Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Slippery slope (Score 5, Insightful) 361

by amorsen (#49305195) Attached to: OEMs Allowed To Lock Secure Boot In Windows 10 Computers

First they invented SecureBoot, but that was OK, because you could turn it off.

Then they prevented disabling it, but that was OK, because several non-Windows bootloaders are signed.

Next up will be refusing to sign the boot loaders which simply disable SecureBoot and load Linux/*BSD. That will be OK, because Ubuntu is properly signed including the kernel (I think).

After that it will only be certain commercial vendors who can get a certificate, but that will be OK, because Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 will run, only allowing signed kernel modules.

Yes I hate slippery slope arguments too.

Comment: Re:I don't see it as a "miss" at all (Score 1) 205

by amorsen (#49262953) Attached to: Steve Jobs's Big Miss: TV

In Denmark, several muxes are run pretty much the same way any cable TV operator would, except the build-out costs per subscriber are obviously lower because no cables need to go into the ground. Broadcasts are encrypted and people buy cards which unlock the channel packages they decide to pay for. Just like cable, but with somewhat fewer channels.

It seems like you would be able to cover the majority of the residents of Saskatoon with a single antenna mast. That should be plenty to make it economically viable. Particularly if the mast is already there with power and everything available, just waiting for equipment.

Comment: Re: Because you're an idiot? (Score 1) 93

by amorsen (#49169781) Attached to: New Seagate Shingled Hard Drive Teardown

If you block-level deduplicate a file on an HDD, and even a small fraction of the blocks from an otherwise sequential file are replaced by pointers, you have completely destroyed read performance for that file. Block-level deduplication is not a viable technology on hard drives except for very specific use patterns.

In contrast, almost no workloads suffer when doing block-level deduplication on an SSD.

Comment: Re:It's almost like the Concord verses the 747 aga (Score 1) 157

by amorsen (#49157931) Attached to: Hyperloop Testing Starts Next Year

Actually, high speed rail can climb much better than regular trains.

Why? Both types should be limited to the friction between the driving wheels and the tracks. You can put a motor in every carriage, but regular trains often have that as well. Where is the advantage for high speed rail?

Comment: Re:Relative terms. (Score 1) 311

by amorsen (#49070399) Attached to: Nuclear Plant Taken Down In Anticipation of Snowstorm

Insults do not help your arguments.

If you don't use nuclear power (once the power station is built) you lose it. Exactly the same as solar and wind. You can turn solar and wind off if you want, exactly the same as nuclear power, but economic reasons make it infeasible to do so very often, again exactly the same as nuclear power.

Nuclear power is notoriously difficult to integrate into the grid; you need a lot of fossil fuel or hydro plants to handle the peak load that nuclear cannot handle economically.

Comment: Re:Not really changed (Score 1) 309

by amorsen (#49021551) Attached to: The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy

Norway is hydro limited by how much water they can store from spring and summer for the winter heating needs. Wind power in Scandinavia produces most power in winter, right when hydro reservoirs are closest to running dry. If Canada is similar, it can integrate amazing amounts of wind power into the hydro system.

Comment: Re:About time. (Score 1) 309

by amorsen (#49021501) Attached to: The IPCC's Shifting Position On Nuclear Energy

The cost of nuclear is paid for up front. Fuel is effectively free. If you have a nuclear power plant and do not run it at full capacity at all times, you are throwing away free money.

If you only run your nuclear reactor at 33% output on average, your price per kWh has tripled. This would not matter if nuclear power was cheap, of course.

"Freedom is still the most radical idea of all." -- Nathaniel Branden

Working...