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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Nuclear? (Score 2, Insightful) 308 308

His Op-Ed doesn't mention nuclear even once. Going full renewable in 35 years is one hell of a goal to shoot for. We have all the renewable energy we will ever need available but we don't currently have any way to store it in a grid scale type of way - and he only mentions storage once.

Nuclear isn't clean by any stretch, but it is 'clean air' which is what we probably need most right now. I'd love to see full renewable but a more reasonable plan would be nuclear in the short (30-50) year term while renewable/storage becomes grid capable.

Comment: Re:Well... Stop the Collusion... (Score 2) 236 236

To be fair, in at least one case the NSA intercepted a Cisco router in transit and modified it. Even took pictures of the work (with obligatory obscuring of faces) but they didn't obscure the big bold CISCO logo on the box.

How do you think that made Cisco customers feel?

Comment: Re: intuitively I would think steam would be bette (Score 1) 217 217

Most means of energy 'production' aren't capable of what this system (or any similar one) needs. It's massive, almost instantaneous draw of loads of power followed by zero. Any nuclear reactor capable of that much instant power isn't going to ramp down between shots...so what do you do with that power in the mean time?

All of these systems are going to be using some sort of energy storage and quick delivery...that's entirely different than the production of the energy. Capacitors or supersized batteries are likely what will actually be used to supply the energy to the catapult.

Comment: Re:Need to prove intent (Score 1) 308 308

Not the case here. He did something of his own free will. What you're thinking of is government compelling testimony against yourself.

It's why your past writings aren't excluded as 'self-incrimination'. You did them willingly so are viable evidence; the gov't didn't make you create them.

Comment: Re:What is wrong with "terrorist sympathies"? (Score 1) 308 308

Read the article. It expressly states the gov't does NOT need to inform you about an investigation to charge with deleting data relevant to that investigation. No clue how that is supposed to work other than a slam dunk conviction.

Comment: Re:Before or after he was served papers? (Score 3, Insightful) 308 308

If a business has a planned policy to delete data it's entirely legal, up until the point at which they are informed to keep anything relevant. Enron wasn't following any plan but simply deleting anything they could find.

My company email is deleted after 60 days by default, even as a gov't contractor. Once we're notified to preserve then the rules change.

To me the big thing in the article is they can claim that even if you didn't know about an investigation and hadn't been ordered to preserve, they could still charge you with destruction of evidence. That's simply an astounding assertion. "You must follow orders you haven't been given" How does that work exactly?

Comment: Re:Blackmail (Score 1) 510 510

Cosby was just a performer. There's no specific power in that. Hastert was 2nd in line to the most powerful job in the world and in control of one of the most influential bodies in the world.

When you are that important, it changes one's perspective and judgement...not always for the better.

Comment: Re:Blackmail (Score 2) 510 510

Surely guys at his level have lawyers on retainer to do that for them.

And just as surely, guys at his level just *know better* and hide things from their lawyers. When your entire career is because of your reputation, people will stop at next to nothing to attempt to protect that.

Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way

Working...