Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Wrong risk ... (Score 1) 99

by Tom (#48462965) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Regrets Not Taking Copyright Law and MPAA "More Seriously"

I've yet to see any other rich people show an interest in Kimbles fate. They're not stupid, and if they care at all they've had someone check this guy and tell them he's just a slimeball whose time is up. In fact, he should've been caught years ago, he avoided prison time more than once by changing country.

That's not how rich people work. They don't have to flee their countries, it would be too uncomfortable.

Comment: Re:Wrong risk ... (Score 1) 99

by Tom (#48462947) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Regrets Not Taking Copyright Law and MPAA "More Seriously"

So, as soon as you start to realize they skirted around the laws for something expedient, the amount of distrust around all of the rest of it goes up quite a bit.

Yeah, you'd almost think it was intentionally blundered so it would make for a great show while at the end none of the actors are harmed too much.

Comment: Re:CS players cheat? (Score 1) 164

by drinkypoo (#48462869) Attached to: Top Counter-Strike Players Embroiled In Hacking Scandal

You can't permanently band people from Steam when all you need to create a new account is an e-mail address. People will just use a new throwaway account for hacking

So what? It still magnifies the cost substantially.

The way to go is to make getting a pass to play online painfully difficult.

I don't think even Valve can get away with that.

Comment: Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. (Score 1) 99

by drinkypoo (#48462715) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Regrets Not Taking Copyright Law and MPAA "More Seriously"

How, as a society, do we fund the creation of big budget movies that a lot of people really enjoy?

Crowdsourcing, I suppose. You pay for the movie ahead of time, and based on your investment you get to see the film, download it, get a DVD or a Blu-Ray or an M4V, get to be an extra in a crowd scene or whatever they're offering. There's no reason that major studios can't use this model. And then there's merchandising, official conventions, and lots of other opportunities for profit. I don't really think that there will be any problem getting enough people to fund some of these big-budget stinkers.

Comment: Nuclear won't be acknowledged as a solution. (Score 2) 425

by radtea (#48460457) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

Nuclear won't be accepted as a solution until people who claim to believe that climate change has the potential to end civilization accept that the only proven technology capable of replacing base-load coal is nuclear, and that climate change is a technological problem, not a social problem.

This will take a long time.

The green activist movement is completely dominated by Naiomi Klein-style social engineers who don't care one whit about the environment, but who see it as a useful tool for defeating global capitalism. Thus their opposition to any technological solution to the problem of CO2 emissions whatsoever.

Now that climate change is increasingly widely acknowledged as a real issue--the Pentagon takes it seriously, can you get realer than that?--the green activist community will increasingly be seen as the major impediment to solving the problem. The question is: will we push these utopian socialists aside quickly enough to save the planet?

Comment: Re:LMFTFY (Score 1) 425

by Solandri (#48459607) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

"Renewable energy technologies, as they exist today, simply won't work."
So, what? We should stop pursuing them altogether?

You really should read the IEEE article. It does a really good job explaining why their reasoning and conclusions have nothing to do with your knee-jerk reaction.

In a nutshell, they calculated what the best-case reduction in carbon emissions would be due to widescale adoption of renewables based on their economic feasibility and expected technological improvements. Then they used that to figure out what atmospheric carbon levels would be under this best-case scenario. CO2 levels would still be increasing. And since we already blew past the danger point of 350 ppm around 1990, we'd still be at risk of adverse climate change due to warming.

Basically, the number that climate change hinges upon is an amount. CO2 emissions are a rate - the first derivative of the amount (on the emissions side). Simply adopting renewables isn't enough. We have to adopt them quickly enough for the rate change to affect the amount in the desired direction. Don't do it quickly enough and things get worse (much worse) before they get better.

They gave up on an all-renewables plan because the economics of renewables simply aren't improving quickly enough to flip us from increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to reducing it, before we arrive at a disastrous scenario. It needs to be flipped faster, and the only way to do that without wreaking economic havoc to the energy sector is to rapidly adopt other carbon-neutral energy sources like nuclear.

Comment: Re:If and only if (Score 1) 425

by Solandri (#48459593) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

You assume that economies can't lose any money in transition.

This is a flawed idea in that just refuses to consider political action in response.

This is a Tragedy of the Commons situation. If a country adopts policies which lose money in the transition, its economy shrinks and the economies of countries which don't lose money in the transition grows. Basically all that happens is the CO2-generating activity gets shifted from countries who decide it's worth sacrificing their economy to save the planet, to countries who decide they'd rather grow their economy. e.g. The U.S. decides gasoline oil and coal should be taxed so gasoline is now $10/gal. Manufacturing and production then flees to (say) India where they've decided not to tax fossil fuels. And the net result is that there's very little reduction in CO2 emissions.

The only way "political action" gets you out of this quandary is if you can get the vast majority of the world's population to follow your economic austerity measures. Not 50%, not 75%, probably closer to 90%-95%. Good luck with that. Basically for the economic austerity plan to work, everyone has to be on board. If a major player isn't or enough people secretly go against it, it fails.

Comment: Re:How many bozos are screaming that Windows is sa (Score 1) 110

Some of it goes after the BIOS or the firmware in various bits of hardware (e.g. hard drives) too, which is pretty much impossible for any OS to defend against.

Why should that be impossible? On most hardware it may be, but if you're lucky enough to have a system with an IOMMU, the OS should absolutely be able to defend against such attacks simply by not permitting just any jerkoff application to access the disk controller directly. Applications then have to ask the driver to mediate all transactions, and the OS is definitely in a position to then prevent firmware tampering.

Comment: Re:He definitely did know and understand the risk. (Score 2) 99

by Tom (#48459143) Attached to: Kim Dotcom Regrets Not Taking Copyright Law and MPAA "More Seriously"

I agree with you, but I also agree with his idea that information should be set free.

In a dialog with two extreme positions, invariable both sides are full of shit.

You need to define "information" better. I'd not like all information about my private life be free. Nor am I interested in yours. And some information can cost lives, not because of evil government spies, but because not everyone in the world is well-meaning.

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.