Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:This is frightening (Score 1) 82

I want all of my digital stuff to be destroyed when I die. I really don't want my family combing through all my personal shit when I'm dead.

Unless you take strong measures on your own, there's zero chance that any of your "digital stuff" will be destroyed when you die.

Your choices, if any really exist, are having your family comb through it, setting up a dead-man switch, or having a corporation use it for their own profit. Because once they're sure you're dead, the zaibatsus would sell your toes to foot fetishists if they could get away with it. Their sole purpose for existence is to maximize profit within the law. And some of them interpret that last bit to mean "anything I can get away with is effectively legal".

Comment: Re:Will they ban this ? (Score 1) 710

by Medievalist (#47703209) Attached to: News Aggregator Fark Adds Misogyny Ban

"They tied the hands of one woman to the back of a car and her legs to another car and they split her into two," he said beside makeshift tents as women cried

Would Fark ban the above news, from Reuters ?

If the article (which I did not read) explicitly approves or promotes the activity described in your quote, then yes.

If not, then no.

Usually it's easy to tell the difference between reporting an atrocity and cheerleading for the perpetrators. Usually.

Comment: Re:Failure of the 20th-Century Environmental Movem (Score 1) 246

by Medievalist (#47698675) Attached to: The Cost of Caring For Elderly Nuclear Plants Expected To Rise

If you actually do the research, nuclear makes pollution too. Lots of it. Only coal is really significantly worse (and coal is way worse).

And although solar panels are pretty dirty to manufacture (because most of them are made in China using electricity from coal plants under a lax environmental regime) their long service life makes up for it - you'll note that the brownwash jobs that the anti-solar people push out every month always significantly misstate service life and always use China's data, ignoring the clean European producers. Don't buy that meme, either! The real problem with solar's the same as with nuclear, it's simply not economically viable. (Although it might be in the future, if we end up subsidizing solar R & D the way we've subsidized the oil industry over the last 100 years).

Take a look at the real data instead of the memes. Only socialist and totalitarian states can have terrestrial nuclear fission plants, for exactly the reason you gave - in essence, you have to force people to pay costs they don't want in order to provide fission plants they don't need.

Your point about externalizing costs is certainly valid, though. Everybody's misrepresenting the true costs of all forms of power production at this point!

Comment: Re:Failure of the 20th-Century Environmental Movem (Score 0) 246

by Medievalist (#47698371) Attached to: The Cost of Caring For Elderly Nuclear Plants Expected To Rise

Ah, Rush Limbaugh's famous "Greenies made nuclear power unsafe" meme. A darling here on slashdot, despite so many annoying facts that tend to discredit it.

In the Real World ®, American Greens are the most ineffective political movement since the vegetarians. They have accomplished pretty much nothing since Nixon signed the Clean Air Act. The real actors are the majority of hard-headed average Americans (who are hardly "green", but who are sensible enough to know they don't want or need nuclear power) and the simple realities of market economics.

The cold hard truth is that no private entity has ever made an economically viable terrestrial nuclear fission power plant. Ever. Only socialist and totalitarian regimes can do it, because they can effectively ignore insurance costs, which the USA shouldn't (and although the Price-Andersen subsidies do exactly that, US plants still aren't cost-effective). In a truly free and fair market it would cost far more money for construction, insurance, and decommissioning than an operator could ever possibly recoup. Even the ultra-right wing Cato Institute admits this!

But terrestrial fission power plants are a masturbatory fantasy akin to Steampunkery, only with less whimsical charm. A fever dream of a world that never was, full of steam engines and glowing rocks. They are an obsolete and unnecessary technology fetishized by aficionados, who often seem to be quite willing to give up any form of representative government or free market if only they can have their beloved nuke plants. No tax burden is too high! Because it's not a reasoned argument for them, it's an obsession. So blaming the failings of their fellow travelers on their opposition fits their mindset perfectly - it couldn't possibly be the fault of the nuclear operators that they purposely built the cheapest, least safe designs allowed by law! It must have been those devil-greens! It's their fault!

Comment: Re:"Dance" = rolling blackouts (Score 1) 435

by XNormal (#47692857) Attached to: Is Storage Necessary For Renewable Energy?

Shaving some of the *predictable* daily peaks is nice. It brings you closer to the base load demand and saves a bit at the margin.

Responding to a sudden and *unpredictable* loss of a good fraction of your power generation capacity is no longer about shaving. I think the right term would be "amputation". The cost at which a large fraction of consumers would plan and respond by reducing their power demand is about the same as their losses from a blackout. This is no longer about optimization of resource use - it's about spreading the inevitable damage to those for whom it is slightly less painful (or those who simply have no choice because they cannot pay).

This is way past the point of diminishing returns on overall benefit to society - unless you ascribe some value approaching infinity to your religious devotion to "renewable" energy and make everyone share this valuation by force.

Comment: Re:"Dance" = rolling blackouts (Score 1) 435

by XNormal (#47690237) Attached to: Is Storage Necessary For Renewable Energy?

Large business consumers make very effective use of these incentives right now.

The "incentives" required to produce such extreme changes in demand as required to meet the fluctuations in renewable energy production would have to be very harsh. Yes, you would probably turn off your air conditioner if it cost you $20 per hour. And some might consider it an effective use of incentives to manipulate demand. I'm not so sure how you would feel about such manipulations, though.

Comment: Dan Geer is a founder of computer security. (Score 1) 118

by jg (#47634349) Attached to: Cornering the Market On Zero-Day Exploits

First: In-Q-Tel is the venture capital arm of all of the U.S. intelligence services, including DHS, FBI, etc; not just CIA. DHS, for example, will be blamed for any big security disaster; you should not presume that the motives of the agencies are uniform. Nor is all of what those agencies do bad.... It's the pervasive surveillance we *must* stop, and compromising our security standards. See: for In-Q-Tel rather than the Wikipedia entry for Dan.

Second: Dan has never taken a security clearance, over his entire career.

Third: He's actually not a In-Q-Tel employee, but a consultant (full time) for them. This is so that he does *not* have to sign a employee agreement, but can remain able to speak freely. Which he does regularly: See for some of his publications. One I sparked him to write recently is: in reaction to the information I cover in my Berkman Center talk you can find at:

Fourth: people who know Dan, who is really one of the founders of the computer security field, hold him in very high regard and trust, as I do.

If you look at Dan Geer's career, rather than jumping to unfounded, ill informed presumptions based on news reports that don't bother to go beyond reading the Wikipedia entry, you will find:
    1) he managed the development of Kerberous at Project Athena (where I got to know him)
    2) he co-authored the famous Microsoft is a dangerous monoculture paper a bit over a decade ago (which Microsoft hated so much they
          got @Stake to fire him.
    3) he is a holder of the USENEX Flame award

In short, guys, he's one of "us"....

Don't be ill-informed slashdotters....

+ - How Facebook Sold You Krill Oil

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes "With its trove of knowledge about the likes, histories and social connections of its 1.3 billion users worldwide, Facebook executives argue, it can help advertisers reach exactly the right audience and measure the impact of their ads — while also, like TV, conveying a broad brand message. Facebook, which made $1.5 billion in profit on $7.9 billion in revenue last year, sees particular value in promoting its TV-like qualities, given that advertisers spend $200 billion a year on that medium. “We want to hold ourselves accountable for delivering results,” said Carolyn Everson, Facebook’s vice president for global marketing solutions, in a recent interview. “Not smoke and mirrors, maybe it works, maybe it doesn’t.”"

Comment: Re: Here we go... (Score 1) 454

by Medievalist (#47510553) Attached to: MIT's Ted Postol Presents More Evidence On Iron Dome Failures

Where is your proof of so called "Terrorism" by the founders of Israel?

Um, it's pretty well documented by the British and at the UN, in their reports of the Stern Gang terrorism. Avram "Yair" Stern - who is pretty unequivocally one of the founders of modern Israel - blew up British military vehicles and bases, sabotaged rail lines, shot at trains, blew up a mine, destroyed international telegraph lines, attacked police stations, and robbed banks. His Lehi fanatics were completely unconcerned about civilian casualties (including any Jews who did not support them) and willing to ally with any military power that would send them weapons, including the Nazis.

This is all a matter of record and the state of Israel does not contest any of it; so why are you claiming otherwise?

The USA has terrorists among our founders, too. Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys come to mind... although I guess they weren't in the same league as Stern.

Comment: Re:Why is it always developers? (Score 2) 89

by Medievalist (#47510321) Attached to: Researchers Test Developer Biometrics To Predict Buggy Code

And what about managers who steer the development effort in a direction highly likely to produce buggy code, those won't get measured?

Of course they get measured. In the long term if they deliver too many screwed up projects, their superiors stop giving them projects.

Ultimately it is the developer's responsibility to push back against stupid managers and give them honest feedback about what can and cannot be done.

I would like to know where the entrance is located to this magically meritocratic land you speak of, It is obviously not Earth.

You'll need an invisible hand to turn the invisible doorknob.

Comment: Re:I love getting into strangers' cars (Score 1) 273

You have the same amount of "skin in the game", whether the man is driving a paying fare or giving a free ride to a friend.

No, frequency and other conditions are different. It's not an accident that you can bring your friends with you in your small aircraft with just an ordinary (sport) pilot license. If you want to take a paying passenger then you need a transport pilot license.

Same with boats.

Why are taxis different?

The wherewithal comes simply from experience --- not from a license.

And that's (drum roll) one of the conditions of a taxi (i.e. commerical) license in my country. Having sufficient experience that is. The license is there to (among other things) show that you have that experience.

try again