve.

Finally as much money locked up in black/gray hat activities we don't need to be enriching anyone for contributing to an industry of an elite few none of us have any reason to trust.

Behavior of crowd at recent BlackHat toward Mr. Alexander made crystal clear to me kids have all grown up and money runs the show now. The more money the more "ethics" bend towards production of additional money.

Comment: Re:yeah and... (Score 1) 457

by WaffleMonster (#46774501) Attached to: Survey: 56 Percent of US Developers Expect To Become Millionaires

yeah and 99% of software engineers also seriously believe their initial time estimate to have that feature implemented by was actually realistic.

I'm privileged to be part of that 1% elite who believes all of their time estimates are wrong and laughably absurd while making them.

Comment: Re:Nuclear? (Score 1) 431

by WaffleMonster (#46748809) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

If the rate is less than 1% more cancers than normal, then you just proven my point.

You misunderstand.

Cancer is poised to become the worlds leading cause of death as worlds average population ages with at least 1 out of 5 of everyone dying from it regardless.

Assume an effected area has a population of 1 million.

20% of 1M peeps = 200,000 dead peeps
1% of 1M peeps = 10,000 dead peeps
0.1% of 1M peeps = 1,000 dead peeps

Even 1% is a LOT of dead peeps yet in relative terms next to 20% quite small.

In the real world pool of victims is likely to be orders greater than 1M as contamination is distributed to nearby densely populated cities yet the percentage of cancer deaths much lower than 1%.

Even very small percentages of increased risk are still to borrow from Biden a "big fucking deal" they still translate to hundreds or thousands of real peeps dying that would have never happened anyway but vanishingly difficult to see with confidence using statistical methods because the 20% represents such a huge noise floor.

Waving your hands saying there are no confirmed radiation caused cancers is disingenuous and this is my only point. As mentioned earlier I am not against nuclear power especially inherently safe designs requiring no active components to prevent meltdowns all sounds quite reasonable to me. Fukushima was shit design - would be a mistake to use it as the poster child to prevent forward progress.

Comment: Re:Nuclear is obvious, an energy surplus is desire (Score 0) 431

by WaffleMonster (#46744019) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

Dumping it into the ocean has been suggested, and investigations conclude that it is a perfectly safe option. However, no one in their right mind would do that, as disposing of valuable resources is frowned upon. Existing "waste" contains enough energy to power our planet for centuries.

Reprocessing = plutonium = high proliferation risk. Not 1940's anymore must assume modern technology has significantly lowered barrier to successful implosion design.

With such a dense energy source and short lived fission products, the true waste is easily managed. Even if our planet derived 100% of its power from nuclear energy, the steady state waste inventory would be minuscule and easily fit onto the site of a single coal ash pile.

The problem with nuclear fairy tales they sound great except for that one aspect you failed to consider that throws a wrench in the whole thing.

Personally would rather see solar + energy storage + conservation win out in the end but Nuclear is far better than nothing (e.g. Coal)

Comment: Re:Nuclear? (Score 1) 431

by WaffleMonster (#46743887) Attached to: UN: Renewables, Nuclear Must Triple To Save Climate

And nuclear is not the boogeyman your environmentalist friends have convinced you it is. Zero Fukushima deaths, zero confirmed radiation related cancers.

While I happen to think Nuclear on balance is a good deal this "no confirmed cancers" argument is garbage.

Humanity lacks capability to "confirm" cause of radiation caused cancers.

Determinations were hardly even possible in the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only by use of statistics was anyone able to observe cancers at a rate some very small percentage ~1% above background.

In any scenario like Fukushima even statistics fail as radiation caused deaths sink well below any practically discernible noise floor.

Comment: Fundemental misunderstanding what IETF is about (Score 2) 103

by WaffleMonster (#46741367) Attached to: Why the IETF Isn't Working

People get burned when they think of IETF as means of legitimizing industry support for their particular approach. The IETF is *NOT* that. Most RFCs turn out to be worthless summarily ignored by real world in spite of all process hoops jumped through by WG participants and reviews.

Much better outcomes are realized when IETF is viewed not as a "standards committee" rather as a service no different than github... where instead of developing your own standards process you simply use IETF leeching off existing structure, facilities, recognition, meeting spaces... while not perfect it may well be better and or cheaper than rolling your own.

This means if you want to succeed you need a working implementation first and foremost, actual users in the real world ... "working code" without interested users and or industry partners IS NOT going to cut it. Then finally go to the IETF with your I-D + LEGION of faithful consensus building followers who support your ideas.

The IETF is like a country of mostly autonomous states (WGs) ... Some WG's are oppressive dictatorships taxing oxygen you breath while others are utopias of cooperation where consensus is not merely defined by whatever the chairs want to see... Unfortunately overall governance is not all that great. One of the running jokes for me is appeals process. Having subscribed to IETF announce a millennia ago have never once read or heard of even a single appeal that was ever upheld...ever. This has grown into something of a game to be careful to check before pushing delete in the off chance hell may some day actually freeze over.

In short if you come looking for the IETF to instill legitimacy upon your idea or approach you WILL leave disappointed.

If you come to the IETF from a position of strength willing to put up with some process bullshit you stand a chance of coming out ahead.

Comment: Re:Something fishy.. (Score 1) 227

by WaffleMonster (#46710679) Attached to: Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

A car battery does not output its full CCA rating for 30 straight seconds. And it does get hot when you crack even for 2 seconds.

...sigh... CCA rating is defined by maintenance of rated amperage for *30 seconds* at 0 degrees F @ 1.2v/cell.

Anyway, lets say that puny cable he connected was carrying 6A @ 120V, and that bulky device was a transformer to step it to 240A @ 3V (or whatever the battery is rated for), then they have to deal with trying to miniaturizing a high current transformer. Because its high current, miniaturizing it is not possible, because somewhere, some wire that is handling 240A needs to be a gauge 0 or 00.

More nonsense some CPUs easily pull more than 200 amps... how are they doing it? Where are the half inch thick motherboards and 0 gauge pins?

Intel recently moved VRMs ***on die*** for haswell CPUs. How is this possible if as you say such components must be huge to handle in this case a hundred amps give or take at low voltage?

Anyway, does anyone else notice that if you pay close attention, you can see his fake "battery meter" app say discharging before he even disconnects the power? And them hiding the stock status bar that would show the actual battery info, is not helping their case.

From what I understand it takes a while to fully soak current into the battery after charge completes.

My bet: vaporware at its finest.

Yep must be a conspiracy. You seem to know best/everything.

Comment: Re:Something fishy.. (Score 1) 227

by WaffleMonster (#46705333) Attached to: Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

Your cell battery does not operate at 5v. Lithium ion cells operate at 3.7-4.2 volts. The USB *charger* supplies 5v, which the phone then regulates down to 4.2v.

Checked the battery label before posting. I don't know exactly what the voltage is if different than what is printed on the battery and in this case I don't care. 10 watts 8.4 watts... 10 is a good enough approximation.

And the problem isn't so much the amount of power you can get out of the wall as it is getting it to the phone. You'd need a one inch diameter cable to carry 240 amps.

Absolutely not. Nobody but yourself is talking about wire size for 100% duty cycle transmission over any distance. Look under the hood of an average vehicle you likely have 2 to 4 gauge wire from battery to engine. How many amps get pulled when starting a vehicle? Several hundred typically. What is the CCA rating printed on your vehicles battery? 600? 800? more?

Your one inch diameter figure is wrong by well more than an order of magnitude for this specific application.

Comment: Re:Something fishy.. (Score 1) 227

by WaffleMonster (#46705063) Attached to: Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

My point is to charge that fast a high current is required with large conductors, not the power required.
0000 guage wire rated to 253 Amps and is .46" diameter for copper.
Lamp zip cord & banana plugs is not carrying 240 Amps!
The only way this works is if the big bulky box on the back is a high current converter,
which is dubious because it would likely be hot.

Normally wire is sized to have at most 3% voltage drop across total wire length. Longer the wire the more resistive loss. Wire length would be nil in this case as would the 3% rule. At 30 seconds load time you can safely tolerate more heating than constant application. Wiring comparison is apples and oranges.

Secondly you rely on an assumption battery voltage is necessarily the same as charge voltage which is false.

Comment: Files, flys and fries (Score 1) 272

by WaffleMonster (#46704565) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Which NoSQL Database For New Project?

Create a separate folder for each type of 'key' copying 'POST' data to files in these folders using filename as key for ... umm... lightning fast retrieval.

U should then totally think about creating other directories full of symbolic links rather than files enabling you to have many keys for reference or even generate materialized views without duplicating data.

Since you would be using a query language that is not SQL it is guaranteed to scale to infinity and beyond... (inodes sold separately)

Comment: Is this for real? (Score 5, Interesting) 303

by WaffleMonster (#46689849) Attached to: OpenSSL Bug Allows Attackers To Read Memory In 64k Chunks

Is there anyone on the planet using TLS heartbeats via TCP for anything except exploiting this bug? What is even the point of heartbeats without DTLS?

Bugs are bugs yet decision to enable a mostly useless feature for non-DTLS by default in my view is not so easily excusable.

Comment: Re:Something fishy.. (Score -1, Flamebait) 227

by WaffleMonster (#46685193) Attached to: Nanodot-Based Smartphone Battery Recharges In 30 Seconds

2000mAh = 2Amps/hr Then it is charged in 30 sec? Thats 1/120th of an hr so charge current = 2x120 or 240 Amps!
That is equivalent to approx 2 house power services. That ammont of current is carried on what looks like
lamp zip cord on dual banana plugs good for ~ 10 -15 amps on a good day.
Sorry something just aint right. Maybe the demo is not the 2000mAhr model?

The difference is in battery voltage vs service voltage. (Power = volts * amps)

Lets assume smartphone battery operates at 5 volts. (mine does anyway)

5 volts * 2 amps = 10 watts

Now lets see how much power you get from a typical wall plug in US drawing those same 2 amps.

120 volts * 2 amps = 240 watts

24 times power from wall plug vs battery at same amperage.

Power is available.. question is selection of voltage allowing for desired charge rate while optimizing design/safety/cost constraints.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. -- Thomas Alva Edison

Working...