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


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Hmm (Score 2) 219

Quotation needed. And no, Ukraine does not count. They had a vote and voted to be part of Russia; that's a far cry from rolling in the tanks and taking it by force.

They did send in their military, that's who the "Little Green Men" were. Even Putin has publicly admitted this. The "vote" was held under occupation, not internationally recognized, boycotted by significant segments of the population, and even Russia at one point accidentally released the "real" numbers from the vote which didn't match the official ones.

Do recall that Russia is a country where Chechnya "voted for" United Russia (Putin's Party) 99% in 2001. Some parts of Grozny voted for "The Butcher of Grozny" by well over 100%. You seriously think that's legit?

Amazing how many apologists for Russia there are here. False equivalencies are clearly alive and well.

Comment Re:where is your brain? (Score 1) 134

Are you actually asserting that demand is level 24 hours a day?

It can come very close.

In California, for example, a very large part of the demand is pumping water through aquaducts. By placing reservoirs along the way and doing most of the pumping during times of low electrical demand, California electrical utilities used to be able to keep the power demand nearly constant - and can still keep it much more level than in many other places.

Also: Coal plants can provide baseload, while wind and solar together do a great job of shaving peaks: Higher wind corresponds to higher HVAC load as well as higher generation. Solar not only tracks the air conditioning requirements but also comes close to tracking the daily load peaking - and solar plus wind tracks it even better, since the lake effect makes an afternoon-through-evening hump in wind generation.

at a power output proportional to the CUBE of the windspeed.

is this relevant somehow?

Yes, very. The steeply up-bending curve means that wind generators that are able to make use of high winds - which only happen for a tiny fraction of the time - have a peak power rating far above the average power they are able to produce in normal winds. So the peak power vastly overstates their average contribution.

Comment Re:Let me know when ... (Score 4, Insightful) 134

The power can be stored,

The issue is not that the power can be stored.

The issue is that power capacity comparisons overstate the total amount of energy you get out of the renewable generation equipment over the long haul because coal generation can run near capacity all the time and renewables (excluding water power) only a small part of the time.

I'm quite supportive of renewable energy. (I'm a major participant on one of the renewable energy tech discussion boards, too.) But while it's very GOOD that renewable power has passed coal in power capacity, even with near-ideal load-levelling storage, it will take about another factor of three before it surpasses coal in providing usable energy to the loads.

Comment Let me know when ... (Score 1, Insightful) 134

... they overtake coal for amount generated per unit time.

Renewables may have higher total peak, but coal plants have level output and can run 24/7, while sun is only about a third of the day and wind varies with the weather - at a power output proportional to the CUBE of the windspeed.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 1) 374

the RNC explicitly chose not to organize against him which let the vote be split.

Naw, that's not what happened. The RNC preselected Jeb! just like the DNC preselected Hildawg. They had the wide field explicitly to split the vote so there'd be no stand-out and everyone would eventually fall behind Jeb. Same thing with Romney in 2012 where nobody actually wanted Romney, and you'd have the not-Romney of the week who would go up in the polls and then crash until you were left with "well fuck it I guess it's Romney." So this cycle first they were behind Yeb, but when he got low energied they switched to Rubio who short circuited and then Ted who wanted to fuck...rats...or something. Anyway the Fox News machine and the paid-for pundits were clearly shilling for whoever the flavor of the week was, but not Trump. Like Rush Limbaugh who works for ClearChannel which is owned by Bain Capital (Romney). Was all behind Jeb and Trump was dangerous and then Rubio was a "full-throated conservative" and then Ted was a "True Conservative" and is only now behind Trump because well fuck it.

So, no, the RNC explicitly split the field, and then implicitly united behind whoever they thought had the best shot of beating Trump.

Comment Re:In Soviet Russia (Score 0) 374

1. Very few of the emails are DKIM signed. Check for yourself.
2. Even where DKIM is signed, it relies on the following assumtions.
A: The attacker has not compromised the Google private key
B: The attacker has not compromised DKIM or any of the technologies it relies on
C: The attacker had not compromised the sending account at the time of sending.

The requirement of assumption C is applicable regardless of who the attacker is. Assumptions A and B fail when considering a highly motivated state actor. It should go without saying that everyone here knows that major powers actively work on things like A & B, and C is their bread and butter.

Do I think that a power like, say, Russia, has compromised DKIM itself, or any of the technologies it relies on? Probably not, but I certainly wouldn't put it past them. Do I think that said entity has compromised the Google private key? Probably not, but again, I certainly wouldn't put it past them. I absolutely would not put C past them - but it depends on the importance attached to the topic at hand.

To reiterate: the majority of the leak will be real. But there is an active, demonstrable history this cycle, of the attackers salting the leaks with fakes, using the real content to try to legitimize the fakes, so try not to be naive about all this.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 2) 374

You can't just assume it was the Russian government, as the evidence doesn't back that up. It could have been anyone from a Russian proxy, or the phishing attacks could be unrelated to the leaked email. i.e., they could have both stupid users who fall for phishing attacks, and disgruntled employees leaking their shit.

Comment Re:How is this news? (Score 1) 179

I think the universal thing that we can all agree on is that cooperation is better than division. We should all be able to agree that there is a universal basis for morality that has nothing to do with religion or parenting and it is largely based on cooperation for the benefit of everyone and the reduction of human suffering.

I disagree with this because you're essentially discussing a collective morality. This leaves room for individual bad action, if it doesn't harm the collective or even helps the collective. Tell a little lie here and there to, in your opinion, "benefit everyone." But how do you know it benefits everyone? Also the capacity for human self-deception is limitless. It's not hard to talk yourself into doing really awful shit "for that greater good" that is really just better for yourself. We have proverbs to warn us against this kind of thought, like "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."

The hurdles in front of that evolving are people that are tightly held onto what I would refer to as out-dated systems. They served a important purpose in the evolution of human systems and cultures, but they are obsolete.

This is a very arrogant viewpoint and quite dangerous. You may not like traditional religious cultural values because they restrict your behavior, but they worked. They got us here. If you're going to start chucking those values overboard now you better be damn sure the unintended consequences are not catastrophic.

In some ways we're already seeing the crumbling of our civilization because of an abandonment of traditional values. For example, the sexual revolution and "gender equality." So starting about 50 years ago feminists, with the support of the big businesses that run major media started propagandizing for women to go into the workforce. That's great for cheap labor, and sure, some women get to feel more "fulfilled" as doctors or whatever, but most women aren't doctors. They went from being chained to the oven to chained to the desk at the call center. Overall women report lower levels of happiness today than in the 50s. They're having children later, or not having children at all. Birthrates are way down and we're having to import mexicans in the US and mulsims in Europe to replace the aging population. So, great, we abandoned the effective, traditional gender roles and replaced them with something that's today called "moral," but leads to less-happy overall populace and demographic collapse and eventual replacement by civilizations that do not, at all, share this non-productive morality. What good is a morality that doesn't work and can't propagate itself into the future?

Comment Re:In Soviet Russia (Score 5, Insightful) 374

Right. So let's take a look at how this "excerpt the gotcha" plays into that.

Slashdot writes about Zuckerberg:

a later exchange between Sandberg and Podesta showed that Mark Zuckerberg was looking to get in on the action a bit, and perhaps curry favor with Podesta and the Clinton camp in shaping public policy.

Except that the email from Shelly about Zuckerberg very clearly begins:

Mark is meeting with people to learn more about next steps for his philanthropy and social action and it’s hard to imagine someone better placed or more experienced than you to help him. He’s begun to think about whether/how he might want to shape advocacy efforts to support his philanthropic priorities and is particularly interested in meeting people who could help him understand how to move the needle on the specific public policy issues he cares most about

Likewise on the other email from Cheryl. They mention the "She came over and was magical with my kids" re. Clinton. They don't bother mentioning the reason for Hillary's visit, which can be seen in what she's replying to:

To: Sheryl Sandberg
Subject: At a loss for words

Can't imagine your pain, but know that you are surrounded by people who love you. Mary and I are praying for you, the kids and, in our Catholic way also for Dave.

... and the part before the excerpt:

Thank you – means a lot to me that you reached out.

And I like that you are praying for Dave. I have to believe in heaven now.

This wasn't some buddy-buddy campaign visit, this was a "person I know's husband just died" visit. Likewise, the implication that they're supposed to give here is that they know her because of Facebook. No bothering to mention that the reason that they actually know her is because she was Larry Summers' Chief of Staff during the Clinton administration.

Almost anything can be made to look sinister when you take it completely out of context. Which is the whole purpose of these emails.

Furthermore, do you honestly think you couldn't do the exact same thing by picking through the Trump campaign's internal messaging? Do you have any clue how many people of note a major campaign interacts with, how many people work for them, etc? We know given Trumps record on server security that hacking him would have been a breeze, but miraculously nobody bothered. Why do you think that is?

Lastly: take everything you read with a grain of salt. I know everyone's reaction to statements that emails could have been altered (and scattered amongst real ones) is going to be "You just don't want to discuss them!" No, the reason you should take things with a grain of salt is that the other anti-Clinton hacks this year have done exactly that. Leaks posted by the hackers in different places involved cases where they had involved changing the same file to say different things (such as a donation list where they added a donation from Soros to a Russian democracy activist, but had different values for the donation in different versions of their release), cases where files were dated to after the hack occurred, and cases where file metadata showed the changes they'd been making. Salting real data with fake is something that they've been doing this year, so it'd be naive to think that they're just going to stop doing it now. Come on, even the most die-hard Clinton hater is going to be hard pressed to actually believe that the Clinton Foundation has a directory sitting around literally called "Pay for Play".

Yes, the majority will be real. But don't be naive when viewing them and assume that you can just take everything at face value.

Comment Re:Just like China (Score 4, Insightful) 374

Governmental power will always be abused, and the only way to limit that abuse is to limit how much power you give government.

We used to have this document that listed the limited powers of the federal government and strictly forbade it from doing most everything else but nobody pays attention to that thing anymore.

Comment Re:Cui Bono? (Score 2) 374

I agree with that. I would think an RNC leak would actually help Trump. It would show all the RNC executives shitting on Trump and conspiring against him like the DNC did Bernie, except Trump had a strategy for beating them. It would corroborate Trump's narrative that the system, including the primaries, is rigged.

Slashdot Top Deals

... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks