Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Storage? (Score 1) 123

To pick up where renewables leave off, you want natural gas (or even petroleum) turbines that can quickly be brought on and off line.

Also: If you really are concerned about carbon dioxide, they produce a lot less of it per unit of energy.

In fossil fuels most of the energy comes from burning the hydrogen to water. Burning the carbon to carbon dioxide provides some, but it's mostly useful for packaging the hydrogen. Oil and gas is essentially long-chain-of-carbon molecules with two hydrogens per carbon and two more to cap the ends of the chain (with occasional tree-structures with the same carbon/hydrogen counts, and the odd ring-shaped or multiply-bonded impurity that''s short one or two pairs of hydrogens.)

So oil is a little over two hydrogens per carbon, gas goes from about 2.5 (butane) to 4 (methane). But coal is essentially just carbon. So gas is best, liquid oil fractions are not as good (though convenient for mobile engines), and coal is worst, on the energy/CO2 production ratio.

Comment If coal is dead, killing its bueaucracy won't hurt (Score 1) 123

Coal is dead. ... trying to resurrect something ... dying [from] market forces ... is [perjorative].

This isn't about trying to resuscitate the coal industry (though if it lets it run a little longer and die more smoothly - rather than being suddenly assassinated in a fit of political vitrual-signaling - it will let the miners and their offspring migrate to other jobs, rather than to government assistance.)

It's about killing off the massive, expensive, and intrusive regulatory infrastructure that no longer serves any purpose.
If Big Coal IS being killed by market forces, the government needn't bother killing it off.

It also gives Trump the opportunity to keep a promise to some of his voting base, make political appearances claiming credit for it, and engage in some virtual-signaling of his own (conservative style).

Remember: He didn't promise to bring their jobs back (though if some of the jobs do come back, or existing ones not be ended as soon, it is a bonus). He promised to dismantle the regulations that had already killed jobs - and give a dose of job-killing medicine to the regulators.

I suspect schadenfreud will please his coal-state voters, and the prospect of voter revolts and sweeping reforms may make at least a few future regulators think twice before stomping jackbooted on the faces of those they regulate.

Comment I wonder how much is really malware? (Score 1) 95

I wonder how much of this stuff is really leftover Adobe metadata and how much is components of malware?

With 20% to 40% of the code/data space of major applications composed of "along for the ride" data that's never interpreted, there's a LOT of room for malware to park itself, its redundant copies, its resources, and its purloined data without having to actually create files of its own.

Comment Size is still important (Score 2) 95

I used to [use a tool to de-bloat images] This was important since much of the world was still on dial-up back then.

It is still important.
  - Some of the world is STILL on dial-up. Even in the US. (especially the rural part: At my vacation/retirement ranch I had only 28kbps until AT&T upgraded the cell tower to LTE last year).
  - Some of the "high-speed internet" isn't very - like DSL at 1.5 or 6 Mbps, or WISPs serving an entire town with what amounts to a WiFi hotspot.
  - Some services charge by the bandwidth used.
  - Some services throttle back "heavy users"
  - Some services sell tiered usage, with higher prices for larger monthly data caps, and killing the link (e.g. prepaid), drastically throttling down (e.g. 4G dropping to 3G speed), and/or charging punitive "overage" rates for bandwidth beyond the pre-purchased tier.
  - As the users get farther away, latency and setup-turnaround for the components of a web page display also slow the process.

Web developers tend to work with disks and servers built into their machine or attached by a fast LAN. So it's easy to miss that the actual users' experience may be slower - even drastically so. (Thus was the web, at the dawn of image-laden web pages, nicknamed the "World Wide Wait".) And they're not charged for that bandwidth, so they also don't get their noses rubbed in the price of it when they receive their monthly bills or hit their monthly caps.

So keeping a web page's bandwidth use small is still useful:
  - Even on broadband it makes it quicker - "snappier" - which improves the user experience.
  - It can reach a wider audience, as those on slower or more latent links don't give up in disgust.
  - It saves some users substantial money.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 1) 101

Which part? Referencing Wolf Blitzer referring to a non-existent "Muslim ban?" Or MSNBC spending a day lying about how Rachel Maddow was going to "release Trump's taxes?" Typical liberal, you, carefully avoiding the topic and going for lazy ad hominem instead. Because you sure wouldn't want to address the points being made - that would require you to acknowledge that they refer to actual things that make your preferred narrative less truthy-feeling. Can't have that. No! I love how in a discussion about fake news, you're asserting that the person relaying simple (and verifiable by you) facts is virulently ignorant. Thanks for proving my point. Good to have your help.

Comment Re:Poor life decisions (Score 1) 327

At 60+, it's exactly part of my personal retirement plan... Take the equity out of my house in a high cost of living area, move to one where I'll be able to buy the house outright, and pay less than half of my current property taxes for a similar home. I've already got an area identified (I'm less than 2 yrs away from doing this), with good healthcare, amenities, lower crime rate, etc., etc. The only downside is having to make new friends/neighbors.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 2) 101

So you are unable to actually understand that a temporary immigration halt that impacts under 10% of Muslims in the world (only a tiny, tiny fraction of which would be looking to immigrate anyway) is ... something that it's not? Please explain how the current Muslim ban works. Details, please.

Comment Re:Is anyone falling for this? (Score 3, Insightful) 101

You are making up an alternative meaning for the phrase fake news.

Nah. It's well understood at this point to mean, "People using widely consumed platforms to spread information they know is incorrect, and doing so while presenting those lies as facts." So, when someone on CNN says there is a "Muslim ban," they know they're lying and that they're producing and spreading fake news. You know they are, their informed audience knows it's fake, and some small number of non-critical-thinking dolts take it as fact. But it's fake news. Click-bait factories in Eastern Europe are NOT the only or even a predominant source of this. Most of it comes right out of mainstream media habitats right in the US.

It is the easiest way to make money there.

It's true. When an operation like MSNBC spends an entire news cycle hyping the fact that their head fake-news-talking-head is going to "release Trump's taxes," when they know perfectly well they have no such thing and will do no such thing (except a readily available snipped that - even by itself - undermines their own narrative) ... when that happens, and they get a big ratings boost from that lie, yeah - easy money if they don't care about the fact they have to lie to do it.

Efforts to identify and remove fake news have no political intent

Hilarious.

Comment You're Doing it Wrong (Score 2) 155

"But Ms. Mayer, the company's chief executive, will be well compensated for her failure"

A quick look at the stock price of Yahoo over the last five years shows that the value of the company has just about tripled. If you're only looking at the things us tech folks hate (and I agree that there's plenty to dislike), then you're failing at properly evaluating her as a CEO.

Comment Checksum and recheck (Score 1) 66

This is a solved problem. For performance, scan all system files with an MD5 checksum and flag all suspects (but don't do anything yet). Scan multiple files at once multithreaded for extra performance. Now, go back and rescanned all suspect files with SHA-1 or SHA-256 to validate any potential false-positives that may have been flagged from the previous MD5.

Comment Professional journalists? (Score 3, Insightful) 174

Professional journalists are some of the highest-profile PRODUCERS of fake news. I accidentally tuned to CNN the other night. Holy mackerel. I had no idea that Chicago's rampant crime problem only got really bad when the new administration put the new nation-wide Muslim ban in place. Hopefully Jimmy Wales won't be looking to get Wolf Blitzer involved in fighting fake news, because that's like getting gasoline involved in fighting a fire.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing is faster than the speed of light ... To prove this to yourself, try opening the refrigerator door before the light comes on.

Working...