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

 



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

Comment Re:GPS Satellites (Score 1) 9

i.e. when the controller of the satellite system deliberately reports false satellite location results to fuck up the calculated GPS position?

That would screw with all receivers receiving the signal, or at least with any that aren't smart enough, which would be the majority. With lots of stuff dependent on these things, how would you propose to do this without major costs? Start with the police all over the country suddenly being called to all ankle monitor wearers in the country at once.

Comment Re:Cost savings? (Score 1) 9

That depends. Can the refueler itself be reused, for example? If you had something like Falcon 9 launching a "dumb tank" that the refueler itself would rendezvous with, the costs might be reasonable. You might be able to lift ~15 tonnes of bulk material for ~$50M-60M this way.

Also, spy sats always faced the problem of limited fuel reserves, and re-launching a KH-11 or equivalent surely can't involve cost savings compared to refueling.

Comment More like a terrible law (Score 1) 95

Samsung's lawyers hit the nail on the head in their argument before the Supreme Court. Allowing the lower court rulings to stand would award the owner of a cup holder patent the entire profit from the sale of an 18-wheeler big rig truck just because it used the infringing cup holder design.

I can see an argument for awarding slightly more of the profit than is attributable to the single component (having the infringing feature allowed you to make sales which you wouldn't have made). But awarding all the profit is insane. If that's the standard you're going to use, then Apple should just hand over all their profit from their iPhones 1 through 4 to Samsung, because they infringed one of Samsung's FRAND patents. Apple escaped punishment for that only because Obama used executive privilege to nullify that ITC decision.

Comment Re:the trouble with trolls. (Score 1) 71

> Accounts originating from the same IP address would be kept in the same verse.
If it's that easy, then just ban.

But it takes time to evaluate if someone should be banned. Therefore, it is far better to keep people banned as long as possible.

Its not like i cannot just have my "am i shadowbanned" account on my phone ...

Again, it's not intended to be a cure-all.

> it's to delay them as long as possible.
Which is bullshit. You* do not ban people, you do not ban opinions, you ban behaviour.

It is unreasonable to expect a forum can be read and fully managed by the people hosting it all the while not becoming frustrated with malicious users. The only thing that could manage that is a highly sophisticated AI. The alternative to this is to ban malicious posters.

People trolling, people flaming and people posting hate (that are three different things!) may be unwelcome (and this should be stated before) and that's a behaviour. Banning an account won't stop the next. No matter how clever your special kind of ban seems to be.

So when somebody commits a crime, do tell them, "don't break the law" and move on? No, there need to be repercussions like removing them from society, which then becomes a deterrent.

> The point is to keep them busy in an environment that doesn't harm others and possibly frustrate them enough times that they don't want continue.
Which you try to solve technically, but where you won't succeed.

The point is not to solve the issue of malicious posters, it's to keep them at bay for as long as possible. By banning them you have already succeeded and the longer they are removed from the forum, the more successful the ban. However, claiming that you cannot frustrate them is non-sense because everyone gets frustrated eventually.

You may be thinking about the matter in an idealistic manner which is unrealistic. Malicious posting would exist even in an ideal society because it's a form of entertainment. This is a problem with homo sapiens and when we finally evolve to the point where it's no longer an issue then we will no longer be homo sapiens. In the mean time, we can only ban people and the longer the ban lasts, the better it is for everyone else.

Comment I like how this is just now a problem (Score 1, Offtopic) 158

When neoconservatives spread outright fabrications and lies about obamacare, nobody took the time to correct them. When they spread lies about the iraq war, we just went along for the ride. when they bullshit their way through school vouchers for religious schools and tax breaks for the rich we never seemed to care, and when they launched an all out ban on abortion and started jailing women for miscarriages nobody seemed to bat an eyelash. When they stood firmly against gay marriage and firmly against trans rights, it was unfortunate but all we could do was hope for a boycott.

but oh god, now that Hillary has lost the election its a coalition the likes of which weve never seen. Every media conglomerate, every online site, every technological oligarch is now combining forces to fight even the most mundane attempts --breitbart-- at conservative shilling. the conservative brand is being labelled alt-right fake news, and anything so much as potentially bullshit is being hammered into the ground quickly and mercilessly. part of me thinks this would never have happened if we just gave the woman her damn dream job. then again, part of me cant seem to get past the fact that Trump is the only reason in 2016 we have this type of car-torching, block-wrecking catharsis against the brand at all.

Comment Re: This works for me (Score 1) 364

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/moscow-had-contacts-with-trump-team-during-campaign-russian-diplomat-says/2016/11/10/28fb82fa-a73d-11e6-9bd6-184ab22d218e_story.html?tid=sm_tw

Russian government officials had contacts with members of Donald Trump’s campaign team, a senior Russian diplomat said Thursday, in a report that could reopen scrutiny over the Kremlin’s role in the president-elect’s bitter race against Hillary Clinton. ...

"Obviously, we know most of the people from his entourage,” Rybakov said. “ I cannot say that all of them but quite a few have been staying in touch with Russian representatives.”

I'll repeat for emphasis: staying in touch with most of his entourage during the campaign. And what did they have to talk about?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/09/putin-applauds-trump-win-and-hails-new-era-of-positive-ties-with-us?CMP=share_btn_tw

Markov also said it would mean less American backing for “the terroristic junta in Ukraine”. He denied allegations of Russian interference in the election, but said “maybe we helped a bit with WikiLeaks.”

The Obama administration accused Russian authorities of hacking Democratic party emails that were leaked to WikiLeaks. Putin has previously dismissed as “nonsense” claims of Russian interference.

Whether or not you choose to believe that Putin and his party are responsible for his win, they think that they are.

As for the other stuff, I'm not sure what you're questioning - that's just history; pick up a history textbook.

Comment Re: Thanks, Trump! (Score 1) 154

HVDC lines have one big problem against them, cost. These wires cost money. The losses may be minimal on paper but they also add up over time.

I'm going to try the peer-reviewed study in Nature that I read on the subject, which determined that they save nearly four times as much as they cost.

(I've also done back of a napkin calculations, and ended up with a number well less than the Nature estimate)

This is compounded by the issue that wind and solar are not cheap.

Once upon a time that was true. Not any more. Even solar, which used to be playing catchup with wind, way behind, is now coming in at some crazy low cost figures, like the $1/W plant that just opened in India, which is bloody nuts.

Not even going to bring the conversation into the costs of dumping pollution into the environment. Or the costs and consequences of having to have huge amounts of cooling water (and the curtailments you have to do during droughts). Or geopolitical issues.

r just to avoid the "N" word... nuclear.

Yeah, if you have $10+/W just to spend on construction, not even counting operations and decommissioning or the government-provided catastrophic accident insurance (which no private industry would ever put themselves on the line for - Fukushima's now estimated at $200B). And of course which uses even more cooling water than fossil fuels. And if you like having to estimate future power supply and demand 10-20 years into the future before your plant even comes online.

K Street loves nuclear. Wall Street, not so much.

We've seen government subsidies for wind and solar power going on for decades and little to show for it

You have to be joking. First - beating around the bush here - wind subsidies are not that great, and more to the point, the constant year-to-year uncertainty on the PTC has been a big hindrance to the industry. But more to the point, wind has gone from absurdly expensive to very cheap (as low as 2,5 cents per kWh in 2014), growing with an average annual 30% rate of growth for 10 years. Last year wind made up 41% of new nameplate generation and solar 26%.

Whether you want wind and solar or not, they're happening. They've gotten too cheap to stop. You'd have to actively try to stop them with punative taxation policies at this point if you wanted to stop wind and solar's percentage of the grid from growing.

Comment Re: Thanks, Trump! (Score 4, Interesting) 154

Peaking does not cause blackouts; peaking prevents blackouts. I'm thinking that perhaps you're confused about what a peaking plant is.

Yes, but cross country grid loading is a bad idea. Very bad.

Interconnected HVDC grids offer increases in grid stability, as cascading failures can't propagate through them (AC failures are prone to cascade as different parts of the grid go out of sync with each other). Yet most of the time a nationwide renewables-supporting HVDC grid is not used at near peak capacity (its capacity is sized for peak load transmission requirements, not average), and thus can generally have their power routed through other legs if one line goes down without curtailments (often, even, without need for peaking - it depends on timing). The grid itself is designed, as with everything else concerning electricity generation and transmission, to provide a statistically-guaranteed level of power reliability.

It's important to remember also that in the US you have basically three separate power grids today - west, east (which is kind of a patchwork), and "ERCOT", which is basically Texas doing its own little weird thing. To allow them to support each other, they have a number of converters, mainly DC ties. Basically, HVDC terminals without any actual long-distance transmission lines. So it's already done to improve grid reliability and economics. Also, certain parts of the grid already rely on long HVDC lines. Not just for "moving peak power because of intermittent shortages in one region", as a grid for supporting high renewable penetration does, but actual baseload. For example, in the northeast, RMCC moves 2 GW of remote Quebec hydropower to New England. It's almost always run at near capacity.

Europe and China uses HVDC a lot more than the US. Europe mainly for undersea lines, China to move power from inland to its densely populated coast. Both have major plans for expansion.

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Working...