You seem to be having a hard time grasping this APK, so let me spell it out for you.
I already told you I was not interested in proving my claims. The reason I am not interested is because proof of my claims would necessarily require me to personally identify myself to you, and I'm not willing to do that. I'm not willing to identify myself to you for the same reason that I'm not willing to contract herpes voluntarily. Science just doesn't have a cure for that yet. I'm not willing to expose myself, my family, or my co-workers to abuse from you, and based on the behavior you have exhibited online over the past 15 years, I believe that that is what would happen if you knew who I am.
I know what I've accomplished. You don't. I'm fine with that. I don't care if you believe my claims, your opinion is not important to me. I don't have to prove anything to you. I can see a record of what you've done, all of the little "utilities" you've produced (managing a flat text file, messing with the Windows registry, etc), and I can look at what I've done, and I am confident and secure in my own knowledge that my software has had more of an impact on people than yours. Before becoming the CTO I redesigned and personally developed a brand new version of our 13-year old software, and since then it's gone through another major version change with several additional programmers, and the reach that this system has is enough proof to me that I've surpassed your so-called "contributions". This application is the reason why our 20 year old company is still around, I can look at our servers any day of the week and see hundreds of thousands of people worldwide using it to help them do their jobs. Like I just explained above, I do not feel any need or desire to attempt to prove this to you, I'm not going to identify my account on Slashdot just so I can prove a point to the most notorious man-child on the internet.
Your other taunting is completely hollow. You can post all you want how you've "beaten" me, as if you've won something, or how sad I must feel, or whatever you want to say using numerous posts where you transparently try to make it seem like you have people who support you. I'll tell you what the truth is though, I'll tell you the extent of how I felt about you after our previous "conversation".
The only thing I feel towards you is curiosity. I wonder how you came to be 50 and still behave like this, which is how you were behaving at 35 also. It's obviously a pattern. I wonder why you feel the need to make yourself sound so wonderful, like you go around online winning battles with people who aren't fighting with you. I wonder what your early life was like, your schooling, what friends you had, how people treated you, how your parents handled you, what your brother thinks of you, what your first relationship was like. I wonder if you're even attracted to people the same way others are, or if you only love yourself. Or IF you even love yourself, or if you say the things you do out of a lack of self-confidence, as if you saying those things enough will make them true. I wonder what's going on in your head that makes your behavior so much different than other people I've encountered.
I wonder if you've ever sought therapy, I wonder if you even believe that your behavior is detrimental or if you think it's desirable and beneficial (OCPD maybe?). In short, I would be curious to read a third-party biography of you to try and illuminate the events in your life that have culminated in you wandering the internet, relentlessly self-promoting, and picking fights and claiming victory with anyone that will respond to you. It's interesting to me. That's what I feel about you. I don't feel defeated, I don't feel sad, I don't feel bad about myself, I'm not running anywhere, I'm not foaming at the mouth, I'm not "raging" (I'm not even the tiniest bit angry at you).
I haven't thought about you after I went home last night, I wasn't thinking about you when I woke up this morning, or driving into work, but you're still following me around on Slashdot posting links to your other comments, so obviously you're thinking about me. Hopefully this post clears it up for you.
I didn't say that Mars or the ocean is better mapped than the other. I said that neither Mars nor our oceans can be referred to as well-mapped and explored. For example, when James Cameron dove to the Challenger Deep he became the third person to do that, and the first to do it solo. Compare that with the number of people who have summited Everest. That means that 4 times as many people have walked on the moon than have gone to the deepest part of the ocean. 0 people have walked on Mars.
I wouldn't say the oceans are well-mapped and explored, and I wouldn't say Mars is either (and for that matter, neither is the moon). Hell, there are places on land that are not even well-explored.
Calling Mars "well-mapped and explored" is a bit of an overreach. The bottom of our oceans isn't even well-mapped and explored, much less another planet that no one has stepped on and has only a handful of decent rovers. At 300 feet per hour, Curiosity is in no danger of running out of places to explore.
Look at all of your troll replies, look at all of the child-like thrashing. You've spent 50 years wandering this planet alone, and you have the emotional maturity of a wet tissue to show for it all. Well done. Obviously this kind of self-promotion is your therapy, maybe if you believe that you're a great person then someone else will too, right? Maybe if you declare "victory" enough times, someone else will think you've won something. I highly recommend seeing a well-qualified therapist, at your age you should really understand how to connect with people above a third-grade level. There's a therapist right across Oswego, give him a call. The computer isn't going to love you back, you know.
Are you fucking kidding me? How goddamn pathetic are you that you need to anonymously reply as someone sticking up for yourself, and then reply to that agreeing with yourself? Do you have any concept at all about how transparent you are? You might think you're really clever by omitting line breaks and avoiding random punctuation but you clearly can't hide your OCD voice and tone.
This is unreal. This is why people say not to feed the trolls. I'm taking their advice, I'm done with this so-called "conversation". Feel free to rant to yourself, I'll never get a notification that you've responded.
Nice schizophrenic reply, I like how you avoided addressing my points and instead decided to just continue pimping yourself as some kind of OCD prodigy.
I have no other accounts on Slashdot, and I don't post anonymously unless I'm providing details on a sensitive topic that I don't want traced to me.
IF you even have a job
Sure do. I even have one of those fancy degrees. 13 years ago I was an intern here, today I'm the CTO making 6 figures. Thanks for asking. If you're curious (you know you are...) I'm buying my second house and have a new Mercedes. I've got a good woman waiting for me at home also so, no, I don't wish that I was an OCD troll trying to convince the world that I'm a prodigy. You obviously believe your own legend, but in all of my years on Slashdot (including before I created my account) I have never seen a single person validate any of your so-called "skills". No one sticks up for you. You appear to be your only believer.
"Overpopulation" is not a problem. The problem is extreme consumerism of a select few.
No, "extreme consumerism by a select few" is not the problem that they are addressing by changing the one-child policy. This graph shows the problem they are addressing. Note the narrow bottom of that graph. That means that there are few young people to support a large old population. They have noticed that the social burden caused by a large population getting old and no longer being able to work will have a hard time being supported by a next generation of a much smaller size. They need more children to take care of the population as it ages. Here is the same graph for the United States, to compare.
APK, why would I want to be you? If I Google your name the first result is a post from someone you threatened to sue and then backed out of, which shows more of your ridiculous behavior and chest-puffing. The second result is you spamming and trolling another forum. The whole first page is littered with examples of you being an idiot. Why would I want that for myself? Why would I want my professional reputation to be that of a belligerent asshole?
You don't know a thing about me, but that doesn't stop you from going around and making baseless claims. I do know some things about you though, so I guarantee that my software has more users than yours. And no, in no way, shape, or form am I interested in even attempting to prove that, I don't need you spamming my boss with random bolding and punctuation to tell him that his CTO is something that I'm not. You don't know me, you don't know anything about me. You're a run-of-the-mill Common Troll, spouting baseless shit and thinking that you somehow scored some points, while making yourself look like an idiot. No, I do not want to be like you.
You're probably a 10lb soaking wet whimp's my guess
Case in point regarding your powers of assumption. I'll give you one thing about me: I'm 6'1", 190lbs. Maybe go for a nice jog today instead of getting yourself worked up online like you do every other day.
Bring him in here. I'll do it again here publicly.
I called Mark Russinovich and asked him if he wanted to come to Slashdot and "debate" you, and he said that, considering the fact that he's the CTO of Microsoft Azure now, he doesn't really have time for that. What have you done in the past 15 years? Oh, you made a utility to manage a flat text file that you spam endlessly? La-de-fucking-da. You want to compare yourself to Russinovich? How about this: he has created a professional reputation for himself wherein he is generally respected, well-liked, and well-regarded. Those are professional qualities that have managed to elude you. Your professional reputation is a troll, nothing more. No one in their right mind would load any binary coming from you on their system.
He's not my "god", and neither are you, little man.
I just wanted to clarify that you two were not, in fact, co-workers. But I like how your first post seems very complimentary of him, when he was your "co-worker", and then you turn around and try and tear him down after you "floor" and "shame" him. Have some self-confidence, I'm not trying to attack you any more than I'm trying to elevate Russinovich. I do respect his work though, and I have a hard time respecting what you do based solely on your constant trollish flaming and bizarre behavior on this site.
A sunny desert, lots of empty real estate, seems like a pretty natural place to put a solar power generating station. There are places where I would heartily recommend a nuc reactor.
And then there's Arizona, where we have the only major nuclear plant in the world not next to a body of water, and we're finally getting some good solar projects going on in the empty desert between Phoenix and Yuma, as well as all around Phoenix. It's good to see solar taking hold here, and I've never had a problem with the nuke plant (they have agreements with the nearby cities to take treated wastewater to use as coolant). The only issue with the plant is that it's upwind from the Phoenix area, so that would be a problem in the event of a major accident. But, considering that the company I work for makes training materials for the people who work at the plant, I like to say that I have a certain amount of confidence that it's run well. Earthquakes aren't an issue around Phoenix, at least not for the past 25 years or so, major tornadoes are very rare, etc.
Nuclear definitely has a place in the energy grid, but anyone paying attention the past decade or so can clearly see that the future is in renewables, especially solar. The planet gets hit with far more energy than people need, it's just a matter of putting the capacity in and continuing to advance the technologies around it to bring efficiency and reliability up and cost down. The writing is obviously on the wall though. Even so, I'd still love to see development of community nuclear reactors that can power a small or medium town for 30 years or so, that would be a game-changing technology for most of Africa while solar infrastructure and a continental electrical grid can be installed. There's no reason to think that only 1 energy technology is the way forward. If you go out to our nuclear plant, you're about a mile away from a medium-sized natural gas plant, and surrounding them are 2 large solar fields. The nuclear plant carries most of the burden, but there's no reason to rely on that when we have so much sunlight just heating the ground all day.
given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal or solar power plants
No, that's not "given", you idiot. You can't just make shit up and then claim it's "given". Do even some basic research. The total output of this solar plant at completion is 580MW. The largest planned nuclear reactor will output around 1600MW. At Palo Verde here in Arizona, the largest energy generating station in the country, the 3 reactors each output about 1450MW. At 1600MW, the statement that "one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of solar power plants" is only true if the solar power plant outputs 16MW, which is 2.7% of the capacity of the Moroccan project.
Here is a solar power plant capable of only 11.4MW (that was state of the art in 2006, the largest solar plant 9 years ago). There you go, you can replace hundreds of those with a single nuclear reactor. I'd love to find a picture of a solar power plant that outputs 16MW, but the Wikipedia list only goes as low as 50MW for solar, sorry. Here is the Topaz solar power plant, capable of 550MW, constructed 2011 to 2014. In order to replace 100 of those with nuclear, you'll need to build 35 1600MW reactors. Don't forget to account for all of the nuclear fuel you'll need to mine and refine or purchase, in addition to all of the waste you're going to generate.
By the way, if you want to talk construction costs, like I already said it took 3 years to build the Topaz solar farm and cost $2.4 billion. Construction at Palo Verde started in 1976, and the first 2 reactors came online in 1986, the third in 1988. Construction cost was $5.9 billion (in 1980s dollars, feel free to adjust for inflation). Those numbers are just to avoid any bullshit claims along the lines of solar power being hundreds of times more expensive than nuclear, in case you want to try and pull something else out of your ass.
and one unit of nuclear energy requires thousands of times less mining than one unit of fossil or solar (for the panels) energy.
Panels? What fucking panels? The Moroccan project uses mirrors, pipes, heat transfer oil, sand, and water. Where are the panels?
Do you have any idea about the scale of batteries and "ultra capacitors" they would need for this? Not to mention the components to regulate charging, discharging, etc. No, of course you don't, because you think things like "heat transfer solution" and "turns into steam" are "complicated sounding stuffs."
Let me try to explain it in terms you'll understand better.
Mirrors shine light on metal pipe. Metal pipe contains special oil. Light makes oil hot. Hot oil dumps into tank. Oil heats water and makes it boil. Steam from boiling turns turbine.
If you want to talk about "tried and true" solutions, find a large-scale power generation source that has been used more than a steam turbine. Even nuclear plants, for all of their high technology, still use steam turbines to generate the actual power.
And how many million years have dinosaurs fart? How many million years have plants and animals decomposed? How many million years have forest fires raged for months, and maybe even years, on end?
What kind of dumbass argument is that?
Throughout the world, in a year all volcanoes combined (above and below water) emit around 145 to 255 million tons of CO2. In the US, forest fires release around 290 million tons every year. That's great. Maybe people have contributed to worse fires in recent decades, maybe overall not so much. Either way, it's in the range of several hundred million tons of CO2 every year.
The largest coal power plant, in Taiwan, releases 40 million tons per year. That means that, at the low range of estimates for volcanoes, only 4 of those power plants would emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on the planet. China alone emits over 10 billion tons per year. That is far more than all forest fires. The US is about half that, about 5.3 billion tons. Overall, people emit over 30 billion tons in CO2 through burning of fossil fuels (power plants, cars, etc), and that level has nearly tripled in the past 15 years.
Since the 1880s we've been burning coal, fuel oil, and natural gas for power, non-stop. Since the early 1900s we've been driving gas-powered cars, non-stop, and also been flying gas-powered planes, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've been driving CO2-emitting ships around, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've also been operating CO2-emitting trains, non-stop. That's several hundred years of steam ships, steam trains, power plants, cars, and planes, and if you crack open one of your history books you'll notice that since the introduction of those until today the usage has actually increased. They have gotten larger, hungrier, and more numerous.
And you're talking about dinosaurs walking around farting several hundred million years ago. Get a grip. If you want to compare something, then compare a forest fire that started 200 years ago and has grown larger and larger each and every year, culminating in the doubling of size every few years for the past couple decades. And keep in mind that the stuff that was burnt doesn't extinguish, it keeps burning, all 200 years. Then you'll have a comparison with the human effect on CO2 production. Save your farting dinosaurs for your kids.
Let me know if you got my point, or if you need me to rewrite that while capitalizing random words.
we are only a few years away from a repeat due on the 160 year cycle of mega storms hitting the West Coast.
How do you know it's a 160-year cycle? Are there records of west coast storms from the early 1700s? That would be 2 data points, a third would require records from the 1540s.
The thing that really strikes me about this storm is that on Tuesday night I hadn't heard of it as a tropical storm, and 24 hours later it's a very powerful storm, far more powerful than the models predicted it was going to be, and it's headed directly toward a populated area and major tourist destination. The people there had virtually no time to prepare for it, by the time a lot of tourists heard that they needed to evacuate the airports were already closed and the buses were full. The story is both the power of the storm and the speed with which it intensified. It's pretty scary. I'm far less interested in the "why" than I am about the well-being of the people who literally woke up and heard that they're directly in the path of an enormous storm that they aren't going to be able to get away from.
From the look of it, they tend to happen every few years so not even a weather anomaly.
Yeah, it's a complete non-story, no one should pay any attention to it at all, there's no one even there. Let's get back to watching Donald Trump on TV! Oh, and fuck Mexico!
I know if Slashdot started charging for access, we'd start talking about "paywalls" and go somewhere else. What should it do? It's either have ads or charge for the service and lose most users. Perhaps that's a false dichotomy, but I'm unaware of any alternatives at this time.
Since people are probably only willing to pay a fraction of dollar to use any particular site, then sites need to group up, similar to cable packages. I wouldn't pay just for Slashdot, but I would pay $5/month or whatever for Slashdot plus 100 or 1000 other sites that I would find useful. There could be a news package that includes sites like Slashdot, Reddit, Fark, etc, plus most of the sites they would typically link to (various tech news sites, maybe some tech blogs, etc). There could be an entertainment package that people who go to TMZ would go for, etc. It's a large undertaking to set that kind of thing up and distribute all of the subscription payments fairly among the sites, but I don't believe at all that there's no other way. Just like advertising pays site operators fractions of a cent for every ad they show, the site network could also pay by traffic or some similar metric. Tracking their own users would be easy enough because the sites would all authenticate users with a central service to make sure they have a subscription, and then the service knows that the user was on that site. In exchange, the partner sites could still even be allowed to show ads, but they would not be allowed to refuse service to subscribers blocking ads.
How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.
No, it's not like that, it's like a walled-garden. Turns out there are other examples of that right now.
You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve (and hope that don't just change it later) and manually inspect it for nefarious code, which isn't always possible to detect if it's obfuscated sufficiently well or exploits a previously unknown attack vector.
That's right, part of that $21.8 billion in lost revenue needs to go towards people vetting all content. Ads should not be served from the advertiser's server, they should be served from the ad network server so that they can be vetted and not changed at whim. Any ads with Javascript code should be submitted unpacked and not obfuscated, and have the ad network responsible for packaging the ad to be delivered. And anyone submitted a malicious ad doesn't get to submit ads any more. Go and submit a malicious app to Apple and see what happens.
The problem has a solution. Whether or not they are willing to do that in order to gain back people's trust is another issue. They aren't going to gain back trust by not doing it though.
I could see a network that websites partner with to provide single sign-on authentication. Anyone logged into the network would be able to access the various partner sites, and people would subscribe to the network as a whole. The network would take in all of the subscriber money and dish it out to the partner sites based on things like how many individual users go to each site, how long they spend, etc (obviously some anti-fraud is necessary there). People going to the site who aren't logged in would see a paywall, or a bunch of ads, or whatever.
I don't know if that would work, but there are most certainly options other than "remove your ad-blocker or pay a subscription to each website". It's a fact that many people only see a small handful of pages on each site they visit, without going through the home page even, and no one is willing to pay $1 to read a single story on a site. But, people might be willing to pay $5 or $10 per month in order to access 1,000 different sites. There just needs to be that central network to take all of the payments and hand it out to the participating sites, and provide authentication and metrics to figure out things like how many unique users use each site.
How the ad industry got from the results of those surveys to disaster they are doing on web pages is a mystery to me.
Easy. The conversation probably went like this:
Underling: "Sir, this study says that people want to see advertisements if.." Ad Exec: "That's what I thought, let's put every ad everywhere."
The IAB author actually seems to have a fairly decent grasp on the situation though, which I'm sure is partly due to the fact that he helped create it as the head of the advertising "tech labs" (imagine the shit that goes on there). This paragraph contains some pretty hefty market-speak, and was partially quoted in the summary, but he seems to have a grasp on the problem:
Through our pursuit of further automation and maximization of margins during the industrial age of media technology, we built advertising technology to optimize publishers’ yield of marketing budgets that had eroded after the last recession. Looking back now, our scraping of dimes may have cost us dollars in consumer loyalty. The fast, scalable systems of targeting users with ever-heftier advertisements have slowed down the public internet and drained more than a few batteries. We were so clever and so good at it that we over-engineered the capabilities of the plumbing laid down by, well, ourselves. This steamrolled the users, depleted their devices, and tried their patience.
Basically, they weaponized online advertising and then got surprised when people complained about being shot at. They thought, oh, there's a couple cents there, we could put an ad there. We can do some interstitial ads (a few more cents), a few auto-play videos on the sidebars (cents!), some in the header and footer (cents, cents), let's do this one on an overlay over the page (cent), and after you close that another overlay opens (another cent), and let's serve all of these from the same organization so that we can track which users visit which sites and see which ads, so we can show them a different 10 ads on every site (or the same 10 ads on every site!), figure out what they're searching for, what they're shopping for, what they're watching, what they drive, who their friends are, what their friends like, their income level, gender, age, race, profession, pre-existing medical conditions, sexual fantasies, and they'll just love these targeted ads. Then let's take all that data and sell it to everyone else. Cents cents cents!
Now that everything we do is tracked online and ads are available on any platform imaginable, they're stopping to notice that no one ever asked for or wanted this, and now we're actively blocking it. Notice also (especially when people talk about ditching cable for online viewing) how many people express a willingness to pay real dollars (not just cents) in order to consume content the way the want, which includes no advertising. Like he said, the advertisers were so worried about scraping up all the cents that it cost them dollars in loyalty.
Slashdot Mirror
http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
You seem to be having a hard time grasping this APK, so let me spell it out for you.
I already told you I was not interested in proving my claims. The reason I am not interested is because proof of my claims would necessarily require me to personally identify myself to you, and I'm not willing to do that. I'm not willing to identify myself to you for the same reason that I'm not willing to contract herpes voluntarily. Science just doesn't have a cure for that yet. I'm not willing to expose myself, my family, or my co-workers to abuse from you, and based on the behavior you have exhibited online over the past 15 years, I believe that that is what would happen if you knew who I am.
I know what I've accomplished. You don't. I'm fine with that. I don't care if you believe my claims, your opinion is not important to me. I don't have to prove anything to you. I can see a record of what you've done, all of the little "utilities" you've produced (managing a flat text file, messing with the Windows registry, etc), and I can look at what I've done, and I am confident and secure in my own knowledge that my software has had more of an impact on people than yours. Before becoming the CTO I redesigned and personally developed a brand new version of our 13-year old software, and since then it's gone through another major version change with several additional programmers, and the reach that this system has is enough proof to me that I've surpassed your so-called "contributions". This application is the reason why our 20 year old company is still around, I can look at our servers any day of the week and see hundreds of thousands of people worldwide using it to help them do their jobs. Like I just explained above, I do not feel any need or desire to attempt to prove this to you, I'm not going to identify my account on Slashdot just so I can prove a point to the most notorious man-child on the internet.
Your other taunting is completely hollow. You can post all you want how you've "beaten" me, as if you've won something, or how sad I must feel, or whatever you want to say using numerous posts where you transparently try to make it seem like you have people who support you. I'll tell you what the truth is though, I'll tell you the extent of how I felt about you after our previous "conversation".
The only thing I feel towards you is curiosity. I wonder how you came to be 50 and still behave like this, which is how you were behaving at 35 also. It's obviously a pattern. I wonder why you feel the need to make yourself sound so wonderful, like you go around online winning battles with people who aren't fighting with you. I wonder what your early life was like, your schooling, what friends you had, how people treated you, how your parents handled you, what your brother thinks of you, what your first relationship was like. I wonder if you're even attracted to people the same way others are, or if you only love yourself. Or IF you even love yourself, or if you say the things you do out of a lack of self-confidence, as if you saying those things enough will make them true. I wonder what's going on in your head that makes your behavior so much different than other people I've encountered.
I wonder if you've ever sought therapy, I wonder if you even believe that your behavior is detrimental or if you think it's desirable and beneficial (OCPD maybe?). In short, I would be curious to read a third-party biography of you to try and illuminate the events in your life that have culminated in you wandering the internet, relentlessly self-promoting, and picking fights and claiming victory with anyone that will respond to you. It's interesting to me. That's what I feel about you. I don't feel defeated, I don't feel sad, I don't feel bad about myself, I'm not running anywhere, I'm not foaming at the mouth, I'm not "raging" (I'm not even the tiniest bit angry at you).
I haven't thought about you after I went home last night, I wasn't thinking about you when I woke up this morning, or driving into work, but you're still following me around on Slashdot posting links to your other comments, so obviously you're thinking about me. Hopefully this post clears it up for you.
I didn't say that Mars or the ocean is better mapped than the other. I said that neither Mars nor our oceans can be referred to as well-mapped and explored. For example, when James Cameron dove to the Challenger Deep he became the third person to do that, and the first to do it solo. Compare that with the number of people who have summited Everest. That means that 4 times as many people have walked on the moon than have gone to the deepest part of the ocean. 0 people have walked on Mars.
I wouldn't say the oceans are well-mapped and explored, and I wouldn't say Mars is either (and for that matter, neither is the moon). Hell, there are places on land that are not even well-explored.
Calling Mars "well-mapped and explored" is a bit of an overreach. The bottom of our oceans isn't even well-mapped and explored, much less another planet that no one has stepped on and has only a handful of decent rovers. At 300 feet per hour, Curiosity is in no danger of running out of places to explore.
Look at all of your troll replies, look at all of the child-like thrashing. You've spent 50 years wandering this planet alone, and you have the emotional maturity of a wet tissue to show for it all. Well done. Obviously this kind of self-promotion is your therapy, maybe if you believe that you're a great person then someone else will too, right? Maybe if you declare "victory" enough times, someone else will think you've won something. I highly recommend seeing a well-qualified therapist, at your age you should really understand how to connect with people above a third-grade level. There's a therapist right across Oswego, give him a call. The computer isn't going to love you back, you know.
Are you fucking kidding me? How goddamn pathetic are you that you need to anonymously reply as someone sticking up for yourself, and then reply to that agreeing with yourself? Do you have any concept at all about how transparent you are? You might think you're really clever by omitting line breaks and avoiding random punctuation but you clearly can't hide your OCD voice and tone.
This is unreal. This is why people say not to feed the trolls. I'm taking their advice, I'm done with this so-called "conversation". Feel free to rant to yourself, I'll never get a notification that you've responded.
Nice schizophrenic reply, I like how you avoided addressing my points and instead decided to just continue pimping yourself as some kind of OCD prodigy.
I have no other accounts on Slashdot, and I don't post anonymously unless I'm providing details on a sensitive topic that I don't want traced to me.
IF you even have a job
Sure do. I even have one of those fancy degrees. 13 years ago I was an intern here, today I'm the CTO making 6 figures. Thanks for asking. If you're curious (you know you are...) I'm buying my second house and have a new Mercedes. I've got a good woman waiting for me at home also so, no, I don't wish that I was an OCD troll trying to convince the world that I'm a prodigy. You obviously believe your own legend, but in all of my years on Slashdot (including before I created my account) I have never seen a single person validate any of your so-called "skills". No one sticks up for you. You appear to be your only believer.
"Overpopulation" is not a problem. The problem is extreme consumerism of a select few.
No, "extreme consumerism by a select few" is not the problem that they are addressing by changing the one-child policy. This graph shows the problem they are addressing. Note the narrow bottom of that graph. That means that there are few young people to support a large old population. They have noticed that the social burden caused by a large population getting old and no longer being able to work will have a hard time being supported by a next generation of a much smaller size. They need more children to take care of the population as it ages. Here is the same graph for the United States, to compare.
APK, why would I want to be you? If I Google your name the first result is a post from someone you threatened to sue and then backed out of, which shows more of your ridiculous behavior and chest-puffing. The second result is you spamming and trolling another forum. The whole first page is littered with examples of you being an idiot. Why would I want that for myself? Why would I want my professional reputation to be that of a belligerent asshole?
You don't know a thing about me, but that doesn't stop you from going around and making baseless claims. I do know some things about you though, so I guarantee that my software has more users than yours. And no, in no way, shape, or form am I interested in even attempting to prove that, I don't need you spamming my boss with random bolding and punctuation to tell him that his CTO is something that I'm not. You don't know me, you don't know anything about me. You're a run-of-the-mill Common Troll, spouting baseless shit and thinking that you somehow scored some points, while making yourself look like an idiot. No, I do not want to be like you.
You're probably a 10lb soaking wet whimp's my guess
Case in point regarding your powers of assumption. I'll give you one thing about me: I'm 6'1", 190lbs. Maybe go for a nice jog today instead of getting yourself worked up online like you do every other day.
Bring him in here. I'll do it again here publicly.
I called Mark Russinovich and asked him if he wanted to come to Slashdot and "debate" you, and he said that, considering the fact that he's the CTO of Microsoft Azure now, he doesn't really have time for that. What have you done in the past 15 years? Oh, you made a utility to manage a flat text file that you spam endlessly? La-de-fucking-da. You want to compare yourself to Russinovich? How about this: he has created a professional reputation for himself wherein he is generally respected, well-liked, and well-regarded. Those are professional qualities that have managed to elude you. Your professional reputation is a troll, nothing more. No one in their right mind would load any binary coming from you on their system.
He's not my "god", and neither are you, little man.
I just wanted to clarify that you two were not, in fact, co-workers. But I like how your first post seems very complimentary of him, when he was your "co-worker", and then you turn around and try and tear him down after you "floor" and "shame" him. Have some self-confidence, I'm not trying to attack you any more than I'm trying to elevate Russinovich. I do respect his work though, and I have a hard time respecting what you do based solely on your constant trollish flaming and bizarre behavior on this site.
Did you just name-drop Mark Russinovich as a "co-worker" based on the two of you having once used the same reseller?
I need to go tell my esteemed colleague Elon Musk about this, he'll really get a kick out of it.
A sunny desert, lots of empty real estate, seems like a pretty natural place to put a solar power generating station. There are places where I would heartily recommend a nuc reactor.
And then there's Arizona, where we have the only major nuclear plant in the world not next to a body of water, and we're finally getting some good solar projects going on in the empty desert between Phoenix and Yuma, as well as all around Phoenix. It's good to see solar taking hold here, and I've never had a problem with the nuke plant (they have agreements with the nearby cities to take treated wastewater to use as coolant). The only issue with the plant is that it's upwind from the Phoenix area, so that would be a problem in the event of a major accident. But, considering that the company I work for makes training materials for the people who work at the plant, I like to say that I have a certain amount of confidence that it's run well. Earthquakes aren't an issue around Phoenix, at least not for the past 25 years or so, major tornadoes are very rare, etc.
Nuclear definitely has a place in the energy grid, but anyone paying attention the past decade or so can clearly see that the future is in renewables, especially solar. The planet gets hit with far more energy than people need, it's just a matter of putting the capacity in and continuing to advance the technologies around it to bring efficiency and reliability up and cost down. The writing is obviously on the wall though. Even so, I'd still love to see development of community nuclear reactors that can power a small or medium town for 30 years or so, that would be a game-changing technology for most of Africa while solar infrastructure and a continental electrical grid can be installed. There's no reason to think that only 1 energy technology is the way forward. If you go out to our nuclear plant, you're about a mile away from a medium-sized natural gas plant, and surrounding them are 2 large solar fields. The nuclear plant carries most of the burden, but there's no reason to rely on that when we have so much sunlight just heating the ground all day.
Does it require substantially more lift at 20ft altitude than it does to launch to 20ft in the first place?
given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal or solar power plants
No, that's not "given", you idiot. You can't just make shit up and then claim it's "given". Do even some basic research. The total output of this solar plant at completion is 580MW. The largest planned nuclear reactor will output around 1600MW. At Palo Verde here in Arizona, the largest energy generating station in the country, the 3 reactors each output about 1450MW. At 1600MW, the statement that "one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of solar power plants" is only true if the solar power plant outputs 16MW, which is 2.7% of the capacity of the Moroccan project.
Here is a solar power plant capable of only 11.4MW (that was state of the art in 2006, the largest solar plant 9 years ago). There you go, you can replace hundreds of those with a single nuclear reactor. I'd love to find a picture of a solar power plant that outputs 16MW, but the Wikipedia list only goes as low as 50MW for solar, sorry. Here is the Topaz solar power plant, capable of 550MW, constructed 2011 to 2014. In order to replace 100 of those with nuclear, you'll need to build 35 1600MW reactors. Don't forget to account for all of the nuclear fuel you'll need to mine and refine or purchase, in addition to all of the waste you're going to generate.
By the way, if you want to talk construction costs, like I already said it took 3 years to build the Topaz solar farm and cost $2.4 billion. Construction at Palo Verde started in 1976, and the first 2 reactors came online in 1986, the third in 1988. Construction cost was $5.9 billion (in 1980s dollars, feel free to adjust for inflation). Those numbers are just to avoid any bullshit claims along the lines of solar power being hundreds of times more expensive than nuclear, in case you want to try and pull something else out of your ass.
and one unit of nuclear energy requires thousands of times less mining than one unit of fossil or solar (for the panels) energy.
Panels? What fucking panels? The Moroccan project uses mirrors, pipes, heat transfer oil, sand, and water. Where are the panels?
Do you have any idea about the scale of batteries and "ultra capacitors" they would need for this? Not to mention the components to regulate charging, discharging, etc. No, of course you don't, because you think things like "heat transfer solution" and "turns into steam" are "complicated sounding stuffs."
Let me try to explain it in terms you'll understand better.
Mirrors shine light on metal pipe.
Metal pipe contains special oil.
Light makes oil hot.
Hot oil dumps into tank.
Oil heats water and makes it boil.
Steam from boiling turns turbine.
If you want to talk about "tried and true" solutions, find a large-scale power generation source that has been used more than a steam turbine. Even nuclear plants, for all of their high technology, still use steam turbines to generate the actual power.
And how many million years have dinosaurs fart? How many million years have plants and animals decomposed? How many million years have forest fires raged for months, and maybe even years, on end?
What kind of dumbass argument is that?
Throughout the world, in a year all volcanoes combined (above and below water) emit around 145 to 255 million tons of CO2. In the US, forest fires release around 290 million tons every year. That's great. Maybe people have contributed to worse fires in recent decades, maybe overall not so much. Either way, it's in the range of several hundred million tons of CO2 every year.
The largest coal power plant, in Taiwan, releases 40 million tons per year. That means that, at the low range of estimates for volcanoes, only 4 of those power plants would emit more CO2 than all volcanoes on the planet. China alone emits over 10 billion tons per year. That is far more than all forest fires. The US is about half that, about 5.3 billion tons. Overall, people emit over 30 billion tons in CO2 through burning of fossil fuels (power plants, cars, etc), and that level has nearly tripled in the past 15 years.
Since the 1880s we've been burning coal, fuel oil, and natural gas for power, non-stop. Since the early 1900s we've been driving gas-powered cars, non-stop, and also been flying gas-powered planes, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've been driving CO2-emitting ships around, non-stop. Since the early 1800s we've also been operating CO2-emitting trains, non-stop. That's several hundred years of steam ships, steam trains, power plants, cars, and planes, and if you crack open one of your history books you'll notice that since the introduction of those until today the usage has actually increased. They have gotten larger, hungrier, and more numerous.
And you're talking about dinosaurs walking around farting several hundred million years ago. Get a grip. If you want to compare something, then compare a forest fire that started 200 years ago and has grown larger and larger each and every year, culminating in the doubling of size every few years for the past couple decades. And keep in mind that the stuff that was burnt doesn't extinguish, it keeps burning, all 200 years. Then you'll have a comparison with the human effect on CO2 production. Save your farting dinosaurs for your kids.
Let me know if you got my point, or if you need me to rewrite that while capitalizing random words.
we are only a few years away from a repeat due on the 160 year cycle of mega storms hitting the West Coast.
How do you know it's a 160-year cycle? Are there records of west coast storms from the early 1700s? That would be 2 data points, a third would require records from the 1540s.
The thing that really strikes me about this storm is that on Tuesday night I hadn't heard of it as a tropical storm, and 24 hours later it's a very powerful storm, far more powerful than the models predicted it was going to be, and it's headed directly toward a populated area and major tourist destination. The people there had virtually no time to prepare for it, by the time a lot of tourists heard that they needed to evacuate the airports were already closed and the buses were full. The story is both the power of the storm and the speed with which it intensified. It's pretty scary. I'm far less interested in the "why" than I am about the well-being of the people who literally woke up and heard that they're directly in the path of an enormous storm that they aren't going to be able to get away from.
From the look of it, they tend to happen every few years so not even a weather anomaly.
Yeah, it's a complete non-story, no one should pay any attention to it at all, there's no one even there. Let's get back to watching Donald Trump on TV! Oh, and fuck Mexico!
Nothing secures a pin in a map like a couple whacks from a 20 pound monochrome laptop.
The boss or the developer?
Yes.
I know if Slashdot started charging for access, we'd start talking about "paywalls" and go somewhere else. What should it do? It's either have ads or charge for the service and lose most users. Perhaps that's a false dichotomy, but I'm unaware of any alternatives at this time.
Since people are probably only willing to pay a fraction of dollar to use any particular site, then sites need to group up, similar to cable packages. I wouldn't pay just for Slashdot, but I would pay $5/month or whatever for Slashdot plus 100 or 1000 other sites that I would find useful. There could be a news package that includes sites like Slashdot, Reddit, Fark, etc, plus most of the sites they would typically link to (various tech news sites, maybe some tech blogs, etc). There could be an entertainment package that people who go to TMZ would go for, etc. It's a large undertaking to set that kind of thing up and distribute all of the subscription payments fairly among the sites, but I don't believe at all that there's no other way. Just like advertising pays site operators fractions of a cent for every ad they show, the site network could also pay by traffic or some similar metric. Tracking their own users would be easy enough because the sites would all authenticate users with a central service to make sure they have a subscription, and then the service knows that the user was on that site. In exchange, the partner sites could still even be allowed to show ads, but they would not be allowed to refuse service to subscribers blocking ads.
How do you propose to solve that problem? It's akin to a server not wanting to accept a connection from anyone that would hack it, but that's not something that can be known with 100% accuracy.
No, it's not like that, it's like a walled-garden. Turns out there are other examples of that right now.
You'd have to employ someone to look at any of the content they intend to serve (and hope that don't just change it later) and manually inspect it for nefarious code, which isn't always possible to detect if it's obfuscated sufficiently well or exploits a previously unknown attack vector.
That's right, part of that $21.8 billion in lost revenue needs to go towards people vetting all content. Ads should not be served from the advertiser's server, they should be served from the ad network server so that they can be vetted and not changed at whim. Any ads with Javascript code should be submitted unpacked and not obfuscated, and have the ad network responsible for packaging the ad to be delivered. And anyone submitted a malicious ad doesn't get to submit ads any more. Go and submit a malicious app to Apple and see what happens.
The problem has a solution. Whether or not they are willing to do that in order to gain back people's trust is another issue. They aren't going to gain back trust by not doing it though.
I could see a network that websites partner with to provide single sign-on authentication. Anyone logged into the network would be able to access the various partner sites, and people would subscribe to the network as a whole. The network would take in all of the subscriber money and dish it out to the partner sites based on things like how many individual users go to each site, how long they spend, etc (obviously some anti-fraud is necessary there). People going to the site who aren't logged in would see a paywall, or a bunch of ads, or whatever.
I don't know if that would work, but there are most certainly options other than "remove your ad-blocker or pay a subscription to each website". It's a fact that many people only see a small handful of pages on each site they visit, without going through the home page even, and no one is willing to pay $1 to read a single story on a site. But, people might be willing to pay $5 or $10 per month in order to access 1,000 different sites. There just needs to be that central network to take all of the payments and hand it out to the participating sites, and provide authentication and metrics to figure out things like how many unique users use each site.
How the ad industry got from the results of those surveys to disaster they are doing on web pages is a mystery to me.
Easy. The conversation probably went like this:
Underling: "Sir, this study says that people want to see advertisements if.."
Ad Exec: "That's what I thought, let's put every ad everywhere."
The IAB author actually seems to have a fairly decent grasp on the situation though, which I'm sure is partly due to the fact that he helped create it as the head of the advertising "tech labs" (imagine the shit that goes on there). This paragraph contains some pretty hefty market-speak, and was partially quoted in the summary, but he seems to have a grasp on the problem:
Through our pursuit of further automation and maximization of margins during the industrial age of media technology, we built advertising technology to optimize publishers’ yield of marketing budgets that had eroded after the last recession. Looking back now, our scraping of dimes may have cost us dollars in consumer loyalty. The fast, scalable systems of targeting users with ever-heftier advertisements have slowed down the public internet and drained more than a few batteries. We were so clever and so good at it that we over-engineered the capabilities of the plumbing laid down by, well, ourselves. This steamrolled the users, depleted their devices, and tried their patience.
Basically, they weaponized online advertising and then got surprised when people complained about being shot at. They thought, oh, there's a couple cents there, we could put an ad there. We can do some interstitial ads (a few more cents), a few auto-play videos on the sidebars (cents!), some in the header and footer (cents, cents), let's do this one on an overlay over the page (cent), and after you close that another overlay opens (another cent), and let's serve all of these from the same organization so that we can track which users visit which sites and see which ads, so we can show them a different 10 ads on every site (or the same 10 ads on every site!), figure out what they're searching for, what they're shopping for, what they're watching, what they drive, who their friends are, what their friends like, their income level, gender, age, race, profession, pre-existing medical conditions, sexual fantasies, and they'll just love these targeted ads. Then let's take all that data and sell it to everyone else. Cents cents cents!
Now that everything we do is tracked online and ads are available on any platform imaginable, they're stopping to notice that no one ever asked for or wanted this, and now we're actively blocking it. Notice also (especially when people talk about ditching cable for online viewing) how many people express a willingness to pay real dollars (not just cents) in order to consume content the way the want, which includes no advertising. Like he said, the advertisers were so worried about scraping up all the cents that it cost them dollars in loyalty.
This calls for that one Jurassic Park quote.